Pseudo God's Algorithm Human nxnxn Rubik's Cube Solving Method Created

Are you interested in this method (and perhaps a course to introduce it)?

  • Yes

    Votes: 124 87.9%
  • No

    Votes: 17 12.1%

  • Total voters
    141
This is actually a great bump. But sometimes if we assume the existence of A(bstract method) we conclude it must be the same es B(lockbuilding like we already know it).

Edit: I hope it isnt and there is some beautiful abstract method
 
This is a big bump yo. Please be careful about bumping threads.

@christopermowla any updates?
This is a worthy bump. It brings attention to this idea (though it was not really shared) and brings some interesting reading. Certainly worth more time than the content that's been on the forums for quite a while. Indeed, bumping shouldn't be done on just any thread but asking for an update on something as intriguing as this is more worth the bump than, say, you bumping an old Max Park world record to make a comment on how far speed solving has progressed. Let's not reprimand members for useful contributions.

Would love to see if Christopher Mowla got anywhere with this! Unfortunate to see some people tore into him in a very immature manner.
 
I don't make a habit of bumping such old threads, don't worry—I thought this discussion was of interest and figured enough time had passed that an update was warranted.
I guess there is no update and the project was abandoned.

The project was ambitious though, even more ambitious than 5-style haha.
 
This is a worthy bump. It brings attention to this idea (though it was not really shared) and brings some interesting reading. Certainly worth more time than the content that's been on the forums for quite a while. Indeed, bumping shouldn't be done on just any thread but asking for an update on something as intriguing as this is more worth the bump than, say, you bumping an old Max Park world record to make a comment on how far speed solving has progressed. Let's not reprimand members for useful contributions.

Would love to see if Christopher Mowla got anywhere with this! Unfortunate to see some people tore into him in a very immature manner.
What he proposed was ambitious with little proof?

People will tear apart such ambitious baseless concepts. Although I think it is a good idea to think about in the long term.
 
What he proposed was ambitious with little proof?

People will tear apart such ambitious baseless concepts. Although I think it is a good idea to think about in the long term.
Criticism is valid. The way some people decided to present criticism was not healthy and only served to humilate. That is not mature mannerism.
 
Apparently: a method for solving any size cube in very few moves, nearly optimal. No sub steps. It's for a computer or a human, and it's not really been done before. If it's real, it's groundbreaking.
It could actually be inefficient for 3x3, but efficient for higher nxnxn puzzles, citing the author:

"[…] the solutions one finds with this method are not move optimal, but are probably closer to being move optimal as the cube size gets large."

I once stumbled across the github repo of a computer nxnxn solver. The author(s?) of that project claimed higher efficiency as "n" grew, but not really great efficiency for smaller values of "n". I forget exactly if it used a standard computer solving technique like Korf, Kociemba or Thistlethwaite, yet I distinctly remember that part.

But yes, still extremely groundbreaking stuff.
(I just realized your post is from 2015, does this count as necroposting? I'm sorry but I could've sworn your post was on the last page of the thread)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top