Cube talk

[iwinoky]

In mid October I gave a talk on the Rubik's Cube to a group of about 130 sixth graders in Connecticut. The video of the talk is here (scroll to the bottom of the linked page):

http://www.hotchkiss.org/academics/a-smshing-day-at-hotchkiss/index.aspx

I expect to give some version of this talk in the future so if you watch any of the video, I'd love your feedback!

Ian

 

[Stefan]

Turned out it's not what I expected when I clicked the link that I thought said "hot chicks".

Watched the first 10 minutes by now, very nice so far.

 

[Litz]

Ok so, since I was bored, I actually watched the whole thing.

First of all, I think this is a really cool thing to do. Even if none of them ever become speedsolvers, I'm sure most of them liked it and went looking for their cube once they got home. You were pretty clear with your explanations and kept in mind they were sixth graders so I think it was a success

As for feedback/suggestions:

• You used simple terms for most things so sixth graders could actually understand something so that was good.
• The introduction was well-done and showing the cube on movies and whatnot was a good way to start.
• The commutators part was probably a bit overwhelming for them (which is expected). I also don't know if I'd consider the specific commutator you chose the easiest one to understand at first (I usually have more success with pure corner cycles surprisingly).
• Showing them CFOP on that simulator probably wasn't the best choice since a non-cuber really won't be able to follow anything on a simulator like that. I think they'd find it more interesting if you proved you know how to solve the cube first (with the real cube they scrambled, not on a simulator) and then explained them the four steps, using a "sliding" simulator to show them how pieces move around the cube afterwards (maybe solve the cross and a corner with them slowly just to get them interested).
• Explaining them how many different combinations are possible was also good since it shows them it's an actual puzzle (and not a do <insert random moves> over and over to solve thing).
• I think you spent way too much time showing them records (and Feliks), which they won't care about. Showing them a couple of world record videos of different events is enough. Maybe use this time to show them a couple more puzzles like a 7x7, a skewb or a megaminx (they probably never saw such "weird puzzles").

 

[Phlippieskezer]

Nice. I watched the whole thing. I liked how you kept things simple, keeping in mind they're sixth graders. Although, saying everything about speedcubing is memorisation is exaggerating.

 

[benskoning]

Very good talk on the cube

 

[FatBoyXPC]

I think you did a great job, personally. I would agree that you might have shown them quite a few WR videos, and I think it might have been enough to just show them the initial WR breaking video (7.03) and the current (5.66). Regardless, you did a great job interfacing with them as they are quite young and you kept that in perspective.

I wouldn't necessarily agree that he exaggerated the amount of memorization in speedcubing. When you look at the top cubers, they've memorized so many subsets of methods that it really does help them out. Think about all those F2LLs, COLLs, OLLCPs, EPLLs, etc that can take what would be a 9.5 solve and turn it into sub8, that's quite a difference. Explaining the amount of memorization he did for CFOP wasn't any exaggeration at all (since he touched on being able to do 4LLL), I mean, after all, most sub20 cubers know full OLL and PLL. Heck, a good portion of those sub20 cubers also know other subsets as previously mentioned.

 

[Bapao]

Watched all of it. You had my attention from start to finish :tu
I wonder how many of those kids will take up cubing. Not many I guess, but still.

Oh, and too much Feliks I think Feliks might feel slightly "over promoted" if he watches this.

 

[Goosly]

I mean, after all, most sub20 cubers know full OLL and PLL. Heck, a good portion of those sub20 cubers also know other subsets as previously mentioned.

I don't think most sub-20 cubers know full OLL. I don't even know the G-perms, and my official average is 18.22

 

[Bapao]

I don't think most sub-20 cubers know full OLL. I don't even know the G-perms, and my official average is 18.22

Man, I wish I could take back all of the hours it took me to get those 4 algs to muscle memory...

 

[Hershey]

6th graders don't know what "factorial" is? That is scary.

 

[Yuxuibbs]

6th graders don't know what "factorial" is? That is scary.

Most people don't learn what factorial is until they take Algebra 2 (11th grade math) it's scary because I learned how to use it and create lots of "tricks" with it in 4th grade.

 

[FatBoyXPC]

I don't think most sub-20 cubers know full OLL. I don't even know the G-perms, and my official average is 18.22

I guess I was basing this off the many comments to people that they should wait to learn full OLL until they're sub20. I've seen quite a few posts regarding those who have said something similar to "well I'm almost sub20, I guess I'll learn full OLL to get me over the edge" type thing.

All in all lousy assumption on my part, but part of that was also just my perception of events. Either way, full OLL is definitely not necessary to be sub20, seeings how each look is sub1able.

 

[Hershey]

Most people don't learn what factorial is until they take Algebra 2 (11th grade math)

How is this possible? Which place in America is bad enough that they don't know factorial until Algebra 2?

 

[Jaycee]

I learned what a factorial is in 6th grade.

 

[CubeLTD]

How is this possible? Which place in America is bad enough that they don't know factorial until Algebra 2?

My place. They teach factorial during permutation and combination which is an algebra II topic(10/11th grade math).

 

[nickcolley]

Apart from the fanboyism, great stuff.

 

[AustinReed]

Factorial was 7th grade for me. (!) See what I did there?

OT: Very nice presentation! I'm hoping to do something related this year for the Science / Math fair.

 

[iwinoky]

Many thanks for your feedback. Some follow-up questions below:

•The commutators part was probably a bit overwhelming for them (which is expected). I also don't know if I'd consider the specific commutator you chose the easiest one to understand at first (I usually have more success with pure corner cycles surprisingly).

Can you give me an example of a pure corner cycle that you've had success with? The ones I know seem more complicated (at least to me) than the corner orienter that I showed in my talk.

•Showing them CFOP on that simulator probably wasn't the best choice since a non-cuber really won't be able to follow anything on a simulator like that. I think they'd find it more interesting if you proved you know how to solve the cube first (with the real cube they scrambled, not on a simulator) and then explained them the four steps, using a "sliding" simulator to show them how pieces move around the cube afterwards (maybe solve the cross and a corner with them slowly just to get them interested).

I've done a version of this talk a few times and I always struggle with how much detail to show on the F2L on the simulator. I've found that less detail is generally better since it's going to be tough for most non-cubers to follow a pair of pieces as you point out. What do you mean by a sliding simulator? Like the one I used when I was showing them the number of scrambles there are? Are you suggesting I do a full Fridrich solve just on a sliding simulator instead of on Ryan's simulator?

•I think you spent way too much time showing them records (and Feliks), which they won't care about. Showing them a couple of world record videos of different events is enough. Maybe use this time to show them a couple more puzzles like a 7x7, a skewb or a megaminx (they probably never saw such "weird puzzles").

What can I say...I'm still in awe of Feliks' accomplishments. Maybe it was a bit much, though, since a few other cubers have made the same comment. I could show some other puzzles and that might be better than showing a progression of 3x3 records. I do think any clip I show should be less than 30 seconds or so. Longer than that and I think a lot of non-cubers would lose interest. If I showed some 7x7 or megaminx, it might have to be just highlights of a solve instead of the whole solve. Any suggestions on which clips to show if I'm going to dedicate maybe 5 minutes in total to showing videos?

 

[aaronb]

6th graders don't know what "factorial" is? That is scary.

I'm in ninth grade, and we haven't learned about "factorials" yet, and I am in Geometry; but I personally do know what it is.

On topic - I liked the video, you kept it simple, but you shouldn't talk about commutators, something that some cubers don't understand well, to non-cubers.

 

[Litz]

Can you give me an example of a pure corner cycle that you've had success with? The ones I know seem more complicated (at least to me) than the corner orienter that I showed in my talk.

I think corner orientation (like your example) should theoretically be the easiest one, but non-cubers don't usually understand it, probably because they don't quite understand how a corner can be twisted in 3 different ways at first. This might seem weird but when I explain how a commutator works with a simple 3 corner cycle (something like UBR - FUR - FUL), some people actually understand it so that's what I use nowadays.

I've done a version of this talk a few times and I always struggle with how much detail to show on the F2L on the simulator. I've found that less detail is generally better since it's going to be tough for most non-cubers to follow a pair of pieces as you point out. What do you mean by a sliding simulator? Like the one I used when I was showing them the number of scrambles there are? Are you suggesting I do a full Fridrich solve just on a sliding simulator instead of on Ryan's simulator?

Yes, something like that. You could show them and explain slowly how to solve the cross and a corner on that simulator to spike their interest, showing all the sides of the cube and whatnot, just so they understand you can "destroy things temporarily" since people don't usually understand that, and then you can just solve the rest normally since that would already be too much information at once.

I think one thing you should definitely do is solve the real cube first (to get the oooh's) since that will get their attention (way more than on a simulator). As for Ryan's simulator, I don't think you should use it at all. It's great for speedcubing but it's not really something you should use to demonstrate something. Non-cubers need to literally see all the sides of the cube every time you do something or they get lost.

What can I say...I'm still in awe of Feliks' accomplishments. Maybe it was a bit much, though, since a few other cubers have made the same comment. I could show some other puzzles and that might be better than showing a progression of 3x3 records. I do think any clip I show should be less than 30 seconds or so. Longer than that and I think a lot of non-cubers would lose interest. If I showed some 7x7 or megaminx, it might have to be just highlights of a solve instead of the whole solve. Any suggestions on which clips to show if I'm going to dedicate maybe 5 minutes in total to showing videos?

Yes of course, I wasn't suggesting showing them full solves since those puzzles take way too long. Just some highlights to show them all the kinds of puzzles would be fine. A short montage would be perfect.

Keep in mind these are just suggestions based on my experience with non-cubers. For the best possible feedback you should always ask the audience.