I'm almost surprised this didn't come about sooner. I've been told, though I have not seen proof, that Stephen Locke, some sort of math professor at some university, and also my dad's older brother and my uncle in Florida, created some sort of mathematical formula that can solve the Rubik's Cube, regarless of its permutation.
Granted, 54 seconds is pretty darn good. And turning opposite sides of the cube simultaneously is slick.
What they need to do is create a second robot that will scramble the cube randomly, then have the first robot solve that cube in 54 seconds. Just so we know the students didn't keep track of the moves they made to scramble the cube, and simply program the robot to reverse them.
Keeping in mind that this was a 300 level university project, I assume that it isn't simply based on being able to undo what the creators did. (As far as I can tell, that's what the flashes are: the robot figuring out how the cube is constructed.)
no subject
Date: 2006-06-27 12:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-27 01:53 pm (UTC)Granted, 54 seconds is pretty darn good. And turning opposite sides of the cube simultaneously is slick.
What they need to do is create a second robot that will scramble the cube randomly, then have the first robot solve that cube in 54 seconds. Just so we know the students didn't keep track of the moves they made to scramble the cube, and simply program the robot to reverse them.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-27 05:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-27 06:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-27 06:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-27 08:57 pm (UTC)http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1968171833714836546&q=rubiks
no subject
Date: 2006-06-27 11:17 pm (UTC)But the robot can be built to go faster... better...! ;)
no subject
Date: 2006-06-28 03:42 am (UTC)But seriously, considering that my best time is like 1 minute 30 seconds, that's still darn impressive.