--0-1125120141-1222075258=:72485
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi everyone,
=A0
First of all, nice to meet you, Mark and Remi, and congratulations to both =
of you
on your checkerboard solutions!=A0 I thought I would update the group with =
my progress,
since it now=A0seems that many of you are also interested in the mathematic=
s of the
cube.
=A0
I've updated my formula for the upper bound for the=A0number of reachable p=
ositions of an
n^4=A0Rubik's cube (it contained some errors), and also finished a similar =
formula for the
supercube.=A0 Until now, I've only been using combinatorial arguments and c=
oncepts
of higher dimensions in my work.=A0 However, I'm currently learning group t=
heory, so I
can hopefully come up with general formulae for the n^d cube, supercube, an=
d
super-supercube.=A0 Also, although I mentioned before that I am not particu=
larly
interested in proving these upper bounds to be exact, I believe that with s=
ome effort,
I can do so using mathematical arguments without actually specifying any
particular solution algorithm (which would be necessary for the general n^d=
cases).
I am reading an excellent paper on the 3^n cube ("An n-dimensional Rubik Cu=
be",
by=A0Joe=A0Buhler, Brad Jackson, and Dave Sibley), which without I would be=
completely
lost.
=A0
Once again, nice to meet you Mark and Remi!=A0 I hope that my work is of so=
me
interest to the group, and that it was not inappropriate to=A0bring it up h=
ere.=A0 It is
nice to see how mathematics can be applied to solving the cube and related
problems (such as the optimal=A0checkerboard solutions).=A0 I'll have to tr=
y it
someday!
=A0
All the Best,
David
=20=20=20=20=20=20
--0-1125120141-1222075258=:72485
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Hi everyone, First of all, nice to meet you, Mark and Remi, and congratulations to both of you on your checkerboard solutions! I thought I would update the group with my progress, since it now seems that many of you are also interested in the mathematics of the cube. I've updated my formula for the upper bound for the number of reachable positions of an n^4 Rubik's cube (it contained some errors), and also finished a similar formula for the supercube. Until now, I've only been using combinatorial arguments and concepts of higher dimensions in my work. However, I'm currently learning group theory, so I can hopefully come up with general formulae for the n^d cube, supercube, and super-supercube. Also, although I mentioned before that I am not particularly interested in proving these upper bounds to be exact, I believe that with some effort, I can do so using mathematical arguments without actually specifying any particular solution algorithm (which would be necessary for the general n^d cases). I am reading an excellent paper on the 3^n cube ("An n-dimensional Rubik Cube", by Joe Buhler, Brad Jackson, and Dave Sibley), which without I would be completely lost. Once again, nice to meet you Mark and Remi! I hope that my work is of some interest to the group, and that it was not inappropriate to bring it up here. It is nice to see how mathematics can be applied to solving the cube and related problems (such as the optimal checkerboard solutions). I'll have to try it someday! All the Best, David |
--- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, David Smith
> I've updated my formula for the upper bound for the number of
> reachable positions of an n^4 Rubik's cube (it contained
> some errors), and also finished a similar formula for the
> supercube. Until now, I've only been using combinatorial arguments
> and concepts of higher dimensions in my work.
I'm amazed by the complexity of the formula. I suggest you to split it
into two formulas, one for the odd-sized hypercubes, and on for the
even-sized hypercubes. I'm sure the two formulas would be easier to
read than this one, and I'm not sure it's interesting to group the two
formulas into a single one.
Also, if you put the factors associated with a single type of piece by
row, it could help the reader (and group somewhere the constraints
which link several type of piece).
Thibaut.
--- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogrou ps.com, David Smith
> I've updated my formula for the upper bound for the number of
> reachable positions of an n^4 Rubik's cube (it contained
> some errors), and also finished a similar formula for the
> supercube. Until now, I've only been using combinatorial arguments
> and concepts of higher dimensions in my work.
I'm amazed by the complexity of the formula. I suggest you to split it
into two formulas, one for the odd-sized hypercubes, and on for the
even-sized hypercubes. I'm sure the two formulas would be easier to
read than this one, and I'm not sure it's interesting to group the two
formulas into a single one.
Also, if you put the factors associated with a single type of piece by
row, it could help the reader (and group somewhere the constraints
which link several type of piece).
Thibaut.
=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20
--0-19207712-1222131040=:35200
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
--- On Mon, 9/22/08, thibaut.kirchner <thibaut.kirchner@yahoo.fr> wrote:From: thibaut.kirchner <thibaut.kirchner@yahoo.fr>
Subject: [MC4D] Re: Permutation formula updates
To: 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, September 22, 2008, 10:53 AM
> I've updated my formula for the upper bound for the number of
> reachable positions of an n^4 Rubik's cube (it contained
> some errors), and also finished a similar formula for the
> supercube. Until now, I've only been using combinatorial arguments
> and concepts of higher dimensions in my work.
I'm amazed by the complexity of the formula. I suggest you to split it
into two formulas, one for the odd-sized hypercubes, and on for the
even-sized hypercubes. I'm sure the two formulas would be easier to
read than this one, and I'm not sure it's interesting to group the two
formulas into a single one.
Also, if you put the factors associated with a single type of piece by
row, it could help the reader (and group somewhere the constraints
which
link several type of piece).
Thibaut.
--0-19207712-1222131040=:35200--
------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C91D6A.1095A030
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Can I ask about formula as the input for program Mathematica (or Maxima, et=
c)... Or just see actual numbers for any hypercube we have?
all teh best,
RemiQ
----- Original Message -----=20
From: David Smith=20
To: 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com=20
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 2:50 AM
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Re: Permutation formula updates
Hi Thibaut,
Thanks for your comments and suggestions! I put a lot of thought i=
nto what
you recommended to me about the formulas, but I have decided to kee=
p them the
same. While I value your opinion, and almost did decide to modify =
the formulas,
I think that it is more concise and elegant to represent the answer=
s with only one
formula. While simplicity can be elegant, to me the formula is alr=
eady so
(although this is of course my biased opinion as its discoverer). =
I actually
never seperated the formulas into even/odd cases, and while many ma=
y not,
I like the use of the "n mod 2" terms and how I applied them. If a=
nyone on the
group is interested in a basic explanation as to the derivation of =
these formulas,
I would be glad to email them one. I'm looking forward to using mo=
re advanced
reasoning for proving these formulas exact, and for trying my hand =
at the n^5
and n^d cases. I'll let the group know when I get the super-superc=
ube formula.
All the Best,
David
--- On Mon, 9/22/08, thibaut.kirchner
rote:
From: thibaut.kirchner
Subject: [MC4D] Re: Permutation formula updates
To: 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, September 22, 2008, 10:53 AM
--- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogrou ps.com, David Smith
> I've updated my formula for the upper bound for the number of
> reachable positions of an n^4 Rubik's cube (it contained
> some errors), and also finished a similar formula for the
> supercube. Until now, I've only been using combinatorial argume=
nts
> and concepts of higher dimensions in my work.
I'm amazed by the complexity of the formula. I suggest you to spl=
it it
into two formulas, one for the odd-sized hypercubes, and on for t=
he
even-sized hypercubes. I'm sure the two formulas would be easier =
to
read than this one, and I'm not sure it's interesting to group th=
e two
formulas into a single one.
Also, if you put the factors associated with a single type of pie=
ce by
row, it could help the reader (and group somewhere the constraint=
s
which link several type of piece).
Thibaut.
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20
------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C91D6A.1095A030
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
rogram=20
Mathematica (or Maxima, etc)... Or just see actual numbers for any hypercub=
e we=20
have?
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LE=
FT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">Fro=
m:=20
=
David=20
Smith
href=3D"mailto:4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com">4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com <=
/DIV>
2:50=20
AM
n=20
formula updates
=20
thought into what
o=20
keep them the
to=20
modify the formulas,
answers with only one
ula=20
is already so
discoverer). I actually
ny=20
may not,
nbsp;=20
If anyone on the
derivation of these formulas,
o=20
using more advanced
hand=20
at the n^5
super-supercube formula.
--- On Mon, 9/22/08, thibaut.kirchner=20
<thibaut.kirchner@
From:=20
D>
thibaut.kirchner <thibaut.kirchner@
Subjec=
t:=20
[MC4D] Re: Permutation formula updates
To:=20
4D_Cubing@yahoogrou
Date: Monday, September 22, 200=
8,=20
10:53 AM
rel=3Dnofollow>4D_Cubing@yahoogrou ps.com, David Smith=20
<djs314djs314@ ...> wrote:
> I've updated my formula =
for=20
the upper bound for the number of
> reachable positions of =
an=20
n^4 Rubik's cube (it contained
> some errors), and also fin=
ished=20
a similar formula for the
> supercube. Until now, I've only=
been=20
using combinatorial arguments
> and concepts of higher=20
dimensions in my work.
I'm amazed by the complexity of the=
=20
formula. I suggest you to split it
into two formulas, one for =
the=20
odd-sized hypercubes, and on for the
even-sized hypercubes. I'=
m=20
sure the two formulas would be easier to
read than this one, a=
nd=20
I'm not sure it's interesting to group the two
formulas into a=
=20
single one.
Also, if you put the factors associated with a sin=
gle=20
type of piece by
row, it could help the reader (and group some=
where=20
the constraints
which link several type of=20
piece).
Thibaut.
BODY>12px Courier New, Courier, monotype.com; padding: 3px; background: #ffffff;=
color: #000000">----------------------------------------------------------=
------------=0D
Kredyt Hipoteczny w Banku Millennium - zdobywca Zlotego Lauru Klienta!=0DR>
Sprawdz >> http://link.inter=
ia.pl/f1f15
------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C91D6A.1095A030--
From: David Smith <djs314djs314@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 05:39:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Re: Permutation formula updates
Can I ask about formula as the input for program Mathematica (or Maxima, et=
c)... Or just see actual numbers for any hypercube we have?
=A0
all teh best,
RemiQ
=A0
----- Original Message -----=20
From: David Smith=20
To: 4D_Cubing@yahoogrou ps.com=20
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 2:50 AM
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Re: Permutation formula updates
Hi Thibaut,
=A0
Thanks for your comments and suggestions!=A0 I put a lot of thought into wh=
at
you recommended to me about the formulas, but I have decided to keep them t=
he
same.=A0 While I value your opinion, and almost did decide to modify the fo=
rmulas,
I think that it is more concise and elegant to represent the answers with o=
nly one
formula.=A0 While simplicity can be elegant, to me the formula is already s=
o
(although this is of course my biased opinion as its discoverer).=A0 I actu=
ally
never seperated the formulas into even/odd cases, and while many may not,
I like the use of the "n mod 2" terms and how I applied them.=A0 If anyone =
on the
group is interested in a basic=A0explanation as to the derivation of these =
formulas,
I would be glad to email them one.=A0 I'm looking forward to using more adv=
anced
reasoning for proving these formulas exact, and for trying my hand at the n=
^5
and n^d cases.=A0 I'll let the group know when I get the super-supercube fo=
rmula.
=A0
All the Best,
David
--- On Mon, 9/22/08, thibaut.kirchner
From: thibaut.kirchner
Subject: [MC4D] Re: Permutation formula updates
To: 4D_Cubing@yahoogrou ps.com
Date: Monday, September 22, 2008, 10:53 AM
--- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogrou ps.com, David Smith
> I've updated my formula for the upper bound for the number of
> reachable positions of an n^4 Rubik's cube (it contained
> some errors), and also finished a similar formula for the
> supercube. Until now, I've only been using combinatorial arguments
> and concepts of higher dimensions in my work.
I'm amazed by the complexity of the formula. I suggest you to split it
into two formulas, one for the odd-sized hypercubes, and on for the
even-sized hypercubes. I'm sure the two formulas would be easier to
read than this one, and I'm not sure it's interesting to group the two
formulas into a single one.
Also, if you put the factors associated with a single type of piece by
row, it could help the reader (and group somewhere the constraints
which link several type of piece).
Thibaut.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --=
--
Kredyt Hipoteczny w Banku Millennium - zdobywca Zlotego Lauru Klienta!
Sprawdz >> http://link. interia.pl/ f1f15=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20
--0-1841629640-1222173554=:15109
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
t2 := (Factorial(24)*Factorial(32)*(2^26)*(6^33))^(n mod 2);
t3 := ((Factorial(64)/2)*(3^63))^Int((n-2)/2);
t4 := ((Factorial(96)/(24^24))*(2^95))^(Int((n-2)/2)+((n mod 2)*((n-3)/2)));
t5 := (Factorial(192)/(Factorial(8)^24))^(Int((n-4)/2)*Int((n-2)/2)/2);
t6 := (Factorial(64)/(Factorial(8)^8))^Int((n-2)/2);
t7 := (Factorial(96)/(Factorial(12)^8))^((n mod 2)*((n-3)/2));
t8 := (Factorial(48)/(Factorial(6)^8))^((n mod 2)*((n-3)/2));
t9 := (Factorial(192)/(Factorial(24)^8))^((Int((n-4)/2)*Int((n-2)/2)/2)+ \
((n mod 2)*(n-5)*(n-3)*(n-1)/24)+(AbsInt((n mod 2)-1)*Binomial((n-2), 3)/4));
answer, "\n\n");
SupercubePerms := function(n)
t2 := (Factorial(24)*Factorial(32)*(2^(88+(((n-1)/2)*(n mod 2))))*(6^41))^(n mod 2);
t3 := ((Factorial(64)/2)*(3^63))^(2*Int((n-2)/2));
t4 := (Factorial(48)*(2^94))^((n mod 2)*((n-3)/2));
t5 := (Factorial(96)*(2^94))^(Int((n-2)/2)+((n mod 2)*(n-3)));
t6 := (Factorial(192)/2)^(Int((n-4)/2)*Int((n-2)/2)+((n mod 2)*(n-5)*(n-3)*(n-1)/24)+ \
(AbsInt((n mod 2)-1)*Binomial((n-2), 3)/4));
answer, "\n\n");
--- On Tue, 9/23/08, Remigiusz Durka <thesamer@interia.pl> wrote:From: Remigiusz Durka <thesamer@interia.pl>
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Re: Permutation formula updates
To: 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, September 23, 2008, 4:49 AM
--- On Mon, 9/22/08, thibaut.kirchner <thibaut.kirchner@ yahoo.fr> wrote:From: thibaut.kirchner <thibaut.kirchner@ yahoo.fr>
Subject: [MC4D] Re: Permutation formula updates
To: 4D_Cubing@yahoogrou ps.com
Date: Monday, September 22, 2008, 10:53 AM
> I've updated my formula for the upper bound for the number of
> reachable positions of an n^4 Rubik's cube (it contained
> some errors), and also finished a similar formula for the
> supercube. Until now, I've only been using combinatorial arguments
> and concepts of higher dimensions in my work.
I'm amazed by the complexity of the formula. I suggest you to split it
into two formulas, one for the odd-sized hypercubes, and on for the
even-sized hypercubes. I'm sure the two formulas would be easier to
read than this one, and I'm not sure it's interesting to group the two
formulas into a single one.
Also, if you put the factors associated with a single type of piece by
row, it could help the reader (and group somewhere the constraints
which
link several type of piece).
Thibaut.------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----
Kredyt Hipoteczny w Banku Millennium - zdobywca Zlotego Lauru Klienta!
Sprawdz >> http://link. interia.pl/ f1f15
--0-1841629640-1222173554=:15109--
From: joelkarlsson97@gmail.com
Date: 22 Jan 2016 05:12:26 -0800
Subject: Re: Permutation formula updates