Cracking the 4D Rubik's Cube with simple 3D tricks

[@purpleboye_]

"Thinking inside the box" Now that is ironically thinking outside the box.

[@cee_yarr]

Thinking outside the hypercube?

[@antoniolewis1016]

Love the Lewa mask!

[@purpleboye_]

Me too.

[@peter_castle]

he made that joke on purpose!

[@rich1051414]

Thinking inside the hypercube is indistinguishable from thinking outside the box.

[@whotyjones]

Just solved the 4D cube for the first time thanks to your breakdown video! Thanks! It's been a dream of mine since I first learned about it nearly 10 years ago and never thought I'd ever solve one! Great video!

[@Mathologer]

That's great, congratulations :)

[@MatheusHCTorres]

This channel is great I dont know how it doesn't have the same recognition as NumberPhile, Sixty Simbols...

[@kurtilein3]

Brady Haran produces these two channels, and also periodic videos, computerphile, objectivity and a few more, and the people who get hooked on one of these gradually find out about all the others. And periodic videos is just gigantic, so Brady has the luxury of being able to easily move around tens of thousands of subscriptions between his channels. Its an empire, kinda like the green brothers empire with vlogbrothers, scishow, crashcourse. Its difficult for a single person with a single channel to compete with such an empire.

[@MatheusHCTorres]

kurtilein3 I understand

[@kurtilein3]

Collaboration with other channels is crucially important, the really big channels meet at youtube-sponsored events and plan collaborations and discuss strategies behind closed doors. It works mostly between channels of comparable size, the big ones do not like to collaborate with the small ones, so you mostly see channels of comparable size cooperate to exchange subscribers. There are some clearly defined strategies that you can follow to increase your viewership, and also to eventually do it professionally or semi-professionally. the big ones release videos on a scedule like clockwork, make thousands of dollars per video, pay their bills with it, and pipe back some of the money into production quality, some have employees, the biggest ones turn into little companies.

[@bonbonpony]

I wonder when they will get the idea to trademark the term "Phile" ;J You know, like the WhineBros tried to trademark the term "React" ;J (and failed miserably)...

[@treyshaffer]

Their videos are usually shorter and appeal to a wider audience. I love Mathologer personally :)

[@RomGomLP]

4D creatures be like: What the fuck! I've been stuck on this thing for ages, but this lame 3d human solved it using only the shadow!! Hes a Magician!!

[@Mathologer]

:)

[@jirehchoo2151]

Lol

[@SC-zq6cu]

Not just a shadow. The edge of a shadow.

[@fgvcosmic6752]

*mathemagician

[@fowlae4414]

not to mention, in a 4 dimensional world anything "3D" would be a shadow

[@wolvenmoonstone8138]

a 2D image of a 3D projection of a 4D cube... as if a a 3 by 3 wasn't enough

[@Mathologer]

It can get even worse you know. There are computer simulations of 5- and higher-dimensional Rubk's cubes :)

[@wolvenmoonstone8138]

the mind bending possibilities truly are infinite

[@Luigicat11]

+Mathologer The real question is how to LOOK at those without getting a headache, much less solve them.

[@aaronlaughlin2389]

Mathologer all of the ways you can rotate those cubes with each new dimension disturbs me

[@petersantos6395]

Written in a 1d line of code

[@Blargmaster-pf4bf]

so this cube has 3d stickers?

[@Mathologer]

Yes :)

[@scerpian6478]

+Mathologer Mind Blown

[@lookm4n]

Well that explains everything

[@Debg91]

Unless it's stickerless 😉

[@Blue-hs9tv]

The real question is where is the core

[@heyitsalex99]

I'd love to see a 2x2x2x2 rubix cube

[@nullifier_]

You can download the program and check out :)

[@Untoldanimations]

Maybe try to spell "Rubik's" right before you get too ahead of yourself :p

[@xxnotmuchxx]

It looks like 7 2x2x2 and the 8th one is hidden.

[@kostyapesterew1068]

and i want 1x1x1x1 Rubik's cube

[@sonyboat4337]

Rubik's*

[@Nekotamer]

when is the 4d rubiks cube coming for VR ?

[@MelindaGreen]

Do you think you would use it?

[@JLConawayII]

To hell with VR, when is it coming to store shelves? ^^

[@MelindaGreen]

JLConawayII Working on it.

[@baymax1550]

hows the work going? :)

[@waterpicker]

Funny you should ask that. I plan on doing just that for my graduate project.

[@josephnour6422]

With the Magic Cube 4D app sitting in a dark, forgotten directory for years, this video gave me the tools to solve it in a single day. Thank you. Your other videos are also fantastic, you explain things very well and have great charisma. Keep it up!

[@Mathologer]

That's great, congratulations! Make sure to send in your log file to get yourself into the Hall of Fame :)

[@martiddy]

So this is a Rubik's Teseract?, Damn!

[@Nylspider]

Vapor Wave - sama Correct!

[@aarongrooves]

I would kinda like to try, but I've already lost too many hours of my life playing with the 3x3x3, 4x4x4, and 5x5x5. Hmm...maybe in retirement. It'll be good for my brain XD

[@Mathologer]

Yes, I can confirm ... my brain feels so much better now :)

[@jrbros2371]

You the composer of animation vs animator? I found you

[@3Max]

I solved the 3^4 and 3^5 cubes back in 2007, and had a lot of fun with them, crazy to see that I'm still on the hall of fame (and insanity) after all these years... Thanks for sharing the video, fun stuff to revisit! :)

[@jonathannifenecker7016]

This video made me realized how this puzzle is not that far from a regular cube. I then gave it a go, and managed to solved it (after a few days)! I didn't use your method but I definitively thank you for allowing myself to consider that I can do it !

[@MegaKillMeister]

I solved the cube the other day, thanks for this simple to understand explanation of how the cube works and how to solve it! It may look really intimidating at first but once you understand these algorithms and what they do it's really not that hard and I encourage everyone to try it!

[@Maxledingue]

When I first watched the video about solving the standard 3x3 rubik's cube a few years back, I was blown away by the simplicity of the solution. I stumbled upon this 4D cube introduction a few days ago and decided to give it a try. It truly is about as easy as Mathologer makes it out to be. The part about seeing a 7-cell section of the hypercube as just any other 3D rubik's cube feels quite ingenious. I didn't give the 4D cube a try before watching this video though, so it might be more evident than it seems. Anyhow, this puzzle was a pretty fun way to spend a few hours, and now I get to enjoy the everlasting glory of having my name on the hall of fame.

[@Mathologer]

Now it's time to check out the video on the Klein bottle Rubik's cube ...

[@gabrielschneider7217]

"If you know anything about cubes..." Well yes, I think I do. I might actually understand this vid- "You will recognize these 3 algorithms" Hmm. Back to the cubing board it seems

[@Aldrasio]

In the year since you posted this video, that hall of fame has grown by over 100. As of this comment, there are 337 entries on it, with the most recent from 11 days ago. I bet you had a lot to do with more people working it out. I've known about Magic Cube 4D for 10 years now, and even though I'm an avid cuber, it always seemed like too much. I'm gonna give it a go again, because after watching this video and the followup I'm pretty confident I can do it.

[@MelindaGreen]

This video definitely gave a nice boost to the 4D cubing community.

[@TopRedditStoryPage]

One thing about this is that it's not a just a 3x3x3, it's 4D so it's 3x3x3x3

[@craftingmac6162]

TrafficJumper - Edits you just broke my mind

[@swxqt6826]

TrafficJumper - Edits Yop u add another X each time u add another dimenshon so 3D is 3x3x3 and then 4D is 3x3x3x3 and 5D is 3x3x3x3x3

[@SidneyPatrickson]

So to imagine a 4d rubiks cube you would need 3 normal cubes with 18 colors and change entire sides between all 3 cubes so you have 12 main ways to twist the cube with 60 parts who can change position(78 when you change the middle with a 4d rotation) and only one right position. But that would be way harder to solve than the cube in the video.

[@brenttrenholme7609]

Actualy it is 3×3×6×8

[@essennagerry]

A Wait, what?

[@orik737]

Just take the stickers off and put them back on in the right spot

[@cl0udz600]

Orik you know some cubes don't have stickers they have tiles also are joking or are you serious

[@cl0udz600]

And yes I know you posted that 9 months ago

[@poof_6815]

overused joke

[@mydogbrian4814]

- My 12 year old nice stumped me years ago by going into the kitchen with my rubik's cube & came back out 10 min. later with the puzzle solved. Stunning me and earning her self $10 on the spot. - Years later she confessed to me that she just moved the stickers. The gorgeous little stinker had hustled me.

[@ccanaves]

My head hurts :D

[@mctoshaka]

i was about to say the same.

[@skroot7975]

Which means you have a brain! Congrats! :P

[@mctoshaka]

you wot mate?

[@chinkeehaw9527]

Y u put smiley face

[@KarmaSkally]

Guess what? I'm watching this without my glasses, at midnight, and I'm also tired so my head is going to hurt so bad. Yay.

[@kajoel]

Hi Mathologer, a great introduction to the 4D-cube! A slight mistake at 15:06 though, for the last edge hypercubie only three of the six orientations are possible. I don't know if you are aware of this or not so here is an explanation of why that is the case: Consider a simple face twist of the cube. This results in three 4-cycles of edge hypercubies, which is an odd permutation (note that, as you stated in the video, all permutations can be composed by such twists). It also results in an odd permutation of the edge stickers/cubes and we can thus conclude that the parity of the permutation that positions all of the edge hypercubies correctly (without regard to orientation) and the parity of the permutation that positions the edge stickers/cubies correctly always are the same. Thus, when all the edge hypercubies are in their correct places and every but one is correctly oriented, it can only be in three of the six orientations (since the other three orientations would require an odd permutation of the edge stickers which, by the previous reasoning, isn't possible without changing the positions of the cubies).

[@Mathologer]

Yes, I know :)

[@kajoel]

+Mathologer ah, I figured you might know, congrats to your solve and a great video.

[@Hobbychemiefreak]

Great video! I never heard of higher-dimensional puzzles before, and as I saw this I new I had to give it a go!

[@soulsilversnorlax1336]

Mathologer: What is this?Me: A 2D projection of a 3D cube.Mathologer: Obviously it's a cube, right? No, it's actually a 2D image of a 3D object.Me: I just said that! Were you not listening???

[@Mathologer]

:)

[@darkhoodchief]

All right point dexter

[@henrikvonahn6061]

With the help of your video I managed to solve the cube and made it to the 4D HOF. Thank you for maintaining a very good KZbin channel! I find your videos inspiring.

[@bobthegiraffemonkey]

Thanks for the blindfold version! I tried 2^4 blind a few years ago and had to manually change the colour settings file, this is much easier. Been taking a break from blindsolving mostly since the end of 2014 pretty much, but I'll give it a go once I get back into it. Might even try 3^4 eventually. Will skim through this tutorial, curious to see your take on a beginner method.

[@sandro7]

I used this and his other video on this topic to solve the 4D cube - it helped a ton!! I had tried it before but had given up...but with this I managed to solve it!!!! Thank You Mathologer!

[@Rubrickety]

I was going to jokingly comment that I was waiting for the 120-cell - and then I watched the end of the video. Of course it's been done, how silly of me.

[@nout_simoens]

Just solved the 3x3x3x3. Saw your video’s all these years ago, thinking this was amazing. Couple of months ago solved the 3x3x3 blindfolded and wantend a new challenge. With the help of your and a couple of other video’s I succeeded. Thanks for this and all the other facinating video’s on your channel.

[@Mathologer]

That's great :)

[@Shifticek]

to prepare for M theory you must solve 12D rubics cube :)

[@shahnawazazam]

Oh no...

[@LeonaDarkwind]

I'm very fond of the Rubik's Cube, the exercise equipment of my morning "brain-ups". This is perhaps more than I'm willing to tackle, but I'm positively awestruck to see it reduced from intimidating to formulaic in the same way The Cube was. Bravo!

[@Mathologer]

Great, glad this worked for you :)

[@jesusthroughmary]

22 more people have solved the 3^4 since this video was posted.

[@JJPMaster]

81?

[@-minushyphen1two379]

That doesn’t mean they actually DID solve with this video

[@gamestabled]

After being inspired by this video, I was able to download the program and finish my first solve in just a few days. Now I'm on the hall of fame as well, thank you for giving the exposure to this program!

[@Mathologer]

That's great. And don't forget you also now have the Mathologer seal of approval :)

[@MelindaGreen]

FYI, Matthew Sheerin just became the second person to solve the 2x2x2x2 blindfolded, and the first person to do it without using macros. Here is his video proof using this special build of MC4D: kzbin.info/www/bejne/i5OvgauriKmFoZo. The first blindfold 3x3x3x3 record remains up for grabs.

[@IncuManiac696]

Hi, I thankfully appreciate you for sharing your knowledge on how to solve this puzzle, I conquered it, now I'm in the hall of fame at #339. I totally used your method and had to come up with 2 algorithms at the very end to solve the puzzle. I encounter this puzzle around 2 or 3 years ago, but it was totally insane when I saw the movements of the puzzle itself that I was too afraid to tackle it. Lately I've been watching youtube videos about Math and came across this video who opened a world for me to not be afraid or intimidated by the 4D cube. Thank you very much.

[@Mathologer]

Glad this worked for you :)

[@Lugmillord]

This is a mess. I don't want to touch this. 3x3x3 is just too much.

[@iwbmo]

Eli but if you get it scrambled, it's impossible to solve!!!!! :OOOOO

[@Rubrickety]

It's so strange to watch an entire Mathologer video without that one painting of Euler appearing even once.

[@jacksainthill8974]

_Thinking inside the box_ Yay, great quip!

[@dead_cobra]

Jack Sainthill how do we type in Italics?

[@paulstelian97]

_test_ (underscore) *test* (asterisk) **test** (double asterisk)

[@yosefmacgruber1920]

@@dead_cobra Can Italics be stated as Italic? Does it have to be in the plural form?

[@yosefmacgruber1920]

@@paulstelian97 You can also surround your marked text with a dash character (-) for Strikethrough. -test- (dash) Are there any others that I do not know about?

[@dead_cobra]

@@yosefmacgruber1920 No it doesn't necessarily have to be When it's just Italic, you're referring to a single alphabet i guess

[@TheMustacheMondo]

291st 4d cube solver here, I'd like to thank you for your guidance on making macros and performing slicing moves!

[@ScottEltringhamMusic]

Really cool and trippy

[@Mathologer]

If you think this video is trippy wait until you get lost inside this puzzle :)

[@moreportalschannel3479]

I (310th place) solve it in another way: I make a 3D cross in the middle, then I make a cross on the 2 opposite sides of the center cell(and I don't think about other sides of those cubies), after that I place all cubies of that color in the center (it looks like one colored cell in the center and other sides of this cell is scrambled). Next, I turn the tesseract so the one-colored cell is hidden and solve the outside Rubic's cube(and if I'm in trouble, I'll rotate one cell what I can use for turning inside cubies). To solve next layer I create a "ring" of 2-colored pieces and 2 random opposite cubies on 2 other cells. To put other pieces in place I use the same way I solved one cell. After that I solve the last layer same way as you(I haven't watched second video yet)

[@6099x]

The Moment i heard you Day "Exciting news, everyone!" I immediatly thought of the Professor :')

[@cyrylo23]

Thanks for this video. I've solved 4D Magic Cube using similar method and now I'm 275th solver in the hall of fame.

[@gabrieletrovato3939]

Very interesting video, but... where is the eight cube (face) of the 4d cube?

[@Mathologer]

Maybe have another look at the beginning part of the video where I show how the normal Rubik's cube is rendered in a flat picture. There you also only see five of its faces. The situation is analogous with the 4d Rubik's cube in that in the 3d rendering you see all but one of the cells :)

[@gabrieletrovato3939]

Mathologer Thank you for answering :). Yes, I've understood the first part of the video, but what I mean is another thing. Let us suppose that the cube and the 4Dcube are transparent. In a transparent cube with 6 faces we can only see 5 of them, because the sixth face is in front of us. So, what if we imagine a transparent 4Dcube in which we can only see 7 cubes? If we do the same reasoning, the eighth cube would be in front of us, but where? Is it only a normal cube surmounted by six cubes in each face? (I've picked up this image on Google, unluckily it's the best I found, I don't know if this gets the idea across: pbs.twimg.com/media/CbavmT4WwAI6DIK.jpg)

[@MelindaGreen]

Faces whose 3D projections would be inside-out are simply not drawn. They are indeed closest in 4D but drawing them would intersect all the others. It's like taking the lid off a box so you can see into it.

[@gabrieletrovato3939]

Melinda Green I didn't understand very well. Maybe you mean the eight cube is around the seven cubes, but we can't see it?

[@MelindaGreen]

Yes. In the default projection, the eighth face does indeed surround the others. Notice that every 2D face (3x3) is adjacent to another, but the six outermost (largest) of those faces appear to not have adjacent neighbors. They are all adjacent to the eighth face which is turned completely inside-out. Perform a 90 degree rotation of any of the non-central 3x3x3 faces to the center (via ctrl+click) and you will see how it is connected.

[@yf-n7710]

Thanks, Mathologer! This video helped me solve the 4d rubik's cube. I ended up using some methods from blindsolving near the end of the solve as well.

[@RedsBoneStuff]

14:15 You forgot to mark one of the blue ones :P

[@kinomora-gaming]

This video actually was the only thing on the entire internet that helped me visualize a 4D hypercube.

[@user-tl4bg3ci3g]

it just hurts that we just cant visualise it like that

[@watchf]

Yeah it’s an itch I have

[@djairmaynart5644]

I've managed to solve the 3^4 and the 4^4, I'm going to try the 5^4 next. This video really helped me to understand the puzzle. Thanks!

[@spartanwar1185]

oh god i got the 4D cube and my head it hurts and it's 4 am i swore it was 12 pm not too long ago holy fuck this thing is mind breaking

[@michaelwpannekoek]

Thanks for your video, which introduced me to the 4D Rubik's cube, and helped me in becoming one of the first 500 recorded solvers.

[@Mathologer]

That's great :)

[@jeremyshahan6016]

I solved it before it was cool. I was disappointed that he didn't show the whole list, my name was so close to being shown in the video.

[@SteveFrenchWoodNStuff]

Incredibly brilliant video. Your explanation is about as comprehensible as it could possibly be. Amazing! And congratulations on solving the 4D cube; that's quite an impressive feat.

[@adriansarbu2001]

So this 4D rubik's cube is 3x3x3x3 ?

[@Mathologer]

Yes:)

[@reinholdkemper3411]

a few weeks ago I had this graphic idea about geometric patterns of polygons ... A triangle....surrounded by a square...then a pentagon...then a hexagon...etc just like that one on his T-shirt....sharing the common center.... I've done it with a 2D CAD application. This guy is great.

[@hydno]

Does it corner-cut?

[@hypercubemaster2729]

Mathologer you should try Melinda's 2x2x2x2 puzzle; with that you can actually manipulate and solve a 3d version of the 2^4 hypercube!!!

[@Mathologer]

I've got two of this particular type of twisty puzzle :)

[@hypercubemaster2729]

@@Mathologer Nice! I have it, too! I figured out an algorithm for rotating the 4 "long" hyperfaces in all 3 dimensional axes. Have you tried to solve it without using the gyro rotation? It's ridiculously hard, but solvable with that algorithm!

[@rphakira]

4D cube is a misnomer. In 1D we have a line, in 2D we have a square, in 3D we have a cube, so what is it in 4D? Quadic?

[@jkrsun9218]

rphakira tesseract.

[@tubester358]

It's a hypercube. The tesseract I believe is the 3D representation (shadow) of a 4D hypercube.

[@-timaeus-9781]

I thought a tessaract was a generic term for any 4d version of a 3d shape

[@yosefmacgruber1920]

@@tubester358 Hypercube, eh? Therefore the 5D-cube does not exist, because we ran out of hyper-adjectives to modify the word cube.

[@sam111880]

I think your videos are rather different then most ways people think about stuff. I like your explanations they seem original / new ideas. Your on parallel with numberphile website. That solving the cubic using turtle lasers was so freak cool

[@bibasik7]

You have to think outside the hyperbox.

[@Mathologer]

No, no, think inside it :)

[@Bloodman42]

7:03 In fact you need just 2 algorithms to solve the Rubik's cube. Method is called Old Pochman, it's also used for blindsolving. You use setup moves + "T Permutation" to solve all edges and setup moves + "A bit modified Y permutation" to solve all the corners.

[@Mathologer]

Actually you only need 1 algorithm to solve the Rubik's cube, it's called a "quarter turn" :)

[@Bloodman42]

Well I have never heard of that algorithm. Could you perhaps provide a notation of the algorithm? Also, I don't think that that we mean the same "algorithm" word meaning. In cubing term it means a set of moves that solve part of the puzzle without breaking the part of the puzzle that has been solved before. I belive that in maths / informatics it's meaning is simply the whole process of solving the cube, if I'm not mistaken.

[@MelindaGreen]

He's joking. Technically, an algorithm is any finite sequence of instructions that will produce a desired result.

[@Someone-cr8cj]

how many permutations does it have?? o-o

[@Mathologer]

1.75677 * 10^120 as compared to 4.3252 * 10^19 for the normal 3x3x3 :)

[@jacobpurcell7050]

Today I solved the 3^4. Thanks so much for the tutorial video

[@Mathologer]

That's great :)

[@IoEstasCedonta]

I wonder if you could make a physical puzzle mathematically equivalent to this... it wouldn't be anything like a cube, I expect...

[@MelindaGreen]

It is definitely possible for a 2^4 at least, but finding a satisfying mechanism still eludes me. So... difficult but not impossible.

[@karlboud88]

It can be done in VR, would be pretty sweet actually

[@APaleDot]

4D mazes are the shit!

[@MelindaGreen]

APaleDot Mazes? I can't visualize 4D mazes.

[@svampebob007]

+Melinda Green www.urticator.net/maze/

[@DrPity0]

Thank you for these videos and also for the video about the commutators! As a speedcuber it also gave me a better understanding of commutators, and it helped me to solve the 3^4 cube and join the Hall of Fame. :)

[@oldcowbb]

my brain..

[@bensanby830]

Loved the video, have recently solved the 4D cube and doubt i could have managed it without your videos, thank you very much keep up the good work :)

[@Mathologer]

That's great! Even just one comment like this means that it was worth making the video :)

[@PaulHuininken]

My 12 yo daughter wanted me to explain the square root of 2 Because I did not want to say "2 times 2 is 4, so the square root of 4 times itself is 4". ... she wouldn't understand. So I took some playdough and made a square of it. Than I cut it in two and asked her to mold the "brick" to a square again. Same height as the other half. Half the dough being 1 by 2 times height and the other one the square root of 2 bij the square root of 2 . She understands it now, because of an other gay explaining it better. But I was wondering an pondering: ==> when thinking of our brain as being "3D-born" (Sinister = bad = left, Dexterity = clever = right, Left wing, human Rights etc) could the confusion of our educated brains when confronted with 4D be the same mechanism our children experience when we square the root out of a surface into the numbers that have nothing "3D". With 2 pre-school daughters comng into the math-zone: am I killing Cantor when I tell the youngsters that a surface is an ultra thing object. And that a line is a utra slim surface. And that a point the a shortest, flattest, slimmist 3D thing is you can imagen?

[@MaFd0n]

16:10 the gniffle when after he said "try to solve it with a blindfold" ... priceless.

[@Adam-zt4cn]

Am I the only one here who can actualy think in 4 dimensions? All you need to know, is that smaller things may be the same size as bigger, but are just further away in W-axis, and take less of your field of vision.

[@MelindaGreen]

Nobody can truly think in 4D the same way we do in 3. The Mathologer titled the video exactly right by calling it "3D tricks". I put your observation of the perspective projection in that category. You can get really, really good at understanding and manipulating the 3D projection, and even knowing what it all means, but when it comes to thinking in 4D, you can give up. For example, the 3D "faces" of this puzzle form the boundaries of a cubic volume of 4-space, but where is that cube? It must be there and it would be obvious to a being that evolved in a 4D world, but we don't really see or imagine it anywhere. All we see is the 3D "surface" of that cube.

[@legobrickology9167]

But, that's not really true 4D is it? I am sorry to say, no you can not think in 4 dimensions, and I suggest you do not go around telling people you can, it sounds crazy.

[@7781kathy]

...unless the Universe that Adam belongs to is ridiculously tiny enough to allow existence of a 4th spatial dimension. Which also sounds crazy.

[@calebwright9539]

Dávaj pozor na učiteľku I can think in 4 dimensions but I can't see in 4

[@dead_cobra]

the fourth dimension is time

[@Sephiroth9310]

I recently found out about your channel, and I enjoyed every single of the videos I watched. You are brilliant and you seem like a genuinely nice person. Keep it up.

[@RamRevivo]

This whole 4d thing looks like bullshit to me right now..

[@Mathologer]

Is this your usual response to everything you do not understand? :)

[@RamRevivo]

No mate..just for made up stuff.. surely it makes sense, but i never saw any documentation on this nor i never searched.

[@Mathologer]

Maybe have a play with it. If you are into twisty puzzles this is a really challenging one. Free download here: superliminal.com/cube/cube.htm :)

[@RamRevivo]

Mathologer thanks mate ;)

[@someone-cs3lk]

You can solve it, mate. Try solving the Rubik's Cube first then read the Ultimate Guide for the 3x3x3x3 then try and solve the 2-color pieces for the 3^4. There are only 24 of them and you only need like 3 algorithms. Little by little you can make progress.

[@mrabomination]

You know, I tried one of these once. I gave up immediately. However this video has given me hope. Maybe once my exams are over I'll give it another go. Well done, you've convinced me.

[@xxnotmuchxx]

You can ask me if you have any question or ask here: groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/4D_Cubing/conversations/messages

[@sk8rdman]

Very logical and easy to understand explanation. You make it seem simple. I expect that list to get much longer pretty soon. Perhaps I'll get my name on there!

[@Mathologer]

Go for it :)

[@gimpdoctor8362]

this is a very brute force method for solving it. It's like the method I use for blind solving the 3x3x3. however have you got any tips for solving it on a bit more of an intuitive level? I'm going for more of a Friedrich-style method so far, by solving in the equivalent way of solving the 3x3x3 by taking the first face, then inserting edges, then doing OLL then PLL. I haven't managed to get passed completing one side because I keep screwing up while experimenting, but I have a method for making OLL and PLL algorithms. I'm gonna go watch your other video on this topic now, but do you think you'll start solving the 3x3x3x3 without just using brute force?

[@Mathologer]

You can definitely translate all your 3D Rubik's cube algorithms into 4D Rubik's cube algorithms. Make sure to check out the second video. Magic Cube 4D is an absolutely amazing program. I've never really liked simulators before I touched this one. But the ability to make and nest algorithms together with this setup moves feature that I talk about in the end of the second video make this one so much fun to use. Here is a discussion of more advanced solving methods. wiki.superliminal.com/wiki/3%5E4 I'll probably try to solve a few other 4d puzzles before going for a bit more speed and efficiency :)

[@MelindaGreen]

Good luck solving the 4D cube. I hope you will then go on to be the first person to blind-solve it. That's never been done so the first person to do it will have a very special record that can never be broken.

[@yosefmacgruber1920]

@@MelindaGreen How can it possibly be blind-solved? One would need a perfect photographic memory, a good understanding of 4D, or else a big notepad with lots of cheating drawings on it. Maybe they need some "peek" options to go along with that blind-solving thing? And what if you solve it a turn sooner than you expected? Will confetti suddenly drop from the ceiling? Will colored stage lights flash all over the place? Will the music band start playing? Or will it just give you a "ho-hum, congratulations, you won" message? I have several Rubik's cube around somewhere, even a 4x4x4. Without looking in the book, I have only been able to completely solve, 3 adjacent sides. I should add to my small puzzle collection. But I think that computer programming is more my thing, also mathematics.

[@chetanvashisht2126]

A big thanks to you Sir, I've managed to solve the 4D cube and it feels amazing.

[@Mathologer]

That's great, congratulation :) Make sure to get your name into the hall of fame.

[@gfgf2123]

Mathologer i dont understand how to mode the slice and to put the cube that i want in the center when i do shift+Rightclic that break the cube and i dont know how to repare it

[@Mathologer]

Did you watch the supporting video on Mathologer 2 ? :)

[@MelindaGreen]

* Ctrl+click rotates face to center. * Numbers+click twists the numbered slices. * Shift+click is the same as regular click, but shift+drag does continuous 4D rotations. Use ctrl+click on center to straighten things back up afterwards. More info in the FAQ: superliminal.com/cube/faq.html

[@chetanvashisht2126]

These features aren't there for the mobile version right?

[@GyanPratapSingh]

you should do a video explaining hyperdeterminants and hypermatricies!

[@Mathologer]

One of these days :)

[@nastrimarcello]

Hey I solved the puzzle!! I'm 252 on the hall of fame now. You all have to try it out!! and thank you Bukard for the video!

[@Mathologer]

Congratulations!

[@mydogbrian4814]

- Its reassuring to know that there are human minds that not only grasp & comprehend the concept of a 4-D rubrics cube but can manipulate it to a satisfactury completion.

[@itareu95]

I love this, and I love this channel so much

[@wPelniSwiadomy]

Właśnie ściągnąłem program z tą kostką. Dawno przy żadnej kostce nie miałem takiego mętliku w tym jak sie porusza. Na szczęście obejrzenie tego filmu, pozwoliło mi trochę ją zrozumieć. Ale i tak, sporo zabawy przedemną :) Dzięki za święty materiał.

[@allankretzmann2755]

Just solved it! Thanks for the amazing video. Keep up the good work!

[@Mathologer]

That's great :)

[@Herocleo]

You have a great presentation style!

[@AaronDarden]

this is this is a cool demonstration of a 40 Rubik's Cube.

[@Mathologer]

:)

[@merlinthegreat100]

I've been searching for this for a long time

[@bragtime1052]

This four dimensional bubble casts a three dimensional shadow. It's beyond space, beyond time!

[@Hopesedge]

The start with all these trick questions

[@abj136]

That t-shirt is amazing! It looks so complex, but if you study it, it seems to be nothing more than circle triangle circle square circle pentagon circle hexagon circle....ngon...circle.

[@Mathologer]

One of my own designs :)

[@_Killkor]

Somewhere, in a parallel universe: *Cracking the Rubik's Cube with simple 2D tricks* ...well, they'd have it even worse than us, since there's no 2D equivalent of a Rubik's Cube. So it's more like this for us: *Trying to understand the 24-cell and visualizing it in 4 dimensional space*

[@hillwin10]

This channel is great! A "bit more advanced" than numberphile, for a more math oriented audience.

[@142-g4j]

Can you also do a video on imagining a new direction that isn't in the 3 directions we already have, please I'd love to hear from you about this subject

[@iizvullok]

Thank you a lot for this video. It was a great help and probably even greater motivation for solving it. Am currently trying the penteract (5D cube).

[@jakubstepo4309]

Thanks, I solved it with Your method! Although vastly ineffective, it works (with proper imagination).

[@Ronenlahat]

Great explanation! Maybe the numberphile channel would like to interview you on this topic or other and you would get many of their subscribers that would love your videos.

[@evilcam]

I would love to see The Mathologer on Numberphile at some point. Matt Parker mentioned Burkard once I think, but that was on his Standupmaths channel. One day, I'm sure they will all collaborate together and everything will be cooler for it. I for one am just happy this channel is growing so fast, and that there is a math video community on youtube to begin with. Collabs with other youtubers would just be the cherry on top.

[@Mathologer]

I've met Matt Parker who is a really great guy. It would be nice to do something together with him and/or Numberphile at some point :)

[@Ronenlahat]

Nice. Either way, thank you for the great content.

[@keithchan7580]

7:22 yes, it's called grabbing the corners of a flexible cube and twisting them after getting irritated because you can't solve it

[@KaliFissure]

Have you ever read any Charles Howard Hinton? I stumbled across his work in middle school and he had developed a whole set of multi colored cubes to teach this sort of visualization

[@nicholascrow8133]

Now we just need someone to make this lol. (p.s, saw your cube presentation at a monash open day a couple of years back, re found your channel getting back into cubes!)

[@SigmoidNeuron]

Ooooooh man! Time to pack up my 3D cubes and get to work! Just kidding, I could never pack up my 3D cubes, but I will have to give this 3x3x3x3 a try. :)

[@xxnotmuchxx]

There is a guide: superliminal.com/cube/solution/solution.htm You can ask me any question or ask here: groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/4D_Cubing/conversations/messages

[@lawsonhofer8638]

i love the idea of different dimensions

[@SKyrim190]

Hi! Could we get a video about ordinal numbers? Vsauce made one about the subject, but I think it would be fun to have something with a bit more of mathematical rigor. There is a part in the Vsauce video where he basically seems to be "coming up with ridiculous stuff" and everything becomes confusing...

[@andri041]

So this is a 2D representation of a 3D representation of a 4D cube. Thats fun 😂😂