Talk:How to Solve the Rubik's Cube/Beginner (alternative)

Old discussion
''This old discussion took place when the article was named How To Solve Any NxNxN Rubik's Cube. I have added timestamps and IP to the discussion below to make the flow intelligible. --Abd (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)''

I'm definitely no expert on the subject, but it seems to me there is no real information in this chapter/how to. To me, it only says: "first solve the center, then solve the rest". I wonder what adds to the "How to solve the Rubik's Cube" how-to. 12:29, 23 January 2006 161.85.127.139


 * That's true. I'll try to elaborate on the method. Ravi12346 23:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The "introduction" needs rewriting to fit with the style of WikiBooks. 218.102.220.129 02:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no instruction and the are cubes of side lengths much greater than five cubeis, for instance the various "olypic cubes" who's sides I know reach a length of at least 11 cubies. I suggest rather than doing sizs increasingly you do even as opposed to odd cubes, as they are solved quite a bit differently. And good luck, this is no small task. 23:43, 2 January 2008 71.98.44.37

A 2x2x2 is not solved the same way as a 3x3x3's corners would be solved assuming that 3x3x3's edges are solves. One must consider parity when solving a 2x2x2, which is not neccesary in a 3x3x3 whose edges are solved. 22:38, 23 October 2008 71.89.38.41


 * This doesn't seem to tell how to pair the edges in a 4x4x4 or higher, just how to solve a 2x2x2 and 3x3x3, which I already know how to do 20:08, 27 October 2008 69.0.8.183

You are wrong on all accounts. I vote to remove your post here.

The guide (for solving a 3x3x3) is concise yet complete in a manner that a beginner could employ. So you're dead wrong there.

Your suggestion is horrid as well. The best way to teach how to solve an NxNxN cube is to teach the 3x3x3 solution, then to teach how to reduce the 4x4x4 to a 3x3x3 in a very general way. If you do it in a way specific to the 4x4x4 you will have to teach the 5x5x5 as well, if you teach center solving and edge pairing and the only two parity cases that can be forced in a general manner, then after the 3x3x3 and 4x4x4 are taught, anyone can solve any size of cube.

Again, you are incorrect. A 2x2x2 is indeed solved the same way as a 3x3x3's corners. There is no doubt about that. There is no parity on a 2x2x2. You are making an over generalization that parity occurs in all even-numbered cubes. That only holds for 4 and higher so you are completely wrong.

Olympic cubes only go up to 7 in size. Verdes might release 8 through 11 later on. It could be years.

I don't think you said one thing that was correct or true in any sense. 20:44, 31 March 2009 99.9.85.194


 * My, my, my. Questions are not "wrong." Asking for help or information is not "wrong." And even incorrect answers, given in an attempt to be helpful, are not "wrong," and correction of the errors then helps others who might have been under the same misapprehension. And we don't ordinarily remove discussion, even if "wrong."


 * I don't know who is correct here, on the substance, I don't know the Rubik's Cube, but I do know ordinary courtesy, and this wasn't it. This person, with all their knowledge (real or imagined), didn't take the opportunity to improve the page, at least not as IP. Maybe this was Special:Contributions/Tobad8? (Only one contribution, to the page, removing hints for solving a 2x2x2 cube. Too bad, but, I suppose, it takes all kinds. I'm restoring that, since it was removed without any discussion of it. Long ago. --Abd (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)