# New 4x4 Method?



## baker` (Dec 24, 2009)

Whilst messing around with my ES 4x4 the other day I had an idea...

Is it possible to reduce a 4x4 into a 2x2 and then solve it from there?

If so, has this method already been discovered and would it be in any way faster than the 3x3 reduction or K4 methods?

I only managed to solve four out of the total eight 2x2 'cubies' using simple intuition. I am a new cuber and very interested to know what you, experienced cubers, have to say about this. 

P.S. If its possible it shall be named after me ... I hope.


----------



## idpapro (Dec 24, 2009)

hmmm, i think it would take longer to solve, but ive also thought of solving it this way.


----------



## V-te (Dec 24, 2009)

I (in my own personal non weighed opinion) Believe that this method can be like a 4x4 petrus variation method? I'm not sure. But yeah, I believe a lot of people have thought about this.


----------



## Hyprul 9-ty2 (Dec 24, 2009)

Reducing a 4x4 into a 2x2 is just dumb.
Edit: I mean as a speed method.
If you just wanna play around with your 4x4 go ahead. I've done some stupid things myself. Like LBL ._.


----------



## hyunchoi98 (Dec 24, 2009)

I've thought about it but it would take a LONG TIME


----------



## V-te (Dec 24, 2009)

Ok, I've just tried it. 
It is a very limiting way to solve it. Sure, it can be done, but as soon as you finish the first block, you are pretty much limited. It looks like you would need a lot of commutators to solve it like this. Way too time consuming, yet very fun at the same time. I say, go ahead and try it, but I'll stick with reduction.


----------



## Slowpoke22 (Dec 24, 2009)

I don't think I've thought of doing that before, but I doubt it could ever be more efficient than 3x3 reduction.


----------



## baker` (Dec 24, 2009)

Thanks V-te for solving it with this method, I figured that the 2x2 solve would be fun at the end.


----------



## V-te (Dec 24, 2009)

baker` said:


> Thanks V-te for solving it with this method, I figured that the 2x2 solve would be fun at the end.



It would be, but I believe reduction is better, as you can build more with less moves.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 24, 2009)

It's not a very viable idea, but it has been thought of before, and people have made threads about it before.

Thank you for using a "?" at the end of your thread. 
However, this is not puzzle theory. Please post in Help/Requests or Discussion next time or I'll actually get mad.


----------



## Tim Major (Dec 24, 2009)

baker` said:


> P.S. If its possible it shall be named after me ... I hope.



:fp
Is this why you made a new method? Also, I'm sorry, but I've thought of this before, and I'm sure, that many others have too. I've thought of a few different ways of reducing 5x5 as well. So that it still is a 3x3, but with double layer turns. I'm sorry, but I really think normal redux is faster.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 24, 2009)

PROTIP: If you're wondering if something has been thought of before, it has.


----------



## Neo63 (Dec 24, 2009)

Kirjava said:


> PROTIP: If you're wondering if something has been thought of before, it has.



win


----------



## Cyrus C. (Dec 24, 2009)

If you were going to do this, wouldn't it make more sense to put the 2x2 blocks in their proper place while building them?


----------

