2 ай бұрын
2 ай бұрын
3 ай бұрын
3 ай бұрын
3 ай бұрын
3 ай бұрын
3 ай бұрын
3 ай бұрын
3 ай бұрын
3 ай бұрын
3 ай бұрын
3 ай бұрын
3 ай бұрын
4 ай бұрын
4 ай бұрын
4 ай бұрын
4 ай бұрын
11 ай бұрын
Пікірлер
@kaymacharia2912 Күн бұрын
Pls gift me a cube
@AlphaOmegaDelta0 7 күн бұрын
Nice
@AlphaOmegaDelta0 7 күн бұрын
Pin this comment please Daniel
@danielbulletcubing 3 күн бұрын
hmm
@AlphaOmegaDelta0 3 күн бұрын
@@danielbulletcubing Please
@grimanium 8 күн бұрын
Not only does something like R L mean there are only 12 possibilities for the next move, its also the same as L R which technically is a completely new combination
@danielbulletcubing 3 күн бұрын
this was addressed in the video, no?
@steffenbendel6031 8 күн бұрын
I only need 2 steps: First take the cube apart and second rebuild it.
@danielbulletcubing 3 күн бұрын
REAL
@penguincute3564 9 күн бұрын
MVP: Most Victorious Player
@CompanionCube 9 күн бұрын
you missed the most important part. how the algorithm worked that found the shortest solutions. there is a video about the involved graph theory stuff on youtube. without that part this video is virtually useless
@danielbulletcubing 9 күн бұрын
cool! if you could can you drop the link here? i wasn’t able to find anything on youtube.
@thecalendarninja 10 күн бұрын
😂 Who would have thought that after so much work… That God’s number is actually just the number of turnable pieces on the cube 😮? Of course, I am assuming that this is absolutely just a coincidence, however, it would be very interesting to see what God’s number is on different cube sizes such as super cubes. I wonder 🤔 if any pattern can be found, considering odd and even numbered cubes, being that all odd numbered cubes have fixed centers in the middle while even ones do not. Such as the 2x2 ice cube, and the Rubik’s Revenge 4x4, and so on. I found that very ironic that the 8 corners and 12 edges add up to exactly 20 turnable pieces 🤔🤷🏻♂️
@thecalendarninja 9 күн бұрын
I am willing to bet all my money on the fact that the 3x3 cube is uniquely special in that it is mostly likely the only cube size that has the same number of turnable pieces equal to it’s God’s number.
@captheobbyist6434 12 күн бұрын
that's easy, to solve the cube, you need the same amount of moves you spent to scramble the cube. just unscramble it the exact order in reverse and you're done! (I still didn't watch the video)
@danielbulletcubing 12 күн бұрын
that’s one of the main ideas of the video LOL: if you use 10483 moves to scramble the cube: it’ll still be solvable in under 20 moves for its most optimal solution
@Giannhs_Kwnstantellos 15 күн бұрын
why "god's number" is the # of moves needed for a 3×3 cube, and not, for instance, for a 2×2 ?
@adiaphoros6842 13 күн бұрын
God's number should really be God's numberS, since every size has a different one. 1x1 is trivially 1 2x2 is 14 quarter turns 3x3 is 20 quarter turns God's numbers for 4x4 and above are still unknown. That still excludes 4D cubes, and other polyhedronic puzzles (like the pentaminx).
@danielbulletcubing 12 күн бұрын
true true, but the term "God's Number" is usually referring to that on the 3x3, whereas you'd have to specify "2x2 God's Number" for the 2x2. similar to how the standalone term "Rubik's Cube" refers to 3x3 and not the 2x2?
@Howiefm28496 16 күн бұрын
Why don’t they call it Rubik’s number? After all God didn’t invented the Cube.
@danielbulletcubing 12 күн бұрын
well- don't really know! just a cool name they came up with I guess?
@tkienjoyer 17 күн бұрын
There's an easier way to prove god's number is greater than 2. Give me a scramble, and if you can't solve it in 2 moves, then god's number must be greater than 2.
@danielbulletcubing 16 күн бұрын
well yeah, but the method i illustrated can be systematically applied to larger numbers by simple calculations (although be cautious of repeats! combinatorics skills go brrr), but i don’t think you could just take a look at a scramble and be like “yeah no that, that can’t be solved in 14 moves” which makes a systematic method more rigorous!
@bobfrediii2131 18 күн бұрын
Great video man
@borisvik9989 22 күн бұрын
I gave a like for popularizing the topic (albeit with the left hand, which in the terminology of the fingers-tricks 3x3 Rubik's cube is denoted as t). I expect the topic to develop over time (t), because the story about the G-d number depends on what is considered the first move of the solution. There are several metrics that determine this. You only told about the G-d's number in one metric of half a turn (HTM). The story about another G-d's number in the metric of quarter a turn (QTM) is no less fascinating, because it was found only 4 years later, in 2014. But there are still unsolved problems. For example, the optimal solution, what is it? It is clearly not in the two above-mentioned metrics of movement. And how to calculate the G-d's number for it? I have never understood why the rules/standards for counting turns follow the "range of motion metric" and not the "efficiency metric". (c) Anthony Snyder.
@cr7leoEDTZ 24 күн бұрын
Very confusing
@danielbulletcubing 24 күн бұрын
hm. do you have any questions?
@Harrysun7 24 күн бұрын
Yeah..❗ I watched your Mini Documentary video... It's really Well-made.. 😊 I also make videos.. I waanna know how you do those..(means, Your whole process of making videos) Anyways, my pb was 7.67 seconds on 3x3.
@danielbulletcubing 24 күн бұрын
for the mini-documentary, i usually research and script like a research project; this particular video took about 12-15 hours in total (not very focused work). after that comes recording, 1 hour; and at last, thumbnail 20 min, and editing about 10-15 hours. sooo it’s a lot of work but it paid off!
@DaulphinKiller 26 күн бұрын
Nicely done! Regarding the last part """scrambling the cube for 10 min better than just 1min is not true because you're just cycling through previous positions""". I disagree! Think of a 1D random walk, sure enough in N steps you can reach a maximum distance of N, but if you pick a left or right step randomly, the distance will only grow as sqrt(N). The analogy here would be a random walk along a circle, and indeed once sqrt(N) becomes of the order of the perimeter P of the circle, then you don't gain additional mean distance w.r.t your starting position, but this only happens for a number of steps proportional to N~P^2. I would expect something similar for the rubik's cube, though the symmetries of the move may alter that quadratic power. It should be easy to run a Monte-Carlo simulation applying random moves to a solved starting setup and plotting the average length of the optimal solution from the resulting cube to see how many random moves are necessary to get close to the average solution length that can be determined from the table you showed (where the distribution is very skewed, so the average should like around 18 I guess). I wouldn't be surprised then to see that it takes quite a bit more than 20 moves to get there, so the 10 min scramble may not be completely overkill afterall :).
@danielbulletcubing 24 күн бұрын
yes!! great explanation. thank you so much for pointing that out!
@SNOWgivemetheid 27 күн бұрын
English is not my third leg but this video was a great
@uthoshantm 27 күн бұрын
I never imagined it took until 2010 to get to this result.
@alexandratsankova5825 27 күн бұрын
The video is rly cool, but i probably have to rewatch it to understand it
@jacks6910 27 күн бұрын
Could another solution be what is the minimum moves required to make a rubix cube seem scrambled to most people? Like they can’t just see which moves you did and reverse them? Edit: because the true solution would be just undoing the moves, so if most people considered a cube to be scrambled after a sequence of say 8 moves, couldn’t the 8 moves to undo that be the answer?
@danielbulletcubing 24 күн бұрын
well, here we’re just trying to mathematically and scientifically calculate the minimum number of moves needed for any possible combination of the cube. but yeah, that would be a subjective take on it
@_wetmath_ 28 күн бұрын
0:02 don't you mean maximum? it's at most 20 moves, not at least.
@danielbulletcubing 28 күн бұрын
well, the way i phrased it, i said “the minimum number of moves needed to solve any scramble”, e.g. 2 moves can’t solve any scramble, 3 moves can’t solve any scramble, it’s only 20 (the lowest) that can solve any scramble. i see where this could be misleading though!
@_wetmath_ 23 күн бұрын
@@danielbulletcubing "2 moves can't solve any scramble" is wrong tho, there's a bunch of scrambles that can be solved in 2 moves. it's minimum 20 moves to solve EVERY scramble but maximum 20 moves to solve ANY scramble.
@LeoMarchyok-od5by 28 күн бұрын
Magnificent - Looking forward to future videos!
@highKO 29 күн бұрын
Thank you for this summary very well explained!
@JesusPlsSaveMe 29 күн бұрын
Just subscribed *Revelation 3:20* Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. HEY THERE 🤗 JESUS IS CALLING YOU TODAY. Turn away from your sins, confess, forsake them and live the victorious life. God bless. Revelation 22:12-14 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
@modolief 29 күн бұрын
How was set theory used in the solution?
@danielbulletcubing 28 күн бұрын
uh, is there a particular point of confusion that you have? set theory is kinda just scattered throughout the entire process
@modolief 27 күн бұрын
@@danielbulletcubing Sure: When I hear "set theory" I'm thinking of the ZFC axioms, transfinite induction, continuum hypothesis, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem - all kinds of really foundational math. So I didn't know if you were referring to that, or whether "set theory" meant breaking the problem space into various sets that are then handled with different methods.
@TheLuckySpades 25 күн бұрын
@@modolief I am not familiar with the papers, but a lot of set theory has overlaps with combinatorics and stuff like graph theory (e.g. I first heard of Ramsey Numbers and similar in a set theory course before they came up in the others)
@alexsere3061 29 күн бұрын
When I did my first research project for my bachelor they hammered in the importance of building on previous results. Its good to try your own approach, but research is a collaborative tasks where you need to communicate and build on each others results. This video illustrates this really well.
@shefalicreations12 Ай бұрын
You are really awesome ❤❤❤ and my pb is 18.999 and from my side video's best part is 0:12
@Necrozene Ай бұрын
I can solve the 3x3x3 easy. The 5x5x5 still sits on my shelf only almost solved.
@divy1211 Ай бұрын
this is an amazing video, good work!
@HonkeyKongLive Ай бұрын
As a total non-cuber that was a REALLY good explanation, made it make sense for me
@danielbulletcubing Ай бұрын
Yay! Love to hear that!! 😄😄
@FoxMeredith-b4y Ай бұрын
Hernandez Michael Anderson Patricia Thompson Thomas
@danielbulletcubing Ай бұрын
what-
@Cuberritesh Ай бұрын
What is ocll
@danielbulletcubing Ай бұрын
Orientation of the corners of the last layer; a subgroup of OLL
@titanchicken3275 Ай бұрын
A grand viewing, sir! Thank you!
@danielbulletcubing Ай бұрын
wonderful to hear!
@enya_yurself Ай бұрын
ITS THE BIG FISH LITTLE FISH ALGS
@tylerdarlington4269 Ай бұрын
The reason its called God's number is because that's the number of moves an omniscient diety would make to solve the cube, not because you'd need to be omniscient to find that solution- i think you were making a joke but the real explanation is worth having :)
@DougCube Ай бұрын
You keep mispronouncing the name "Reid." It should sound like "reed" as in "READing a book."
@danielbulletcubing Ай бұрын
Thanks for correcting. Sorry for that
@pipscava Ай бұрын
Some months ago, I did a presentation on the rubik's cube to my company. Part of it was explaining the process of finding god's number. Really cool to see other people with the same interest! Very nice documentary 😊
@SharafatShad-f5k Ай бұрын
gan 12 megnatic meglev
@WaveFlux Ай бұрын
great video, subbed!
@danielbulletcubing Ай бұрын
thanks 🤙
@Flameing001 Ай бұрын
Congratulations bro 🎉🎉 for 1k subscribers. My pb. is 13.43
@em_zon2643 Ай бұрын
I gave a Like in the beginning of the video! And it a good one!
@Sufaija-dh8fh Ай бұрын
My pb is 6.10
@geoffstrickler Ай бұрын
This also means that any valid starting position can be changed to any valid destination position in 20 or fewer moves. Good luck figuring out those 20 moves. 😎 Great video.
@danielbulletcubing Ай бұрын
Yeah! Thanks :)
@grnarsch5287 Ай бұрын
Why does it? I would guessed so. But whats the prove? Im just not able to understand how the symetrie of a cube works
@locrianphantom3547 Ай бұрын
@@grnarsch5287Since all pieces of the same type(corner, edge, center) are symmetric and identical in all ways(I don’t think I should have to prove that, unless you want me to) there is no difference a “solve” and any other valid position due to substitution property of geometry. It should be about as simple as that.
@uthoshantm 27 күн бұрын
Well, in fact it's equivalent to solving at any position. Just change the map the colors of the target position to the colors of a solved cube, and the colors of a solved cube using the same mapping. Then solve the cube.
@locrianphantom3547 27 күн бұрын
@@uthoshantm Exactly. Substitution property for the win.
@featureboxx Ай бұрын
already the intro is wrong, it is not the minimum but maximum number to solve
@danielbulletcubing Ай бұрын
i do not think so. 2 moves can’t solve any scramble. 3 moves can’t solve any scramble. the minimum number of moves needed to solve any scramble is 20. maximum would just be positive infinity
@featureboxx Ай бұрын
@@danielbulletcubing give me any cube, I'll solve it in max 20 moves; minimum will be 0
@danielbulletcubing Ай бұрын
yes! you would be correct! except that’s not the statement i said. you’re saying “the maximum number of moves for the shortest solution for any scramble” is 20 moves, which is right. however, i said “the minimum number of moves needed to solve any scramble” is still a valid statement. changing “min” to “max” in this case would yield a false statement: “a the maximum number of moves needed to solve any scramble.” in this case i could use 3 billion moves to solve a scramble and that’s still not the maximum.
@aryankr3504 Ай бұрын
My pb single is 9.1
@fantiscious Ай бұрын
2:36 a problem is that you're counting R L and L R as two different algs oops i just watched ahead haha
@danielbulletcubing Ай бұрын
LOL