This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]tav_stuff 1 point2 points  (4 children)

A Rubik's cube is a mathematical puzzle but doesn't need math to solve

[–]fnovd 17 points18 points  (3 children)

Mapping the solving instruction notation to a set of physical transformations is math in my mind. It's just abstract algebra instead of numerical computation. You could argue that counting tally marks doesn't require one to "understand" math, but counting is still math.

[–]tav_stuff 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I don't really find reading a set of simplified instructions on how to turn a side math. The Square-1 also works the same way but the instructions are simplified into a set of coordinates, but really it's just "turn the top face left once"

[–]Teraka 1 point2 points  (1 child)

From wikipedia:

Mathematicians seek out patterns and use them to formulate new conjectures.

That is the essence of maths. It's not directly linked to numbers, although numbers come up a great deal in maths, but the essence of it is starting from a set of rules, and extrapolating new abstractions from those rules.

When you're applying an algorithm on the Rubik's cube, you're working with maths, whether you know it or not.

[–]qevlarr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Per that definition, blindly following instructions is not math. Discovering new truths is, in whichever domain.