1
$\begingroup$

How many movements are needed to reach all arrangements of a Rubik’s Cube?

According to my Google searches, there are $43,252,003,274,489,856,000$ possible arrangements, and the maximum number of moves required to solve is $20$.

Is that right, and how was $20$ calculated?

  • 1
    20 is calculated by google with brute force (Except that they reduced the large number by some factor using symmetries ans such) – 2017-02-24
  • 0
    if I want to know the number of movement for each face to get arranged face(have the same color ) how can I do – 2017-02-24

1 Answers 1

1

The number of legal positions is indeed $$ \frac{12! \cdot 8!}2 \cdot 2^{11} \cdot 3^{7} = 43\,252\,003\,274\,489\,856\,000 $$ which is derived in most mathematically-minded introductions to the cube.

The fact that each of these positions can be solved in $20$ moves (where turning a side 180° counts as one move) was discovered only in 2010 after an exhaustive computer search for positions that would need more. This used a combination of raw computer power (donated by Google, equivalent to one CPU running for 35 years) and clever tricks to speed up the search. There are details on http://cube20.org/

(If you only count 90° turns as moves, there are positions that require 26 moves to solve, found by similar methods 4 years later).

  • 0
    thanks a lot, why 20 how calculated? – 2017-02-24
  • 1
    He answered that - "A lot of computer time." @rose – 2017-02-24
  • 0
    The first position has proven to require 20 moves, this for one face? if for 6 faces how many times – 2017-02-24
  • 0
    @Peter Sho, can you answer if I want to know the number of movement for each face to get arranged face(have the same color ) how can I do – 2017-02-25
  • 0
    @rose: 20 moves are for solving the cube _completely_. I'm not aware of any analysis of how many moves it can take to solve just one face. – 2017-02-25
  • 0
    thanks a lot, but I want to know from where this number came, why 20, thanks for you. (: – 2017-02-25
  • 0
    @rose: As I already wrote in my answer, and Thomas Andrews already repeated to you once: It was found by an exhaustive computer search. – 2017-02-25