Status
Not open for further replies.
Can the scrambler only generate 10^21 different scrambles using 70 moves, or any number of moves?

I don't remember the details, but I do remember specifically that it was limited to 10^21 different scrambles due to it being 70 moves; more moves meant more different scrambles. By not remembering details, though, for instance, I don't remember whether there is some number of moves where all scrambles are reachable or not. There was a big discussion about this somewhere when Stefan first proposed it; it seems to me it may have been over on Yahoo! Groups, not here.
 
.... There was a big discussion about this somewhere when Stefan first proposed it; it seems to me it may have been over on Yahoo! Groups, not here.
I'd really enjoy seeing the background for these numbers. I've done some searching to no avail. The source code linked on Stefan's page says that it analyses "all 2^70 possible scrambles" That big number is 10^21. I'd also like to see the calculation of the number of possible states of the megaminx, particularly what assumptions are made.
 
I'd really enjoy seeing the background for these numbers. I've done some searching to no avail. The source code linked on Stefan's page says that it analyses "all 2^70 possible scrambles" That big number is 10^21. I'd also like to see the calculation of the number of possible states of the megaminx, particularly what assumptions are made.

Combinations on megaminx
30 edges - 2 orientations
20 corners - 3 orientations
only even permutations for edges or corners (they must both be even)

30 edges - 30!/2 permutations, 2^29 orientations (last orientation is based on the orientation of the other edges)
20 corners - 20!/2 permutations, 3^19 orientations (same parenthetical as above but for corners)

so 30!/2*2^29*20!/2*3^19 = 1.01 x 10^68

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaminx#Number_of_combinations
 
I'd really enjoy seeing the background for these numbers. I've done some searching to no avail. The source code linked on Stefan's page says that it analyses "all 2^70 possible scrambles" That big number is 10^21. I'd also like to see the calculation of the number of possible states of the megaminx, particularly what assumptions are made.

I think the thing I was thinking of on the Yahoo! group was the discussion about the validity of megaminx scrambles. It turns out there was a pretty good long discussion about scramble quality and ideas for alternate methods here. Also, the wiki states that generating every possible scramble with Stefan's method requires over 200 moves, implying it eventually covers all possibilities, but I have no idea what the source of that claim is. (Perhaps it's in the thread I quoted - I admit I never read through the entire thing.)
 
I'd really enjoy seeing the background for these numbers. I've done some searching to no avail. The source code linked on Stefan's page says that it analyses "all 2^70 possible scrambles" That big number is 10^21. I'd also like to see the calculation of the number of possible states of the megaminx, particularly what assumptions are made.

There are 70 moves in the megaminx scramble, each of which can take 2 directions. It's like a combination lock: there are n digits (let's say n=5) and each digit is in base x (let's say x=10). So that number of different combinations is x^n (10^5=10000, each number from 00000 to 99999). The megaminx scrambles are the same: n=70 moves, x=2 directions, so the number of combinations (scrambles) is 2^70 ~= 10^21.

Of course, some of those scrambles may reach the same positions, so the actual number of positions reachable in 70 move scrambles would be lower than 2^70.

tasguitar7 correctly explained the total number of positions.
 
Is it possible/efficient to be CN ZZ?
Do you need to use your left hand, or can you rotate the cube?

I guess its possible but ZZ seems like it would be the hardest method to achieve full CN with, and the benefits of it probably wouldn't out weigh the enormity of the task of learning it/relearning the cube and adjusting to strange EOline. I'm not really sure how CN would help much with ZZ.

Also, because ZZ is so <R,U,L> intensive you should already be using your left hand anyway. Oh, and also, cube rotations are something to be avoided in almost any method; although, I still rotate too much.
 
I guess its possible but ZZ seems like it would be the hardest method to achieve full CN with, and the benefits of it probably wouldn't out weigh the enormity of the task of learning it/relearning the cube and adjusting to strange EOline. I'm not really sure how CN would help much with ZZ.

Also, because ZZ is so <R,U,L> intensive you should already be using your left hand anyway. Oh, and also, cube rotations are something to be avoided in almost any method; although, I still rotate too much.

Thanks. I'm practicing other methods to help me with my Petrus, and I find I really like ZZ and Roux. I think those three are a good combination since Petrus trains R and U, ZZ R U and L, while Roux trains M. I guess I'll be good at all the turns by the end.
 
wit 2 assembly?

hi guys,
i dont know how to assemble my wit-2 :/ could you guys lead me to a good tutorial? thanks a bunch :)
 
My PB is 28 seconds, and average is around 40 secs.
I first had a rubik's brand cube, which gave me solves of around 50 secs to a minute, and now, after very little research (bad choice), I have a dayan zhanchi stickerless. Is this not a good idea? Should I get like a "transition" cube, or something so that I can improve more?
Thank you for your help.
 
My PB is 28 seconds, and average is around 40 secs.
I first had a rubik's brand cube, which gave me solves of around 50 secs to a minute, and now, after very little research (bad choice), I have a dayan zhanchi stickerless. Is this not a good idea? Should I get like a "transition" cube, or something so that I can improve more?
Thank you for your help.
stickerless cubes are good unless you want to go to a competition,
you must have a sticker/tiled cube or you can't use them in competition
 
My PB is 28 seconds, and average is around 40 secs.
I first had a rubik's brand cube, which gave me solves of around 50 secs to a minute, and now, after very little research (bad choice), I have a dayan zhanchi stickerless. Is this not a good idea? Should I get like a "transition" cube, or something so that I can improve more?
Thank you for your help.

The cube you have is just fine. A common quote around here is "it's the cuber not the cube", and it's true. The only way you will get better on any cube is by practicing, while cubing is more enjoyable with a "good" cube you don't technically need one to be fast. And Zhanchis are one of the most popular cubes around, you can't really go wrong with a Dayan. So practice! Also you may want to lube your cube to make it smoother.
 
thank you tasguitar7 and cubecraze1 for your answers
i thought i read somewhere that you shouldnt use a dayan zhanchi unless u average like sub 20 or something
i guess whoever said that was wrong then
thanks again
 
thank you tasguitar7 and cubecraze1 for your answers
i thought i read somewhere that you shouldnt use a dayan zhanchi unless u average like sub 20 or something
i guess whoever said that was wrong then
thanks again

Anytime, and well on here there is a private forum.
Only members that apply and are approved may post there in an attempt to make it among the best info on the site. As you can see the general consensus among the more experienced members is that good cubes promote good cubing habits.
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...-quot-beginner-quot-cubes&p=699468#post699468
 
Anytime, and well on here there is a private forum.
Only members that apply and are approved may post there in an attempt to make it among the best info on the site. As you can see the general consensus among the more experienced members is that good cubes promote good cubing habits.
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...-quot-beginner-quot-cubes&p=699468#post699468

i see
well then sorry that my question was repetitive as i didnt know and didnt take the time to seriously search
and thanks

not wrong just some peoples opinion

well since i already have a zhanchi ill just go by ur opinion
and people will always have different opinions but this one seems more like a general consensus it seems
thanks
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've been using Frank Morris's method for the 5x5 when solving the 4x4, and I've been wondering if I switch to a different one for the 4x4. Is there a faster way I should be solving the 4x4?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top