# Rubik's Cube to the 4th Power



## OneKube (May 23, 2009)

Does anyone have one or pictures of this cube. Its the C*4^4 rubik's cube with 4 logos (Erno's silhouette, Erno's signature, Rubik's cube logo, C*4^4 logo)

http://i.ebayimg.com/16/!BS9QUZQBmk~$(KGrHgoH-DwEjlLlzbOWBKF3sdPM)w~~_1.JPG


----------



## fanwuq (May 23, 2009)

That's not 4D. Try this:
http://www.superliminal.com/cube/applet.html


----------



## OneKube (May 23, 2009)

fanwuq said:


> That's not 4D. Try this:
> http://www.superliminal.com/cube/applet.html



Thats just what the cube is called.... Look at the picture,I made it my avatar


----------



## OneKube (May 23, 2009)

How do i make it show up in the thread

http://i.ebayimg.com/17/!BS1JbzwBWk~$(KGrHgoOKjoEjlLmRkbZBKFKuofvyg~~_1.JPG


----------



## qqwref (May 23, 2009)

That's just a supercube. The Rubik's Cube to the fourth power would be four Rubik's Cubes multiplied by each other.

Kind of like this.


----------



## OneKube (May 23, 2009)

qqwref said:


> That's just a supercube. The Rubik's Cube to the fourth power would be four Rubik's Cubes multiplied by each other.
> 
> Kind of like this.


Ugh, please look at the pictures (supercube, I dont think thats what it is)


----------



## teller (May 24, 2009)

I have that cube...it was an anniversary edition of some kind.


----------



## OneKube (May 24, 2009)

teller said:


> I have that cube...it was an anniversary edition of some kind.



Would you ming taking pictures or do you know what it's called


----------



## Crossed (May 24, 2009)

I've also got one of these. It's called Rubik's Cube 4th dimension.


----------



## OneKube (May 24, 2009)

Crossed said:


> I've also got one of these. It's called Rubik's Cube 4th dimension.



Thanks a lot.


----------



## Thieflordz5 (May 24, 2009)

Crossed said:


> I've also got one of these. It's called Rubik's Cube 4th dimension.



No that would be... actually, there are links above (the superliminal ones) about 4D cubing, that would be some kind of aniverasry cube (I think), or something of that sort... It is NOT A 4D CUBE!


----------



## OneKube (May 24, 2009)

Thieflordz5 said:


> Crossed said:
> 
> 
> > I've also got one of these. It's called Rubik's Cube 4th dimension.
> ...



Yes, obviously it is not a 4D cube, but I am guessing that is what it is called, what is with people in this...... geese!


----------



## teller (May 24, 2009)

OneKube said:


> teller said:
> 
> 
> > I have that cube...it was an anniversary edition of some kind.
> ...









It was branded the "Rubik's 4th Dimension Cube," the 4th dimension allegedly being the orientation of 4 of the 6 centers. Kinda lame actually, but an interesting collector's item I guess.


----------



## Stefan (May 24, 2009)

How about just looking at the TwistyPuzzles.com database for information and pictures?
http://twistypuzzles.com/cgi-bin/puzzle.cgi?pkey=71


----------



## OneKube (May 24, 2009)

StefanPochmann said:


> How about just looking at the TwistyPuzzles.com database for information and pictures?
> http://twistypuzzles.com/cgi-bin/puzzle.cgi?pkey=71



Yes, I saw that, I guess I didn't think it was important to state that.


----------



## Deleted member 2864 (May 24, 2009)

Also, someone is selling it on ebay atm... I think it's around $6 at the moment


----------



## OneKube (May 24, 2009)

aznmortalx said:


> Also, someone is selling it on ebay atm... I think it's around $6 at the moment



Yes, thats where I first saw it, quality isn't what I would pay for.


----------



## Thieflordz5 (May 24, 2009)

Sorry, it's just that it annoys me so much when people over-use "the 4th dimension" because they really don't understand it...

Did you know: in the 4th spacial dimension (as apposed to reality, there IS a difference) you could go one meter left/right, up/down, in/out, and through some other way? 
If we actually lived on the 4th spacial dimension, what we call "time" would be measured in meters...


----------



## panyan (May 24, 2009)

Thieflordz5 said:


> If we actually lived on the 4th spacial dimension, what we call "time" would be measured in meters...



how do you know all dimensions measure distances in meters? perhaps time as a fourth dimension has no distance and therefore only time in seconds.

I personally believe we live in a 4d world with time being the forth dimension. True that time has no "meters", but neither can you move around in the time dimension apart from one way (forward). Similarly, in the 3d world, there is no time and therefore you have no sense of time passing, and you cannot move forward or back through time without the 4th dimension (remember, the fourth dimension can only move in one way...so far).


UPDATE: i just reread the quote and i understand about your spacial dimensions


----------



## OneKube (May 24, 2009)

Look what this thread has turned into.......


----------



## daniel0731ex (May 25, 2009)

TIME is NOT what the fourth dimension is. time is the movement of which an object moves through the w-axis in the fourth dimension

when we look at something we are only seeing the 3D segments of the object. when we are seeing it being stationary in the third dimension they are actually moving rapidly in the the fourth dimension. 

in the third dimension we have units for length, width, and depth such as meters, foots, etc. but in the fourth dimension the unis for w-axis is seconds, minutes, hours, and so on. you could think time as the speed in third dimension, and minutes as meters. however you cannot call the w-axis as time, just like you cannot call lengths as speed.


----------



## Stefan (May 25, 2009)

I love how some say time is the fourth dimension and others say it isn't, and they're both wrong.


----------



## OneKube (May 25, 2009)

Don't bring this any farther Stefan! All I wanted was pictures of a cube, and look


----------



## Deleted member 2864 (May 25, 2009)

Not to continue the discussion of dimensions of course...

I really think that's the worst name for a product though... 

Manufacturer: I know!!! lets name our cube the rubik's 4-d! It's such an awesome name!
Me:.......yeah.....


----------



## qqwref (May 25, 2009)

I think that's why it got brought up, because "Rubik's Cube to the 4th power" or "Rubik's Cube 4th dimension" are unforgiveably awful names for this puzzle.

Incidentally: time can be thought of as a 4th dimension, but it is NOT a spatial dimension, so thinking of it as "the 4th dimension" and imagining hypercubes and so on is wrong. (For proof that time and space are fundamentally different, think about how you can have a memory of the past, but not the future.) However! You still can measure time in meters if you use the conversion factor of c, the speed of light. You end up with very large numbers if you use macroscopic scales, but for relativistic actions it works surprisingly nicely. (For instance, the magnitude of your speed becomes a number from 0 to 1.)


----------



## Nukoca (May 25, 2009)

StefanPochmann said:


> I love how some say time is the fourth dimension and others say it isn't, and they're both wrong.




What's the fourth dimension, then? :confused:


----------



## Deleted member 2864 (May 25, 2009)

Nukoca said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > I love how some say time is the fourth dimension and others say it isn't, and they're both wrong.
> ...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_dimension


----------



## panyan (May 25, 2009)

aznmortalx said:


> Nukoca said:
> 
> 
> > StefanPochmann said:
> ...



contrary to popular belief, wikipedia is often wrong because anybody can write what they want. I do not know, however, in this situation.


----------



## Stefan (May 25, 2009)

Nukoca said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > I love how some say time is the fourth dimension and others say it isn't, and they're both wrong.
> ...


Whatever you desire it to be. It *can* be time but it doesn't need to be, that's why it's wrong to say it is or it isn't. It simply depends on what you're doing, and what you want to express. It can be useful to use time as fourth dimension, for example if you want to arrange a meeting. You arrange _where_ to meet (our three spatial dimensions can be used for this) and also _when_ to meet. So for arranging meetings, using our three spatial dimensions plus time as a fourth can be good. Although I admit you'd probably use addresses and room numbers for the location rather than x/y/z coordinates unless you're some scientist or a space traveller. But I hope you still get the point.

Also, there's no intrinsic order. If I want to use time as one dimension in addition to others, I can call time the _first_ dimension and renumber the others (if I have them numbered in the first place).

And of course there are totally different systems where you have totally different dimensions. Take our cube algs, for example. If I want to quantify them, using these five dimensions might be useful:
- Length in HTM
- Length in QTM
- Length in STM
- Length in SQTM
- Time it takes me to execute on average

So _what's the fourth dimension_? Depends on what you're doing. Whatever is useful for you.


----------



## Stefan (May 25, 2009)

In this case btw I don't like the Wikipedia article. It already starts wrong:



> In physics and mathematics, a sequence of n numbers can be understood as a location in an n-dimensional *space*.


The word "space" links to the article about Euclidean space. That's just wrong. The link should explicitly say "Euclidean space" or link to the article about space:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_space
As you can see, Wikipedia does have such an article, and Euclidean space is just one of many.

It continues:



> When n = 4, the set of all such locations is called 4-dimensional Euclidean space.


Wrong. Not all 4-dimensional spaces are Euclidean.

Haven't read the whole article, but it appears to be about 4-dimensional Euclidean space. So the word "Euclidean" should go into the title as well as that first sentence.

Btw, to add to my above cube algs example: To keep track of the algs in your collection that you actively use, a sixth dimension might be useful, namely one just telling whether you actively use the alg. So just a boolean dimension with two possible values.


----------



## Stefan (May 25, 2009)

qqwref said:


> time can be thought of as a 4th dimension, but it is NOT a spatial dimension, so thinking of it as "the 4th dimension" and imagining hypercubes and so on is wrong. (For proof that time and space are fundamentally different, think about how you can have a memory of the past, but not the future.)


Hmm... at least Wikipedia's paragraph about spatial dimensions doesn't define a requirement to go forwards and backwards (or whatever you'd call it). Can you point me to a definition of "spatial dimension" that does include this requirement, so that your claimed proof applies?


----------



## qqwref (May 25, 2009)

It's not a definition, but rather what we know from experience. It is physically possible for an object to move left AND right, forward AND back, up AND down. The fact that we cannot do this with time shows that time is fundamentally different from the three spatial dimensions we are familiar with. The difference is what I am proving, not that there is a definition I have which fits the spatial dimensions and does not fit time. (I'm sure it is possible to write such a definition, but I don't have one in mind.)


----------



## Stefan (May 25, 2009)

Oh I absolutely agree that time appears fundamentally different the way you describe. Was just wondering because you explicitly said "it is NOT a spatial dimension", cause for that statement you first need to know what a spatial dimension is, and I don't and would like to. The paragraph on Wikipedia is short and not really a definition, and on MathWorld I couldn't even find it at all. I'm genuinely interested in a definition but don't know where else to look.


----------



## Deleted member 2864 (May 25, 2009)

lol I can't believe this debate sprouted due to a cheesy name...


----------



## pentrixter (May 26, 2009)

... and a Super Mod contributed to the thread going off topic (don't kill me, Stefan, I'm just saying).


----------



## Stefan (May 26, 2009)

Well I thought the original question had been sufficiently answered, otherwise I might've not gone off-topic. Although it's really not that much off topic.


----------



## MichaelErskine (May 26, 2009)

"All measurements taken in the 4th dimension shall be measured in yards, feet and inches"


----------

