Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

4D Analogue of Megaminx Puzzle

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the pretty-puzzling dept.

Math 80

roice writes "The crazy hypercubists who created the 4D and 5D Rubik's cubes (here are previous Slashdot posts on the 4-D one and the 5-D one) have now developed a free working 4-dimensional software analogue of the Megaminx puzzle. Composed of 120 dodecahedral cells, the underlying structure is arguably the most beautiful of 4D geometrical shapes, with amazing symmetries and no analogue in dimensions higher than 4. Though some have already begun working on solutions for this 'Hyperminx,' it has yet to be solved by anyone. Also, when it comes to number of positions, it dwarfs the previous puzzles by many thousands of orders of magnitude!"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Get off my lawn! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23391572)

In MY days, we were more than happy to have 2D and 3D!

Damn kids these days!

Re:Get off my lawn! (2, Funny)

SimonGhent (57578) | more than 6 years ago | (#23391588)

2D? 3D?

In my day we had one dimension and did we complain?

(well, yes actually, but no one cared)

Re:Get off my lawn! (4, Funny)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 6 years ago | (#23391820)

In my day we had one dimension and did we complain?
I did, it went something like this
Dah-dah-dah Dah-dit Dit, Dah-di-dit Di-dit Dah-dah Dit Dah-dit Di-di-dit Di-dit Dah-dah-dah Dah-dit, Di-di-dit Di-di-dah Dah-di-dah-dit Dah-di-dah Di-di-dit Dah-di-dah-di-dah-dah
Note: I couldn't use -. because of the lameness filter.

Re:Get off my lawn! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23393234)

You had a dimension? Luxury! We didn't have ANY dimensions. And we liked it!

Then them damn hippies came along with their big bang and ruined everything.

Re:Get off my lawn! (2, Funny)

Doggabone (1025394) | more than 6 years ago | (#23399120)

You've got a point.

Re:Get off my lawn! (3, Funny)

omeomi (675045) | more than 6 years ago | (#23391596)

I'm always happy when somebody comes out with a puzzle that nobody can solve (yet, I suppose). Makes me feel less stupid than not being able to solve the ones that tons of people can solve, like the Rubik's Cube.

Re:Get off my lawn! (5, Informative)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 6 years ago | (#23391728)

Allow me to shove your head under the putrescent waters of depression.

Three year old solves rubik's cube in less than 2 minutes. [youtube.com]
6 year old solves rubik's cube in 40 seconds. [youtube.com]
Guy solves rubik's cube in 20 seconds with one hand. [youtube.com]
Guy solves rubik's cube in 50 seconds -- with his feet [youtube.com]

\I can't solve it either

Re:Get off my lawn! (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23391932)

I do believe that feet one was a hoax. The guy started with a solved cube, and mixed it up with his feet. And then reversed the video.

Re:Get off my lawn! (1)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | more than 6 years ago | (#23393954)

I can solve it with my feet. It's annoying, but possible. I take (much) longer than 50 seconds though. Much easier than solving it blindfolded.

no, not a hoax (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23399352)

Perhaps you're thinking of Michel Gondrey's moderately infamous trick.

If you'd watched the linked clip, or even considered that perhaps there are people who can do it with their feet, you'd see that this video is not faked. The cubing community uses commercially available puzzle pads, both for hands and feet: remove hands from pad and timer starts, return hands and timer stops.

This guy uses the foot mat (complete with little foot graphics on the contacts instead of hand graphics), and the timer counts forward as the puzzle progresses from unsolved to solved, then he jumps down and resets the timer without stumbling around awkwardly. Have a look because it's pretty impressive to see someone manipulate anything that well using just feet and toes.

Re:no, not a hoax (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23401818)

Yeah, I didn't watch the video. I just assumed it was the hoax one. That is pretty impressive. As a side note, my brother could beat Blades of Steel on pro mode using the NES Advantage and his feet.

Re:Get off my lawn! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23392092)

That's nothing...

Guy solves rubik's cube -- with his nose [youtube.com]

Re:Get off my lawn! (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 6 years ago | (#23393922)

Allow me to shove your head under the putrescent waters of depression.

Three year old solves rubik's cube in less than 2 minutes. [youtube.com]
6 year old solves rubik's cube in 40 seconds. [youtube.com]
Guy solves rubik's cube in 20 seconds with one hand. [youtube.com]
Guy solves rubik's cube in 50 seconds -- with his feet [youtube.com]

\I can't solve it either
I dated a girl once who could tie a knot in a cherry stem with her tongue. She did some other interesting things with that tongue, and I only wish I had been thoughtful enough to have brought her a rubik's cube sometime.

Re:Get off my lawn! (4, Funny)

Alpha830RulZ (939527) | more than 6 years ago | (#23394854)

I'm guessing you might have been distracted. We forgive you.

Re:Get off my lawn! (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 6 years ago | (#23397172)

I'm guessing you might have been distracted. We forgive you.
I'm sorry, were you saying something?

Re:Get off my lawn! (1)

Alpha830RulZ (939527) | more than 6 years ago | (#23398808)

I was saying that what she could have done with the cube wouldn't have felt as good.

Re:Get off my lawn! (1)

JosKarith (757063) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400582)

Hell, I can do that. My g/f's eyes nearly popped out ther head the first time I showed her...

Re:Get off my lawn! (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 6 years ago | (#23401188)

That's a great way to make a date more, uh, interesting.

Re:Get off my lawn! (2, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#23394490)

The rubiks cube is one of those puzzles that's easy to do once you figure out the process. In fact, figuring out the process is really the only interesting part of the puzzle, and once you know it there's not much point to doing it anymore.

Re:Get off my lawn! (1)

eulernet (1132389) | more than 6 years ago | (#23396570)

None of these videos are fake.
Cube masters are also able to solve it blindfolded.

At my work, my colleagues are unable to solve the cube, so I performed a small demonstration.
I did it in 97 seconds, and it was my first time to play it since more than 10 years. I was so proud !

Re:Get off my lawn! (1)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 6 years ago | (#23391884)

I'm always happy when somebody comes out with a puzzle that nobody can solve (yet, I suppose). Makes me feel less stupid than not being able to solve the ones that tons of people can solve, like the Rubik's Cube.
I'm sorry to inform you that several people already have. [gravitation3d.com]

Re:Get off my lawn! (1)

omeomi (675045) | more than 6 years ago | (#23392034)

I'm sorry to inform you that several people already have. [gravitation3d.com]

That's not the same puzzle...the page clearly states, "Magic120Cell hasn't been solved yet, but rest assured it is solvable"

Re:Get off my lawn! (5, Funny)

SwordsmanLuke (1083699) | more than 6 years ago | (#23392270)

So, a few years back, I noticed some of my (less than genius) co-workers were playing with - and solving - the Rubik's Cube! I'd had a cube since I was a kid, but had never learned to solve it, but I figured if these guys could do it, I could do it. Over the next month I spent literally every free moment messing with the cube until I finally taught myself how to solve the damn thing. I was so proud.

As a reward, I went out and bought a new cube, like the ones my co-workers had. I got it home, opened my new cube... and discovered that they come with instructions now.

Re:Get off my lawn! (3, Funny)

Nautical Insanity (1190003) | more than 6 years ago | (#23395814)

You know I was frustrated with the people who thought they knew how to solve Rubik's Cubes. So I went out and bought one, switched two of the corner tiles and gave it to people to solve. Nothing has ever satisfied the evil side of me more...other than putting tape on my cat's paw...

Re:Get off my lawn! (1)

IdeaMan (216340) | more than 6 years ago | (#23396120)

Nothing has ever satisfied the evil side of me more
Go play Dungeon Keeper (1 and 2). The videos alone are worth it.

(not saying that would be more fun, just saying you might like them)

Re:Get off my lawn! (2, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 6 years ago | (#23394174)

While I can understand how that might be appealing to you, don't forget that the real point of puzzles is to have fun while exercising your brain. I just wish I still had all my puzzles from the 80's craze. I had the cube,the snake,the barrel,the pyramid,etc. But somehow they got lost through the sands of time. The only one I have left is this one [geocities.com] which I currently need to fix AGAIN,as my youngest nephew seems to think it's really funny to mess it up while I'm not looking.


But don't let the fact that someone has solved it already deter you from enjoying a good puzzle. After all it is supposed to be fun,right? And if it makes you feel any better I had to buy a book to solve the damned cube. I never had trouble with the others but something about the cube just never clicked right in my brain. I guess my brain just doesn't do squares.

Unbelievable (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 6 years ago | (#23391590)

Crazy bastards actually went and did it.

Yeah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23391592)

First post +5, I couldn't find the "game"

I'm holding out (3, Interesting)

jayhawk88 (160512) | more than 6 years ago | (#23391636)

For a true 4-dimensional Rubiks Cube, one that incorporates Time. Of course solving it will be incredibly disappointing, since after you do solve one, it turns out that it was solved all along.

Re:I'm holding out (5, Funny)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 6 years ago | (#23391676)

For a true 4-dimensional Rubiks Cube, one that incorporates Time.

Or it could incorporate a thyme dimension. "It looks solved, but it just doesn't snmell solved..."

Re:I'm holding out (2, Funny)

Trogre (513942) | more than 6 years ago | (#23397770)

Hmm, sounds like a job for the Sage [sagemath.org] math package.

Re:I'm holding out (2, Informative)

omeomi (675045) | more than 6 years ago | (#23391734)

For a true 4-dimensional Rubiks Cube, one that incorporates Time. Of course solving it will be incredibly disappointing, since after you do solve one, it turns out that it was solved all along.

Here you go, it's already been invented: http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/rubik.s-cube/the-idiots-cube-256889.php [gizmodo.com]

Re:I'm holding out (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 6 years ago | (#23391752)

A real puzzle should involve:

- 4 dimensions.
- non-linear Time.
- curvature of space.
- non-linear mutation of laws of physics.
- inconstant truthness of mathematical axioms.

Re:I'm holding out (3, Funny)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 6 years ago | (#23393624)

- non-linear mutation of laws of physics.
That's easy to deal with. You just remodulate the shield harmonics and then reverse the polarity of the neutron flow.

Re:I'm holding out (1)

JosKarith (757063) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400600)

You mean like politics..?

Re:I'm holding out (1)

DeadChobi (740395) | more than 6 years ago | (#23401558)

Oh wow, that's a lot like the real universe. Kudos for cracking that joke.

The only thing I think I need to point out is that mathematical axioms are variant because they're a product of our mind.

Re:I'm holding out (1)

Deathdonut (604275) | more than 6 years ago | (#23391962)

The original Rubik's Cube was 4-dimensional.

The problem was that (depending upon its owner) it could sometimes have multiple solutions.

On the bright side, it always had at least one solution...the state it was shipped.

Re:I'm holding out (2, Interesting)

Tabernaque86 (1046808) | more than 6 years ago | (#23392954)

I imagine solving a puzzle involving Time as a variable would be much like l'espirit d'escalier: By the time you figure out a solution, it's too late to implement it unless you can travel back in time 10 minutes. If you try to use your solution now, you're just going to end up making a fool of yourself.

Re:I'm holding out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23392964)

ugh, I believe they're talking about a permutation matrix set in four dimensions, not the actual physical dimension of time. (ie P=[x x x x]d, just imagine the x's lined up vertically as in linear algebra and then the expression makes sense.)

is the analogy self-evident? (1)

dg__83 (1285800) | more than 6 years ago | (#23391670)

Is it readily apparent to everyone else that this thing really is an analog of a 4-D MagicCell puzzle? It's very possible that it is and going right over my head. But from looking at this, it appears to me this is more analogous to people in a 2-D world taking a Sliding Puzzle game (like this <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sliding_puzzle>) and adding 3 more to form a square, with each Sliding Puzzle being a piece within the "meta-Sliding Puzzle", and calling that analogous to a 3-D puzzle... ?

I'm not sure if this makes sense or not (if I could draw a picture I could make my point a lot easier)...

Re:is the analogy self-evident? (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23391850)

I'm not sure, but the 4D software cubes I've played with before seem to be actually 4D. In your sliding puzzle analog, sliding a square on one side would have an effect in the orientation of the squares on the other sides. So in the 4D Rubik's cube model, turning a side on one of the cubes would also rotate something else on one of the other cubes. I can solve the 3x3 Rubik's original, and almost solve the 4x4 variant, but the 4D cubes are next to impossible in my mind.

Re:is the analogy self-evident? (1)

dg__83 (1285800) | more than 6 years ago | (#23392112)

<quote>I'm not sure, but the 4D software cubes I've played with before seem to be actually 4D. <b>In your sliding puzzle analog, sliding a square on one side would have an effect in the orientation of the squares on the other sides. So in the 4D Rubik's cube model, turning a side on one of the cubes would also rotate something else on one of the other cubes.</b> I can solve the 3x3 Rubik's original, and almost solve the 4x4 variant, but the 4D cubes are next to impossible in my mind.</quote>

I agree that the effects produced by moving the meta-pieces within the analog I described would have some similarity to a 3D puzzle. But in my mind, the analogy is very limited. The only way I could think of accurately portraying 3D puzzle within 2D space would be to display it as a flat "unpacked" 3D object, like a collapsed cardboard box that you fold together to make a cube:
              __
  __ |__|__ __
|__|__|__|__|
          |__|

And then establish how the patterns of 3D movement would be displayed in the 2D "unpacked" representation (taking into account that some of the squares would have to be displayed in reverse or upside down since their data would be facing "away" from the 2D observer). Of course, it would be not be very elegant, and very difficult, if not impossible, for 2D beings to conceptualize.

Assuming my logic is tenable, it would then seem very hard to believe that a 4D object could be accurately represented in such an elegant and intuitive manner in 3D space, when it appears that doing the same in 2D space (with a 3D object) requires a tradeoff between elegance or accuracy.

Re:is the analogy self-evident? (1)

dg__83 (1285800) | more than 6 years ago | (#23392148)

Damnit, my unpacked "cube" did not format properly... Anyways, looks like there is no edit option, so if that you're unsure of what that image was supposed to be, disassemble a (cubic) kleenex box... :-S

Re:is the analogy self-evident? (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 6 years ago | (#23392186)

Well, until someone invents a 4-D monitor (and the necissary brain structure to comprehend it) a projection into 3-D space is the best we can do.

To use your analogy of a 3-D sliding puzzle in a 2-D world; a 3-D sliding puzzle would be a cube (with six sides) and only one square missing. Projected down to a 2-D surface we would see three of the sides (distorted from their square shape). When rotated, the sides would change shape and size, and dissapear and reapear. We can never see more than three sides at a time.

The easiest way to understand projection down to lower dimensions is to imagine a 3-D object in the sun. When you rotate it, the shadow of the object changes shape, even though the object itself does not.

Imagine a wheel being spun; it's shadow starts as a line, then becomes an elipse, then a perfect circle, then back again.

Re:is the analogy self-evident? (1)

dg__83 (1285800) | more than 6 years ago | (#23392512)

<quote>To use your analogy of a 3-D sliding puzzle in a 2-D world; a 3-D sliding puzzle would be a cube (with six sides) and only one square missing. Projected down to a 2-D surface we would see three of the sides (distorted from their square shape). When rotated, the sides would change shape and size, and dissapear and reapear. We can never see more than three sides at a time.

The easiest way to understand projection down to lower dimensions is to imagine a 3-D object in the sun. When you rotate it, the shadow of the object changes shape, even though the object itself does not.</quote>

I agree with you (my previous post described something similar - probably got posted while you were typing this).

Anyways, I'd be very interested in a game that simulates 4D by using 4D inspired rules and applying them to 3D space. For instance, you could very easily play a 3D "game" in 2D space by applying 3D logic to the 2D unpacked cube. Every move would give the player the option to make movements in 2D based on 3D rules.

For instance, if each of these variables represented a side of a 3D cube (hopefully this formats ok) in a 2D universe:

A
WXYZ
B

Then applying 2D logic would indicate that the only permitted movements would be W<->A, or W<->B. However, you could provide the 2D player with 3D "rules", which would hold that W<->A, W<->B, W<->X, W<->Z, X<->A.... etc, etc, would be possible moves. I have no idea if a 2D being would be able to understand this. But there would be nothing inconsistent with creating such a game with said rules in 2D space, and it would be a perfect representation of a 3D puzzle. So I would argue that the way the object is displayed in 2D, 3D, etc space is rather irrelevant. Therefore, I'm more interested in being directly provided the rules that govern the behavior of the object, rather than having to reverse engineer them by looking at an object which another human has designed based on his interpretation of said rules (which adds another level vagueness, as even if the rules were right one would also have to assume that the error prone 3D humans who converted them to a 3D image did so entirely accurately).

Re:is the analogy self-evident? (1)

dg__83 (1285800) | more than 6 years ago | (#23392584)

Then applying 2D logic would indicate that the only permitted movements would be WA, or WB. However, you could provide the 2D player with 3D "rules", which would hold that WA, WB, WX, WZ, XA.... etc, etc, Oops, there's more moves than that available in 2D... A WXYZ B 2D = every variable can be switched with the adjacent variable 3D = 2D moves + "wrap arounds" (ZW, AX, etc.)

Re:is the analogy self-evident? (1)

dg__83 (1285800) | more than 6 years ago | (#23392700)

FUCK! I am an idiot!! Okay, one last time, here is what that should have said. Original post:

Then applying 2D logic would indicate that the only permitted movements would be WA, or WB. However, you could provide the 2D player with 3D "rules", which would hold that WA, WB, WX, WZ, XA.... etc, etc,
Wrong about the rules. Should have been, for the indicated pattern:

A
WXYZ
B
2D = every variable can be switched with the adjacent variable

3D = 2D moves + "wrap arounds" (ZW, AX, etc.)

Re:is the analogy self-evident? (1)

dg__83 (1285800) | more than 6 years ago | (#23392936)

This is a bold statement and I'm open to being proved wrong, but I don't believe that this is an analogue of a 4D game, unless it's creators have a very different notion of what 'analogue' means than I do.

Is there anyone here who finds the analogue very compelling, who might be able to argue otherwise? I'd provide more explanation for my view, except that if no one feels strongly one way or the other, it will probably go unread, and thus be a waste of time...

Re:is the analogy self-evident? (3, Informative)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 6 years ago | (#23392670)

Ever played the latest Prince of Persia (Sands of Time) series? They were 3D games where you had to use another dimension (time travel) to navigate puzzles because things were [un]available in different times. Heck, go back to Zelda series for a 2D game where travel to a dream-world allows more freedom of movement.

Re:is the analogy self-evident? (1)

Hettch (692387) | more than 6 years ago | (#23405746)

You mean something like this? [kongregate.com] It's a 2D game, but you need to maneuver through time as well.

One might argue... (1)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 6 years ago | (#23391706)

since the sides of the normal Rubik's cube are colored, it was already 4D.

Re:One might argue... (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 6 years ago | (#23391738)

In which case this is 5D. Thanks a lot. As if it wasn't hard enough.

Re:One might argue... (1)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 6 years ago | (#23391766)

If you time how long it takes you to solve it, the original is 5D.

Re:One might argue... (1)

kalirion (728907) | more than 6 years ago | (#23392830)

It's not 5D unless the time is part of the puzzle. As in "it only took me 5 seconds to get all the sides and colors correct in 15 seconds!".

Re:One might argue... (1)

maglor_83 (856254) | more than 6 years ago | (#23397376)

Well, take the colours away, and then it will be back to 4D for you, and much easier to solve.

Babe Magnet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23391756)

But is it a babe magnet like the first Rubik's cube?

Re:Babe Magnet? (1)

trongey (21550) | more than 6 years ago | (#23393826)

It's thousands of orders of magnitude more of a babe magnet than the original cube. Which means if you can solve it then you have a snowball's chance in hell of attracting a babe.

I have a marvelous solution to the 4D Megaminx (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23391778)

which this margin is too narrow to contain. Strangely the solution implies that if you have 4 integers x,y,z>0 and n>2 then x^n+y^n!=z^n, but I don't know why the heck that would be important.

(plu7s oNe Informative) (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23391792)

Study. [8icE.edu]

The cube wasn't enough (1)

shvytejimas (1083291) | more than 6 years ago | (#23391838)

My brain is oficially in pain now.

Will be useless in 2009... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23391842)

... as everyone knows this puzzle will have to be converted to digital to meet FCC regulations. Anyone know where I can get a rebate for a proper converter?

Uninteresting (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23391920)

This is as simple as making a Megaminx-equivalent puzzle in N dimensions, and then making N equal to 4.

Great (1)

gstewart79 (1288684) | more than 6 years ago | (#23392030)

Yet another puzzle game that I won't be able to do.

Dag-nabbit (1)

Nerdposeur (910128) | more than 6 years ago | (#23392094)

I just don't understand this four-dimensional gobbledygook. I mean, I can imagine how you'd need another axis to graph something along, but how the heck you visualize four dimensions, or how a thing could BE four-dimensional, just doesn't make sense to me.

It's like imaginary numbers - I see that it works on paper, but what the heck?

Re:Dag-nabbit (1)

Karl0Erik (1138443) | more than 6 years ago | (#23392292)

It's not exactly a four-dimensional puzzle as much as a representation of a four-dimensional puzzle. Imagine a cube. If you were to cut along the edges you could unfold it into a two-dimensional set of six squares. This puzzle is pretty much a real four-dimensional puzzle that you can twist four-dimensionally (or perhaps three-dimensionally would be more correct here - IANAMathematician) - what we see on the screen is just the three-dimensional representation of that object.

Re:Dag-nabbit (2, Informative)

quickgold192 (1014925) | more than 6 years ago | (#23393596)

actually, what we see on the screen is a two-dimensional representation of the three dimensional representation of the four-dimensional object :-/

Re:Dag-nabbit (3, Interesting)

The Master Control P (655590) | more than 6 years ago | (#23392388)

Visualize our three dimensions as a bounded volume in 3-space. Then you can kind-of imagine the 4th and 5th spatial dimensions discreetly as 1- and 2-d arrays of such volumes.

Re:Dag-nabbit (1)

fred fleenblat (463628) | more than 6 years ago | (#23393608)

right, but don't forget that if you had imagined an array of 2D sheets of paper, you wouldn't really capture the idea that in 3D you can rotate, bend, and fold the paper in ways that go beyond just shuffling the sheets of paper around in the array.

Re:Dag-nabbit (1)

cptdondo (59460) | more than 6 years ago | (#23393156)

Years ago I wrote a bunch of code that was sort-of a 4-D CAD system. You could draw elements composed of line segments and assemble them into wireframe objects. You could also feed it faces and have it shade them.

It supported all of the various 4-D visualization projections and you could rotate, zoom and even do perspective in 4D. You really can visualize 4D if you work with it long enough.

The code was written for an SGI workstation, but used relatively generic window ops. All of the transformations were in software (no hardware engine for 4D ops exists even today AFAIK).

I still have a printout of the code but alas no longer have the code itself. If anyone is interested, I could scan it and post it somewhere.

Joy! (1)

Fifth Earth (1172333) | more than 6 years ago | (#23392150)

Now we just need a 4D Dogic and we'll be rid of these irritatingly skilled people for years.

I must be bored!! (0, Troll)

gsgriffin (1195771) | more than 6 years ago | (#23392268)

That can be the only reason for replying to this thread whatsoever. Hey, why don't we talk about the original pong game and the potential that has for creating world peace! About as interesting....

Finished! (1)

The Relentless (901624) | more than 6 years ago | (#23392332)

I just smashed it on my desktop and put the pieces back together the right way.

Now where... (4, Insightful)

jd (1658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23392500)

...have I seen this Megaminx puzzle before.... Oh yes, that's right, the US tax system. Seriously, this is wonderful. Once a problem is solved, then further work is merely optimization and refactoring. There's nothing new. Puzzles that have an algorithmic solution, but where the solution is unknown at this time, are interesting because they require discovery that is potentially within reach of anyone. Puzzles for which only a herustic definitely exists are also interesting for much the same reason. Problems with no solution, or where it is not yet possible to prove it is possible to find any solution, are interesting more because the work required might well involve whole new branches of mathematics being developed, real frontier work rather than simply filling in the gaps. Puzzles of this kind also draw people who might otherwise consider maths or science "boring" into those fields. Science outside of "profitable" fields like computer programming tend to rely on sparking the imagination of the next generation. There's no other reason to go into such a subject than the pursuit of knowledge, once you eliminate all status and monetary value.

Re:Now where... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23397126)

*sees wall of text*
*looks at user id*
*mods insightful*

gravity (1)

singingjim1 (1070652) | more than 6 years ago | (#23393192)

I was more interested in the 3D gravity game, but it's PC only and I'm on a Mac. :/

Everybody knows the solution... (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 6 years ago | (#23393286)

....it's 42

Shameless Self Promotion - But On Topic (1)

davidpfarrell (562876) | more than 6 years ago | (#23393982)

If you're looking for a nice Megaminx Puzzle to play with, checkout PuzzleProz [ebay.com]

Great! Where can I buy one! (1)

timnbron (1166139) | more than 6 years ago | (#23396538)

I want the non-linear time dimensional edition with the metallic stickers, please!

"The crazy hypercubists..." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23404136)

"Educated cubeless stupid, you think stupid."

Seriously, am I the only one who read the summary and thought of this guy? [timecube.com]
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?