   Date: Sun, 17 Dec 95 02:41:02 -0500 (EST)   From: Dan Hoey <hoey@aic.nrl.navy.mil > ~~~ Subject: Presenting Rubik's Cube

A few weeks ago I mentioned the old problem of finding a presentation
of the Rubik's cube group in terms of the usual generators. This was
posed by Singmaster over 15 years ago, and as far as I know has never

I work using a specially selected set of generators, rather than the
usual generators given for the cube. First I give presentations
separately for the permutation groups of the corners and edges, and
the orientation groups of the corners and edges. Then I join the
permutation groups with their respective orientation groups to form
the wreath groups, which describe the possible motions of the
respective piece types. I join the two wreath groups in such a way
that the permutation parity of the two is equal. Finally, I discuss a
method of converting to the usual generators.

```In Coxeter and Moser's _Generators and Relations for Discrete Groups,
2nd ed_ I found Coxeter's presentation 6.271 for the symmetric group
on {1,2,...,n}, n even.  With a modest change of variables, his
presentation is on generators
v=(1 2) and s=(2 3 ... n)                                ((1))
and relators
v^2,
v s^(n-2) (v s^-1)^(n-1),
(s^-1 v s v)^3, and
((s^-1 v)^i (s v)^i)^2,            i=2,...,n/2-1.        ((2))
Here n will be 8 or 12 to present the group of the permutations of
corners or edges, respectively.

The orientation group of the corners (or edges) is the direct product
of n-1 cyclic groups, which can be presented with generators
r_0=(1)+(2)-
r_1=(1)+(3)-, ...,
r_(n-2)=(1)+(n)-,      ((3))
where (k)+ indicates a reorientation of piece k in place and (k)-
indicates the inverse reorientation.  The relators here are
r_i^d,            (d=3 (corners) or 2 (edges)), and
r_i r_j r_i^-1 r_j^-1,            0 <= i < j <= n-2.     ((4))

I generate the wreath group with the union of the generators ((1,3)).
v r_0 v r_0
v r_i v r_0 r_i                   i=1,...,n-2,
s^-1 r_i s^i r_(i+1)^-1           i=0,...,n-3, and
s^-1 r_(n-2) s^i r_0^-1                                 ((5))
will permit moving the r_i to the end of a word, after which the
previous relators ((2)) and ((4)) may be used to manipulate the parts
separately, just as a Rubik's cube solvers can perform any needed
permutations before reorientations.

In the wreath group, the r_i are conjugate to each other.  The third
line of ((5)) may be used to define r_k = s^-k r_0 s^k, so I eliminate
r_1,...,r_(n-1) and write r_0 as r.  The last line of ((5)) is then a
consequence of s^(n-1)=e, which is implied by ((2)), according to
Coxeter.  The conjugacy also lets me rewrite ((4)) as
r^d,            (d=3 (corners) or 2 (edges)), and
s^-j r s^j r' s^-j r' s^j r,      j=1,...,(n-2)/2.      ((6))
```

As the discussion turns to working with corners and edges together, I
write cs,cr and es,er for the respective generators. I use a single
generator v that acts on both corners and edges, to ensure that the
corner permutation has the same parity as the edge permutation. Since
any identity in {v,cs,cr} must use an even number of v's, the identity
will hold in the when the v operates on edges as well; similarly for
{v,es,er} operating on the corners.

```To present the whole cube group, I use all five generators, relators
((2,5,6)) for both corners and edges, and new relators
es cs es' cs', er cs er cs', es cr es' cr', er cr er cr'
to make the two kinds of generators commute, so they may be separated
in a word.  According to GAP, the complete set of relators is
er^2,
v^2,
cr^3,
er cr er cr^-1,
er cs er cs^-1,
es cr es^-1 cr^-1,
es cs es^-1 cs^-1,
(v cr)^2,
(v er)^2,
cr cs cr cs^-1 cr^-1 cs cr^-1 cs^-1,
(er es er es^-1)^2,
cs cr^-1 cs^-1 v cs cr cs^-1 v cr,
cs^-1 cr^-1 cs v cs^-1 cr cs v cr,
(es er es^-1 v)^2 er,
(es^-1 er es v)^2 er,
cr cs^2 cr cs^-2 cr^-1 cs^2 cr^-1 cs^-2,
(cs^-1 v cs v)^3,
(er es^2 er es^-2)^2,
(es^-1 v es v)^3,
cr^-1 cs^-2 v cs^2 cr cs^-2 v cr cs^2,
cr^-1 cs^2 v cs^-2 cr cs^2 v cr cs^-2,
er es^-2 v es^2 er es^-2 v er es^2,
er es^2 v es^-2 er es^2 v er es^-2,
cr cs^3 cr cs^-3 cr^-1 cs^3 cr^-1 cs^-3,
((cs^-1 v)^2 (cs v)^2)^2,
(er es^3 er es^-3)^2,
((es^-1 v)^2 (es v)^2)^2,
cs^-3 v cs^3 cr cs^-3 v cr cs^3 cr^-1,
cs^3 v cs^-3 cr cs^3 v cr cs^-3 cr^-1,
(es^3 er es^-3 v)^2 er,
(es^-3 er es^3 v)^2 er,
(cs^-2 v cs^-1 v cs v cs^2 v)^2,
(es^-2 v es^-1 v es v es^2 v)^2,
(er es^4 er es^-4)^2,
(es^-4 er es^4 v)^2 er,
(es^4 er es^-4 v)^2 er,
v cs^6 (v cs^-1)^7,
(es^-3 v es^-1 v es v es^3 v)^2,
(er es^5 er es^-5)^2,
(es^5 er es^-5 v)^2 er,
(es^-5 er es^5 v)^2 er,
(es^4 v es^-4 v es^-1 v es v)^2,
v es^10 (v es^-1)^11,                                     ((7))
which has 43 relators of total length 597.  It is apparently beyond
GAP's ability to verify that these relators present the cube group,
though I have verified some smaller wreath groups.
```

This presentation is of course in terms of generators {v,es,er,cs,cr},
not the generators {F,B,L,R,T,D} natural to the cube. But they can be
translated as follows. Each quarter-turn Q can be expressed as a word
w(Q) over {v,es,er,cs,cr}, and adding the relators

```F' w(F), B' w(B), L' w(L), R' w(R), T' w(T), D' w(D)     ((8))
```

will create a presentation on eleven generators
{v,es,er,cs,cr,F,B,L,R,T,D}. I estimate that the added relators will
be under 70 letters each, and probably less. If it is desired to
completely eliminate {v,es,er,cs,cr}, that may be done by replacing
each of {v,es,er,cs,cr} with processes in terms of F,B,L,R,T,D,
throughout ((7,8)). My understanding of the current state of the
software is that the processes will probably be less than 30
quarter-turns each. This would yield a presentation of 49 relators
and perhaps 2000 letters. It should be possible to improve this quite
a bit. I would suggest:

1. Choosing the corner and edge numbering to reduce the
rewriting blowup,
2. Allowing w(Q) to use previously-related Q's as well as
{v,es,er,cs,cr}.
3. Adding new relators to abbreviate higher powers, especially
of es and cs, in the presentation.
4. Introducing short relators such as F^4=FBF'B'=e to cut down on
the general verbosity of the relators.

But improvement to the level of actual comprehensibility may require
new ideas. Perhaps Dave Rusin's "clearer statement" of the question
may help, if I can figure out what it means.

```Dan                                        posted and e-mailed
Hoey@AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil
```     