qwr
Member
@EngiNerdBrian thank you for your perspective. I think I was a little carried away in my own evaluation - part of my frustration is that since I learned to solve the cube when I was much younger, I didn't give myself the chance to discover anything on my own. I re-thought about it from a mathematics or CS research point of view and I'm always reminded of the Newton quote, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants". Even the people who do cutting-edge research are usually doing it in the margins, in the grand scheme of things extending humanity's knowledge a little bit into the unknown. People who truly contribute something fresh are rare and I have to be realistic in acknowledging that.
For now I think I'll move on from 3x3 and think about my 2x3x3 cuboid, mixup cube, or my FTO, both of which have received a lot less attention. The ideas I made up with my 3x3 can probably carry onto my 2x3x3 because my method was cuboid (2x2x3) / square-1 inspired with mainly R2 moves.
For now I think I'll move on from 3x3 and think about my 2x3x3 cuboid, mixup cube, or my FTO, both of which have received a lot less attention. The ideas I made up with my 3x3 can probably carry onto my 2x3x3 because my method was cuboid (2x2x3) / square-1 inspired with mainly R2 moves.