# RUR'URU2R' (it's time)



## JL58 (Apr 1, 2009)

I have 3 questions:

1. I'm a stat junky and I keep a lot of useless data on spreadsheets. I noticed that 3 of my 5 favorite cubes (puzl's) I had an unexpected slant on PLL draws. I am getting 4 times more G1 (2x1 on BR) than G3 (2x1 on RF). Obviously this can't be explained by standard deviation as I have more than 1000 solves logged. I was wondering if something else could happen. Is it possible that the cubies are different and/or so-called random scrambles and corresponding random solves are not that random after all? Just think of it: all G's are supposed to have to the same chance of happening, assuming random scrambles and solves. But if cubies are different, not enough to notice during balancing tension but to the point that hands and fingers would prefer one rotation over another? How about the way they mold and assemble cubes? Edge cubies are not position agnostics: typically one inside face is walled the other one hollow for the tool to get out. Corners are not either: one of the 3 inside sides is glued in. Springs tend to have one end stuck in, the other sliding on the plastic. Cubes are not symmetrical. Could this affect the distribution of PLL's ??? After a not so random problem I would opt for the least difficult path to resolution of Fridrich F2L (in my case) and 2 look PLL, more often the same than laws of stats would dictate, which means that my average is not representative of random solves but skewed by the manufacturing discrepancies??? Is this at all possible???

2. You all have heard of the big bang. Think of the number of seconds elapsed from the big bang to now. Now multiply that by about 100 times (roughly) and you get the number of different combinations you can get with a 3^3 (3x3x3). OK - kind of. I'am already having a hard time to visualize that as it takes 2 generations of stars to produce the iron concentration of our solar system, a billion years to get to the first cellular life, another billion to get to multi cellular life, another one to get to multicellular life with different cell structure (carrots, rabbits) and another one to get to "some" level of conscience. Assuming that mankind will disappear in 10 million years (average lifespan of a species) and knowing that to date the 3^3 is the most sold toy on earth, under our capitalistic economic era, what percentage of the total set of combinations do you think will ever be tried? Solved?

3. I am always puzzled by the bright minds who conceived the cubes. Dismantling my first 3^3 was a brain stretching experience. But then a brutal thought came to me. It was during a long night of insomnia, following several other ones like it. Imagine a 4^3 (4x4x4). It is a conceptual cube made of 64 cubies. Except that you only see 56 of them. What you don't see are the 8 internal cubies. And you never see them. AH AH! Isn't that what they use to make the 2^3??? If not what do they do with them??? The same happens with 3^3, coming from the 5^3. Assuming I am right, a few questions come to mind: how come they don't sell as many 5^3 than 3^3? The laws of supply and demand should bring this to equilibrium: as less people are ready to try the 5^3 than the 3^3, 5^3 should be cheaper, unless there is a bigger scheme, longer term, not yet surfaced... Are they recycling 5^3 cubies into smaller 3^3's??? (I know, the idea makes me sick too). And then what do they do with the 1's (1x1x1) left from the 3^3's? Are those the dice you find in Monopoly? But then this would mean that cubes are much older, as old as Monopoly. Am I missing something???

As I fish for answers I realize that this might be the start for more questions... I'm going to bed now, to keep my eyes open.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 1, 2009)

1) I don't think it's possible, if you're not looking ahead to PLL. Must be a statistical anomaly, like this one time I called 10ish coin flips in a row *all wrong*, or the time I got first place in a housing lottery out of 600 people and soon after drew five random cards out of a deck (for another housing lottery) and got a full house. Both are on the order of a thousand to one and I only did it once. Oh yeah, and this one time I tried a gambling thing which was supposed to have a 50-50 chance, and won 4 out of the first 27 bets (I stopped there).

2) Not too many, I'd think. 4*10^19 is huge. And even if computers could "look at" that many positions, imagine for a 4x4 or a 5x5... it would never happen.

3) Well, they don't make NxNxN cubes by making N^3 cubelets and modifying the outside ones so they fit together - they make them by casting pieces from (pre-designed) molds. So the inner cubies never existed in the first place. If you're interested in the idea of the hidden cubies "inside" a normal cube, however, I recommend Per's CubixPlayer, which simulates a "real" NxNxN cube (i.e. it has N^3 pieces which all must be solved), made out of N^3 little six-colored cubes.


----------



## DavidWoner (Apr 1, 2009)

1) I agree that its an anomaly. I once guessed the combination of a Master padlock, which I believe is 1 in 60840 (40*39*39).

2) small percentage. Even considering that a single solve reaches many of those possible states, I don't think its likely.

3) You apparently misunderstand supply and demand. You are ignoring the higher cost of producing the higher order cubes such as the 5x5x5, which is part of what keeps their price up.


----------



## AvGalen (Apr 1, 2009)

Some very serious answers from qqwref and Vault312.

Am I the only one that is wondering what JL58 was smoking when he asked these questions???


----------



## Stefan (Apr 1, 2009)

AvGalen said:


> Am I the only one that is wondering what JL58 was smoking when he asked these questions???


Dude, he even left us several clues.

"RUR'URU2R' (it's time)" => Soon it's time (for his April 1)
"I am getting *4* times more G*1*"

I suspect there's more.


----------



## MichaelErskine (Apr 1, 2009)

JL58 said:


> (missing cubies) what do they do with them???


The Rubik's Puzzle World game for the Nintendo DS has games that involve the 27th cubie as a character.


----------



## AvGalen (Apr 1, 2009)

StefanPochmann said:


> AvGalen said:
> 
> 
> > Am I the only one that is wondering what JL58 was smoking when he asked these questions???
> ...





> I'm going to bed now, to keep my *eyes open*.


Normally he would say closed (6 letters), but he replaced it with a 4 letter word. Combined with the fact that "eye"s can be written as "I"s we get another 1st of 4

But I still think he isn't a STAT's junky


----------

