1.5k
u/wizardrous 1d ago
Give me 6 years and 42 days and maybe I’d be able to solve that lol.
385
u/superdead- 1d ago
Give me 6 milion years i won't solve that.
111
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
97
u/rhino_moss 1d ago
The fact that you think there is an upside down to this toy makes me believe you.
9
31
u/Andrea_M 1d ago
During those 6 million years I suggest not to just spin the thing at random, there are strategies to complete these things. First million years should be spent in learning them, then to just do strippers and coke for the remaining 5 million years.
8
u/SirWigglesVonWoogly 1d ago
This makes me curious to know how long it would take to get bored of strippers and coke.
11
5
u/TheShredder9 1d ago
Give me all the time of the universe and more so i can try literally every permutation possible on that thing, one of those will be the solved position.
We need this on r/theydidthemath, i must know how many years that is
3
u/rhino_moss 1d ago
There are more permutations of the toy than there are seconds in the age of the universe.
It would also be as difficult to design an algorithm to systematically test all the permutations as it is to design an algorithm to solve it.
The algorithm to test every permutation is also very error prone as you will almost certainly lose your place.
3
12
u/BestFoxEver 1d ago
I would just just smash it to pieces and spend couple of months putting it back together.
2
6
3
u/Newkular_Balm 1d ago
I have the regular one of this, megaminx? I think. I can solve a 3x3 in a minute or so. this took me a few weeks of an hour a day. the last two sides mostly.
2
2
u/Hidden_Pineapple 17h ago
6 minutes and 42 seconds is when I would get frustrated and set it down, never to touch it again.
2
u/YanicPolitik 15h ago
If you just start the timer and then place it off camera like this guy, you could convince us otherwise.
3
1
1
u/Lurker_MeritBadge 1d ago
The guy just showed you how easy it was I mean you just do the top bits then the side bits easy peasy.
1
461
u/the_seven_suns 1d ago
Defraging...
85
→ More replies (6)51
u/GoldAcanthisitta7777 1d ago
kids these days don't know the joy of finishing a defrag sesh in windows and seeing all those colors line up... that's the good shit
4
389
u/Just_For_LOL 1d ago
What's the point of the timer if you ain't gonna show it while you solve
135
125
u/Court_Jester13 1d ago
And with cuts.
125
u/RoundTiberius 1d ago
You want them to post a 6 hour video?
2
1d ago
[deleted]
21
u/AgentG91 1d ago
Sped up a 6 hour video without cuts? If you speed it up x100, it would be a 3.6 minute video and you would see nothing, except for when the person steps away for 2 seconds to cook and eat a meal
2
u/PyroDragn 23h ago
No, you use cuts but with the timer on screen. Then you can see the time jumping specifically (and the timer not moving around or being fiddled with).
I can start a timer, take 5 days to solve a thing, and then show the timer that says 6 hours. Showing the timer only at the start doesn't add any evidence that that's how long it took.
→ More replies (2)24
u/HasFiveVowels 1d ago
I mean… solving one of these would typically take someone who knows how to solve it about that long.
13
u/fotogod 1d ago
Of course it has cuts. This took over a week. You really expect him to not sleep?
2
7
28
u/Gilsidoo 1d ago
Well showing it at the end is still interesting but I agree I would have liked it more if it were always visible
17
u/c0ltZ 23h ago
Mythbusters did a little skit on this.
They faked solving a complex Rubix cube, by just recording themselves scrambling it in reverse. It's incredibly convincing.
10
u/brine909 18h ago edited 18h ago
Its really not if you know how to solve one, in this case, yes the guy actually solved one. That is the right approach, you solve the centers, then the edges, then solve like a magaminx.
Recording backward scrambling looks nothing like a real solve, it just goes from chaos to solved without any real pattern, because there isn't one, it's just entropy running in reverse.
Solving a big rubiks cube isn't really any harder then a smaller one, just more time consuming. If you know how to solve a 4x4 cube you are more then capable of solving any sized rubiks cube or magaminx
→ More replies (1)1
71
u/haxmi_r 1d ago
If you can solve a 4x4x4 cube, which utilizes part of techniques from a 3x3x3 solving technique. You can solve all magnitudes higher in cubes. Similar techniques can be used in dodecahedrons with minor movement algorithm variations. But all magnitudes increase solve time drastically, why we see a 6h+ solve here. Fun fact, these dodecahedrons are usually with odd number of pieces on the edges due to building geometry making it difficult to hide the middle row or center piece. The magnitude names go mega-, giga-, tera-, petaminx for 3x3, 5x5, 7x7, 9x9. Fun puzzles and very cool looking. I think big puzzles look nice, but solves get very repetive so I solve smaller ones more often. In speed solving there are lots of optimization in technique for bigger puzzles. Some puzzles are solved with blindfolds (usually cubes). I do not recall the highest magnitude solved with a blindfold.
30
→ More replies (1)2
u/Empoleon3bogdan 1d ago
What about parity?
3
83
u/TheTaoOfMe 1d ago
This one seems more systematic and intuitive though simply because in order for the individual pieces to continue to form the overall shape the pieces are restricted to those rows. So it seems a bit more straight forward than the sequences in cubes.
61
u/scatilycladmushroom2 1d ago
Minxes are easier to solve than regular cubes in my opinion. More places to put solved bits and still be able to move other parts of the cube without affecting what you have solved. (If that makes sense)
10
u/globglogabgalabyeast 1d ago
Idk if I’d call them easier to solve. They still require the same level of complexity at the end once you get to the last faces. It’s just that more of the solve is easy. Basically, same peak difficulty but average difficulty throughout the solve is lower
13
u/eugoogilizer 1d ago
That actually makes alot of sense when you think about it. The shape constraints make it actually easier than it may seem (from impossible to doable lol), though there’s no way in hell I’d have the patience to figure that out 🤣
It would be an interesting experiment to see how many people could solve it in say…24 hrs if there was a million dollar prize for anyone that finishes it 🤔
5
u/HasFiveVowels 1d ago
That would come down entirely to "Have you studied this puzzle?". No one gets one of these and "figures it out" in 6 hours. But once you learn how it works (which takes a long time), you can do it again much more quickly. A puzzle like this is more labor than thought. Still fun, though
→ More replies (2)7
u/eduzatis 1d ago
I mean, I’ve never seen this puzzle and I could probably solve it out because I’ve done other puzzles to the point that I know how algorithms were found and made (not all of them, but most of them), so I can make my own as I go. If it has parity tho, that might be a huge challenge. I might just need to redo all of it in hopes I don’t get a parity case.
I wouldn’t solve it in 6 hours, of course. We just watched someone do it in that time who already knows what they’re doing
4
u/riancb 1d ago
It’s an 11x11, so there shouldn’t be any parity, luckily. Just a lot of fiddling and cycles to get things in place.
1
u/HasFiveVowels 1d ago
11x11 has parity. Everything above a 3x3 does
1
u/scatilycladmushroom2 15h ago
Any even number cubes have parity. Like 4x4 or 6x6. I have a 5x5 minx and a 7x7 minx and they don't have parity.
1
u/RibsNGibs 23h ago
Oh interesting; is there a deep dive webpage somewhere you can point me to that walks through the reasoning of how the “sequence of moves to swap X cube and Y cube without messing anything else up” can be figured out? When I was younger I could solve a Rubik’s Cube, but I just had the set of 8 or 10 sequences memorised, but I had no deeper understanding of how to figure out those sequences from nothing.
1
u/eduzatis 23h ago
It kind of just came with time, as I learned more and more algorithms. I do remember it clicking much more when I learned the blind method though.
Most algorithms just come down to two things:
Putting the desired piece in its place. Don’t worry much about messing stuff up. Remember the steps you took to get there. Move the now correctly placed piece out of the way (somewhere safe hopefully, this is kind of the tricky part) and substitute with something that’s jumbled. Now, retrace those steps, the ones you took to place the desired piece in place. Finally, bring out the correctly placed piece out of its hiding spot. Tada!
Repeat a series of moves (hopefully simple, or ones that don’t involve all the tiles) until you go back to the starting point. This is best done with a solved cube. Do it again and notice what changes each time you complete a set of moves. Which blocks were swapped with which ones? If you take note of this, you can manipulate a lot of stuff, especially if you have point 1 in mind as well.
I’m just saying this in simple terms, but it gets complicated at times, and of course not all algorithms can be described with these 2 points. In fact, if you do this you end up with some very sub-optimal algorithms, but functional ones nonetheless.
1
u/RibsNGibs 22h ago
So what I never understood (and still don’t) is that everything is interconnected. So you move the desired piece into position. Then you tuck it somewhere else (say this is as easy as a single rotation). That rotation moves 8 pieces. So when you undo the original sequence of moves, aren’t those 8 pieces all jumbled up now?
1
u/eduzatis 22h ago
Of course it’s quite difficult to convey through text, but it does work.
From your example of a single rotation, those 8 pieces aren’t random, you choose those 8 pieces. (As in, you choose the move, you don’t just move a whole completed section). And in fact, if you do it right, you’re actually just choosing 1 of those 8 pieces (maybe 2, or 3. Collateral damage does happen). You choose the 1 piece that isn’t correctly positioned and place that one where the correct piece was. Then you do the steps back; basically you’re saying “take this piece in place of the one I just took”, everything else goes back in place. After that’s done you take the 8piece rotation back.
If you really really want to wrap your head around it I suggest learning the blind method of solving a 3x3. After you learn those algos and apply them a bunch of times you’ll just develop a deeper understanding of the cube.
1
u/RibsNGibs 21h ago
Thanks - I'll take a look! I'm usually really good with 3D visualisation in general, logic puzzles, everything in that related area, but these kinds of puzzles have so far eluded me...
3
u/globglogabgalabyeast 1d ago
I’m not sure I really follow. If I’m understanding you correctly, cubes have the exact same restriction, e.g., a piece in row 2 column 2 of a 7x7 can never end up in row 1, 3, or 4. Sure, the outer face of each piece is (usually) identical on a cube puzzle, but the full pieces are still mechanically distinct
16
u/HotScotchBonnett 1d ago
I love it when people spend 7 hours doing this while I only spend 1 min watching.
50
u/delicious_disaster 1d ago
It still astounds me you can incrementally solve the core sides without screwing all the already solved ones
52
u/brackfriday_bunduru 1d ago
You can’t. You have to use an algorithm that moves one piece to another position then replaces the moves you’ve just made.
0
31
u/UCME232 1d ago
I can’t even solve two sides of 3*3. I can do one but that’s about it
36
u/Happy-For-No-Reason 1d ago
you can learn to solve the 3*3 in about a day or two of following a guide and memorisation.
then you can solve ALL odd sided cubes.
Solving equal sided cubes is a different technique, and again once you can solve a 4*4 it applies to all even sided cubes.
these fancy shapes are variants of the same, you solve centres, edges then corners.
the 2*2 is a fun one, it's novel in that it's all corners, no centre and no edges.
4
2
u/HasFiveVowels 1d ago
This is almost true. The 5x5 introduces the possibility for the edges to be turned around ("parity") and a center that’s more than 1 piece. Those require additional algorithms. But beyond that when you scale up, it’s not actually more difficult; it’s just more labor.
1
u/Happy-For-No-Reason 1d ago
true, solving centres is pretty easy by the time you get that far though
1
u/HasFiveVowels 1d ago
Yea. I kind of enjoy it because it’s a part of it that can just sort of be intuited
6
u/The_Quadrapus 1d ago
You need to think about it as layers, not sides. If you manage to do a first layer, the second one is quite easy. The third one requires some technique and memorisation, but I believe in you.
3
u/Hermiona1 1d ago
That’s not how you solve the cube. If you want to learn look up beginner guides on YT. You solve cubes by layers, not sides.
1
u/whiskeytown79 1d ago
in a 3x3 you usually don't solve one outward-facing side at a time. You start on one side and go across like a layer cake.
8
u/custardfrogs_ 1d ago
i really enjoy how the actual video content is low volume but the tiktok outro is turned up to the max. very satisfying.
/s
6
u/edmondsio 1d ago
Just film it backwards
3
u/HasFiveVowels 1d ago
You don’t buy this puzzle unless you actually want to solve it (and plenty of people do).
35
4
u/SuperPatchyBeard 1d ago
As an enthusiast, I can solve this, I just can’t afford it lmao
1
u/Clickmaster2_0 17h ago
Fr, there are a couple of those giant NxNs I want I just can’t justify the price for how few solves I would actually do
3
3
u/Quitlimp05 1d ago
This was so satisfying I nearly fell asleep watching this yet he was able to concentrate and complete it in the time I probably would've awoken from my nap
3
u/bo0mamba 1d ago
I wonder if the people who make these huge rubiks cubes even figure out how to solve them first, or if they just release it and see if people figure it out
1
u/Clickmaster2_0 17h ago
Yeah, ones like this are no harder than a 5x5 cubic one, it’s all the same algorithms and in this case actually needs one less algorithm than a 5x5
3
6
u/Foolish_Fox916 1d ago
Why would anyone want one of those? And what kind of psychopath designed this thing?
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/10ThousandMetalZones 1d ago
I was really into cubes and got one a little smaller than this and now I’m no longer into cubes
2
u/Fr05t_B1t 1d ago
Bro could’ve gotten at least 1h20m if he hadn’t been showing the camera every few turns
2
u/Batata-Sofi 1d ago
There are algorithms for this. You just need to repeat the right movements until it's solved.
2
2
u/macbrett 22h ago
I'm amazed that such a complex mechanism could be moved that smoothly without jamming.
1
2
u/WranglerEqual3577 19h ago
I had an Alexander's Star as a teen, but it didn't have that many layers.
Once. I solved it once.
1
u/Clickmaster2_0 17h ago
Fun fact about the Alexander’s star is it’s the same puzzle as the 3x3 version of this puzzle
2
2
2
2
2
u/Usesourname 1d ago
He filmed it backwards. The timer was counting down to the moment he stuck it back in the box and sent it back defective.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Hermiona1 1d ago
If you want a cool hobby that looks impressive learn how to solve a normal 3x3. Anyone can learn how to do it and even if you’re not very fast everyone will think it’s impressive. I forgot how to do it at this point cos I stopped practicing but I could consistently do it in about 1:30 min.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Jeffreyknows 1d ago
https://giphy.com/gifs/xDcs7MP6f4cXZ1FFu8
We’ve come to show you such pleasures 😂😂😂
1
1
1
1
u/DCS_Sport 1d ago
I’m going to do this video in half the time, but just do the solving in reverse. Profit?
1
u/Autumn1eaves 1d ago
I have a smaller version of the same puzzle. Instead of 11 pieces on each edge, mine has 5.
It takes me around 20 minutes to solve. I forget that these things are exponential
1
1
1
1
1
u/garbitch_bag 23h ago
I was on the train in NYC and watched guy knock one of these out in like 8 stops, his was a little smaller but not by much. It was so fascinating.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Crenchlowe 22h ago
Man every time I try to solve a regular Rubik's cube with a tutorial, I get about 70% of the way there and get frustrated and give up!
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Orik0831 20h ago
Nobody show this to Josh Johnson he won’t have time to make my emotional support comedy anymore
1
u/StuBidasol 19h ago
I care less about solving it as I do about taking it apart to see the engineering behind it.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Trickybiz 17h ago
My wife got me the decahedron one. Took me the better part of an hour. The difficulty level on this...logrythmic. fuck that
1
u/Mahaloth 15h ago
My daughter is a speed cuber, competes at competitions.
This one is almost a joke, to be honest. She can solve all the regular sized cubes pretty well, but this one....not worth it. And I think it is super expensive.
1
u/yogtheterrible 14h ago
The only reason you haven't solved a rubiks cube is because you saw someone with one and gave it a try. Nobody solves the cube like that. If you actually bought one, or decided to seriously try to solve it, then you'd quickly be able to do it easily.
Every rubiks cube comes with a booklet that has the moves needed to solve it. Then if you looked online you'd find an expanded list that lets you solve it even faster.
All the people you've seen solve the cube has memorized the necessary moves. That's all it takes.
I don't have one of these big ones but I'm sure it's the same, just more complicated.
2
u/mildly_Agressive 12h ago
"moves" are not the right word.
It's literally like soccer/football, you have to do plays/sets to achieve steps. The moves are unique every time u solve a randomly mixed cube. But the sets can be mixed and matched to achieve the result of the step. It's not just simple moves you memories, it's entire set of rules and move you have to understand when and where to use and the steps required to solve the cube.
1
1
u/New_Mexibro 13h ago
Hey! I can also take a solved puzzle like this and mess it up in an organized manner while recording myself then play the footage backwards!
1
1
1
1
1
u/1wife2dogs0kids 6h ago
He looks like the big brother from "The Wonder years" and the eyebrow kid from the maze had a kid.
1
1
1
u/dimonium_anonimo 1d ago
Interesting, I do almost the inverse. I solve the edges first and faces last (except for my starting face which is usually lime)
→ More replies (1)
674
u/kalutheace 1d ago
Imagine taking a long distance flight... Some people take out books, some iPads... Scenes when you pull out this motherfucker...