Twenty-Five Moves Suffice for Rubik's Cube

Tomas Rokicki

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 0803.3435

Twenty-Five Moves Suffice for Rubik's Cube

Tomas Rokicki

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

How many moves does it take to solve Rubik's Cube? Positions are known that require 20 moves, and it has already been shown that there are no positions that require 27 or more moves; this is a surprisingly large gap. This paper describes a program that is able to find solutions of length 20 or less at a rate of more than 16 million positions a second. We use this program, along with some new ideas and incremental improvements in other techniques, to show that there is no position that requires 26 moves.

Explore related subjects

cs.SC cs.DM

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Tomas Rokicki. 2008-03-24. Twenty-Five Moves Suffice for Rubik's Cube. https://arxiv.org/abs/0803.3435

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Refined complexity bounds for rational reconstruction and XGCD through Padé approximants and Cauchy interpolants

When computing with univariate polynomials, two fundamental and related problems are the XGCD and rational reconstruction, classically solved in quasi-linear complexity using the half-gcd algorithm. These problems have various applications in algebraic computations and bear strong connections to linearly recurrent sequences, structured matrices, and continued fractions. This article first gives a collection of algorithmic reductions, showing that rational reconstruction and XGCD can be solved via the computation of bases of relations modulo a freely-chosen polynomial $M(x)$. In particular, one recovers the folklore idea that bases of Padé approximants (i.e., $M(x) = x^d$) can be used to perform quasi-linear rational reconstruction or XGCD, extending to fast algorithms the well-known link between the Berlekamp-Massey algorithm and the extended Euclidean algorithm. One highlight of these reductions is that, instead of approximants, one may rely on Cauchy interpolants (i.e., $M(x)$ vanishes at chosen points). In a second part, this article describes divide-and-conquer algorithms for approximants and interpolants along with complexity analyses showing an explicit leading constant in front of the dominant term. For interpolants, the best leading constant is obtained through a variant that stores polynomials represented by evaluations, and exploits fast extrapolation in order to avoid repeated conversions to the monomial basis; this requires special points, in geometric or arithmetic progression, or FFT points when the base field allows them. Combining the analyses with the reductions leads to the best complexity bounds we are aware of for rational reconstruction and XGCD. Perhaps surprisingly, even Padé approximants or Berlekamp-Massey-like computations, which intrinsically involve $M(x) = x^d$, are accelerated by reducing them to Cauchy interpolation at well-chosen points.

cs.SC↗

arXiv2026

Parallel Integration over Simple Radical Extensions II: Mixed Towers

In Part I we extended the structure theorems underlying the Risch--Norman (parallel Risch) method to a simple radical extension $L=K(y)$, $y^m=q$, of a differential field $K=F(t_1,\dots,t_n)$ closed under the derivation. Here we remove the closure hypothesis: the radical may occupy any position in the tower, so that the derivatives of the generators above it involve $y$ --- the setting of Bronstein's algorithm for mixed elementary functions. The working ring is $\cA=\cO[t_{j+1},\dots,t_n]$, the integral closure of $F[t_1,\dots,t_n]$ in $L$: a Krull domain, free over the polynomial ring on Trager's basis, so that all factorisation remains in a unique factorisation domain. The denominator of the derivation is no longer an element but a divisor $\fd_D$ on $\cA$, and the valuation lemma takes the unified form $v_P(Dg)=v_P(g)-(1+v_P(\fd_D))$ at normal height-one primes, subsuming the shifts $\{1,e_P\}$ of Part I; the proof localises and requires no cancellation analysis. Stability of the class group and the unit group, $\Cl(\cA)\cong\Cl(\cO)$ and $\cA^*=\cO^*$, splits the admissible logands into $S$-units of $\cO$ --- computed by the machinery of Part I --- and irreducible polynomials moving in the upper variables, whose residues must be constants. We prove degree bounds in the top variable and describe the resulting algorithm, which --- unlike the classical parallel method, whose failure proves nothing --- returns certificates of non-elementarity in two situations: a residue outside the constant field, and, when every bound in force is proved, a residue-free remainder that the linear system shows to be non-exact.

cs.SC↗

arXiv2026

Probably correct row echelon form in the F4 algorithm

The computation of row echelon form is one of the main bottlenecks in the F4 algorithm. Several state of the art implementations use a probabilistic algorithm attributed to Monagan, Pearce, and Steel to accelerate this computation. Despite this, no bound on the probability that the algorithm returns an incorrect result appears to be available. In this paper, we provide such a bound. Furthermore, building on this result, we propose a Las-Vegas variant of the F4 algorithm and show experimentally that it can outperform deterministic F4 on some classical examples.

cs.SC↗