Maybe I'll just show my algebraic ineptitude, but how do you know that g' restores "everything else"? I get that gg' = I, of course, but gT*g'? Rubik cube algebra isn't commutative, is it?
The part that is important is T has a very specific effect, such as rotating three corner pieces, that doesn’t change most of the cube. Then you pick a g that doesn’t affect those pieces either (except in the way that you want) so that gTg’ does what you want.
It doesn’t work in general for any arbitrary T of course since it’s not commutative as you noted. This is more of a cubing thing than an algebra thing.
You are right that it is not really an algebra thing. It's a bijection between finite sets thing. If you apply a bijective mapping from set A onto set B, then apply some permutation to B, and then apply the inverse mapping, you get a permutation of A that has the same structure as the permutation you applied to B.
By "same structure" I mean that if written as a product of disjoint cycles has the same number and sizes of cycles.
Abstract algebra is probably the first place most people would encounter it though, in the context of conjugates in groups.
Let's step away from the cube and consider permutations on a set of N items, labeled 1, 2, 3, ..., N. In the example below N is at least 9. We start out with item 1 at position 1, item 2 at position 2, and so on.
Suppose we want to move what is at 4 => 8, 8 => 9, and 9 => 4, leaving everything else unchanged but the only permutation we know that moves 3 items in a cycle leaving everything else unchanged moves 1 => 2, 2 => 3, and 3 => 1. This latter permutation we'll call T.
Consider any permutation g that does 4 => 1, 8 => 2, and 9 => 3. It may or may not move other things. The inverse of g, g', does 1 => 4, 2 => 8, and 3 => 9.
Let's work out what happens if we do gTg'.
First let is just look at items 4, 8, and 9, which are at positions 4, 8, and 9, respectively. g takes those to positions 1, 2, and 3. Then T takes positions 1, 2, 3 to 2, 3, 1, so what we have in positions 1, 2, 3 is items 9, 4, and 8 in that order. Finally g' takes what is in positions 1, 2, and 3 to 4, 8, and 9, so we end up with item 9 at 4, item 4 at 8, and item 8 at 9.
So for positions 4, 8, and 9, gTg' does 4 => 8, 8 => 9, and 9 => 4.
g necessarily had to move whatever was in 1, 2, and 3 out of the way to make room for 4, 8, and 9, so we have to consider what happens to what was at 1, 2, 3. Let's just look at 1. It has to go somewhere. Call that position p. So g does 1 => p, where p is not 1, 2, or 3. g' does p => 1.
T only moves things in 1, 2, 3, so after g moves whatever was originally at 1 to p, T leaves it along. g' then does p => 1, putting it back where it came from. So we see that gTg' does not move 1. Same reasoning applies for 2 and 3.
If g moves any x else other than 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9 we can use the same argument. x => y for some y that is not 1, 2, or 3. T does not move y. g' does y => x, putting x back where it came from.
Thus we can conclude that gTg' only moves 4, 8, and 9.
Another way you can visualize why it works when applied to the cube is by cheating a bit. First do g legitimately by actually doing the moves on your cube. Then instead of actually doing the moves for T just repaint the faces on the cubies that T permutes so it looks like you did T. Then legitimately do g'.
Since you haven't actually done T the only actual moves you have done are gg' which as you've noted is of course I, so everything is back where it started but with some of the faces on some of the cubies repainted. The repainted faces are exactly those that would have ended up moved if you had actually done T. The faces not repainted are those that would be undisturbed by gTg'.
The key here is that all these mappings are finite, one to one, and onto (bijective if we want to get fancy). If you apply such a mapping from A to B, then permute k elements in B, and then apply the inverse mapping, you end up with k elements permuted in A.
mrfox321|3 years ago
in his example, let's say there's some 3-cycle (123) the cuber knows. But really, the cuber wants to transform like (479).
Conjugation being equivalent to a group action implies the cuber only needs to find a group that permutes 1->4, 2->7, 3->9.
Let's say one is found: (14)(27)(39)...
gTg' => [(14)(27)(39)...](123)[(14)(27)(39)...]' = (479)
zeroonetwothree|3 years ago
It doesn’t work in general for any arbitrary T of course since it’s not commutative as you noted. This is more of a cubing thing than an algebra thing.
tzs|3 years ago
By "same structure" I mean that if written as a product of disjoint cycles has the same number and sizes of cycles.
Abstract algebra is probably the first place most people would encounter it though, in the context of conjugates in groups.
tzs|3 years ago
Suppose we want to move what is at 4 => 8, 8 => 9, and 9 => 4, leaving everything else unchanged but the only permutation we know that moves 3 items in a cycle leaving everything else unchanged moves 1 => 2, 2 => 3, and 3 => 1. This latter permutation we'll call T.
Consider any permutation g that does 4 => 1, 8 => 2, and 9 => 3. It may or may not move other things. The inverse of g, g', does 1 => 4, 2 => 8, and 3 => 9.
Let's work out what happens if we do gTg'.
First let is just look at items 4, 8, and 9, which are at positions 4, 8, and 9, respectively. g takes those to positions 1, 2, and 3. Then T takes positions 1, 2, 3 to 2, 3, 1, so what we have in positions 1, 2, 3 is items 9, 4, and 8 in that order. Finally g' takes what is in positions 1, 2, and 3 to 4, 8, and 9, so we end up with item 9 at 4, item 4 at 8, and item 8 at 9.
So for positions 4, 8, and 9, gTg' does 4 => 8, 8 => 9, and 9 => 4.
g necessarily had to move whatever was in 1, 2, and 3 out of the way to make room for 4, 8, and 9, so we have to consider what happens to what was at 1, 2, 3. Let's just look at 1. It has to go somewhere. Call that position p. So g does 1 => p, where p is not 1, 2, or 3. g' does p => 1.
T only moves things in 1, 2, 3, so after g moves whatever was originally at 1 to p, T leaves it along. g' then does p => 1, putting it back where it came from. So we see that gTg' does not move 1. Same reasoning applies for 2 and 3.
If g moves any x else other than 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9 we can use the same argument. x => y for some y that is not 1, 2, or 3. T does not move y. g' does y => x, putting x back where it came from.
Thus we can conclude that gTg' only moves 4, 8, and 9.
Another way you can visualize why it works when applied to the cube is by cheating a bit. First do g legitimately by actually doing the moves on your cube. Then instead of actually doing the moves for T just repaint the faces on the cubies that T permutes so it looks like you did T. Then legitimately do g'.
Since you haven't actually done T the only actual moves you have done are gg' which as you've noted is of course I, so everything is back where it started but with some of the faces on some of the cubies repainted. The repainted faces are exactly those that would have ended up moved if you had actually done T. The faces not repainted are those that would be undisturbed by gTg'.
The key here is that all these mappings are finite, one to one, and onto (bijective if we want to get fancy). If you apply such a mapping from A to B, then permute k elements in B, and then apply the inverse mapping, you end up with k elements permuted in A.