Template:Vital article

	Rubik's Cube was one of the Mathematics good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 29, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 18, 2005 Peer review Reviewed May 10, 2006 Good article nominee Listed May 21, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Mathematics Mid‑priority This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hungary Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Toys High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Toys, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of toys on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ToysWikipedia:WikiProject ToysTemplate:WikiProject ToysToys High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Toys To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Barbie Queen of the Prom, Eve The Second Genesis CCG, More... Assess : Rate the Unassessed Toys articles and Unknown-importance Toys articles. Expand : Expand the doll pages, Expand Larami article Infobox : Toys articles needing infoboxes Photo : Request images that are needed from Wikipedia requested photographs of toys to included in each articles. Stubs : work on stubs in Category:Toy stubs Other : * Tag the talk pages of Toys-related articles with the {{WikiProject Toys}} banner. Help out with articles placed in Category:Toys articles needing attention Games (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Games, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.GamesWikipedia:WikiProject GamesTemplate:WikiProject GamesGames Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Invention High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Invention, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Invention on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InventionWikipedia:WikiProject InventionTemplate:WikiProject InventionInvention High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Variation: Rectangular Cuboids instead of cubes.

I recently acquired a Rubik's cube like puzzle with Rectangular Cuboids of varying sizes instead of colours.

It seems that this sort of puzzle should be mentioned in the Variations section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Final Catch (talk • contribs) 13:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

This paragraph is inaccurate:

"Non-human solving: The current non-human time record is for Sub1, a robot made by Adam Beer, an economist and industrial engineer. A YouTube video shows a 0.887 second solving time using an Arduino with the Kociemba algorithm."

It should be:

Non-human solving: The current non-human time record is for Sub1, a robot made by Albert Beer, an economist and industrial engineer. A YouTube video shows a 0.887 second solving time using a ShieldBuddy TC275 Arduino with the Kociemba algorithm.

Thanks! Mbeachhitex (talk) 12:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: This is not an immediately-obvious improvement to me. Izno (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you want to improve. Would you please provide a citation?TheGoldenParadox (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article neglects to mention that the creation of a game or toy was a secondary consideration. Rubik's point was to physically embody principles of group theory in a manner that could be easily visualized. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...

Hello,

This paragraph under "Trademarks" is now incorrect:

Rubik's Brand Ltd. also holds the registered trademarks for the word Rubik and Rubik's and for the 2D and 3D visualisations of the puzzle. The trademarks have been upheld by a ruling of the General Court of the European Union on 25 November 2014 in a successful defence against a German toy manufacturer seeking to invalidate them. However, European toy manufacturers are allowed to create differently shaped puzzles that have a similar rotating or twisting functionality of component parts such as for example Skewb, Pyraminx or Impossiball.[43] On 10 November 2016, Rubik's Cube lost a ten-year battle over a key trademark issue. The European Union's highest court, the Court of Justice ruled that the puzzle's shape was not sufficient to grant it trademark protection.[44]

It should read:

On 10 November 2016, Rubik's Cube lost a ten-year battle over the black and white 3D grid trademark. The European Union's highest court, the Court of Justice set aside the ruling of the General Court of the European Union, the trademark invalidation case was sent back to the European Union Intellectual Property Office, which ruled that the puzzle function could be inferred from the trademark protection. Rubik’s are appealing this decision and there are other forms of intellectual property protection such as passing off, copyright, 3D colour trademarks and 2D figurative trademarks all protecting the visualisation of the Rubik's Cube and also numerous word trademarks in existence.

Thanks,

Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris6409 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The world record for the 3x3 single is inaccurate. The current official record for 3x3 is by Patrick Ponce and is 4.693 seconds. It was broken on 9/2/17 at Rally In The Valley 2017. Feliks Zemdegs currently holds the #2 position for 3x3 single, please update the chart for 3x3 world record single to this. ^[1]

Thanks,

Tai — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tai Phan (talk • contribs)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 16:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the article it states that a cube of size n×n×n can be optimally solved in Θ(n² / log(n)), or in other words "as much as" the n-squared divided by log n.

When I do that relatively simple calculation for a 3×3x3 cube, I don't get the expected answer of 20 (which has apparently been worked out by Google and some very clever people, and considered optimal as there is supposedly a set of starting conditions that need at least 20 moves), but 18.836 - 3² being 9, and log(3) being 0.4771.

Obviously, 18.836 ≠ 20. So, have I done something glaringly wrong, or is there an error or bit of fudging in the formulae (or article)?

FWIW this makes the lowest bound of maximum predicted moves-to-solve for a 2×2×2 cube = 13.288, a 4×4×4 cube = 26.575, and a 5×5×5 cube = 35.767, with the largest produced 17×17×17 cube = 234.874 and the theoretical 22×22×22 model = 360.542. Obviously the decimals are a bit ridiculous, so we can instead say it progresses 14, 19, 27, 36 ... 235, 361.

It does at least, however, work in a sensible fashion for a 1×1×1 cube, giving an answer of zero moves (!) in order to solve it. Which is self evident, given that no "moves" are actually possible, and the cube is always solved.

trivia - did you know that the special symbols like × and ♥ appear to take up 3 bytes/ASCII character spaces, not the expected 2 of Unicode, at least when inserted into the edit summary? Maybe it's a UTF8 thing or something? 51.7.49.61 (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't meant to give you exact answers, see Big O notation. It expresses the way size of the solution grows with n, not the actual numerical size of the solution. Nobody curently knows the exact size of the maximum optimal solution for the higher order cubes. SpinningSpark 00:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Change X to Y

X "On 10 November 2016, Rubik's Cube lost a ten-year battle over a key trademark issue. The European Union's highest court, the Court of Justice ruled that the puzzle's shape was not sufficient to grant it trademark protection.[44]"

Y "On 10 November 2016, Rubik's Cube lost a ten-year battle over the black and white 3D grid trademark.[44] The European Union's highest court, the Court of Justice set aside the ruling of the General Court of the European Union, the trademark invalidation case was sent back to the European Union Intellectual Property Office, which ruled that the puzzle function could be inferred from the trademark protection. Rubik’s are appealing this decision and there are other forms of intellectual property protection such as passing off, copyright, 3D colour trademarks and 2D figurative trademarks all protecting the visualization of the Rubik's Cube and also numerous word trademarks in existence." Chris6409 (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The included source cited, the Guardian article supports the first sentence but not the requested extended content. I see no single source that can cover the multiple claims concerning the life of this trademark dispute. If you are aware of one, please add it here or provide the other sources necessary to substantiate this history. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rubik's Cube. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20090212000345/http://www.wipo.int/clea/en/text_html.jsp?lang=EN&id=2657 to http://www.wipo.int/clea/en/text_html.jsp?lang=EN&id=2657
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120216125521/http://www.patents.jp/Archive/20030210-02.pdf to http://www.patents.jp/Archive/20030210-02.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090422104222/http://ny1.com/content/top_stories/93988/toy-fair-kicks-off-at-javits-center/Default.aspx to http://www.ny1.com/Content/Top_Stories/93988/toy-fair-kicks-off-at-javits-center/Default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few new records for the fastest non-human-solving time. The current one is 0.38 seconds (http://build-its-inprogress.blogspot.nl/2018/03/the-rubiks-contraption.html).

This beats the old time of 0.637 seconds (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1b6iPYj3YQ)

That time beats the entry that is currently in the Wikipedia page.

Could the current entry for the fastest non-human-solving time be updated from 0.887 by the Sub1 bot, to 0.38 seconds by the Rubik's Contraption? And add the previous (0.637) record after that?

So change this:

The fastest non-human Rubik's Cube solve was performed by Sub1, a robot made by Adam Beer, an economist and industrial engineer. A YouTube video shows a 0.887-second solving time using an Arduino with the Kociemba algorithm. Next record is 3.25 seconds, set by CubeStormer III, a robot built using Lego Mindstorms and a Samsung Galaxy S4.[86] This beats the prior 5.27 seconds, set by CubeStormer II, a robot built using Lego Mindstorms and a Samsung Galaxy S2.[87] This had in turn broken the previous record of 10.69 seconds, achieved by final year computing students at Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia in 2011.[88]

to this:

The fastest non-human Rubik's Cube solve was performed by the Rubik's Contraption, a robot made by Ben Katz and Jared Di Carlo. A YouTube video shows a 0.38-second solving time using an Nucleo with the min2phase algorithm. Next record is 0.637 seconds, set by Sub1, a robot made by Adam Beer, an economist and industrial engineer. A YouTube video shows a 0.637 second solving time. This improves the robot's old record: 0.887 seconds, performed using an Arduino with the Kociemba algorithm. Next record is 3.25 seconds, set by Cubestormer III, a robot built using Lego Mindstorms and a Samsung Galaxy S4.[86] This beats the prior 5.27 seconds, set by CubeStormer II, a robot built using Lego Mindstorms and a Samsung Galaxy S2.[87] This had in turn broken the previous record of 10.69 seconds, achieved by final year computing students at Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia in 2011.[88] 87.195.247.180 (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. (Please read the guideline on reliable sources if in doubt as to what constitutes one. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about this? http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43331049