It actually looks somewhat regular instead of random in the end. Perhaps having only rule 6 and 3, no others, is interesting. Or 6, 3 and 1. Or only rule 3 and take solution with highest entropy
Retr0id · 44m ago
> There are 43,252,003,274,489,856,000 ways to arrange a Rubik’s cube. If I could evaluate a million arrangements per second, it would take over 1.3 million years to evaluate all arrangements. So, inspecting every individual arrangement is out.
For people who like powers of 2, that's "only" 2^65.2
That's within the realm of computability in practical timespans, if you can make the code fast and have $$$$$ to spend on compute. (modern CPU cores can do billions of operations per second, and that's not even considering GPUs)
The approach presented in the article is obviously far more efficient, but I wonder if anyone's done a "full search" of all possible cube positions before. I don't think there's any reason to do that, but that hasn't stopped people before (see: pi calculation records).
ramses0 · 18m ago
Seeing the "bits" that way makes me think there's a way to encode an ssh key into a rubix cube (a-la the "spy shuffle" decks).
Reminds me a bit of the "randomart" seeing the positions and colors of the cube splayed out like that.
HappyPanacea · 35m ago
IIRC they way they proved you can always solve a cube in 20 moves was essentially a bruteforce (after eliminating symmetries) so this the closest someone have done to full search.
CJefferson · 4m ago
The search was a little easier than that, as we knew how to solve every state in 20 moves, so the problem was proving some move that could be solved in 20 moves couldn't be done quicker in some unusual way. While that still took a while, the fact you knew the start and end limits how many moves you have to search.
For people who like powers of 2, that's "only" 2^65.2
That's within the realm of computability in practical timespans, if you can make the code fast and have $$$$$ to spend on compute. (modern CPU cores can do billions of operations per second, and that's not even considering GPUs)
The approach presented in the article is obviously far more efficient, but I wonder if anyone's done a "full search" of all possible cube positions before. I don't think there's any reason to do that, but that hasn't stopped people before (see: pi calculation records).
Reminds me a bit of the "randomart" seeing the positions and colors of the cube splayed out like that.