(R2 y)24

Rocky0701 said:
Has anyone ever noticed that if you hold a solved cube and do R2 Y 24 times the cube solves it self again, i know that stuff like R U R' U' or R U R' U do, but has anyone ever seen this?
Click to expand...

Yes. Every movements brings you back to the solved state if you repeat it enough (and if you started from the solved state). It's fun to play with this, try to figure out the repetition numbers for different movements (but there are also softwares to calculate it for you). I think everybody does that or did that a few times for short movements. :)
 
Renslay said:
Yes. Every movements brings you back to the solved state if you repeat it enough (and if you started from the solved state). It's fun to play with this, try to figure out the repetition numbers for different movements (but there are also softwares to calculate it for you). I think everybody does that or did that a few times for short movements. :)
Click to expand...
Yeah, i wonder how many it would be if you did R y repetitively. Gonna try it now.
Got: 18.93 for the "challenge" and which software?
 
Last edited:
4.67 seconds:


Holding two corner stickers with left thumb and middle finger and two center stickers with the right thumb and middle finger, then doing something like (Uw2 Rw2')12 without ever letting go.

Rocky0701 said:
Yeah, i wonder how many it would be if you did R y repetitively. Gonna try it now.
Click to expand...

That might take you a while...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stefan i tried this, couldnt hold it like that though, still using a store-bought Rubik's. Our two ilnot really algorithms but repetitive sequences are really similar. I did notice that 6 times doing yours and 12 with mine each had the same position only with different colors. Also, yes i gave up at around 300.
 
Last edited:
qqwref said:
http://mzrg.com/rubik/ordercalc.shtml says 1260 times.
Click to expand...

Im really bored, so i just tried this and it worked. I did notice a few patterns though. About every 60 rotations, the top layer and sometimes second layers would solve themselves, and the same top layers positions didnt appear to repeat except when a new cycle started. So i have a mini theory that i will test later that this just cycles every OLL. I also messed up a couple times and was able to correct myself because of this pattern. Although the entire time i felt like i would imagine a multiblind solver does, and wondered if i had messed up ever.
 
Rocky0701 said:
Im really bored, so i just tried this and it worked. I did notice a few patterns though. About every 60 rotations, the top layer and sometimes second layers would solve themselves, and the same top layers positions didnt appear to repeat except when a new cycle started. So i have a mini theory that i will test later that this just cycles every OLL. I also messed up a couple times and was able to correct myself because of this pattern. Although the entire time i felt like i would imagine a multiblind solver does, and wondered if i had messed up ever.
Click to expand...

It definitely does not reach every OLL, given that 57*60 = 3420

If you take any sequence of moves, you can figure out how many times it will take to solve pretty easily by finding two numbers:

c = # of iterations from the solved position before corners are solved.
e = # of iterations from the solved position before edges are solved.

The cube is solved when both the corners and edges are solved, so all you have to do is find the least common multiple of c and e.
 
Stefan said:
4.67 seconds:


Holding two corner stickers with left thumb and middle finger and two center stickers with the right thumb and middle finger, then doing something like (Uw2 Rw2')12 without ever letting go.


That might take you a while...
Click to expand...

I came in to post this. We used to do this as a challenge at Melbourne meetups years ago, in fact I was talking about this on IRC just a few weeks ago. It's so addicting, I actually found it easier on older cubes though (like type A for example)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Noahaha Well at the time 60 was just an estimate, but i just redid it and counted and it actually was 60 which oddly enough 1260/60 is 21 which is the number of PLL's. However this has nothing to do with PLL because none of these positions are PLL's. For that equation how can you figure the number of moves for corners and edges before you multiply the two?
 
Rocky0701 said:
Noahaha Well at the time 60 was just an estimate, but i just redid it and counted and it actually was 60 which oddly enough 1260/60 is 21 which is the number of PLL's. However this has nothing to do with PLL because none of these positions are PLL's. For that equation how can you figure the number of moves for corners and edges before you multiply the two?
Click to expand...

Test it.

36 iterations solves the corners. I'm too lazy to find the # for edges. Note that you're not multiplying the two, but finding their least common multiple.
 
Noahaha said:
36 iterations solves the corners. I'm too lazy to find the # for edges. Note that you're not multiplying the two, but finding their least common multiple.
Click to expand...

Lazy indeed. From the 36, a multiple of 4, you already know we'll need a multiple of 4 iterations overall. So do four iterations (this gets rid of cube rotations) and simply observe the edges: One 7-cycle and one 5-cycle. Thus you need the least common multiple of 36, 7 and 5.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top