rubiks. .. something went horribly wrong rubiks something went horribly wrong
Upload
Login or register
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (62)
[ 62 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
39 comments displayed.
#31 - astrozombies **User deleted account**
Reply +32
(02/19/2013) [-]
something went horribly wrong
#39 to #31 - slikmonkey
Reply +28
(02/19/2013) [-]
#50 to #39 - heyimmalk
Reply +2
(02/19/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#16 - murrlogic
Reply +24
(02/19/2013) [-]
This mother ****** right here solved that damn cube in less than 4 seconds.
<---
#22 to #16 - zdawg
Reply 0
(02/19/2013) [-]
whatever happened to whatever happened to robot jones?
#27 to #22 - murrlogic
Reply -2
(02/19/2013) [-]
That same question can be applied to any good cartoon.
#35 to #16 - exclamation
Reply 0
(02/19/2013) [-]
I distinctly remember that and I've been looking for what the **** that is called!
#41 to #35 - zramn ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/19/2013) [-]
"Whatever happened to ROBOT JONES?"
#47 to #16 - slashendrix
Reply 0
(02/19/2013) [-]
Not only did he solve a cube puzzle, it was ******* 4-by4
#2 - swiekim
Reply +1
(02/19/2013) [-]
how is it possible that a person can do a rubix cute faster when blindfolded then someone doing it with their feet....
#5 to #2 - miniwilliam ONLINE
Reply +12
(02/19/2013) [-]
They are allowed to look at it before they start solving it, either until they feel that they know where everything is, or a set amount of time.

For a very skilled person with the cube, a single look is all they need before the know where every little piece is going to be after each turn.

These people are also very good with their hands and fingers, and can easily turn all sides with a small flick of their fingers, and rotate the cube very precisely to where they need it without looking.

The only reason that the record for blindfolded vs non-blindfolded has a 23 second difference is because they do it slower in order to make sure that they don't make a single mistake, since that one mistake literally ruins everything.

The reason it takes so long to do it with your feet is because unlike hands, feet don't have opposable thumbs and are not designed to be able to grip things, and toes lack the ability to do small and precise movements like fingers can, hence actually twisting a side can be very, very complicated.
#52 to #5 - ahitwo
Reply 0
(02/19/2013) [-]
#54 to #52 - miniwilliam ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/19/2013) [-]
Ahah, I knew someone would post something along the lines of Rin at some point.

BUT, she is not the average person (not factoring in that she is fictional), she was born without arms and hands, and had to adapt.
#55 to #54 - ahitwo
Reply 0
(02/19/2013) [-]
Yeah, I know, and I completely agree with you. I just felt it was obligatory.
#6 to #5 - miniwilliam ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/19/2013) [-]
I am aware that I made a few spelling mistakes here and there because of typos.

*They, instead of the (right after before) is one.

There might be a few punctuation errors here and there too, sorry about that. Hope it's still readable.
#15 - himyouknowwho
Reply +11
(02/19/2013) [-]
#32 - cuntickler
Reply 0
(02/19/2013) [-]
i can easily solve one in under 2.30 if i try
#38 to #32 - thetruepervysage
Reply 0
(02/19/2013) [-]
2.3 seconds? ********. The world record has barely broken 6 seconds.
#43 to #38 - newsmyrna
Reply +3
(02/19/2013) [-]
yea 2.3 seconds he just threw that extra zero there for the ******* fun of it.
#42 to #38 - golemnardah
Reply +1
(02/19/2013) [-]
He most likely meant 2 minutes and 30 seconds, that's about the time it takes me to finish it.
#36 to #32 - bassinastor
Reply +7
(02/19/2013) [-]
That's a long time
#40 - burnheroee
Reply +6
(02/19/2013) [-]
i've been repeating this ******* thing like ******* 20 times and i can't figure this out.
#7 - senortesta
Reply 0
(02/19/2013) [-]
The actual world record for a two handed normal solve is 5.66 seconds.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v_Km6cv6DU
heres the proof.
#8 to #7 - senortesta
Reply 0
(02/19/2013) [-]
And the 20 moves or less thing doesn't work. I just tried it about 10 times all from different configurations of the cube and it doesn't work.
#10 to #8 - MudkipTomislav
Reply +4
(02/19/2013) [-]
.... If it's proven mathematically, it's proven mathematically. Doesn't mean everyone will be able to see it instantly, there are longer ways that are easier.
#11 to #10 - senortesta
Reply 0
(02/19/2013) [-]
Well by doing the exact algorithm shown, I was not able to solve it. Can you bring up the mathematical proof so I can look at it because by doing it it isn't working.
#18 to #11 - scodran
Reply +2
(02/19/2013) [-]
The example shown is (of course) for that specific cube.
It has been mathematically proven that every combination has it's own set of 20 moves which will be able to solve it.
#33 to #18 - senortesta
Reply 0
(02/19/2013) [-]
Alright I thought it was trying to say that that algorithm would work for any cube. Thanks for clearing it up for me.
#24 to #8 - comehonorfacetwice
Reply 0
(02/19/2013) [-]
Each separate orientation of the cube has a very specific 20- move combination that will solve it. The solution shown in the content will only work for that specific orientation of the cube (and do not try to replicate it, as the other three sides CAN be different even if three sides are the same). It is likely impossible to know every single 20- move combination to solve the cube from any orientation, but it is very easy to memorize algorithms that can solve the cube in a few moves from a certain, easily attainable, orientation.
#34 to #24 - senortesta
Reply 0
(02/19/2013) [-]
Ok I was a bit confused by the wording and since it showed that algorithm I was confused.
#12 - Rawrer
Reply +3
(02/19/2013) [-]
I think the idea for the 20 moves is that if you you repeat the same 20 moves you will end up with completion eventually
#19 to #12 - daniboi
Reply +1
(02/19/2013) [-]
Nope, it's what it says. Scramble it any way out of the 43 quintillion combinations, then if you solve it in the fastest way possible it will never take more than 20 moves.
#20 to #12 - mrrandomness ONLINE
Reply +1
(02/19/2013) [-]
no... its that every scramble can be solved in 20 moves or less. not every scramble is the same.

-rubixfag
#23 - TreesyDoesIt
Reply -1
(02/19/2013) [-]
>1/5 of the world's population, same number as JK who sold 350 million
>1/5 of world's population, 350 million

I think somebody ****** up here because 4-5 billion people weren't suddenly born between now and the 80's
#26 to #23 - comehonorfacetwice
Reply +2
(02/19/2013) [-]
Yeah, somebody did **** up. You.
>sold to 350 million people, same number as JK who sold 350 million copies
>played with by 1/5 the worlds population

>"Hey Joe, I know you don't own a Rubik's cube, but I'm borrowing Stacey's right now, if you want to try to solve it. You won't actually own it, so it won't count for sales, but you'll get to play with it, so it'll count towards that."
#4 - bluemagebrilly
Reply +2
(02/19/2013) [-]
Now, where's my cube?
#13 to #4 - anon
Reply 0
(02/19/2013) [-]
that was an example you moron.. it may be other solutions under 20 moves on differently configurated cubes..
#14 to #13 - bluemagebrilly
Reply 0
(02/19/2013) [-]
I don't even understand what you just said.
#9 to #4 - crazylance
Reply +1
(02/19/2013) [-]
I love you for this, exactly what I thought when I entered this post.
I love you for this, exactly what I thought when I entered this post.