# In need of a research paper topic



## person917 (Mar 2, 2009)

Like the title says I need a research paper topic for English class but I can't think of anything good. I wanted to do something puzzle related.. anyone have any good ideas?


----------



## byu (Mar 2, 2009)

Mechanism of a Rubik's Cube
Laws of a Rubik's Cube
Mathematics of a Rubik's Cube
History of the Ruibik's Cube
Possible Mechanisms for larger Cubes (8x8x8 + )


----------



## JTW2007 (Mar 2, 2009)

Limitations of Human Ability to Solve Twisty Puzzles


----------



## fanwuq (Mar 2, 2009)

I would suggest against puzzle related topics for English class. Right now I'm also doing a research project in English. I'm writing about the dystopian societies of Kurt Vonnegut's _Welcome to the Monkey House_.
For English, I would assume that you would at least have to read some sort of literature and analyze it.

I think Rubik's cube is best reserved for a psychology class.


----------



## shicklegroober (Mar 2, 2009)

Conspiracy theories!
Or.. How twisty puzzles/rubik's cubes can be good learning tools (Logic, memory, problem solving etc..)


----------



## IamWEB (Mar 2, 2009)

Well reading up on the history of the Rubik's Cube and reporting it still seems fitting for an English paper if you want it related to it...


----------



## KevinK (Mar 2, 2009)

I wrote an expository essay on the Rubik's Cube. If anyone would like to read it, here it is:

Rubik’s Cube Statistics and Facts
The Rubik’s Cube has over 43 quintillion possible scrambled states and only one solution. One-eighth of the world’s population owns a Rubik’s cube. Many of them turn the sides of the cube hundreds of times without ever solving it, but it is possible to solve the cube from any state in 22 moves or less. The fastest solve at an official competition is a blindingly fast 7.08 seconds set by Erik Akkersdijk of The Netherlands. He uses the most popular method for speedsolving the cube, CFOP. The CFOP method averages 56 moves to solve the puzzle. People such as Erik can solve the cube in an average of only 11 seconds. While only the elite can solve it quickly; four-year-old Enxi Xie of China proves that anyone can solve the cube.
“Solving the Rubik’s Cube is easy, but solving it fast is hard.” To solve a Rubik’s cube, you need to memorize seven series of moves called algorithms. In the CFOP method, 138 algorithms are needed. For the most complex variation on CFOP, 1065 algorithms are needed, though no one has currently memorized them all.
There are a total of six ways to solve a Rubik’s cube in competition, including blindfolded. Competitors agree that this is the hardest event, and only 370 people have officially solved the cube blindfolded. For those who have never even solved a cube, it is hard to imagine how Ville Seppanen solved it blindfolded in 54.06 seconds. 
Another popular way to solve the cube is with one hand. Lee Seung-Woo set the world record for one-hand solving at 14.34 seconds at the Seol Open 2008. Although 85% of us are right-handed, most people solve the cube left-handed when solving with one hand. This is because the right side of the cube is turned more than any other side, and most cubers find it easier to turn the right side with their left pinky than any finger on their left hand. Regardless of how the Rubik’s Cube is solved, it is always an amazing feat.


----------



## person917 (Mar 2, 2009)

I was thinking about doing a paper on mental exercises or something to that effect.. though if I did it on something to do with literature it would probably be easier.


----------



## Chuberchuckee (Mar 2, 2009)

Do a research paper on the various methods of solving the 3x3 Rubik's cube.


----------



## JTW2007 (Mar 2, 2009)

fanwuq said:


> I'm writing about the dystopian societies of Kurt Vonnegut's _Welcome to the Monkey House_.



AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AWESOME! HE'S MY FAVORITE WRITER EVER! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THAT'S SO COOL!!!

I almost fell out of my chair.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 10, 2009)

KevinK said:


> I wrote an expository essay on the Rubik's Cube. If anyone would like to read it, here it is:



Just a couple points:
- At least one eighth? About one eighth? Actually about 350 million official cubes have been sold so only one in every 19.4 (or so) people could own a cube. Even then, a lot of people who own cubes own more than one, so the figure is probably even smaller.
- A cube can be solved from any state in 20 moves or less, although it hasn't been proven yet.
- The CFOP method does not "average 56 moves". It depends a lot on the algorithms used and most of all the solver (since they can learn extra algorithms to save moves/time, and different people are differently efficient in F2L).
- You say "only the elite can solve it quickly", but that's how we define elite, so you're actually not saying anything. Besides, if you define "quickly" as "world-class" it's true, but if you think solving a cube in under 15 (or 20) seconds is pretty quick then you definitely don't have to be elite to do that. I think anyone can get under 20 seconds if they practice, and if you ask anyone but a serious cuber they will say that's very fast indeed.
- En-xi Xie solved a cube when she was 3, but couldn't get to a competition early enough.
- You have a quote. What/who are you quoting? When you use a quote, always cite the author (or say you don't know, if you don't), because if you don't do that then you might as well just remove the quotation marks altogether.
- You don't need to "memorize seven series of moves" to solve the cube. One is enough (R perm) if you don't understand cube theory, and zero is possible if you do. You should probably explain that "algorithms" means every move sequence because your sentence sounds like only those seven move sequences are called algorithms.
- CFOP doesn't have 138 algs unless you use algorithmic F2L which nobody does anymore.
- There aren't six "ways" to solve a cube in competition, although there are five events that involve solving a single 3x3. I would say that multi is really a BLD event and not a 3x3 event (and anyway you can't count multi if you are going to say that 3BLD is "the hardest event".)
- 3BLD isn't really the hardest event at all (5BLD is ). You should explain what blindfold solving means, though, because a lot of people who hear it think it's about somehow knowing where the pieces are, rather than about memorization.
- Ville's last name has an accent on it. Seoul has a u in it.
- 85% of "us" are right-handed? Who's us? It would be better to say something like "about 85% of people are right-handed".
- Do most people solve the cube left-handed with one hand? Do you have statistics on it or is this just a guess? And when you say "most people" it sounds like you mean most people in the world, instead of "most people who can solve a 3x3 one-handed".
- I don't think R is turned more than any other side (that honor probably goes to U, at least for cross-on-bottom CFOP solvers), but it definitely is more common than L/F/B/D in one-handed solving. I think that's because it's most convenient to turn U and R with the left hand, though.
- Anyway most cubers definitely don't "find it easier to turn the right side with their left pinky than any finger on their left hand"... where did you make that up? I mean, the pinky's the weakest finger on your hand. Personally I use my index and ring fingers (depending on the direction) to do R turns.
- You say "Regardless of how the Rubik’s Cube is solved, it is always an amazing feat." I don't really agree. Given that most people who solve the cube these days learned how off the internet (myself included), I don't think it's amazing at all just to solve the Cube. It's amazing when you can solve it quickly, or with difficult restrictions (such as only being allowed to use one hand, or doing it blindfolded).


----------



## blah (Jun 10, 2009)

KevinK said:


> For the most complex variation on CFOP, 1065 algorithms are needed, though no one has currently memorized them all.



1065 is not CFOP. That would be Cross-3/4 F2L-ZBF2L-ZBLL = C3ZZ? 



qqwref said:


> A cube can be solved from any state in 20 moves or less, although it hasn't been proven yet.


Which makes it a conjecture instead of a fact. And his essay title clearly says Rubik's Cube Statistics and Facts.



qqwref said:


> CFOP doesn't have 138 algs unless you use algorithmic F2L which nobody does anymore.


I understand my A perms and U perms (all 3 versions: optimal, RU and MU) and H perm and a whole lot of other OLL/CxLL/ELL algs intuitively, does that mean I'm using fewer algs than everyone else? IMHO, sometimes there really isn't a clear distinction between an intuitive sequence and an algorithmic sequence, I mean, speedcubing has come so far that intuition is already as braindead as meaningless algorithms.



qqwref said:


> I mean, the pinky's the weakest finger on your hand. Personally I use my index and ring fingers (depending on the direction) to do R turns.


I find my pinky my strongest finger in terms of force generated:size ratio. Personally I use my pinky and my pinky to do R turns in both directions. I'm not just doing it because it's quick, in fact, I find it much easier to do R/R' with my pinky than with my ring/index fingers.

Some things are just subjective


----------



## qqwref (Jun 10, 2009)

blah said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > CFOP doesn't have 138 algs unless you use algorithmic F2L which nobody does anymore.
> ...


I'm not one of those people who thinks understanding an algorithm makes it not an algorithm. (Understanding an algorithm just means you are using it to its full potential.) However, I do think an algorithm has to be a sequence that you've set out and learned. If your strategy for F2L is basically "put the corner and edge together, then insert it", like mine is, then it's not really correct to call it an algorithm. I do use actual algorithms for a few F2L cases, but you could very well do those inefficiently and completely using intuition. You wouldn't say "a 2x2x2 block has thousands of algorithms", would you? It's just pairing up pieces, and the number of ways you can pair them up is pretty much irrelevant. Anyway, the essay counted 40ish algs for F2L, and I just don't think that's accurate if you didn't start off learning F2L by spamming algs.



blah said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > I mean, the pinky's the weakest finger on your hand. Personally I use my index and ring fingers (depending on the direction) to do R turns.
> ...


That's probably because you have done a lot of OH cubing, and thus your pinky is much stronger than it would be otherwise. The pinky literally IS the weakest finger in the hand (naturally) in terms of strength, although it does have a much larger range of movement than the ring finger.


----------



## blah (Jun 10, 2009)

qqwref said:


> I'm not one of those people who thinks understanding an algorithm makes it not an algorithm. (Understanding an algorithm just means you are using it to its full potential.)



Ah. Nice 



qqwref said:


> I just don't think that's accurate if you didn't start off learning F2L by spamming algs.


I did, actually  Understood the algs later


----------

