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!

A Working 5D Rubik's Cube

CmdrTaco posted more than 8 years ago | from the i'm-still-confused-in-2d dept.

171

Melinda Green writes "Readers who enjoyed the previous Slashdot postings regarding the 4-dimensional Rubik's cube called MagicCube4D will be interested to know that a couple of brilliant developers have recently created a working 5-dimensional Rubik's cube. Operating a 5 dimensional puzzle projected all the way down to a 2D computer screen may seem a hopeless task but the full 5D puzzle has already been solved by 3 people. Also noteworthy is the fact that the 4D puzzle has now been ported to Java and is available as both a full-featured desktop application and as an Applet."

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

MY HEAD ASPLODE! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15466021)

n/t

Re:MY HEAD ASPLODE! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15466035)

Mr.Burns: Quick Smithers. Bring the mind eraser device!
Smithers:You mean the revolver, sir?
Mr.Burns: Precisely.

Re:MY HEAD ASPLODE! (3, Funny)

moro_666 (414422) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466714)

I think even Freud would say that: if you play with 5d rubic's cubes, you need to get laid.

2D "cube"? (1)

Crayon Kid (700279) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467229)

What I'd like to know is how would a 2D version of the Rubik "cube" look like. A square with each side made up of three different segments, and each segment swaps with the opposite one? Somehow that doesn't seem right...

Bah... (1)

Xenographic (557057) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467361)

This 5D cube is *so* dated.

I'm waiting for the 6D version :]

I see that... (2, Informative)

jgartin (177959) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466029)

...it requires .NET. Thanks. I don't mind downloading and installing 30MB's of framework just to play with a Rubik's cube. Really, I don't.

Re:I see that... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15466043)

Yeah, because everyone knows that .NET is a Framework for 5D rubik's cube applications only.

Re:I see that... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15466045)

...it requires .NET. Thanks. I don't mind downloading and installing 30MB's of framework just to play with a Rubik's cube. Really, I don't.


You don't need to explain your reasons not to solve this puzzle. ;)

Re:I see that... (1, Flamebait)

cdrudge (68377) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466057)

Then don't download it. For the thousands of us who already downloaded it for another program, it's not that big of a deal.

Re:I see that... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15466307)

yea, its in add/remove programs right between bonzi buddy and weatherbug, also both programs you have allready istalled right?

Just use the Java applet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15466097)

If you can't run Java applets, and 30 meg downloads are a severe burden upon you, then your computer is crippled and you should talk to your hardware vendor about shipping you ASAP a modern computer.

Re:I see that... (4, Insightful)

pla (258480) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466130)

it requires .NET. Thanks. I don't mind downloading and installing 30MB's of framework just to play with a Rubik's cube. Really, I don't.

I see you've gotten spanked as a troll... Unfortunate. Personally, I don't suspect you of trolling, just stating a fact. However...

Whether you like it or not (and I say this as a .NET developer who does not), since Visual Studio 2005 builds to .NET 2.0, just about everything will use it within a year or two. Add to that Vista's intended use of WinFX (basically just .NET 3) as the core API, and you can pretty much kiss Win32 goodbye.

A pity, really, because .NET has truly abysmal performance. Who cares about the size on disk - I care far more that it eats memory like a kid with a box of tic-tacs. (Cue someone parroting that you can get 4GB for about $250 nowadays, which I think you'll agree completely misses the point).

Regardless, you would do yourself a favor to get used to .NET; Sooner or later you will have no choice, so why deprive yourself of cool toys that (unfortunately) use it now?

Re:I see that... (5, Funny)

Mathiasdm (803983) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466182)

But you can get 4GB for about $250 nowadays! Stop complaining!

Re:I see that... (5, Funny)

jdbartlett (941012) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466283)

And that's in flash... with an iPod Nano surrounding it!

Re:I see that... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15466351)

But you can get 4GB for about $250 nowadays! Stop complaining!

You're completely missing the point!

Re:I see that... (2, Funny)

jamar0303 (896820) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466454)

What are you talking about? I had to pay $100 for a 256MB stick for my laptop (Sony VAIO TR5EB)!

Re:I see that... (3, Funny)

Mathiasdm (803983) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466813)

But it comes with a free DRM rootkit!

Re:I see that... (1)

jamar0303 (896820) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466906)

What's with this whole rootkit thing that everyone's been babbling about? ... Oh, been living between China and Japan too long then, looks like a non-Asian issue (Sony has never used DRM in China, and they haven't used DRM in Japan since 2004). Nice joke, now that I get it, though.

Re:I see that... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15467025)

> But it comes with a free DRM rootkit!

"That's good!"

"The free DRM rootkit is also cursed."

Nah, fuck that shit, man. (-1, Flamebait)

DrunkenTerror (561616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466450)

Much like videos encoded in QuickTime, I find that little non-apps like this aren't worth it. I say to myself, "Well, if it's only in QuickTime it's probably stupid anyway. Fuck 'em." or in this case, "If it's only coded in DOT NET then fuck 'em. It's just a fucking rubix cube anyway." and go about my day. If you want to write programs for real people to use, use a real programming language that'll fucking compile a stand-alone executable. Carlos Mencia sucks, but goddamn, dur dur dur! Fuck living in the future of "Oh, I better use this now, in two years it'll all be .NET." Live for today, motherfuckers. It's all we got.

Re:Nah, fuck that shit, man. (0)

jacksonj04 (800021) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466711)

You mean like all those lovely linux apps which work with no dependencies?

Re:Nah, fuck that shit, man. (1)

jZnat (793348) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466825)

Just wait until GCC makes a native .NET port that compiles them to standalone executables. Mono exists, but I don't know if that compiles to native assembly or MSIL.

Win32 is not gonna go away anytime soon. (1)

master_p (608214) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466865)

Microsoft builts its software with Win32...they do not want to use layers upon layers of object and class hierrararchies, because their apps will be slow as hell...especially MSWord that's already slow in Win32.

Re:I see that... (1)

rfernand79 (643913) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466941)

Regardless, you would do yourself a favor to get used to .NET; Sooner or later you will have no choice, so why deprive yourself of cool toys that (unfortunately) use it now?
Resistance is futile.

Re:I see that... (1, Flamebait)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466337)

I wouldn't mind downloading and installing such a framework, if it were available on a real operating system. What the fsck are you Windows users doing on Slashdot anyway?-)

Re:I see that... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15466479)

What the fsck are you Windows users doing on Slashdot anyway?

We're all masochists. And just using Windows isn't enough by itself.

Re:I see that... (1)

gkhan1 (886823) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466661)

We dual-boot so we can play WoW!

Re:I see that... (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466818)

I dual-boot into Windoze to play Half-Life 2(which is really fun to play but a fucking bitch to install because of Steam), but you can still get .NET for Linux: It's called Mono.

Re:I see that... (1)

storem (117912) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466932)

Mono runs on a real OS, no? Oh yeah, but then it's not real .NET, is it?

This Windows user (1)

RM6f9 (825298) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467352)

Is on slashdot trying to *learn* cool things about tech and its many uses - trolling uber733t *nix snobs like you is just a fringe benefit!

Re:I see that... (-1, Redundant)

imsabbel (611519) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466453)

Hm. Doesnt everybody and his dog have .Net since it came with XP SP2 and 2k SP4 or something?

Re:I see that... (4, Funny)

DrunkenTerror (561616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466496)

You know, the Nazis had pieces of framework that they made the Jews download.

Re:I see that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15466687)

From the site:
This will require you to install the .Net framework (sorry).

It's just like Java all over again.

oh it gets better (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466833)

the applet uses both left, right, and control clicks, which means people browsing the web via mac get the shaft too

Re:oh it gets better (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466844)

oh that was the 4d cube.. but it is the same deal..

they can create a solvable 4d or 5d cube, but can't imagine mac users trying it out?

Re:oh it gets better (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467429)

They assume that any Mac user with enough brains to solve a 5D Rubik's Cube bought a proper mouse along with their first Mac.

No good deed... (5, Funny)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466898)

Oh my god, you're right! It does look like he wrote this application in .NET solely for the purpose of being a huge burden on everyone! After thinking about it, I guess it really does have nothing to do with .NET probably being the language he's most familiar with. I'm sure that he probably did want to spend several months learning a new language for something that could best be described as an amusing diversion, but chose not to because he wanted to waste the few minutes it would take you to download and install .NET. Come to think of it, I'm sure the fact that most people already have .NET installed probably just makes him mad, because it mitigates the toll his application will take on society.

The fact that it's kind of cool is only a ruse in his more diabolical agenda of making your life miserable for five or so minutes. The fact that we are compelled to install it by means I don't quite understand yet only makes the situation worse. If only we had a choice whether or not we wanted to play with a 5-dimensional Rubik's Cube!

Personally, I think that if you're as outraged as I am, since you're obviously so much smarter then me, you should rewrite his application in a morally superior language. The kink in this fool's plan is that he seems to have forgotten to patent the application (but be careful, it could be another trick!), which leaves the door open for anyone to simply rewrite it!

Please start working on it right away, as this outrage must not go unanswered!

Re:I see that... (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466957)

I really wanted to play this...and I was willing to download .Net to do it...but I had to download some other microshaft POS software to install .Net, and I had to install something else before installing that, so I just gave up. I'll wait for the linux port :-P

Bet they cheated (5, Funny)

Mostly a lurker (634878) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466039)

the full 5D puzzle has already been solved by 3 people.
No doubt, they just pulled it apart and put it back together with all the blocks in the correct orientation. Saw my kid sister do that with the 3-D version.

Re:Bet they cheated (1)

Isotopian (942850) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466704)

No no, it's quite simple once you learn the patterns. There's only D to the Nth power cubed to infinity different matrices to solve through.

Simple!

I give up (2)

zidohl (976382) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466051)

after seeing the picture on the front page.. Given that i probably will be dead within the next 100 years i doubt i'll have time to finish it anyways, it's just to many dimensions..

Re:I give up (2, Informative)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466087)

Given that i probably will be dead within the next 100 years i doubt i'll have time to finish it anyways, it's just to many dimensions..

You should read Diaspora [wikipedia.org] by Greg Egan.

Re:I give up (1)

jdbartlett (941012) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466269)

You should watch Sliders. New dimension every week, and the show was still over in just a few seasons.

Anyone know where you can buy one? (5, Funny)

MarkByers (770551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466052)

Anyone know where you can buy a real 5D cube? I hate trying to solve them on a computer screen. Much easier in real life.

Also I will need a spare set of 4 dimensional stickers in case the original ones fall off.

Re:Anyone know where you can buy one? (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466185)

Anyone know where you can buy a real 5D cube? I hate trying to solve them on a computer screen. Much easier in real life.

If you don't have one, however, the digital version is your only choice, hence this application.

I'll be curious to meet the guys who solved the 5D cube, make sure they have two eyes, two hand and lags like the rest of us mortals.

Re:Anyone know where you can buy one? (1)

Crayon Kid (700279) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467163)

I'll be curious to meet the guys who solved the 5D cube, make sure they have two eyes, two hand and lags like the rest of us mortals.

They probably do. It's their brains that are probably a strange color, possibly glowing faintly in the dark.

Re:Anyone know where you can buy one? (1)

Kaki Nix Sain (124686) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467209)

I'll be curious to meet the guys who solved the 5D cube, make sure they have two eyes, two hand and lags like the rest of us mortals.
How would you make sure? They might be hiding their extra eyes, hands, and/or legs off our 3-space.

Re:Anyone know where you can buy one? (2, Funny)

K8Fan (37875) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467427)

To us, they look like white mice.

You see, they really were very clever hyper-intelligent, pan-dimensional beings.

Re:Anyone know where you can buy one? (1)

Speare (84249) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466685)

I wioll haven heard that Dr. Dan Streetmentioner willan on-sell some four-dimensional stickers for 4D Rubik toys. A presooning shipment mayan arrivan on-when last Thursday, if I haventa recallen.

Re:Anyone know where you can buy one? (1)

AragornSonOfArathorn (454526) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466788)

You do realize that no one uses the future perfect tense anymore since it was discovered not to be, right?

Re:Anyone know where you can buy one? (1)

Mozk (844858) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467261)

What is that from? I can't remember...

Re:Anyone know where you can buy one? (1)

spiro_killglance (121572) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467285)

The shop isn't far away, go north to the end of the street, turn eka, and forward for a kilogram, then its just at yestaday.

Can you still... (4, Funny)

d_p (63654) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466066)

...peel off the stickers in 5 dimensions?

Re:Can you still... (4, Funny)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466145)

Did that with my cube. Now that's a challenge, trying to solve it without any visual indication.

Re:Can you still... (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466218)

Sure, but the stickers would all be tesseracts.

Re:Can you still... (1)

jfredett (955797) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466716)

Well, for 5D anyway, they'd be cubes in 4d...

Re:Can you still... (1)

Enselic (933809) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467090)

The cubies will have the same dimension as the larger cube. Just as in the 3D version.

Rubic cube - a challenge indeed! (1)

ravee (201020) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466068)

I remember having recieved a rubic cube as a gift many years back. It took up a lot of my time in solving the cube. Heck the cube was so popular that there were entire books written detailing how to solve the cube. And the least time in which I could solve the cube was 20 minutes. Now a five dimentional rubic cube (albeit a software one) - that could be a real challenge even for rubic cube champions themselves. Too bad the software require microsoft dot net framework to run.

Re:Rubic cube - a challenge indeed! (1)

Glonoinha (587375) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466096)

Funny - I ran the Java applet version one on my SuSE Linux machine in Firefox.
Unless the normal SuSE 10.1 distro comes with the .NET framework pre-installed, I'm going to have to say 'no, it runs just fine with zero Microsoft software necessary.'

Re:Rubic cube - a challenge indeed! (1)

Glonoinha (587375) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466106)

Whoops - shit. My bad.
I ran the 4D one on my Linux box as a Java applet.

I was wrong, mark your calendars.

Should be possible in a few minutes (5, Informative)

MarkByers (770551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466101)

And the least time in which I could solve the cube was 20 minutes.

Using a few simple, easy-to-learn algorithms, and with a few weeks practice it is possible for pretty much anyone to solve the 3D cube in just 2 or 3 minutes. Using a layer-by-layer method you can solve each piece one at a time in the first two layers, then learn 4 algorithms to fix the last layer (not necessarily in this order):

1) Rotate edges
2) Rotate corners
3) Permute corners
4) Permute edges

Sometimes you will have to use an algorithm twice. Each algorithm takes about 10 moves, and at a slow speed of one move per second and a bit of luck you can solve the last layer in under a minute. Here's a beginner's guide:

http://peter.stillhq.com/jasmine/rubikscubesolutio n.html [stillhq.com]

If you want to get faster you need to learn more algorithms so that you can complete two steps at once.

A popular method which can be used to get very fast times is the Fridrich method, but it requires a lot of memorisation and lots and lots of practice:

http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/cube.html [binghamton.edu]

Personally I managed to get times of under 1 minute by practising the cube every day in the bus to and from work.

Re:Should be possible in a few minutes (1)

Crayon Kid (700279) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467180)

Using a few simple, easy-to-learn algorithms, and with a few weeks practice it is possible for pretty much anyone to solve the 3D cube in just 2 or 3 minutes. Using a layer-by-layer method you can solve each piece one at a time in the first two layers, then learn 4 algorithms to fix the last layer (not necessarily in this order):

So what you're saying is that the GP is slow, just not in so many words. :)

I think... (0, Redundant)

scheming (862018) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466073)

I think because we don't live in the matrix, rhat a real 5 dimensional cube sounds impossible...

Re:I think... (2, Funny)

aurb (674003) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466163)

So, if a 5D cube was created, it would prove that we live in a matrix?

You have to realise the truth! (1)

teslar (706653) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467330)

There is no cube.
When you realise this, you will see that it is not the cube that gets solved. It is only yourself.

Re:I think... (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466225)

Nooo.... it's because we don't live in 5 dimensional space that a 5D rubic's cube sounds impossible.

Re:I think... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15466265)

Ah, but we do (and perhaps more!).

What you mean is that we don't perceive in all of them ;~)

Re:I think... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15466334)

Then again, maybe we don't.

Re:I think... (1)

idonthack (883680) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467267)

But how do you know we don't live in the Matrix?

What is... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15466084)

Ebuc Skibur!

Only saying its name backwards can send it back to the fifth dimension!

In soviet Russia... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15466091)

Five dimensional cube has YOU working

Don't look so surprised... (3, Funny)

MojoMagic (669271) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466104)

Neeeeeeeeeeeeeeerd!!!!

Damn... And I thought I was hopelessly nerdy.
I must look positively herculean next to these guys.

I remember spending the better part of an afternoon last summer trying to solve my girlfriend's father's 20 year old rubiks cube.
I was really close to solving it when it litterally fell apart in my hands. Turns out one of the (now grown up) kids had once tried to forcibly solve it with a screwdriver. Now, whenever you it get into a certain configuration (ie: a near-finished state) it loses all structural integrity.
I could have cried... I WAS SO CLOSE!!!

I was crazy to spend so long on a three diementional rubik's cube.
But, I don't know which is crazier... That someone made a four diementional version, or that people have already solved it. ... And don't get me started on the five diementional one...

Wrinkle in Time (1)

Floydius (811220) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466210)

If I remember my 4th grade physics correctly, the 5th dimension is a tesseract. I fully intend to use this "cube" to teleport around the universe!!! muhahahhhahaa

Re:Wrinkle in Time (2, Interesting)

Andrew Kismet (955764) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466282)

A 4 Dimensional Cube is called a Tesseract, unless you assume time is a dimension (which it frequently is/is cited as being).

Re:Wrinkle in Time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15467168)

4d Java Applet (3, Interesting)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466324)

That 4d java applet is amazing! It even runs perfectly fast on my Pentium II.

Re:4d Java Applet (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467054)

It really shouldn't take a lot of horsepower to render a ~600 faces of a 3d model using flat shading. I wouldn't be surprised if your pentium II could handle 10 or 100 times as many.

Re:4d Java Applet (1)

Enselic (933809) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467074)

A 2D projection from 4D is not overly more computionally expensive than a 2D projection from 3D. The calculations will simply require slightly larger matrices; the increase in needed calculations is somewhere betwee 20% to 40%.

All I can say is: vist timecube.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15466500)

A 5 dimensional Rubik's cube? Yeah... this sounds just a plausable as the www.timecube.com web site.

Re:All I can say is: vist timecube.com (2, Funny)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466830)

5-dimensional Rubik's Cube is word evil.

Really 4D/5D? (3, Interesting)

beaverfever (584714) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466551)

Is there anyone reading with the brains/training to confidently/accurately answer some questions please?

"These are Rubik's cubes of the form 3d [gravitation3d.com] , with the original popular puzzle being 33. We label the puzzles like this because they are a d-dimensional cube broken into 3d smaller pieces or "cubies" of the same dimension. For example, the 3D cube has 33 or 27 total 3-dimensional cubies."

Does adding cubies really mean adding a dimension, or does it mean simply making a more complicated 3D puzzle and giving it a fancy name? (Behold: the Fifth Dimension! Amaze Your Friends!)

I noticed in the 4D model [superliminal.com] that elements disappear and reappear with each move. What's up with that? What do the green cubes represent? Where are the pieces which disappear supposed to be going, and why can't we see the changes being made to this set of cubies? Is the invisible set a cheat on the part of the designers?

I have not played with the 5D version, and so have no questions about that one.

Re:Really 4D/5D? (1)

RandomPrecision (911416) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466595)

It's been a while since I played with that applet, but the green cubes are just one side of the cube. In a 3D space, you can't physically see all of the 4D cube. As in the documentation, you can Control-click a side to center it in your view. Which ever side you focus on will prevent you from seeing one of the other sides.

Technically, your view in the 4D applet is inside the hypercube. The side you don't see is the closet one to you, but they made it invisible in order to let you see as many sides as possible. And you'll always have one side obscured from your sight, just like trying to visualize a 3D cube all at once, even though you can only see it one plane at a time.

So yeah, it's fully 4D, but projected into 3D, like a 3D cube projected into 2D.

Re:Really 4D/5D? (2, Informative)

blechx (767202) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466599)

I noticed in the 4D model that elements disappear and reappear with each move. What's up with that?

You just cannot see all sides of the cube simultaneously, just as with it's 3d-counterpart.

Re:Really 4D/5D? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15466637)

you can't see all of the 4D cube at once. as you rotate it, some of the faces that weren't visibile to you before become visibile. imagine, for example, you can only see in 2 dimensions. the only part of a 3D object you would be able to see is the part that intersects your 2D plane of visibility. if you rotate the 3D object, some portions of it will rotate out of your 2D plane and some will rotate into it. that's what's happening with the 4D cube rotating in 3D space.

Re:Really 4D/5D? (5, Informative)

Surt (22457) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466913)

It's a true 4 dimensional puzzle in the sense that this is what you could build as a rubik's cube equivalent if we lived in a 4d universe rather than a 3d universe.

The green cubes that appear and disappear as you make moves are from the 'hidden' face of the hypercube, which has 8 faces. Their projection is using a base unfolding, to understand what they've done consider the parallel from unfolding a 3d cube into 2d. Imagine you are staring precisely face on at a cube:

      XXX
      XXX
      XXX

Now unfold all the sides connected to the X's so you can see them straight on:

      OOO
      OOO
      OOO
AAAXXXBBB
AAAXXXBBB
AAAXXXBBB
      MMM
      MMM
      MMM

If you started playing a game of rubik's cube on this, you'd soon see another letter show up whenever you made a move, let's call it G for green. Where do the G's come from? From the sixth face of the cube that wasn't visible due to the choice of unfolding. The face exactly opposite of the X's ... the 'rear' of the cube if you will.

Same thing in the 4d case. There are 8 faces, only 7 of which are visible due to their poor choice of unfolding technique.

Here's wolfram's hypercube page for more info:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Hypercube.html [wolfram.com]

Re:Really 4D/5D? (1)

iCEBaLM (34905) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467398)

Ahh, but you could unfold it completely as such:

        OOO
        OOO
        OOO
AAAXXXBBBGGG
AAAXXXBBBGGG
AAAXXXBBBGGG
        MMM
        MMM
        MMM

And be able to see the entire contents. It may not be as pretty but it would all show up.

Re:Really 4D/5D? (2)

roice (679660) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467064)

These puzzles are true higher dimensional analogs. Every characteristic of MagicCube4D is "upped" a dimension from the original puzzle. For example, on the 3D cube stickers are 2D, but on the 4D cube, stickers are 3D. This is also true for the puzzle "faces".

Have we really added a dimension? Well, perhaps not because the higher dimensional portions of the puzzle are being projected down to our real lower dimensions. So in a sense, yes these are just "more complicated 3D puzzles". But they are not just puzzles that are more complicated in some arbitrary way like adding more stickers. There are more complicated in a way that preserves analogies to what a 4D Rubik's cube would be like in higher-d spaces (if those could exist).

I find the best way to think about things is by "dimensional analogy". Think about how a 3D cube would look to a 2D being (you'd have to project the puzzle into the 2D world to even see it), and then the ideas behind MagicCube4D start making sense. Try to draw a Rubik's cube on a flat sheet of paper and you'll see what I mean.

There is an excellent FAQ about the puzzle on the superliminal site, which I recommend. http://www.superliminal.com/cube/FAQ.txt [superliminal.com]

Rubik's... Ruby's? (1)

Desmont (878159) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466613)

The title is misleading, it the cube isn't written in ruby.

4D ? 5D? (1)

sglider (648795) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466630)

If the three dimensions are length, width, heighth, and the fourth is time -- how do you accurately depict that? What is the 5th dimension? How can these be anything more than an extended 3D object? I know someone out there knows what's going on, please fill me in?

4th dimension is not necessarily time (2, Informative)

spineboy (22918) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466655)

If you exist in one dimension, is the 2nd dimension neccessarilry width, or is it height? There are many other choices, but we tend to pick time because it is easily understood by us.

Re:4D ? 5D? (3, Funny)

Easy2RememberNick (179395) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466899)

What is the 5th dimension?

  They were a 1970's group, they had a hit called "Aquarius".

Re:4D ? 5D? (5, Informative)

ngileadi (966224) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467070)

When they say 4D they actually mean 4 spatial (geometrical) dimensions.
Although time is said to be the 4th dimension is time, it is only an analogy. Time appears in several physical equations in a context similar to the 3 spatial dimensions, but it is always treated differently.
For example, the spacetime "distance" is calculated by:
sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2*t^2)
Notice the negative sign and the additional speed-of-light factor.

If there were 4 spatial dimensions, the distance would be calculated by
sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2 + v^2)
taking v as the displacement in the 4th dimension.

The Rubik's cube programs work by projecting 4 or 5 dimensions onto a 2 dimensional plane (your screen), basically in the same way that perspective is used to project 3D pictures onto 2D planes.

So the 4th and 5th dimension aren't mathematically or conceptually different to the familiar 3 dimensions. The only difference is that we cannot comprehend them.

Re:4D ? 5D? (1)

Eideewt (603267) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467092)

Because the fourth isn't time. Time may be a dimension in the real world (although not the "fourth" since numbering them is arbitrary), but there's no requirement to include it in this simulation. Just like no one looks at a 2d graph and says, "Where's the third dimension?"

In this simulation, the extra two dimensions are spatial. They're just like the regular three, except they're two other directions. Naturally we can't depict them as a four dimensional being would see them, but we can represent them in a way that behaves like they would, which is enough for the purposes of this puzzle.

So bad (0, Redundant)

Speed47 (891393) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466751)

Too bad it requires Windows XP. Even with .NET installed, it's complaining about a missing symbol in kernel32.dll under 2K. :|

Go Roice and Charlie! (1, Redundant)

frohike (32045) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466893)

Both of these guys who wrote this are my co-workers at my day job. They're both really brilliant guys. IIRC Roice has actually solved a 3D cube behind his back before...

Psh~ (3, Funny)

FFOMelchior (979131) | more than 8 years ago | (#15466988)

Why must people always strive to make things more complicated. I say someone should design and implement a 2D Rubik Cube. Personally, I'd find that far more fun.

Solve Command Missing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15467179)

The 4D cube's solve command is missing in the java version. I used to use the linux version, which could show you the steps needed to solve the puzzle.

The 5th Dimension? (1)

idugcoal (965425) | more than 8 years ago | (#15467220)

So I guess it really IS the dawning of the age of aquarius!

Dimensons, Dimsons, Dimensions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15467329)

OK I understand that the 3D cubes are actually 4D (i.e. they exist for a period of time)

but 5D?

they emit antigravity?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?