- What? A 2x2 is often solved in under two seconds at competitions. The world record for 5x5 is 48.42 seconds. See also below. Mumiemonstret (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- 2x2s are certainly not harder than any other Rubik's cube by ANY standard. As the corners of any Rubik's cube have the same rotational moves, you have to solve a 2x2 at some point when solving any cube. 4x4 is harder than 5x5 though, because you can rotate away the middle pieces.126.96.36.199 07:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Looking at speedcuber's results I would disagree. 4x4 takes less than half the time. But you have a point since the "general geek" targeted by this comic's scheme might find it easier to deduce the function of a 5x5 due to the centerpieces. I still think you'd need to be a brilliant geek to be able to solve a 5x5 without prior knowledge. Mumiemonstret (talk) 12:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Um, the 5x5 Rubik's cube group also has the 4x4 group as a quotient, the same way the 4x4 has the 2x2 as a quotient; just look at the cube minus the T-center tiles and central edges.
- Of course, the ideal diversion would be a scrambled 1x1. 188.8.131.52 15:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Maybe just the geek talking here, but what's with 5x5 Rubik's cube? It should be called 5x5x5 Rubik's cube. Ok, in the title text that might be a 2-dimensions-joke. But see the previous comments. Do the readers and "explainers" all think only 2-dimensional? 184.108.40.206 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
- cubers tend to refer to sizes where all three dimensions are the same as just NxN. i don't know why, it's just convention. Undergroundmonorail (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Can confirm. I would just call it a 5x5, without even the "Rubik's cube" (because, you know, I don't think Rubik's even MAKES 5x5s; and even if they did, they would probably be shit). Beanie (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)