• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 40,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

Solving 4x4 unassisted

Knowing 3x3, can I solve a 4x4??

  • Yes, keep experimenting

  • No, look up the algorithms


Results are only viewable after voting.

stwert

Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2021
Messages
76
Location
Canada
I'll prefix my question with: please don't post "spoilers".

Before I look at algorithms for solving 4x4x4, I wanted to try solving it on my own. I knew how to solve 3x3x3 with the beginners method, and using that I was able to solve a 2x2x2 unassisted, which wasn't too difficult. Now I know how to solve 3x3x3 with 4LLL CFOP, and I'm trying to get the 4x4x4 solved.

I was able to get all the centers solved, and all the edges paired (that was trickier), and I figured I was done, since I'd essentially turned the 4x4 into a 3x3. However at the end, I've got a couple "impossible" situations for a 3x3, which I understand has something to do with "parity"?? The closest I got was one pair of yellow edges flipped (what would be one edge on a 3x3, therefore unsolvable).

My question is, I'm wondering if it's reasonable to figure out how to fix these cases intuitively, or if the algorithms are too complicated to have any chance without weeks of trial and error.
 
Each line of this comment will get slightly more spoilery, so feel free to read as far as you're comfortable with. Nothing here will tell you how to solve it!

Yes, there is a way to do it intuitively...
but it may be very hard depending on your level of understanding of why these cases arise.
To solve it intuitively, you'd probably better off not thinking of it as a single algorithm, but instead as more of a process to achieve a final goal.
 
Just so you know, on 4x4 there is a 50% chance of getting OLL parity and a 50% chance of getting PLL parity. So, 25% of the time you won't get any parities at all.
 
Haha, yeah I know I can solve it if I get a lucky scramble, but that's not as satisfying. Thanks for the encouragement to keep experimenting with it. I don't know what the difference between OLL and PLL parity is (or I don't know which is which), but I'm assuming that to fix it I need to swap the relative position of the edges within a pair. Just need to figure out how to do that without introducing problems somewhere else.
 
I don't know if you're trying to get our attention, but if it is true as you say and it's just a coincidence that you:
  • Named each of the stages of the 3x3x3 Reduction method as to what they are called verbatim
  • Happened to do them in the exact order as the 3x3x3 Reduction method
  • Happened to hear of the term parity without seeing the algorithms for it . . . nearly everywhere people mention parity, they show an algorithm to fix it. You have to pretty much have to have your eyes closed not to see (and your ears closed not to hear of) an algorithm. (This is 2021, not 2003 after all.)
Then I of course encourage you to solve this "parity" thing on your own. Why not?
 
I don't know if you're trying to get our attention, but if it is true as you say and it's just a coincidence that you:
  • Named each of the stages of the 3x3x3 Reduction method as to what they are called verbatim
  • Happened to do them in the exact order as the 3x3x3 Reduction method
  • Happened to hear of the term parity without seeing the algorithms for it . . . nearly everywhere people mention parity, they show an algorithm to fix it. You have to pretty much have to have your eyes closed not to see (and your ears closed not to hear of) an algorithm. (This is 2021, not 2003 after all.)
Then I of course encourage you to solve this "parity" thing on your own. Why not?
You're right, you caught me, I'm a fraud. Turns out I know how to solve a 4x4 and was just wasting everyone's time. /s

I don't need to justify the thinking process to attempt to turn a 4x4 into a 3x3 by working from the "inside out". It's true, I did recently stumble across the term parity, and I was unintentionally spoiled by seeing an algorithm, but fortunately for me it was performed in a blur by Felix Zemdegs in this video (
time-stamp conveniently added). So I'm none the wiser how to actually fix it.

I'd encourage you to take a less accusatory tone to newcomers to the community, as it comes across as aggressive and discourages engagement.
 
So if you were driven enough to know absolutely nothing about how to solve a 4x4x4 (and you used no sources, never heard anyone even say the terms "complete the centers", "pair the edges", "solve like a 3x3x3") and you still managed to get this far, if we told you "No, just learn the algorithm" that would have been enough for you? (This thread doesn't make sense.)

How much drive can you have to solve the 4x4x4 completely on your own if you didn't try to solve it just a few times with what you already know . . . there is a 25% chance that you can solve the 4x4x4 without getting any parities and so even if you scrambled the cube and did your method again, you have a 25% chance of solving it without any parity cases at all. Too scared to solve it a few times when you naturally had to solve it many times to make up for your many mess ups with experimentation between learning how to solve the centers and pair the edges?

EDIT:
And right here in the very video you watched, Feliks specifically states the steps of the Reduction method. (Even hearing those steps is an automatic disqualifier for you solving the 4x4x4 completely on your own.) So we are to believe that you skipped past that part in the video when he mentioned those steps? Or was it also by chance that you were just interested in watching that video after you figured out those steps on your own?

And we are also to believe that you happened to not know of YouTube's feature to slow down the playback of videos that you can most certainly see the moves Feliks did to solve parity? (I am only mentioning this because you acted like it was impossible to see the move he did. This doesn't make sense for me to mention at all, considering that you specifically said that you don't know how to solve the parities.)
 
Last edited:
So if you were driven enough to know absolutely nothing about how to solve a 4x4x4 (and you used no sources, never heard anyone even say the terms "complete the centers", "pair the edges", "solve like a 3x3x3") and you still managed to get this far, if we told you "No, just learn the algorithm" that would have been enough for you? (This thread doesn't make sense.)

How much drive can you have to solve the 4x4x4 completely on your own if you didn't try to solve it just a few times with what you already know . . . there is a 25% chance that you can solve the 4x4x4 without getting any parities and so even if you scrambled the cube and did your method again, you have a 25% chance of solving it without any parity cases at all. Too scared to solve it a few times when you naturally had to solve it many times to make up for your many mess ups with experimentation between learning how to solve the centers and pair the edges?

EDIT:
And right here in the very video you watched, Feliks specifically states the steps of the Reduction method. (Even hearing those steps is an automatic disqualifier for you solving the 4x4x4 completely on your own.) So we are to believe that you skipped past that part in the video when he mentioned those steps? Or was it also by chance that you were just interested in watching that video after you figured out those steps on your own?

And we are also to believe that you happened to not know of YouTube's feature to slow down the playback of videos that you can most certainly see the moves Feliks did to solve parity? (I am only mentioning this because you acted like it was impossible to see the move he did. This doesn't make sense for me to mention at all, considering that you specifically said that you don't know how to solve the parities.)

I'd encourage you to take a less accusatory tone to newcomers to the community, as it comes across as aggressive and discourages engagement.

Mowla seriously quite the tone. Just because your one of the older "smarter" guys on the forum doesn't mean you have to act like a jerk. You treat every body like an idiot. You don't sound intelligent when you talk like that you just sound snarky, rude, arrogant, and aggressive. None of those are good traits and none of those belong on the forums.

I think you owe a public apology to a lot of people for the way you treat them starting wit @stwert.

I'd also like to add that even if he did not see any of that video I think it's pretty obvious to use redux and if you have any knowledge of a 4x4 the most trivial of it is the names of the steps.
 
Mowla seriously quite the tone. Just because your one of the older "smarter" guys on the forum doesn't mean you have to act like a jerk. You treat every body like an idiot. You don't sound intelligent when you talk like that you just sound snarky, rude, arrogant, and aggressive. None of those are good traits and none of those belong on the forums.

I think you owe a public apology to a lot of people for the way you treat them starting wit @stwert.
In the past, I made bold claims about doing something that many thought was impossible and showed no proof (well not immediately). I got a lot worse than what you're claiming I am doing here. Now imagine how bad I would have gotten it if I would have both made a bold claim and showed all the evidence which discredits my claim. (Which is exactly what happened here.)

Sorry, but I will not apologize for having justified skepticism. I am being more than fair, and I will not apologize for not being gullible. Just because I'm not "nice" and accept anyone's word for anything they say doesn't mean I'm rude. If they make bold claims, they at least should not set themselves up for people to doubt so easily.

Back "in my day", people demanded a public apology when someone cheated in order to get a WR in competition. Now, in 2021, people are demanding one if someone is skeptical of another user's postings (and explicitely states why he's skeptical)? Wow, how far we have come!
 
Last edited:
In the past, I made bold claims about doing something that many thought was impossible and showed no proof (well not immediately). I got a lot worse than what you're claiming I am doing here. Now imagine how bad I would have gotten if I would have both made a bold claim and showed all the evidence which discredits my claim. (Which is exactly what happened here.)

Sorry, but I will not apologize for having justified skepticism. I am being more than fair, and I will not apologize for not being gullible. Just because I'm not "nice" and accept anyone's word for anything they say doesn't mean I'm rude. If they make bold claims, they at least should not set themselves up for people to doubt so easily.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with doubting him I can easily see why you would. But I'm talking about your tone. There is no need to apologize for not believing him, that's perfectly fine, we all have our own opinions. But I said
Mowla ,seriously, quite the tone.
And then I listed what kind of tone you were using as it seems you are completely oblivious to that.
 
There is absolutely nothing wrong with doubting him I can easily see why you would. But I'm talking about your tone. There is no need to apologize for not believing him, that's perfectly fine, we all have our own opinions. But I said

And then I listed what kind of tone you were using as it seems you are completely oblivious to that.
There is no "nice way" to doubt someone's word. And my posts appear to be harsh because I am rather thorough in my thought process and the points that I'm making. (I leave no stone unturned in order to justify my posts.) Maybe I should spread my thought process out in several posts instead of one to make it less daunting? I'm in the habit of writing long posts because when I joined these forums, people frowned upon post whores. That's a reason why I try to post fewer posts. Naturally they are longer and more detailed than most members' posts because of that.
 
It's okay, let's not get too worked up. I honestly don't really mind if people don't believe what I was or wasn't able to solve on my own. I'm certainly not expecting a certificate of achievement, haha. I know it's not really unassisted because I've used 3x3 algorithms I learned previously.
The reason I included any of my process wasn't to brag, but to give some context to my question, which was, given that I've mostly got the puzzle worked out to this point, is it reasonable to take it the rest of the way, and that question has been answered.
I don't expect an apology, but I do think (and said) that toning down the accusatory language in future goes a long way to making other newcomers feel welcome.

At the end of the day, I was just trying to solve a puzzle, and get the inherent satisfaction of that. It's like beating a video game, if you can do it on your own, you feel good. If you get a little help and a couple hints, it feels pretty good as well, and if you look up a complete walkthrough, there's not much satisfaction in solving it, but maybe you're after a speedrun, which is a separate challenge. To each his/her own.
 
There is no "nice way" to doubt someone's word. And my posts appear to be harsh because I am rather thorough in my thought process and the points that I'm making. (I leave no stone unturned in order to justify my posts.) Maybe I should spread my thought process out in several posts instead of one to make it less daunting? I'm in the habit of writing long posts because when I joined these forums, people frowned upon post whores. That's a reason why I try to post fewer posts. Naturally they are longer and more detailed than most members' posts because of that.
It seems you are also oblivious to peoples criticism. Like @xyzzy said, "You don't have to take every thing as a personal attack..." While I' mentioning xyzzy I should say that he is one of the most knowledgeable cubers here and he give thorough explanations on topics without sounding like a jerk.
Pretty cool right? Before I go on I just want to say that I appreciate the long posts and I personally don't find them "daunting", it show you put thought into it. But not the right thoughts. You say there is no "nice way" (Why the quotation marks?) to doubt someone's thoughts. That is completely false, you can be "nice" about using something called consideration it's where you think about others thought process. You also say you leave no stone unturned. This is also false. Why do you think I'm typing this? Because you did not give a good answer. You completely missed the point I was trying to convey.
There's no justifying rude behavior to do so is immature and I feel like you are the kind of guy who doesn't want to be labeled that. If you want we can carry this on to a private conversation so our new member doesn't have to read our bickering.
 
Why do you think I'm typing this? Because you did not give a good answer.
Okay, then please provide an example (that's actually relevant to what you were asking) of what an acceptable answer would be to that. If you were saying that but were already biased that any answer other than an apology is the right answer -- then I think I will dismiss your comment. But if not, please give a real example of a good answer.

There's no justifying rude behavior to do so is immature and I feel like you are the kind of guy who doesn't want to be labeled that.
Who would like to be labelled that, may I ask? Especially when I'm giving my reasons for my remarks.

If you want we can carry this on to a private conversation so our new member doesn't have to read our bickering.
I don't think he minds, and I think the community can learn from you. Please teach us. (And he seems to be pretty laid back anyway.) So please, write an example post where you:
  • Mention all of the points I did which I made which made me skeptical
  • Reply to all of his posts/points which made me even more skeptical
  • Write in a manner which is not "rude"
As long as your post stays on topic, the mods shouldn't mind. And I promise, I will gladly adapt to your approach of criticism should it bring the same points that I want to make but at the same time doesn't offend anyone! No hurry. Whenever you get to it.

P.S., you saying that I don't know how to write and that you will teach me is as arrogant as you can get. So please explain to the community why this is false so that we can also learn from that misunderstanding of mine too.
 
Man I didn’t make enough popcorn when I started reading this thread.

The arguments in this thread seem l predicated on the difference of interpretation in the language used to ask the original question.
Before I look at algorithms for solving 4x4x4, I wanted to try solving it on my own.
It seems to me the intent of the question is just whether the OP should keep experimenting or just look up algorithms…those are also the poll options?!?

@stwert isn’t trying to claim inventing a method or stand on some intellectual high ground. This seems like an honest ask to the community with more knowledge on whether not looking up algorithms but just intuitively attempting to finish the solve is a manageable task.

@stwert - you have identified a parity case for sure, inventing an algorithm to fix it probably isn’t going to happen. I would 100% suggest you experiment further and see what you can come up with. You may find in the process of trying to fix your case you mess up a bunch of the other stuff already solved…that’s ok! For parity, you might unsolve a bunch of edges but you could have oriented the miss-oriented edge meaning when you start re-solving you won’t get the case again! And then you’ll actually be able to complete the solve!
 
Man I didn’t make enough popcorn when I started reading this thread.
LOL, yeah, I didn't expect the Spanish inquisition.
You hit the nail on the head. I'm not expecting to invent anything new, I was just curious if there was a reasonable chance of me figuring out how to address flipped edges. I'll play with it for sure.
There's something slightly less satisfying about stumbling into a case without parity though. It's like if someone was trying to solve a 3x3 without knowing algorithms, and the only thing they couldn't figure out was PLL at the end. They might mess around with it and redo the OLL and end up with a PLL skip. Did they solve it? Certainly. Did they figure out how to address PLL? Not really. So that's my dilemma.
Anyway, I joked to my wife that I might call it a win as is. I now have bragging rights for solving 4x4 by myself. "Did you solve the whole cube?" "No, but I solved enough of it that some people on the internet started arguing about whether I was a fraud".
That last part is a joke. Obviously.
I know I can't prove anything of my progress so far and what I did or didn't see, of course. That wasn't the point at all. But it did make me kind of want to make a video about my process, cause it's maybe interesting, and would take too long to write. (Ooh, that's what a fraud would say). I dunno, maybe if I actually solve the rest.
 
Since this is now a popcorn thread and I got mentioned for no good reason…

he give thorough explanations on topics without sounding like a jerk.
I hope you never look at my earlier posts on this forum.

Even hearing those steps is an automatic disqualifier for you solving the 4x4x4 completely on your own.
This is actually a very interesting point, and it's something I think about from time to time (in non-puzzle-solving contexts too).

The absolute maximally pure form of "solving a puzzle on your own" would be to live like a hermit for your entire life, never communicating with anyone else, suddenly being handed the puzzle, then well and truly solving it by yourself. (Or, in fact, even that might not be pure enough; perhaps you'd want to include inventing the puzzle too!) This is obviously not realistic, so the question is: where do we draw the line?

Anything you see, anything you hear, anything you read, anything you learn has the potential to be an info hazard.

If you already know how to solve a related puzzle, does it still count as solving on your own? E.g. while I've never solved a 10×10×10 (largest physical I've solved is 8, largest virtual I've solved is 9), I absolutely already know how to solve it in principle. If I ever attempt solving a 10×10×10, does it make sense to call that solving it on my own? Or if I start with a 3×3×3 by learning the CFOP method from someone else, and successfully adapt that to a megaminx, does that count?

If you see the general outline of a method, but without paying close attention to the details, does it still count? Before I got my first square-1, I'd already watched Cary's Yoyleberry method video, and when I finally got a square-1, I ended up inventing my own 3-cycle alg to use with the general outline of that method. The details were different, but the methods were mostly similar. Digging even deeper, I learnt the concept of 3-cycle commutators from staring at the A perm and E perm algs, and those I learnt from a website. In a sense, even if I came up with my own 3-cycle comms for a new puzzle, is it still fair to call that solving the puzzle on my own?

---

I have more thoughts on this topic; will edit them in later when I have a bit more free time. Never mind, I forgot what else I was going to write about. Can't have been very important!
 
Last edited:
OP: hey there is this riddle. Given that I have some limited knowledge is it worthwhile for me to try to figure it out myself?

How did it became a question about whether OP is deceptively trying to get credit for something he doesn't deserve?
 
Back
Top