Originally published at: http://boingboing.net/2016/11/11/watch-a-robot-solve-a-rubiks-c.html

…

# Watch a robot solve a Rubiks Cube in 0.637 seconds

**beschizza**#1

Nice, but didn’t take very many moves to solve, likely not really “scrambled” much at all.

It would be interesting to let it run from random number generated output for a few minutes to get it *really* scrambled, then see how long it took to solve.

That is awesome! You just won the intarwebs for me!

(Huh, seems they updated in 2014 to 26 )

**daneel**#9

I think the 26 is for rotations of 90deg. The 20 also counts rotations of 180deg as one move.

**LearnedCoward**#11

It’s 20 moves if you take all the Catholic and Jewish moves out. 26 if you leave them in.

**bobtato**#13

Just imagine how much more respect America could have right now if you’d elected *this* thing as your president

**ACE**#14

Also the 'bot is able to turn both the top and bottom (or left and right) faces simultaneously, while holding the center still, combining two moves into one in a way that would be difficult for a human being to achieve.

In the early days of cube mathematics, two camps emerged on how to measure the difficulty of a position. West coast and Stanford mathematicians, free thinkers all, tended to prefer the half-turn metric,where any twist of any face, whether 90 degrees, 180 degrees, or 270 degrees counted as a single move. The east coast crowd, including MIT, tended to prefer the rigor of the quarter-turn metric, where a half-turn counted as two moves, since of course it could be accomplished by two consecutive quarter turns.

And now you know the real East-West war that lead to Tupac’s death

**Ambiguity**#18

Well, it would be a little limited in what it could do, but what it *could* do, it could do well!

**Ambiguity**#19

Milliseconds

Bah!

I once tried to get my children interested in the cube, so *I* learned to solve it.

In milliseconds.

About 300000 of them.

**Ambiguity**#20

That makes sense I mean, how many *solved* cubes are there? One, or six?

One seems the best answer to me, given the group rotational symmetry. So I vote for 20, not 26.

Democratic mathematics!