Speedcubing kid can skip last layer by learning 3915 algorithms for every case
twitter.com
twitter.com
This is why we can't have nice things internet friends.
YouTube playlist by author: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRfiRupL1WHMiwO10094hkuFS...
One day several of us were sitting around playing with our cubes, and he hit some position where none of his algorithms worked and was stuck while he tried to find a new algorithm for that position. We asked why he didn't just use a conjugate of one of his other algorithms.
That was how the rest of us did it. I for example knew one edge 3 cycle that didn't disturb anything else. Call it T. If I needed any other edge 3 cycle I'd just find some transformation g such that gTg' did what I wanted, where g' is the inverse of g. gTg' is called a conjugate of T, and the set of all gTg' is called the conjugacy class of T.
It's easy to find g, because it doesn't matter how much g messes up the rest of the cube. All that matters is that it moves the 3 edges I want to permute into the position they need to be for T. Whatever else g messes up will be restored by g'.
He was astounded when we showed him that approach. It had never even occurred to him that such a thing was possible.
The funny thing is he was a math major, and had taken (and passed with a good grade) an abstract algebra course. He definitely knew about conjugates of group elements. He had just never noticed that group theory was applicable to Rubik's Cube.
It doesn’t work in general for any arbitrary T of course since it’s not commutative as you noted. This is more of a cubing thing than an algebra thing.
By "same structure" I mean that if written as a product of disjoint cycles has the same number and sizes of cycles.
Abstract algebra is probably the first place most people would encounter it though, in the context of conjugates in groups.
Mathematician here. Even just a bijection between finite sets is in fact algebra.
But the space of all Rubik's Cube positions is in fact a finite non-commutative group - right smack-dab in the middle of the field of algebra.
in his example, let's say there's some 3-cycle (123) the cuber knows. But really, the cuber wants to transform like (479).
Conjugation being equivalent to a group action implies the cuber only needs to find a group that permutes 1->4, 2->7, 3->9.
Let's say one is found: (14)(27)(39)...
gTg' => [(14)(27)(39)...](123)[(14)(27)(39)...]' = (479)
Suppose we want to move what is at 4 => 8, 8 => 9, and 9 => 4, leaving everything else unchanged but the only permutation we know that moves 3 items in a cycle leaving everything else unchanged moves 1 => 2, 2 => 3, and 3 => 1. This latter permutation we'll call T.
Consider any permutation g that does 4 => 1, 8 => 2, and 9 => 3. It may or may not move other things. The inverse of g, g', does 1 => 4, 2 => 8, and 3 => 9.
Let's work out what happens if we do gTg'.
First let is just look at items 4, 8, and 9, which are at positions 4, 8, and 9, respectively. g takes those to positions 1, 2, and 3. Then T takes positions 1, 2, 3 to 2, 3, 1, so what we have in positions 1, 2, 3 is items 9, 4, and 8 in that order. Finally g' takes what is in positions 1, 2, and 3 to 4, 8, and 9, so we end up with item 9 at 4, item 4 at 8, and item 8 at 9.
So for positions 4, 8, and 9, gTg' does 4 => 8, 8 => 9, and 9 => 4.
g necessarily had to move whatever was in 1, 2, and 3 out of the way to make room for 4, 8, and 9, so we have to consider what happens to what was at 1, 2, 3. Let's just look at 1. It has to go somewhere. Call that position p. So g does 1 => p, where p is not 1, 2, or 3. g' does p => 1.
T only moves things in 1, 2, 3, so after g moves whatever was originally at 1 to p, T leaves it along. g' then does p => 1, putting it back where it came from. So we see that gTg' does not move 1. Same reasoning applies for 2 and 3.
If g moves any x else other than 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9 we can use the same argument. x => y for some y that is not 1, 2, or 3. T does not move y. g' does y => x, putting x back where it came from.
Thus we can conclude that gTg' only moves 4, 8, and 9.
Another way you can visualize why it works when applied to the cube is by cheating a bit. First do g legitimately by actually doing the moves on your cube. Then instead of actually doing the moves for T just repaint the faces on the cubies that T permutes so it looks like you did T. Then legitimately do g'.
Since you haven't actually done T the only actual moves you have done are gg' which as you've noted is of course I, so everything is back where it started but with some of the faces on some of the cubies repainted. The repainted faces are exactly those that would have ended up moved if you had actually done T. The faces not repainted are those that would be undisturbed by gTg'.
The key here is that all these mappings are finite, one to one, and onto (bijective if we want to get fancy). If you apply such a mapping from A to B, then permute k elements in B, and then apply the inverse mapping, you end up with k elements permuted in A.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Cubers/comments/whuhkq/i_learned_fu...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Morphy
> Returning to New Orleans in late 1859 at the age of 22, he retired from active chess competition to begin his law career. Morphy never established a successful law practice and ultimately lived a life of idleness, living on his family's fortune. Despite appeals from his admirers, Morphy never returned to the game, and died in 1884 from a stroke at the age of 47.
I saw a Go comic strip where the best move was to leave the board and do something else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizations_of_the_Dune_univ...
Edit: The achievement is that he's been able to minimize the number of turns he needs to complete the cube by memorizing ~4000 edge cases and the specific turns needed to solve the cube from those configurations, as opposed to generalized algorithms that require memorizing less edge cases at the expense of more turns.
This has been a known possibility since 2011, but this is the first documentation of someone demonstrating mastery of it.
I'm skeptical but also have no authority on memorization or rubiks cubes... I've also seen crazier things lol
Professional chess and go players can replay many, sometimes all, of their past games from memory. Surely that’s a greater feat.