Can Chris Solve?: Melinda's 2x2x2x2

Today we finally try out Melinda's four-dimensional masterpiece; the super-liminal 2x2x2x2. This puzzle is undoubtedly one of the most difficult I have seen, yet incredibly fun at the same time! Will I be able to figure it out and solve this crazy thing after months of trying? Find out in this episode of CanChrisSolve?!
IMPORTANT LINKS:
My Introduction Video: • The Four Dimensional R...
Melinda's Introduction Video: • Melinda's 2x2x2x2 - In...
Canonical Moves Explained: • Melinda's 2x2x2x2 - Ca...
Melinda's Website (+ contact info): superliminal.co...
FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA:
[Instagram]: / canchrissolve
[Snapchat]: chrisharib0
HAVE A FANTASTIC DAY!

[@MelindaGreen]

It should not be possible to end up with a single end cap twisted 90 degrees, though it is possible to have one twisted 180 degrees. I believe you made a mistake at 12:06 where you performed a U' on both halves separately when it should have been a U' on the first half and a U on the other, but that should have resulted in being off by 180 degrees which would not have left it unsolvable. I think Draw your Style and Perp3tual are correct that the real problem happened when restoring the pop. So the great news is that you seem to have your head around the puzzle and just need to be a little more careful. Congratulations Chris!

[@veggiet2009]

Melinda Green I was hoping you'd comment! 😀 I wasn't sure if the 2x2x2 moves would be correct. So I take it that idea of balancing the clockwise and anti clockwise moves on the two cubes were correct?

[@MelindaGreen]

Yes, and it's all because the axial twist and arbitrary juxtaposition moves are valid. Using those two moves you can make any twists of your target cube by sticking each twisting face to one particular face of the other cube and performing the axial twist that does what you want. That face you always attach to on the other cube moves back and forth randomly but it always ends up no more than a single 180 degree twist from where it started. After you use this trick for a bit you realize that you can just count the clockwise twists "mod 4" (IE the remainder after dividing by 4) for an entire sequence of moves on the target cube and simply perform the inverse of the remainder to any face of the other cube at the end. It's a very handy technique. It was very clever of Chris to realize that Sune results in zero twists mod 4 which means you can use it as much as you like on either cube without worrying about keeping the other cube in sync. Any other sequences with this property are similarly friendly to this puzzle.

[@sleepycat985]

Melinda Green

[@thiccaxe]

Go to your room and play minecraft no one cares about your scientific nonsensical

[@CanChrisSolve]

Thank you everybody who has pointed out the fact that I replaced my popped pieces incorrectly! Because 180 degree flips of single cubes still result in a ‘canonical’ puzzle, this should not have changed much about the solve, however, I will be looking into it as best as I can and I’ll let you know what I find! Thanks for all of your help so far!

[@Autoskip]

I carefully compared before and after and it was definitely that you swapped two adjacent cubies and while you can solve that on a 3D 2x2 it requires an extra 1/4 turn of the top face - thus causing the parity. That can be shown by the fact that if you try to swap two corners on a 3x3 the edges will be unsolvable.

[@blackdeath39muffin45]

U can actually do it with 3 sune

[@คน9-ป4ฒ]

It just​ a staking skewb​

[@AndrewTyberg]

I could hear genuine enthusiasm in your voice when you almost solved it. I can tell you are truly interested in this puzzle, way more so then with other puzzles you try to solve. That strategy of solving the puzzle like two 2x2x2s was extremely interesting! I definitely would not have been able to come up with that.

[@SoemLp]

Wow. You are so clever. I watched the review / unboxing and I have no idea how it works or how I could solve it. I love your videos! Keep up the great work!

[@confederacyofindependentsy44]

your actually didnt put it back together the same way it was before it poped

[@48fanfromky]

Draw your Style I slowed it down to 0.25 speed and watched the pop happen and I believe he put it together how it should be.

[@REALOrunan0459]

48fanfromky It was put in wrong. The corners went from Orange, Blue, Orange, Green to Red, Purple, Orange, Green.

[@48fanfromky]

Perp3tual Okay, now I see it. Thanks for pointing that out. It could have been the reason he got that strange "parity" at the end.

[@tangerian319]

yeah, you basically have an entire layer "corner twist" so, yeah, you solved it. and this is comming from someone who solved the 3x3x3x3, and given group theory, you have an unsolvable puzzle at the moment, gotta love pops

[@pers0na47]

When it popped, you put it back flipped 180

[@Telos7_13]

LOL I saw you pick a cat hair out of the puzzle! More of cat in videos please!

[@CanChrisSolve]

Sosh I can certainly make that happen 😊

[@Telos7_13]

Yay! I don't know how many of us twisty puzzle fans are also proud cat parents or just cat appreciators, but it was definitely a nice surprise the first time I noticed one sneak into a video of yours. One of my cats Nikola looks strikingly similar to her. Also mostly black and fluffy, magnificent poofy tail, and she has just a tiny little white bit on her upper lip like a little mustache or lipstick. I recently discovered how happy cats are (in exchange for treats of course) to be alarm clocks LOL. If I'm not giving her the treats by the right time on my way out the door to work in the morning she always lets me know. Amazingly, she is usually kind enough to let me sleep in on the weekends. Anyways long story short thank you Chris your channel has played an important and entertaining role in getting me interested in twisty puzzles and guiding me in my noob puzzler journey.

[@user-xd1wl2cq5v]

i've been waiting for this! :)

[@MrBoubource]

Wait... When you do a clockwise move on a cube, you should do an anti clockwise on the other, don't you? Edit: if I remeber well, you started clockwise -> anticlockwise on the other, and at some point clockwise -> clockwise on the other cube, wich would explain the "parity" at the end. Just to explain my point, when you look at the top cube, doing a clockwise bottom move results in an anti clockwise up move on the other cube.

[@MelindaGreen]

Good eyes. I already told him. Funny thing is that that mistake should have left him with a 180 degree twist which happens to still a solvable state. The real problem was not fixing the pop properly.

[@MrBoubource]

That's what i thought too for the 180° problem but since i wasn't sure i didn't wrote it ;) this pal puzzle is great btw!

[@MelindaGreen]

Thank you so much, Othun s Gungnir!

[@AndrewTyberg]

Chris, I have an idea of how you could fix the parity! I was thinking you could take the solved 2x2x2 and do this adjacent corner swap: R' F R' B2 R F' R' B2 R2, which is 0 in terms of clockwise/counter clockwise balance. Then you could do L U' R' U L' U2 R U' R' U2 R, which is 1 more clockwise turn than counter clockwise. Doing both of these would re-solve the 2x2x2 that was solved initially, and would leave you with a +1 offset that you could use to fix the parity! I'm not positive that this would work. Maybe you would have an AUF after the second adjacent swap that would prevent this from working. If you can't come up with anything that works to fix the parity and this doesn't work, I think you should contact Melinda to see if this is a possible position or if you assembled the puzzle incorrectly when it popped.

[@CyrusBeaman]

I actually noticed he did assemble it wrong, if you notice the corners, they were from the top to the bottom orange, blue, orange, green, but then when he re assembled it, from the top to bottom it was red, purple, orange, green. This seems to be the obvious mistake that would cause the parity

[@creeksidecubing1009]

Wow, you did incredibly well!

[@AndrewTyberg]

That intro! You had the intro right the first time! Please go back to Haribo41296! If I remember correctly, you changed your channel name from Haribo41296 to Chris Harrison, back to Haribo41296, then to Chris Harrison Vlogs, back to Haribo41296, then to Haribo41296 cubing, then again back to Haribo41296, then to Can Chris Solve?, and I believe you will change it back to Haribo41296. That's what your channel will always be known as, not by these other temporary names. Why do I feel so strongly about this? I don't know for sure. It might be related to the fact that I found your channel about 12 hours after you uploaded your first video after your 2.5 year break from KZbin and that that video was the first cubing video I watched, ever. It was right when I was first learning how to solve a 3x3. Sigh... this whole rant is beside the point. I paused the video 14 seconds in to write this. I should probably continue watching.

[@latrellwilson5182]

that cube looks like a fun challenge.

[@amitherbet389]

I really like your videos and I understand the middle layer moves but try to solve it without separating it.

[@ShaunLovesMaths]

Wow, that was impressive!

[@devon4820]

Best content

[@gazinggoat5869]

This is intense

[@alexnsiw]

Thats hard I love it

[@EPMTUNES]

Why did you go with *that* font for the shirt?

[@seonya4728]

Before you do the soon at 15:11, you can do one u' move to balance out on the other cube. Im pretty sure this'll work

[@CanChrisSolve]

I thought about this, but doing a U' before the algorithm will require that I do a U (clockwise) before or after I perform my final algorithm. Thanks for your suggestion though! I think you on the right track, though! I'm really grateful for all of the suggestions on this puzzle!

[@TeaTimeProductions]

You may have already known this, but it seems to me that all you need to do is find a combination of algs for the 2nd 2x2 stage that lead to a total of 0 "points" at the end of the solve so you don't need to do any correcting moves on the other half of the puzzle. However, it would seem that therein lies the problem. That would require alot of planning ahead. Maybe you can have a note sheet to help you keep track of your moves and total "points" for those moves, or would you consider that cheating?

[@MelindaGreen]

2x2 algorithms that result in 0 parity twists are simply friendly to this puzzle, but you can use any that you like and either keep track as Chris did, or simply perform the axial twists with both halves connected. You just keep the other half in the palm of one hand and using it kind of like a tool while making your algorithmic moves meant for the other half.

[@TeaTimeProductions]

thanks for the reply. it's great to hear from you directly about my suggestion.

[@MelindaGreen]

@@TeaTimeProductions It's an extremely natural and valuable observation. So are you planning to get your own cube and attempt to solve it? I'd definitely love to list your solution in the Hall of Fame.

[@TeaTimeProductions]

@@MelindaGreen sorry this reply took so long. I probably wont be buying one, in the short term at least. I'm in a poor financial state right now so i honestly just can't afford to spend any money on non-essentials. If my situation improves soon i may look into getting one.

[@MelindaGreen]

@@TeaTimeProductions Yes, it's unfortunate that 3D printing is still relatively expensive. Hopefully it will get mass produced.

[@cubingchamp9996]

Who do you always upload videos while I am sleeping

[@okboing]

If I designed that puzzle I would allow a 1-layer independent turn lol

[@shilohhawk2990]

Hey man! I love the channel and the video! I got into cubing about a year ago and I am having trouble memorizing the algorithms for a 3x3, do you have any tips or suggestions for videos to help? Anything would be appreciated, have a good day!

[@ingmarins]

muscle memory? i stopped cubing for a while, forgot half the algorithms, came back, kind of remembered how to do most algorithms without looking them up

[@CanChrisSolve]

Hey Shiloh! Algorithms are tough, and the best way (for me) to remember them is to read, perform, and repeat. Repetition is the best way to get those moves to stick in your muscle memory! Setting up mock-cases which require specific algorithms also helps you to process them!

[@shilohhawk2990]

CanChrisSolve? Thanks for the help! Again I love the channel and all that you do!

[@Telos7_13]

Ah yes I have found that as I learn algorithms I remember them best when I write them down in my own handwriting, practice them constantly, and take the time to wrap my brain around what they are actually doing to the pieces. Also I haven't the patience to just stick with one puzzle, and so I've taken to starting out with a handful of easier puzzles that only require 2 or 3 algorithms to solve. It's also easier to do algorithms backwards and forwards and understand what they're doing with the pieces. I really enjoy Pyraminx, Skewb, Gear Cube/Ball, and Gear Shift. Next I started tackling the 2x2x2, and the Pyramorphix, which is a shape modification of the 2x2x2. I have several more algorithms to learn, but I can always solve it with the couple I know, and this gives me just enough confidence and satisfaction to continue learning.

[@RandomPerson-qn3si]

Oof

[@Relyan]

This s 4D speed cubing in the 4D world 🤣🤣🤣

[@alanaz5151]

dude try solving the yottaminx

[@alanaz5151]

Ashington06 oh my bad about the spelling, but that is true

[@creeksidecubing1009]

Noice shirt there...

[@nielsengrau1587]

Notification squad

[@byberserk2880]

anyone realized ist acually an 2x2x4 and not a 2x2x2x2 cause if it were it would be fr*king 4 dimensional … 😂

[@ilikepezles2436]

Noice

[@philipcromwell687]

Around 13:20, I think that you counted the moves wrong. You ended up with two, when it should have been one. That would explain the "parity" at the end.

[@CanChrisSolve]

Hi Philip, and thanks for your comment! I've counted up my moves for the algorithm at 13:20 a few times, and find that I always end up with a 180 degree rotation. Let me take you through it: L (clockwise) = 1, D' (anti-clockwise) = 0, L (clockwise) = 1, F2 (clockwise - though it works both ways) = 3 (or -1 when anti-clockwise), L' (anti-clockwise) = 2 (or -2), D (clockwise) = 3 (or -1), L' (anti-clockwise) = 2 (or -2). Whichever way you turn the F2, you will always end up with a 180 degree rotation - unless, of course, I am missing something entirely. Does this make sense? I'd be happy to hear more about what you think!

[@philipcromwell687]

CanChrisSolve? Ahh, you are right. I missed the 2, and just counted it as a +1. That is a surprisingly interesting puzzle for just a bunch of cubes stuck to each other.

[@philipcromwell687]

CanChrisSolve? One of my colleagues was talking to me today about the 4D cube in this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/r5mzeWRpa56CjcU

[@Sree_Vatsa_Ravuri]

I thought this was the most dumbest and useless puzzle but the solve was quite enjoyable..... kudos to you bro🏆

[@hypercubemaster2729]

That's only because you do not understand what it really is topologically; it has the same topology as a rubik's 2x2x2 cube that has a dimension one higher than we exist in or can comprehend.

[@tinytom8999]

400th like

[@deceboyvlogs7688]

Hi

[@markmitchell4030]

I hate the new sound when you like a comment

[@CanChrisSolve]

Mark Mitchell I hate feeling disappointed when people don’t fall for my tricks... Nice try though 😉

[@Vainda]

the dislike sound is is even worse

[@zbregovpuding]

Thats a pornhub comment :)

[@markmitchell4030]

Blyatnator I got it from dank doodle memes comments

[@instralikesoranges1659]

is it on phones?

[@ronster1703]

4th

[@alfred5543]

firrrssst xD

[@alfred5543]

Mystic Cuber thank youu! :)

[@phantomhesh8095]

It is three dimensional, not four, it is a two by two by four

[@joseraul6254]

Phantom Hesh ACTUALLY!!!! You cannot separate the 2x2x4 and flip the 2 2x2x2's by doing z and on one cube and z' on the other and put it back together... This cube CAN. Its a little bit tricky but i assure you that a 2x2x2x2 is NOT the same thing as a 2x2x4

[@zlac]

two by two by four would have eight 3-color pieces and eight two-color pieces this cube has a 4-color piece in "every corner", and there are 16 of them; every piece is a 3d-projection of a "4d corner"

[@phantomhesh8095]

The fourth dimension is time, so it has a projection of a locked place in time?

[@joseraul6254]

The fourth dimension of this cube is not necessarily time. This cube uses 4 dimensions it uses the 1st the 2nd and a 3rd and another one which is not necessarily the 4th.

[@zlac]

Phantom Hesh tl;dr: It's 4 spatial dimensions, that's 3 "normal" dimensions (UD/LR/FB). Every one of those dimensions are perpendicular with all others. Then there's one more dimension and it's perpendicular with all of them... the long version: There are 8 proper cubes in a tesseract. One in the middle, then one for each three dimensions; up, down, left, right, front, back. Then there's the eight cube, that's the tricky one... it's above the UP cube and under the DOWN cube, it's also left of the LEFT cube and right of the RIGHT cube and it's in front of the FRONT cube and behind the BACK cube, all at the same time...:D The funny thing is, the "UP" cube is not only above the middle cube, the right side of the UP cube is also above the right cube, the left side of the UP cube is above the left cube and so on, they are pretty much all connected except for the "opposite cubes". Search Salvador Dali - Corpus Hypercubus and you'll see 4D tesseract "opened up" in 3D (just like you can open a 3D cube and draw it on a 2D surface). This cube is basically 3D model of a 3D projection of a 4D cube and it only works because of MAGNETS... It also works because it's 2x2x2x2 and it ONLY has 16 corners which are 4-color pieces; 3x3x3x3 would have to have extra thirty two edges (3-color pieces) AND twenty four 2-color pieces (faces). That's 72 pieces in total. You would also have to be able to see "inside the cube" to solve it so we don't know if we can produce a working 3D model of projection of that one. If we could it would be awesome, but we're waiting for some creative genius to make a working solution!

[@TheREALSaver]

thats a 2x2x4

[@MelindaGreen]

It looks that way on the outside but I assure you it's much more than that.

[@TheREALSaver]

oh, okay :D