Thread: "Did I Hear MC6D??"

From: "noel.chalmers" <ltd.dv8r@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 17:02:59 -0000
Subject: Did I Hear MC6D??



Are we seriously talking about a 6D puzzle? Trying to explain the 4D
and 5D was hard enough, lol. Well pushing the boundary is what you
guys have proven to be very good at, so I wouldn't be surprised to
hear that indeed the MC6D is under production.

As for the puzzle itself, I have to say that it would be completely
ridiculous. Using Roice's method for a 3x3, it would take an average
person about 100 moves to solve the 3D cube, 1000 moves to solve the
4D, 10000 to solve the 5D. So I would guess it would take around
100000 moves to solve the 6D cube. Considering it only took me 26000
to solve the 5^5, 100000 moves seems a bit steep. That being said, if
you do end up making the MC6D, I'll definitely be making a go at it. :)

Cheers,
Noel




From: "spel_werdz_rite" <spel_werdz_rite@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 15:08:19 -0000
Subject: Re: Did I Hear MC6D??



The problem a 6D puzzle is positioning. If you notice in the 5D cube,
the U and V faces all lie in a fixed point. However if you were to dig
into the details of dimensional analysis, they should technically be
able to move about space as freely as the X,Y, and Z faces. Adding two
new faces on the next dimension would cause a confusing image if done
the same way the 5D cube was done. This is in no way a criticism of
MC5D because it's not so bad with 4 faces in one place. Sure one could
consider hiding faces as done in MC5D, but I for one feel it would
just be a little frustrating in 6-dimensions. Plus, every face would
have a 3x3 square arranges in a 3x3x3 array. That would be nasty, yes?
However I do feel that if some kinks were worked out, it would be a
very fun puzzle!




From: "Roice Nelson" <roice3@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 14:56:23 -0500
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Re: Did I Hear MC6D??



------=_Part_3776_9667018.1211658983780
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_Part_3777_21384218.1211658983780"

------=_Part_3777_21384218.1211658983780
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

I don't think MC6D is in development, and the discussion about really making
one isn't serious, but interesting for sure! For myself, I also don't think
the puzzle would be fun ;) But anyway, Nelson Makes a good point about the
problem of too many centrally projected axes. I actually did a little proof
of concept investigation of the MC6D display a while ago (very little code
was required), and so I can show a few screen shots. These would be a
display of 3^6 where all stickers are drawn as points (instead of
5-cubes). I'm attaching 3 pics, the first with the 3 higher-d axes all
centrally projected, the second with 2 of 3 centrally projected, and the
third with only 1 of 3 centrally projected. The offsets of the projection
points from center in the latter two cases were just given some arbitrary
values, as there could be a lot of choices. This is as far as I wanted to
take it myself, but I'm happy to send anyone the 100 or so lines of code I
hacked into MC5D to produce these if they wanted to take it any further.

Btw, when I had looked at this, I came to the conclusion that I liked MC5D
with the uv axes both centrally projected better than giving one an off axes
projection, so I didn't take any time to try to add extended projection
possibilities as a feature (How would the UI provide a nice way to choose
the offset anyway?). I just made one more screen shot with an example
non-central MC5D projection. I've always liked the look of 4-cubes
centrally projected better as well, maybe because I perceive it as appearing
more symmetrical. But I do think in the MC4D case, it could be a cool
extension nonetheless... I just saw Melinda's email, so I think I'll go add
this to the group wish-list :)

Roice

wrote:
>
> The problem a 6D puzzle is positioning. If you notice in the 5D cube,
> the U and V faces all lie in a fixed point. However if you were to dig
> into the details of dimensional analysis, they should technically be
> able to move about space as freely as the X,Y, and Z faces. Adding two
> new faces on the next dimension would cause a confusing image if done
> the same way the 5D cube was done. This is in no way a criticism of
> MC5D because it's not so bad with 4 faces in one place. Sure one could
> consider hiding faces as done in MC5D, but I for one feel it would
> just be a little frustrating in 6-dimensions. Plus, every face would
> have a 3x3 square arranges in a 3x3x3 array. That would be nasty, yes?
> However I do feel that if some kinks were worked out, it would be a
> very fun puzzle!
>
"noel.chalmers" wrote:
>
> Are we seriously talking about a 6D puzzle? Trying to explain the 4D
> and 5D was hard enough, lol. Well pushing the boundary is what you
> guys have proven to be very good at, so I wouldn't be surprised to
> hear that indeed the MC6D is under production.
>
> As for the puzzle itself, I have to say that it would be completely
> ridiculous. Using Roice's method for a 3x3, it would take an average
> person about 100 moves to solve the 3D cube, 1000 moves to solve the
> 4D, 10000 to solve the 5D. So I would guess it would take around
> 100000 moves to solve the 6D cube. Considering it only took me 26000
> to solve the 5^5, 100000 moves seems a bit steep. That being said, if
> you do end up making the MC6D, I'll definitely be making a go at it. :)
>
> Cheers,
> Noel
>

------=_Part_3777_21384218.1211658983780
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

I don't think MC6D is in development, and the discussion about rea=
lly making one isn't serious, but interesting for sure!  For mysel=
f, I also don't think the puzzle would be fun ;)  But anyway, Nels=
on Makes a good point about the problem of too many centrally projected axe=
s.  I actually did a little proof of concept investigation of the =
;MC6D display a while ago (very little code was required), and so=
I can show a few screen shots.  These would be a display of 3^6 where=
all stickers are drawn as points (instead of 5-cubes).  I'm =
attaching 3 pics, the first with the 3 higher-d axes all centrally pro=
jected, the second with 2 of 3 centrally projected, and the third with only=
1 of 3 centrally projected.  The offsets of the projection points fro=
m center in the latter two cases were just given some arbitrary values, as =
there could be a lot of choices.  This is as far as I wanted to t=
ake it myself, but I'm happy to send anyone the 100 or so lines of=
code I hacked into MC5D to produce these if they wanted to take it any fur=
ther.


 

Btw, when I had looked at this, I came to the conclusion that I liked =
MC5D with the uv axes both centrally projected better than giving one an of=
f axes projection, so I didn't take any time to try to add ex=
tended projection possibilities as a feature (How would the UI provide a ni=
ce way to choose the offset anyway?).  I just made one more screen sho=
t with an example non-central MC5D projection.  I've always l=
iked the look of 4-cubes centrally projected better as well, maybe because&=
nbsp;I perceive it as appearing more symmetrical.  But I do think=
in the MC4D case, it could be a cool extension nonetheless...  I just=
saw Melinda's email, so I think I'll go add this to the group wish=
-list :)


 

Roice

 

<spel_werdz_rite@...> wrote:
>
> The problem a 6D pu=
zzle is positioning. If you notice in the 5D cube,
> the U and V face=
s all lie in a fixed point. However if you were to dig
> into the det=
ails of dimensional analysis, they should technically be

> able to move about space as freely as the X,Y, and Z faces. Adding two=

> new faces on the next dimension would cause a confusing image if d=
one
> the same way the 5D cube was done. This is in no way a criticis=
m of

> MC5D because it's not so bad with 4 faces in one place. Sure one c=
ould
> consider hiding faces as done in MC5D, but I for one feel it w=
ould
> just be a little frustrating in 6-dimensions. Plus, every face=
would

> have a 3x3 square arranges in a 3x3x3 array. That would be nasty, yes?=

> However I do feel that if some kinks were worked out, it would be =
a
> very fun puzzle!
>

"noel.chalmers" <ltd.dv8r@...> wrote:
>
> =
Are we seriously talking about a 6D puzzle? Trying to explain the 4D
>=
; and 5D was hard enough, lol. Well pushing the boundary is what you

> guys have proven to be very good at, so I wouldn't be surprised to=

> hear that indeed the MC6D is under production.
>
> As=
for the puzzle itself, I have to say that it would be completely
> r=
idiculous. Using Roice's method for a 3x3, it would take an average

> person about 100 moves to solve the 3D cube, 1000 moves to solve ther>> 4D, 10000 to solve the 5D. So I would guess it would take around
=
> 100000 moves to solve the 6D cube. Considering it only took me 26000r>
> to solve the 5^5, 100000 moves seems a bit steep. That being said, if<=
br>> you do end up making the MC6D, I'll definitely be making a go a=
t it. :)
>
> Cheers,
> Noel
>


------=_Part_3777_21384218.1211658983780--

------=_Part_3776_9667018.1211658983780
Content-Type: application/x-ygp-stripped
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Attachment-Id: f_fgmm6yb40

Content-Type: image/jpeg; name=3^6_uvw_central.jpg
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
X-Attachment-Id: f_fgmm6yb40
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=3^6_uvw_central.jpg

------=_Part_3776_9667018.1211658983780
Content-Type: application/x-ygp-stripped
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Attachment-Id: f_fgmm7e0o1

Content-Type: image/jpeg; name=3^6_uv_central.jpg
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
X-Attachment-Id: f_fgmm7e0o1
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=3^6_uv_central.jpg

------=_Part_3776_9667018.1211658983780
Content-Type: application/x-ygp-stripped
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Attachment-Id: f_fgmm7gel2

Content-Type: image/jpeg; name=3^6_u_central.jpg
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
X-Attachment-Id: f_fgmm7gel2
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=3^6_u_central.jpg

------=_Part_3776_9667018.1211658983780
Content-Type: application/x-ygp-stripped
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Attachment-Id: f_fgmm7iym3

Content-Type: image/jpeg; name=3^5_non_central_projection.jpg
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
X-Attachment-Id: f_fgmm7iym3
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=3^5_non_central_projection.jpg

------=_Part_3776_9667018.1211658983780--




From: "Roice Nelson" <roice3@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 15:07:39 -0500
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Re: Did I Hear MC6D??



------=_Part_3787_17973631.1211659659783
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

I should have perhaps used the album feature of yahoo groups instead of
attaching pics, which I just noticed when editing the wish list (sorry for
any possible trouble). The pics are here now too:

http://games.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/4D_Cubing/photos/browse/6d1c

cya,
Roice

On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Roice Nelson wrote:

> I don't think MC6D is in development, and the discussion about really
> making one isn't serious, but interesting for sure! For myself, I also
> don't think the puzzle would be fun ;) But anyway, Nelson Makes a good
> point about the problem of too many centrally projected axes. I actually
> did a little proof of concept investigation of the MC6D display a while
> ago (very little code was required), and so I can show a few screen shots.
> These would be a display of 3^6 where all stickers are drawn as points
> (instead of 5-cubes). I'm attaching 3 pics, the first with the 3 higher-d
> axes all centrally projected, the second with 2 of 3 centrally projected,
> and the third with only 1 of 3 centrally projected. The offsets of the
> projection points from center in the latter two cases were just given some
> arbitrary values, as there could be a lot of choices. This is as far as
> I wanted to take it myself, but I'm happy to send anyone the 100 or so lines
> of code I hacked into MC5D to produce these if they wanted to take it any
> further.
>
> Btw, when I had looked at this, I came to the conclusion that I liked MC5D
> with the uv axes both centrally projected better than giving one an off axes
> projection, so I didn't take any time to try to add extended projection
> possibilities as a feature (How would the UI provide a nice way to choose
> the offset anyway?). I just made one more screen shot with an example
> non-central MC5D projection. I've always liked the look of 4-cubes
> centrally projected better as well, maybe because I perceive it as appearing
> more symmetrical. But I do think in the MC4D case, it could be a cool
> extension nonetheless... I just saw Melinda's email, so I think I'll go add
> this to the group wish-list :)
>
> Roice
>

------=_Part_3787_17973631.1211659659783
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

I should have perhaps used the album feature of yahoo groups instead o=
f attaching pics, which I just noticed when editing the wish list (sor=
ry for any possible trouble).  The pics are here now too:

 

wse/6d1c">http://games.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/4D_Cubing/photos/browse/6d=
1c

 

cya,

Roice


On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Roice Nelson &l=
t;roice3@gmail.com>> wrote:

px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
I don't think MC6D is in development, and the discussion about rea=
lly making one isn't serious, but interesting for sure!  For mysel=
f, I also don't think the puzzle would be fun ;)  But anyway, Nels=
on Makes a good point about the problem of too many centrally projected axe=
s.  I actually did a little proof of concept investigation of the =
;MC6D display a while ago (very little code was required), and so=
I can show a few screen shots.  These would be a display of 3^6 where=
all stickers are drawn as points (instead of 5-cubes).  I'm =
attaching 3 pics, the first with the 3 higher-d axes all centrally pro=
jected, the second with 2 of 3 centrally projected, and the third with only=
1 of 3 centrally projected.  The offsets of the projection points fro=
m center in the latter two cases were just given some arbitrary values, as =
there could be a lot of choices.  This is as far as I wanted to t=
ake it myself, but I'm happy to send anyone the 100 or so lines of=
code I hacked into MC5D to produce these if they wanted to take it any fur=
ther.


 

Btw, when I had looked at this, I came to the conclusion that I liked =
MC5D with the uv axes both centrally projected better than giving one an of=
f axes projection, so I didn't take any time to try to add ex=
tended projection possibilities as a feature (How would the UI provide a ni=
ce way to choose the offset anyway?).  I just made one more screen sho=
t with an example non-central MC5D projection.  I've always l=
iked the look of 4-cubes centrally projected better as well, maybe because&=
nbsp;I perceive it as appearing more symmetrical.  But I do think=
in the MC4D case, it could be a cool extension nonetheless...  I just=
saw Melinda's email, so I think I'll go add this to the group wish=
-list :)


 

Roice


------=_Part_3787_17973631.1211659659783--




From: "Jenelle Levenstein" <jenelle.levenstein@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 08:48:24 -0500
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Re: Did I Hear MC6D??



------=_Part_17614_16021689.1211809704151
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

The images of the MC6D look amazing. Somewhere I heard that when the first
rubrics cube was invented it was designed as a mechanical puzzle and was
never really meant to be solved. So my question is when you designed the
MC5D did you expect someone to solve it or were you just creating it to
solve the graphical puzzle of displaying a 5Drubix cube on 2D computer
screen.

On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Roice Nelson wrote:

> I should have perhaps used the album feature of yahoo groups instead of
> attaching pics, which I just noticed when editing the wish list (sorry for
> any possible trouble). The pics are here now too:
>
> http://games.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/4D_Cubing/photos/browse/6d1c
>
> cya,
> Roice
>
> On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Roice Nelson wrote:
>
>> I don't think MC6D is in development, and the discussion about really
>> making one isn't serious, but interesting for sure! For myself, I also
>> don't think the puzzle would be fun ;) But anyway, Nelson Makes a good
>> point about the problem of too many centrally projected axes. I actually
>> did a little proof of concept investigation of the MC6D display a while
>> ago (very little code was required), and so I can show a few screen shots.
>> These would be a display of 3^6 where all stickers are drawn as points
>> (instead of 5-cubes). I'm attaching 3 pics, the first with the 3 higher-d
>> axes all centrally projected, the second with 2 of 3 centrally projected,
>> and the third with only 1 of 3 centrally projected. The offsets of the
>> projection points from center in the latter two cases were just given some
>> arbitrary values, as there could be a lot of choices. This is as far as
>> I wanted to take it myself, but I'm happy to send anyone the 100 or so lines
>> of code I hacked into MC5D to produce these if they wanted to take it any
>> further.
>>
>> Btw, when I had looked at this, I came to the conclusion that I liked MC5D
>> with the uv axes both centrally projected better than giving one an off axes
>> projection, so I didn't take any time to try to add extended projection
>> possibilities as a feature (How would the UI provide a nice way to choose
>> the offset anyway?). I just made one more screen shot with an example
>> non-central MC5D projection. I've always liked the look of 4-cubes
>> centrally projected better as well, maybe because I perceive it as appearing
>> more symmetrical. But I do think in the MC4D case, it could be a cool
>> extension nonetheless... I just saw Melinda's email, so I think I'll go add
>> this to the group wish-list :)
>>
>> Roice
>>
>
>

------=_Part_17614_16021689.1211809704151
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

The images of the MC6D look amazing. Somewhere I heard that when the first =
rubrics cube was invented it was designed as a mechanical puzzle and was ne=
ver really meant to be solved. So my question is when you designed the MC5D=
did you expect someone to solve it or were you just creating it to solve t=
he graphical puzzle of displaying a 5Drubix cube on 2D computer screen. >

On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Roice Nelso=
n <
roice3@gmail.com> wrote:r>
, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">













left;">



I should have perhaps used the album feature of yah=
oo groups instead of attaching pics, which I just noticed when editing the =
wish list (sorry for any possible trouble).  The pics are he=
re now too:


 


 

cya,

Roice


On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Roice Nelson &l=
t;roice3@gmail.com>> wrote:

204, 204);">
I don't think MC6D is in development, and the discussion about rea=
lly making one isn't serious, but interesting for sure!  For mysel=
f, I also don't think the puzzle would be fun ;)  But anyway, Nels=
on Makes a good point about the problem of too many centrally projected axe=
s.  I actually did a little proof of concept investigation of the =
;MC6D display a while ago (very little code was required), and so=
I can show a few screen shots.  These would be a display of 3^6 where=
all stickers are drawn as points (instead of 5-cubes).  I'm =
attaching 3 pics, the first with the 3 higher-d axes all centrally pro=
jected, the second with 2 of 3 centrally projected, and the third with only=
1 of 3 centrally projected.  The offsets of the projection points fro=
m center in the latter two cases were just given some arbitrary values, as =
there could be a lot of choices.  This is as far as I wanted to t=
ake it myself, but I'm happy to send anyone the 100 or so lines of=
code I hacked into MC5D to produce these if they wanted to take it any fur=
ther.



 

Btw, when I had looked at this, I came to the conclusion that I liked =
MC5D with the uv axes both centrally projected better than giving one an of=
f axes projection, so I didn't take any time to try to add ex=
tended projection possibilities as a feature (How would the UI provide a ni=
ce way to choose the offset anyway?).  I just made one more screen sho=
t with an example non-central MC5D projection.  I've always l=
iked the look of 4-cubes centrally projected better as well, maybe because&=
nbsp;I perceive it as appearing more symmetrical.  But I do think=
in the MC4D case, it could be a cool extension nonetheless...  I just=
saw Melinda's email, so I think I'll go add this to the group wish=
-list :)



 

Roice


=20=20

=20=20=20=20

=09

=09
=09


=09


=09
=09
=09
=09
=09




------=_Part_17614_16021689.1211809704151--




From: "Roice Nelson" <roice3@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 09:42:32 -0500
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Re: Did I Hear MC6D??



------=_Part_5711_22721165.1211899352146
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

We were kind of flying by the seat of our pants, and so I would say the
answer to your question is definitely the latter for me. I for one didn't
think we'd make a solvable puzzle, and in fact was dubious of the
possibility of a clear representation for a long time. I think Remi may
have been different (he really seemed to want the 5D puzzle),
and he presented ideas on the representation that convinced us that it might
be possible, so then we made a more involved proof of concept display. That
was enough to get the motivation ball rolling for making a workable puzzle.

This all unfolded in the group discussions in March 2006. If you're
interested to peruse some of that, things started with message
217,
but one of the more productive and full threads was this one:

*
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/4D_Cubing/messages/218?threaded=1&m=e&var=1&tidx=1
*

cya,
Roice

On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Jenelle Levenstein <
jenelle.levenstein@gmail.com> wrote:

> The images of the MC6D look amazing. Somewhere I heard that when the
> first rubrics cube was invented it was designed as a mechanical puzzle and
> was never really meant to be solved. So my question is when you designed the
> MC5D did you expect someone to solve it or were you just creating it to
> solve the graphical puzzle of displaying a 5Drubix cube on 2D computer
> screen.
>
> On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Roice Nelson wrote:
>
>> I should have perhaps used the album feature of yahoo groups instead
>> of attaching pics, which I just noticed when editing the wish
>> list (sorry for any possible trouble). The pics are here now too:
>>
>> http://games.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/4D_Cubing/photos/browse/6d1c
>>
>> cya,
>> Roice
>>
>> On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Roice Nelson wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think MC6D is in development, and the discussion about really
>>> making one isn't serious, but interesting for sure! For myself, I also
>>> don't think the puzzle would be fun ;) But anyway, Nelson Makes a good
>>> point about the problem of too many centrally projected axes. I actually
>>> did a little proof of concept investigation of the MC6D display a while
>>> ago (very little code was required), and so I can show a few screen shots.
>>> These would be a display of 3^6 where all stickers are drawn as points
>>> (instead of 5-cubes). I'm attaching 3 pics, the first with the 3 higher-d
>>> axes all centrally projected, the second with 2 of 3 centrally projected,
>>> and the third with only 1 of 3 centrally projected. The offsets of the
>>> projection points from center in the latter two cases were just given some
>>> arbitrary values, as there could be a lot of choices. This is as far as
>>> I wanted to take it myself, but I'm happy to send anyone the 100 or so lines
>>> of code I hacked into MC5D to produce these if they wanted to take it any
>>> further.
>>>
>>> Btw, when I had looked at this, I came to the conclusion that I liked
>>> MC5D with the uv axes both centrally projected better than giving one an off
>>> axes projection, so I didn't take any time to try to add extended projection
>>> possibilities as a feature (How would the UI provide a nice way to choose
>>> the offset anyway?). I just made one more screen shot with an example
>>> non-central MC5D projection. I've always liked the look of 4-cubes
>>> centrally projected better as well, maybe because I perceive it as appearing
>>> more symmetrical. But I do think in the MC4D case, it could be a cool
>>> extension nonetheless... I just saw Melinda's email, so I think I'll go add
>>> this to the group wish-list :)
>>>
>>> Roice
>>>
>>
>
>

------=_Part_5711_22721165.1211899352146
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

We were kind of flying by the seat of our pants, and so I would say th=
e answer to your question is definitely the latter for me.  I for one =
didn't think we'd make a solvable puzzle, and in fact was dubious o=
f the possibility of a clear representation for a long time.  I think =
Remi may have been different (he really seemed to want the 5D puz=
zle), and he presented ideas on the representation that convinced=
us that it might be possible, so then we made a more involved proof of con=
cept display.  That was enough to get the motivation ball rolling for =
making a workable puzzle.


 

This all unfolded in the group discussions in March 2006.  If you=
're interested to peruse some of that, things started with
=3D"http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/4D_Cubing/messages/217?xm=3D1&o=
=3D0&l=3D1">message 217
, but one of the more productive and full&nb=
sp;threads was this one:


 

oup/4D_Cubing/messages/218?threaded=3D1&m=3De&var=3D1&tidx=3D1"=
>http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/4D_Cubing/messages/218?threaded=3D1&am=
p;m=3De&var=3D1&tidx=3D1


 

cya,

Roice


On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Jenelle Levenst=
ein <jenelle.levenstein@=
gmail.com
> wrote:

px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">


BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; WIDTH: 470px; PADDING-TOP: 0px">

The images of the MC6D look amazing. Somewhere I heard that when the fir=
st rubrics cube was invented it was designed as a mechanical puzzle and was=
never really meant to be solved. So my question is when you designed the M=
C5D did you expect someone to solve it or were you just creating it to solv=
e the graphical puzzle of displaying a 5Drubix cube on 2D computer screen. =







On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Roice Nelson &l=
t;roice3@gmail.com>> wrote:

x solid">





I should have perhaps used the album feature of yahoo groups instead o=
f attaching pics, which I just noticed when editing the wish list (sor=
ry for any possible trouble).  The pics are here now too:

 


 

cya,

Roice



On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Roice Nelson &l=
t;roice3@gmail.com>> wrote:

x solid">
I don't think MC6D is in development, and the discussion about rea=
lly making one isn't serious, but interesting for sure!  For mysel=
f, I also don't think the puzzle would be fun ;)  But anyway, Nels=
on Makes a good point about the problem of too many centrally projected axe=
s.  I actually did a little proof of concept investigation of the =
;MC6D display a while ago (very little code was required), and so=
I can show a few screen shots.  These would be a display of 3^6 where=
all stickers are drawn as points (instead of 5-cubes).  I'm =
attaching 3 pics, the first with the 3 higher-d axes all centrally pro=
jected, the second with 2 of 3 centrally projected, and the third with only=
1 of 3 centrally projected.  The offsets of the projection points fro=
m center in the latter two cases were just given some arbitrary values, as =
there could be a lot of choices.  This is as far as I wanted to t=
ake it myself, but I'm happy to send anyone the 100 or so lines of=
code I hacked into MC5D to produce these if they wanted to take it any fur=
ther.


 

Btw, when I had looked at this, I came to the conclusion that I liked =
MC5D with the uv axes both centrally projected better than giving one an of=
f axes projection, so I didn't take any time to try to add ex=
tended projection possibilities as a feature (How would the UI provide a ni=
ce way to choose the offset anyway?).  I just made one more screen sho=
t with an example non-central MC5D projection.  I've always l=
iked the look of 4-cubes centrally projected better as well, maybe because&=
nbsp;I perceive it as appearing more symmetrical.  But I do think=
in the MC4D case, it could be a cool extension nonetheless...  I just=
saw Melinda's email, so I think I'll go add this to the group wish=
-list :)


 

Roice
white" width=3D"1">

<=
/div>

lockquote>



------=_Part_5711_22721165.1211899352146--





Return to MagicCube4D main page
Return to the Superliminal home page