Thread: "Sub-100K for 3^7"

From: "Andrey" <andreyastrelin@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 19:24:45 -0000
Subject: Sub-100K for 3^7



Ufff...
Log is here: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/4D_Cubing/files/MC7D/




From: "Andrey" <andreyastrelin@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 19:28:35 -0000
Subject: Sub-100K for 3^7



OMG you solved it! Congrats!

--- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, "Andrey" wrote:
>
> Ufff...
> Log is here: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/4D_Cubing/files/MC7D/
>




From: "deustfrr" <deustfrr@yahoo.ca>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 19:36:01 -0000
Subject: Re: Sub-100K for 3^7



Not checked the log yet (I'm solving just now) but I'm not sure I have to, =
I think we trust you enough by now. Congratulations for being the first to=
solve the 7D cube!!! You certainly deserve it with your activity recently=
. I wasn't sure if someone would beat you to it (I think Anthony was tryin=
g too) given that you were also finishing the program, but you achieved bot=
h, which makes it all the more impressive!! Is anyone making a HOF for thi=
s? 3x3x3x3x3x3x3: programmed and first solved by Andrey Astrelin, the newc=
omer taking the MC4D world by storm, and who then turned out to have starte=
d before anyone else did and re-invented the first 3^4 solve. I can only h=
ope you improve your repertoir around here, and wish you the best of luck i=
n the process :). Now back to MC7D to try and catch up.

Congrats again Andrey!!

Matt

--- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, "Andrey" wrote:
>
> Ufff...
> Log is here: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/4D_Cubing/files/MC7D/
>




From: Anthony Deschamps <anthony.j.deschamps@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 15:45:42 -0400
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Re: Sub-100K for 3^7



--000e0cd406427d2784048b35ff52
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Congratulations! What an amazing feat!

I began to solve it, and I was making good progress. Then I got distracted
with exams, but I never could muster up the courage to start at it again.
It's a scary challenge!

On 2010-07-12 3:40 PM, "matthewsheerin" wrote:



Not checked the log yet (I'm solving just now) but I'm not sure I have to, I
think we trust you enough by now. Congratulations for being the first to
solve the 7D cube!!! You certainly deserve it with your activity recently. I
wasn't sure if someone would beat you to it (I think Anthony was trying too)
given that you were also finishing the program, but you achieved both, which
makes it all the more impressive!! Is anyone making a HOF for this?
3x3x3x3x3x3x3: programmed and first solved by Andrey Astrelin, the newcomer
taking the MC4D world by storm, and who then turned out to have started
before anyone else did and re-invented the first 3^4 solve. I can only hope
you improve your repertoir around here, and wish you the best of luck in the
process :). Now back to MC7D to try and catch up.

Congrats again Andrey!!

Matt



--- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, "Andrey" wrote:
>

> Ufff...
> Log is here: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/4D_Cubing/files/MC7D/
>


--000e0cd406427d2784048b35ff52
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Congratulations!=A0 What an amazing feat!


I began to solve it, and I was making good progress.=A0 Then I got distr=
acted with exams, but I never could muster up the courage to start at it ag=
ain.=A0 It's a scary challenge!


On 2010-07-12 3:40 PM, "matthewsheerin&qu=
ot; <damienturtle@hotmail.=
co.uk
> wrote:
















=A0







=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20

Not checked the log yet (I'm solving just now) but I'm not=
sure I have to, I think we trust you enough by now. Congratulations for b=
eing the first to solve the 7D cube!!! You certainly deserve it with your =
activity recently. I wasn't sure if someone would beat you to it (I th=
ink Anthony was trying too) given that you were also finishing the program,=
but you achieved both, which makes it all the more impressive!! Is anyone=
making a HOF for this? 3x3x3x3x3x3x3: programmed and first solved by Andr=
ey Astrelin, the newcomer taking the MC4D world by storm, and who then turn=
ed out to have started before anyone else did and re-invented the first 3^4=
solve. I can only hope you improve your repertoir around here, and wish y=
ou the best of luck in the process :). Now back to MC7D to try and catch u=
p.




Congrats again Andrey!!



Matt



--- In ahoogroups.com">4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, "Andrey" <andre=
yastrelin@...> wrote:
>

> =
Ufff...

> Log is here: files/MC7D/">http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/4D_Cubing/files/MC7D/<=
br>>




=20=20=20=20=20

=20=20=20=20







=20=20








--000e0cd406427d2784048b35ff52--




From: "Andrey" <andreyastrelin@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 20:14:41 -0000
Subject: [MC4D] Re: Sub-100K for 3^7



Matt, Anthony, deustfrr=20
Thank you for congratulations!
Actually 3^N appears not difficult but very boring. I found macro set tha=
t doesn't requires search for particular cube, you only need to find a plac=
e for the cube and move it (place ;) ) to certain position and orientation.=
And (more difficult) sometimes you should find any cube (of the given rank=
) that is in wrong position (in some sense).=20
I see what should be done to the program more: - to highlight all sticker=
s of the given color(s) and to lock some face (in 3 click mode) if you are =
going to make several twists of it. Both features seem to be very useful, a=
t least for my method :)

Some words how I solved it:
- go from 3C to 7C
- first put in place all pieces belonging to the middle layer
- then reorient top and bottom so that have correct top/bottom color (in =
this stage I assign the same color - bright red - to both opposite faces)
- and move cubies from bottom to top, selecting position for piece by rot=
ating top face. When finish, sort bottom pieces using one place at the top.
- and the orientation problem of the last piece of each rank...

Something like that. But when during 7C stage I found some misplaced 6C cub=
ies it was not very pleasant...


--- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Deschamps .> wrote:
>
> Congratulations! What an amazing feat!
>=20
> I began to solve it, and I was making good progress. Then I got distract=
ed
> with exams, but I never could muster up the courage to start at it again.
> It's a scary challenge!
>=20
> On 2010-07-12 3:40 PM, "matthewsheerin" wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Not checked the log yet (I'm solving just now) but I'm not sure I have to=
, I
> think we trust you enough by now. Congratulations for being the first to
> solve the 7D cube!!! You certainly deserve it with your activity recently=
. I
> wasn't sure if someone would beat you to it (I think Anthony was trying t=
oo)
> given that you were also finishing the program, but you achieved both, wh=
ich
> makes it all the more impressive!! Is anyone making a HOF for this?
> 3x3x3x3x3x3x3: programmed and first solved by Andrey Astrelin, the newcom=
er
> taking the MC4D world by storm, and who then turned out to have started
> before anyone else did and re-invented the first 3^4 solve. I can only ho=
pe
> you improve your repertoir around here, and wish you the best of luck in =
the
> process :). Now back to MC7D to try and catch up.
>=20
> Congrats again Andrey!!
>=20
> Matt
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, "Andrey" wrote:
> >
>=20
> > Ufff...
> > Log is here: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/4D_Cubing/files/MC7D/
> >
>




From: Melinda Green <melinda@superliminal.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:30:05 -0700
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Sub-100K for 3^7



Deepest congratulations from me too, Audrey! I'm amazed on a couple of
levels. First that the puzzle exists at all in a solvable form, and
second that it was first solved before the 6D version. I'm not even sure
how we should deal with that second part because in a very real sense
you solved the 6D cube at the same time. In fact you solved 14 of them
simultaneously and with style! I guess my suggestion is that you quickly
return and solve the 6D puzzle before anybody else does so that there
will be no confusion on that point. My suggestion for everyone else is
to do the same and try to *create* that confusion! :-) I'm happy
either way. In fact I'm simply thrilled with all the recent puzzles and
achievements. There have been many times in the past when I felt that
everything to be said or done had been said or done, only for something
new and exciting to appear. I don't think that I will ever feel that way
again.

-Melinda

Andrey wrote:
> Ufff...
> Log is here: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/4D_Cubing/files/MC7D/




From: "Andrey" <andreyastrelin@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 00:52:36 -0000
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Sub-100K for 3^7



Melinda, thank you!
Somehow I'm sure that I'll not try to solve 3^6 in the nearest future. Ev=
en if it'll take 5 days, it's too much for me now. And there are too much c=
hallenges ahead: 4^5, some 4D puzzles (like {3}x{3},4), maybe 120cell (but =
I'm not sure about it), implementation of 24cell and 5D simplex...
Strange thing is that solving of 3^7 doesn't mean that you can solve 3^4 =
or 3^3 :) If you reduce higher dimensonal puzzle to lower dimensional you r=
estrict your set of operations and may meet parity or orientation problem. =
And if one is able to walk around it in 7D, e.g if he designs macros for tr=
ansposition of two stickers of single cubie - and 3-cycle of stickers of co=
rner, he still will not be able to use them in 3D :) And "14 of them" - do =
you include there 2^1? :D

There is another kind of confusion - how to count 5D solutions of MC7D...=
In one sense they are same 5D puzzles, in another interface of MC7D is ver=
y different from MC5D.


Good luck in everything!

Andrey




From: Melinda Green <melinda@superliminal.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 22:20:18 -0700
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Sub-100K for 3^7



--------------030101040602020904010501
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Andrey,

I opened your log file in MC7D and undid one move. I hit redo and undo
several times trying to understand how that last twist worked and I
completely failed. Maybe it would help if the twists were animated but
maybe not even then. Fooling with it I imagine that I feel much like one
of my friends must feel when I show them MC4D for the first time. I kind
of know what I'm looking at but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me
yet. I think that I feel the same way about MC5D.

I'm definitely comfortable with all of the 4D puzzles and I have a good
sense about how the difficulty can go down as the number of faces goes
up but that's different from the extra "room" that you get with each new
dimension which I have less of an intuitive feeling about. I also think
that it's interesting that as the number of faces goes down that puzzles
get harder but only to a point. After that they seem to get easier
again. I think that we've wondered before about which puzzle has the
most difficulty for its size. I'm not sure whether there's a good metric
for that concept but for me it is probably the original 3D Rubik's cube,
or possibly the Skeweb . or other
small 3D puzzle.

I'm betting that a lot of members would like to hear more about your
latest conquest. I know that I'd like to hear as much about how you felt
during the experience than I would about your technical approach and
techniques. I'm interested in both aspects but I would especially like
to hear more about how this puzzle is different than lower-dimensional
ones. Like the concept of there being more freedom and how to use that
freedom. And more about your misplaced 6C cubies, that sort of thing.
You're the only person so far to climb this peak and return alive so I'd
like to hear more about the trip up and the view from the top. Whatever
you care to describe.

-Melinda

Andrey wrote:
> Melinda, thank you!
> Somehow I'm sure that I'll not try to solve 3^6 in the nearest future. Even if it'll take 5 days, it's too much for me now. And there are too much challenges ahead: 4^5, some 4D puzzles (like {3}x{3},4), maybe 120cell (but I'm not sure about it), implementation of 24cell and 5D simplex...
> Strange thing is that solving of 3^7 doesn't mean that you can solve 3^4 or 3^3 :) If you reduce higher dimensonal puzzle to lower dimensional you restrict your set of operations and may meet parity or orientation problem. And if one is able to walk around it in 7D, e.g if he designs macros for transposition of two stickers of single cubie - and 3-cycle of stickers of corner, he still will not be able to use them in 3D :) And "14 of them" - do you include there 2^1? :D
>
> There is another kind of confusion - how to count 5D solutions of MC7D... In one sense they are same 5D puzzles, in another interface of MC7D is very different from MC5D.

--------------030101040602020904010501
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit







Andrey,



I opened your log file in MC7D and undid one move. I hit redo and undo
several times trying to understand how that last twist worked and I
completely failed. Maybe it would help if the twists were animated but
maybe not even then. Fooling with it I imagine that I feel much like
one of my friends must feel when I show them MC4D for the first time. I
kind of know what I'm looking at but it doesn't make a lot of sense to
me yet. I think that I feel the same way about MC5D.



I'm definitely comfortable with all of the 4D puzzles and I have a good
sense about how the difficulty can go down as the number of faces goes
up but that's different from the extra "room" that you get with each
new dimension which I have less of an intuitive feeling about. I also
think that it's interesting that as the number of faces goes down that
puzzles get harder but only to a point. After that they seem to get
easier again. I think that we've wondered before about which puzzle has
the most difficulty for its size. I'm not sure whether there's a good
metric for that concept but for me it is probably the original 3D
Rubik's cube, or possibly the href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skewb">Skeweb. or other small
3D puzzle.



I'm betting that a lot of members would like to hear more about your
latest conquest. I know that I'd like to hear as much about how
you felt during the experience than I would about your technical
approach and techniques. I'm interested in both aspects but I would
especially like to hear more about how this puzzle is different than
lower-dimensional ones. Like the concept of there being more freedom
and how to use that freedom. And more about your misplaced 6C cubies,
that sort of thing. You're the only person so far to climb this peak
and return alive so I'd like to hear more about the trip up and the
view from the top. Whatever you care to describe.



-Melinda



Andrey wrote:


Melinda, thank you!
Somehow I'm sure that I'll not try to solve 3^6 in the nearest future. Even if it'll take 5 days, it's too much for me now. And there are too much challenges ahead: 4^5, some 4D puzzles (like {3}x{3},4), maybe 120cell (but I'm not sure about it), implementation of 24cell and 5D simplex...
Strange thing is that solving of 3^7 doesn't mean that you can solve 3^4 or 3^3 :) If you reduce higher dimensonal puzzle to lower dimensional you restrict your set of operations and may meet parity or orientation problem. And if one is able to walk around it in 7D, e.g if he designs macros for transposition of two stickers of single cubie - and 3-cycle of stickers of corner, he still will not be able to use them in 3D :) And "14 of them" - do you include there 2^1? :D

There is another kind of confusion - how to count 5D solutions of MC7D... In one sense they are same 5D puzzles, in another interface of MC7D is very different from MC5D.





--------------030101040602020904010501--




From: "Andrey" <andreyastrelin@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 06:17:32 -0000
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Sub-100K for 3^7



Melinda,
You are right, animation will not help much there. May be a little. When =
I also took a look on last twist, in a half of second I understood that it =
was twist of "main bottom" face in direction from "main center" face/dimens=
ion to "secondary right". Well, may be understanding that was "main bottom"=
face took a little longer. But it's good when cube is almost solved. To un=
derstand twist on the scrambled cube will take much more time - I should lo=
ok for cubies that changed position and try to push them to the center face=
, then it'll be possible to find the direction of twist. But if you want to=
solve cube, you don't need it. Start from only 1C and 2C visible, and then=
, goind from stage to stage you will see more about twists and cubies behav=
ior. And this is one of few parts of solving that is really exciting. Most =
of it is very boring.
With 4D - it was very difficult for me to predict twists of simplex-3. Es=
pecially when I fought for the shortest solve :) What sticker and with what=
combination of digits should I click to perform that "double transposition=
" of this "large" (2-layers) corner? More problems will be with {3,3}x{},3 =
(tetrahedron prism?) - there is very restricted set of twists and very dist=
orted 3D projection... I think it will be one of most difficult puzzles. An=
d I don't see ways to {3,3,3} 4 and 5 now - but it's only techincal problem=
s.
Yes, I think that it will be interesting to describe stages of this adven=
ture. First, I can say that my methods for 3^4 were totally useless for hig=
her dimensions, but with 3^5 I was lucky to find sequence of macros that wo=
rks for any 3^N (N>3). And after that the only problem was understanding of=
navigation in 7D - and optimization of everithing (but not macros, they ar=
e fine) :)
The rest will be next time )))


Andrey
--- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, Melinda Green wrote:
>
> Andrey,
>=20
> I opened your log file in MC7D and undid one move. I hit redo and undo=20
> several times trying to understand how that last twist worked and I=20
> completely failed. Maybe it would help if the twists were animated but=20
> maybe not even then. Fooling with it I imagine that I feel much like one=
=20
> of my friends must feel when I show them MC4D for the first time. I kind=
=20
> of know what I'm looking at but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me=20
> yet. I think that I feel the same way about MC5D.
>=20
> I'm definitely comfortable with all of the 4D puzzles and I have a good=20
> sense about how the difficulty can go down as the number of faces goes=20
> up but that's different from the extra "room" that you get with each new=
=20
> dimension which I have less of an intuitive feeling about. I also think=20
> that it's interesting that as the number of faces goes down that puzzles=
=20
> get harder but only to a point. After that they seem to get easier=20
> again. I think that we've wondered before about which puzzle has the=20
> most difficulty for its size. I'm not sure whether there's a good metric=
=20
> for that concept but for me it is probably the original 3D Rubik's cube,=
=20
> or possibly the Skeweb . or other=20
> small 3D puzzle.
>=20
> I'm betting that a lot of members would like to hear more about your=20
> latest conquest. I know that I'd like to hear as much about how you felt=
=20
> during the experience than I would about your technical approach and=20
> techniques. I'm interested in both aspects but I would especially like=20
> to hear more about how this puzzle is different than lower-dimensional=20
> ones. Like the concept of there being more freedom and how to use that=20
> freedom. And more about your misplaced 6C cubies, that sort of thing.=20
> You're the only person so far to climb this peak and return alive so I'd=
=20
> like to hear more about the trip up and the view from the top. Whatever=20
> you care to describe.
>=20




From: Chris Locke <project.eutopia@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 18:01:14 +0900
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Sub-100K for 3^7



--000325574cb263c24b048b553a63
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Congratulations, Andrey! You have once again raised the bar in a community
already infamous for taking things to extremes! Not only that, but you did
so skipping a dimension entirely, and wrote the program that allowed you to
do so!

Also, in regards the that simplex-3, I agree that for me too it is a very
difficult puzzle. The symmetries of the standard 4D cube make it easy
enough to get some familiarity with the twists and it's large enough that
the amount of interconnectedness is relatively small, but with the simplex
it's just so tightly compact that my method of piece by piece solving using
macros is completely useless!

Well, congrats again! This last year has been a flurry of activity in the
community. From the new MC4D puzzles, to the MC2D hyperbolic puzzles, to
the MC7D puzzles you've provided us, it has been quite exciting to see what
is possible! Does any one have any predictions on what will end up being
the next step forward? 5D simplex? 5D duoprism-ish shapes (like maybe
{4,3}x{5})? Hyperbolic 4D puzzles? Fractal puzzles?

Chris

2010/7/13 Andrey

>
>
> Melinda,
> You are right, animation will not help much there. May be a little. When =
I
> also took a look on last twist, in a half of second I understood that it =
was
> twist of "main bottom" face in direction from "main center" face/dimensio=
n
> to "secondary right". Well, may be understanding that was "main bottom" f=
ace
> took a little longer. But it's good when cube is almost solved. To
> understand twist on the scrambled cube will take much more time - I shoul=
d
> look for cubies that changed position and try to push them to the center
> face, then it'll be possible to find the direction of twist. But if you w=
ant
> to solve cube, you don't need it. Start from only 1C and 2C visible, and
> then, goind from stage to stage you will see more about twists and cubies
> behavior. And this is one of few parts of solving that is really exciting=
.
> Most of it is very boring.
> With 4D - it was very difficult for me to predict twists of simplex-3.
> Especially when I fought for the shortest solve :) What sticker and with
> what combination of digits should I click to perform that "double
> transposition" of this "large" (2-layers) corner? More problems will be w=
ith
> {3,3}x{},3 (tetrahedron prism?) - there is very restricted set of twists =
and
> very distorted 3D projection... I think it will be one of most difficult
> puzzles. And I don't see ways to {3,3,3} 4 and 5 now - but it's only
> techincal problems.
> Yes, I think that it will be interesting to describe stages of this
> adventure. First, I can say that my methods for 3^4 were totally useless =
for
> higher dimensions, but with 3^5 I was lucky to find sequence of macros th=
at
> works for any 3^N (N>3). And after that the only problem was understandin=
g
> of navigation in 7D - and optimization of everithing (but not macros, the=
y
> are fine) :)
> The rest will be next time )))
>
> Andrey
>
> --- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com <4D_Cubing%40yahoogroups.com>, Melinda
> Green wrote:
> >
> > Andrey,
> >
> > I opened your log file in MC7D and undid one move. I hit redo and undo
> > several times trying to understand how that last twist worked and I
> > completely failed. Maybe it would help if the twists were animated but
> > maybe not even then. Fooling with it I imagine that I feel much like on=
e
> > of my friends must feel when I show them MC4D for the first time. I kin=
d
> > of know what I'm looking at but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me
> > yet. I think that I feel the same way about MC5D.
> >
> > I'm definitely comfortable with all of the 4D puzzles and I have a good
> > sense about how the difficulty can go down as the number of faces goes
> > up but that's different from the extra "room" that you get with each ne=
w
> > dimension which I have less of an intuitive feeling about. I also think
> > that it's interesting that as the number of faces goes down that puzzle=
s
> > get harder but only to a point. After that they seem to get easier
> > again. I think that we've wondered before about which puzzle has the
> > most difficulty for its size. I'm not sure whether there's a good metri=
c
> > for that concept but for me it is probably the original 3D Rubik's cube=
,
> > or possibly the Skeweb . or other
> > small 3D puzzle.
> >
> > I'm betting that a lot of members would like to hear more about your
> > latest conquest. I know that I'd like to hear as much about how you fel=
t
> > during the experience than I would about your technical approach and
> > techniques. I'm interested in both aspects but I would especially like
> > to hear more about how this puzzle is different than lower-dimensional
> > ones. Like the concept of there being more freedom and how to use that
> > freedom. And more about your misplaced 6C cubies, that sort of thing.
> > You're the only person so far to climb this peak and return alive so I'=
d
> > like to hear more about the trip up and the view from the top. Whatever
> > you care to describe.
> >
>
>=20=20
>

--000325574cb263c24b048b553a63
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Congratulations, Andrey!=C2=A0 You have once again raised the bar in a comm=
unity already infamous for taking things to extremes!=C2=A0 Not only that, =
but you did so skipping a dimension entirely, and wrote the program that al=
lowed you to do so!


Also, in regards the that simplex-3, I agree that for me too it is a ve=
ry difficult puzzle.=C2=A0 The symmetries of the standard 4D cube make it e=
asy enough to get some familiarity with the twists and it's large enoug=
h that the amount of interconnectedness is relatively small, but with the s=
implex it's just so tightly compact that my method of piece by piece so=
lving using macros is completely useless!


Well, congrats again!=C2=A0 This last year has been a flurry of activit=
y in the community.=C2=A0 From the new MC4D puzzles, to the MC2D hyperbolic=
puzzles, to the MC7D puzzles you've provided us, it has been quite exc=
iting to see what is possible!=C2=A0 Does any one have any predictions on w=
hat will end up being the next step forward?=C2=A0 5D simplex?=C2=A0 5D duo=
prism-ish shapes (like maybe {4,3}x{5})?=C2=A0 Hyperbolic 4D puzzles?=C2=A0=
Fractal puzzles?


Chris

2010/7/13 Andrey tr"><andreyastrelin@yahoo.co=
m
>

0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex=
;">















=C2=A0







=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20

Melinda,

You are right, animation will not help much there. May be a little. When =
I also took a look on last twist, in a half of second I understood that it =
was twist of "main bottom" face in direction from "main cent=
er" face/dimension to "secondary right". Well, may be unders=
tanding that was "main bottom" face took a little longer. But it&=
#39;s good when cube is almost solved. To understand twist on the scrambled=
cube will take much more time - I should look for cubies that changed posi=
tion and try to push them to the center face, then it'll be possible to=
find the direction of twist. But if you want to solve cube, you don't =
need it. Start from only 1C and 2C visible, and then, goind from stage to s=
tage you will see more about twists and cubies behavior. And this is one of=
few parts of solving that is really exciting. Most of it is very boring.r>

With 4D - it was very difficult for me to predict twists of simplex-3. Es=
pecially when I fought for the shortest solve :) What sticker and with what=
combination of digits should I click to perform that "double transpos=
ition" of this "large" (2-layers) corner? More problems will=
be with {3,3}x{},3 (tetrahedron prism?) - there is very restricted set of =
twists and very distorted 3D projection... I think it will be one of most d=
ifficult puzzles. And I don't see ways to {3,3,3} 4 and 5 now - but it&=
#39;s only techincal problems.


Yes, I think that it will be interesting to describe stages of this adven=
ture. First, I can say that my methods for 3^4 were totally useless for hig=
her dimensions, but with 3^5 I was lucky to find sequence of macros that wo=
rks for any 3^N (N>3). And after that the only problem was understanding=
of navigation in 7D - and optimization of everithing (but not macros, they=
are fine) :)


The rest will be next time )))



Andrey



--- In 4D_=
Cubing@yahoogroups.com
, Melinda Green <melinda@...> wrote:

>

> Andrey,

>

> I opened your log file in MC7D and undid one move. I hit redo and undo=


> several times trying to understand how that last twist worked and I r>
> completely failed. Maybe it would help if the twists were animated but=


> maybe not even then. Fooling with it I imagine that I feel much like o=
ne

> of my friends must feel when I show them MC4D for the first time. I ki=
nd

> of know what I'm looking at but it doesn't make a lot of sense=
to me

> yet. I think that I feel the same way about MC5D.

>

> I'm definitely comfortable with all of the 4D puzzles and I have a=
good

> sense about how the difficulty can go down as the number of faces goes=


> up but that's different from the extra "room" that you g=
et with each new

> dimension which I have less of an intuitive feeling about. I also thin=
k

> that it's interesting that as the number of faces goes down that p=
uzzles

> get harder but only to a point. After that they seem to get easier >
> again. I think that we've wondered before about which puzzle has t=
he

> most difficulty for its size. I'm not sure whether there's a g=
ood metric

> for that concept but for me it is probably the original 3D Rubik's=
cube,

> or possibly the Skeweb <wb" target=3D"_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skewb>. or other =


> small 3D puzzle.

>

> I'm betting that a lot of members would like to hear more about yo=
ur

> latest conquest. I know that I'd like to hear as much about how yo=
u felt

> during the experience than I would about your technical approach and <=
br>
> techniques. I'm interested in both aspects but I would especially =
like

> to hear more about how this puzzle is different than lower-dimensional=


> ones. Like the concept of there being more freedom and how to use that=


> freedom. And more about your misplaced 6C cubies, that sort of thing. =


> You're the only person so far to climb this peak and return alive =
so I'd

> like to hear more about the trip up and the view from the top. Whateve=
r

> you care to describe.

>






=20=20=20=20=20

=20=20=20=20







=20=20









--000325574cb263c24b048b553a63--




From: "deustfrr" <deustfrr@yahoo.ca>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 23:18:13 -0000
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Sub-100K for 3^7



Don't push yourself! Learning a new 3D puzzle takes a while, but learning n=
ew 4D and 5D puzzles?=20
solving MC5D doesn't mean you can do MC7D? Darn. I wonder how you did it? (=
Magic!)

--- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, "Andrey" wrote:

>And there are too many challenges ahead: 4^5, some 4D puzzles (like {3}x{3=
},4), maybe 120cell (but I'm not sure about it), implementation of 24cell a=
nd 5D simplex...

> Andrey





From: "Galla, Matthew" <mgalla@trinity.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 18:51:30 -0500
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Sub-100K for 3^7



--e0cb4e8878113a57b9048b61aab1
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e0cb4e8878113a57b4048b61aaaf

--e0cb4e8878113a57b4048b61aaaf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

And I can give some insights on solving it ;)
The puzzle you have described is equivalent to a subgroup of the gigaminx
puzzle, which many people worldwide already know how to solve ( a virtual
gigaminx can be found here:
http://users.skynet.be/gelatinbrain/Applets/Magic%20Polyhedra/dodeca_f8.htm)
Specifically, your puzzle only has the edge-face pieces. The attachment
shows the solved subset of your puzzle using the same color scheme you have.
You'll notice this doesn't look solved and that is because your coloring
scheme distributes colors a little strangely (by no means a bad thing!) This
makes the resulting puzzle not necessarily harder but undeniably more
disorienting as it is difficult to tell when a given piece is correct. You
have also used the same colors on the opposite sides of the puzzle which
again adds to the disorientation, but not necessarily difficulty of the
puzzle. Finally a little quirk I should point out. Your puzzle has the moves
labelled "pyramid" and "star". A third option (depending on how you look at
it) is doing a "pyramid" and "star" move on the same face. The gigaminx also
has 3 potential moves for a single face as well: outer layer, inner layer,
and both layers. Because your "star" move does not move the pyramid as well,
the moves correlate as follows:
pyramid = outer layer
star = inner layer
pyramid and star = both layers
This should seem obvious. The quirk is that on a physical Gigaminx people
typically use either outer layers or both layers. Inner layer moves are
quite rare because they are more difficult to perform (one would turn both
layers and then put the outer layer back) and in general not needed for many
solutions. However your puzzle makes the "star" move the easier move to
access. This could be confusing at first to anyone trying to see the
similarity between the Gigaminx and your puzzle. (On the virtual gigaminx
above, the inner layer actually is an option, so this entire argument really
only applies to the analysis and a physical gigaminx).

I won't give details on solving but looking at the gigaminx subset, these
pieces are actually pretty easy to solve alone since no outer layer turns
(aka pyramid moves) have any pieces in common. Simple commutators can be
implemented to solve this puzzle, provided you can correctly determine where
each piece goes. The unusual placement for the colors is more than a little
disorienting. By the way the correct placement for any piece on this puzzle
is not unique. i.e. any red piece can go in any spot that eventually needs a
red piece. There is a parity restriction on the puzzle. If it seems that two
pieces need to swap places at the end, it actually means that you must also
swap to identical pieces.

Good luck on this project. It is a good idea that I don't think has ever
been made,
Matt Galla

--e0cb4e8878113a57b4048b61aaaf
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

And I can give some insights on solving it ;)

The puzzle you have described is equivalent to a subgroup of the gigam=
inx puzzle, which many people worldwide already know how to solve ( a virtu=
al gigaminx can be found here: in/Applets/Magic%20Polyhedra/dodeca_f8.htm">http://users.skynet.be/gelatinb=
rain/Applets/Magic%20Polyhedra/dodeca_f8.htm
) Specifically, your puzzle=
only has the edge-face pieces. The attachment shows the solved subset of y=
our puzzle using the same color scheme you have. You'll notice this doe=
sn't look solved and that is because your coloring scheme distributes c=
olors a little strangely (by no means a bad thing!) This makes the resultin=
g puzzle not necessarily harder but undeniably more disorienting as it is d=
ifficult to tell when a given piece is correct. You have also used the same=
colors on the opposite sides of the puzzle which again adds to the disorie=
ntation, but not necessarily difficulty of the puzzle. Finally a little qui=
rk I should point out. Your puzzle has the moves labelled "pyramid&quo=
t; and "star". A third option (depending on how you look at it) i=
s doing a "pyramid" and "star" move on the same face. T=
he gigaminx also has 3 potential moves for a single face as well: outer lay=
er, inner layer, and both layers. Because your "star" move does n=
ot move the pyramid as well, the moves correlate as follows:


pyramid =3D outer layer

star =3D inner layer

pyramid and star =3D both layers

This should seem obvious. The quirk is that on a physical Gigaminx peo=
ple typically use either outer layers or both layers. Inner layer moves are=
quite rare because they are more difficult to perform (one would turn both=
layers and then put the outer layer back) and in general not needed for ma=
ny solutions. However your puzzle makes the "star" move the easie=
r move to access. This could be confusing at first to anyone trying to see =
the similarity between the Gigaminx and your puzzle. (On the virtual gigami=
nx above, the inner layer actually is an option, so this entire argument re=
ally only applies to the analysis and a physical gigaminx).


=A0

I won't give details on solving but looking at the gigaminx subset=
, these pieces are actually pretty easy to solve alone since no outer layer=
turns (aka pyramid moves) have any pieces in common. Simple commutators ca=
n be implemented to solve this puzzle, provided you can correctly determine=
where each piece goes. The unusual placement for the colors is more than a=
little disorienting. By the way the correct placement for any piece on thi=
s puzzle is not unique. i.e. any red piece can go in any spot that eventual=
ly needs a red piece. There is a parity restriction on the puzzle. If it se=
ems that two pieces need to swap places at the end, it actually means that =
you must also swap to identical pieces.


=A0

Good luck on this project. It is a good idea that I don't think ha=
s ever been made,

Matt Galla


--e0cb4e8878113a57b4048b61aaaf--

--e0cb4e8878113a57b9048b61aab1
Content-Type: application/x-ygp-stripped
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Attachment-Id: f_gbmtp7ba0

Content-Type: image/png; name="StellatedDodecahedronEquivalent.png"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="StellatedDodecahedronEquivalent.png"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
X-Attachment-Id: f_gbmtp7ba0

--e0cb4e8878113a57b9048b61aab1--




From: Anthony Deschamps <anthony.j.deschamps@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:06:31 -0400
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Sub-100K for 3^7



--0015174bf186ec8cd2048b61dfe2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I would say that solving MC5D makes you more than qualified to solve MC7D.
Understanding 4D is difficult, of course, but it's close enough to 3D that
you can solve the puzzle without a really deep understanding of it. By the
time you finish MC5D, at least in my experience, you stop thinking of it in
a visual way and more so in a mathematical/conceptual way. From that point
on, it's kind of like being able to solve a 5^3 and you know you'd be able
to solve a 9^3 if you sat down long enough to do it.

I'm in the middle of an MC7D solve, and to me, it's very similar to the 5D,
since I use all the same theorems in order to solve it.

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 7:18 PM, deustfrr wrote:

>
>
> Don't push yourself! Learning a new 3D puzzle takes a while, but learning
> new 4D and 5D puzzles?
> solving MC5D doesn't mean you can do MC7D? Darn. I wonder how you did it?
> (Magic!)
>
> --- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com <4D_Cubing%40yahoogroups.com>, "Andrey"
> wrote:
>
> >And there are too many challenges ahead: 4^5, some 4D puzzles (like
> {3}x{3},4), maybe 120cell (but I'm not sure about it), implementation of
> 24cell and 5D simplex...
>
> > Andrey
>
>=20=20
>

--0015174bf186ec8cd2048b61dfe2
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I would say that solving MC5D makes you more than qualified to solve MC7D.=
=A0 Understanding 4D is difficult, of course, but it's close enough to =
3D that you can solve the puzzle without a really deep understanding of it.=
=A0 By the time you finish MC5D, at least in my experience, you stop thinki=
ng of it in a visual way and more so in a mathematical/conceptual way.=A0 F=
rom that point on, it's kind of like being able to solve a 5^3 and you =
know you'd be able to solve a 9^3 if you sat down long enough to do it.=



I'm in the middle of an MC7D solve, and to me, it's very simila=
r to the 5D, since I use all the same theorems in order to solve it.
>

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 7:18 PM, deustfrr dir=3D"ltr"><deustfrr@yahoo.ca=
> wrote:

r-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">














=A0







=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20

Don't push yourself! Learning a new 3D puzzle takes a while, b=
ut learning new 4D and 5D puzzles?

solving MC5D doesn't mean you can do MC7D? Darn. I wonder how you did i=
t? (Magic!)



--- In 4D_=
Cubing@yahoogroups.com
, "Andrey" <andreyastrelin@...> w=
rote:



>And there are too many challenges ahead: 4^5, some 4D puzzles (like {3}=
x{3},4), maybe 120cell (but I'm not sure about it), implementation of 2=
4cell and 5D simplex...



> Andrey






=20=20=20=20=20

=20=20=20=20







=20=20









--0015174bf186ec8cd2048b61dfe2--




From: "matthewsheerin" <damienturtle@hotmail.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 00:34:09 -0000
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Sub-100K for 3^7



I have to agree here. Everyone will have a different experience of this, b=
ut overall I think everyone's experience will at the very least overlap and=
probably be reasonably similar. Tranisition from 3D to 4D is hard. If yo=
u already have experience of 4D geometry it will obviously go a lot smoothe=
r, but for people like me who found these puzzles from searching the intern=
et for cubing material and had no previous encounter with 4D, the first tra=
nsition is very confusing. I believe the best solution is a mixture of rea=
ding about the mathematics and principles of 4D, and simply playing around =
with MC4D until you grasp the concepts involved. After solving one or two =
of the 4D cubes, the tranisition to 4D is pretty much complete. For me, tr=
ansition to 5D was also a bit of hard work, although this time I was alread=
y armed with theory and a reasonable understanding of 4D cubes (though not =
as solid an understanding as I now have). A few days playing with MC5D soo=
n fixed this. After spending a few months with MC5D (my infamous 7^5 solve=
), transition to 7D simply involved understanding how Andrey had projected =
all the dimensions (showing stickers of secondary faces confused me at firs=
t until I knew what they were showing me). So for me at least, after becom=
ing familiar with 5D, anything bigger is just more of the same. The same c=
oncept, and the same solving style, just longer with a lot more pieces. Li=
ke Andrey, I am in the situation I can solve any 3^N, it just might be a li=
ttle tedious. It is also interesting to note that with enough familiarity,=
the 2C pieces on any 3^N are fairly trivial to solve, not much harder than=
the edges on a 3x3x3. Actually, I used the same method to solve the 2C pi=
eces of the 3^7 as I would use if I am solving just the edges of a 3x3x3.

Also, the {3,3,3}3 confused me at first, but it is easy to get used to, and=
it can then be solved very similarly to the standard pyraminx without too =
much effort. Some of the more unusual shapes I haven't spent enough time o=
n to figure out how to solve. Those are on my to-do list :)

Matt

--- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Deschamps .> wrote:
>
> I would say that solving MC5D makes you more than qualified to solve MC7D=
.
> Understanding 4D is difficult, of course, but it's close enough to 3D tha=
t
> you can solve the puzzle without a really deep understanding of it. By t=
he
> time you finish MC5D, at least in my experience, you stop thinking of it =
in
> a visual way and more so in a mathematical/conceptual way. From that poi=
nt
> on, it's kind of like being able to solve a 5^3 and you know you'd be abl=
e
> to solve a 9^3 if you sat down long enough to do it.
>=20
> I'm in the middle of an MC7D solve, and to me, it's very similar to the 5=
D,
> since I use all the same theorems in order to solve it.
>=20
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 7:18 PM, deustfrr wrote:
>=20
> >
> >
> > Don't push yourself! Learning a new 3D puzzle takes a while, but learni=
ng
> > new 4D and 5D puzzles?
> > solving MC5D doesn't mean you can do MC7D? Darn. I wonder how you did i=
t?
> > (Magic!)
> >
> > --- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com <4D_Cubing%40yahoogroups.com>, "Andrey=
"
> > wrote:
> >
> > >And there are too many challenges ahead: 4^5, some 4D puzzles (like
> > {3}x{3},4), maybe 120cell (but I'm not sure about it), implementation o=
f
> > 24cell and 5D simplex...
> >
> > > Andrey
> >
> >=20=20
> >
>




From: "deustfrr" <deustfrr@yahoo.ca>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 21:39:39 -0000
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Sub-100K for 3^7



I thought I knew a lot about 4D, but, I guess I didn't ;-(
solving 3^5 is my goal, and yet I can't even do 3^4 !
And what do you mean by a deep understanding? I really want to master (know=
a lot about) the 4th dimension!

And off topic: I just did a 3^4 cross in 1 or 2 minutes! It was so surprisi=
ng!
Check out a vid of translucent 4D cubes made on paint here! http://www.yout=
ube.com/watch?v=3D6s_P3OTHGhw

--- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Deschamps .> wrote:
>
> I would say that solving MC5D makes you more than qualified to solve MC7D=
.
> Understanding 4D is difficult, of course, but it's close enough to 3D tha=
t
> you can solve the puzzle without a really deep understanding of it. By t=
he
> time you finish MC5D, at least in my experience, you stop thinking of it =
in
> a visual way and more so in a mathematical/conceptual way. From that poi=
nt
> on, it's kind of like being able to solve a 5^3 and you know you'd be abl=
e
> to solve a 9^3 if you sat down long enough to do it.
>=20
> I'm in the middle of an MC7D solve, and to me, it's very similar to the 5=
D,
> since I use all the same theorems in order to solve it.
>=20
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 7:18 PM, deustfrr wrote:
>=20
> >
> >
> > Don't push yourself! Learning a new 3D puzzle takes a while, but learni=
ng
> > new 4D and 5D puzzles?
> > solving MC5D doesn't mean you can do MC7D? Darn. I wonder how you did i=
t?
> > (Magic!)
> >
> > --- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com <4D_Cubing%40yahoogroups.com>, "Andrey=
"
> > wrote:
> >
> > >And there are too many challenges ahead: 4^5, some 4D puzzles (like
> > {3}x{3},4), maybe 120cell (but I'm not sure about it), implementation o=
f
> > 24cell and 5D simplex...
> >
> > > Andrey
> >
> >=20=20
> >
>




From: "deustfrr" <deustfrr@yahoo.ca>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 22:32:35 -0000
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Sub-100K for 3^7




I thought I knew a lot about 4D, but, I guess I didn't ;-(
solving 3^5 is my goal, and yet I can't even do 3^4 !
And what do you mean by a deep understanding? I really want to master (know=
a lot about) the 4th dimension!

And off topic: I just did a 3^4 cross in 1 or 2 minutes! It was so surprisi=
ng!
edit: I just did the faces!
Check out a vid of translucent 4D cubes made on paint here! http://www.yout=
ube.com/watch?v=3D6s_P3OTHGhw

> --- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Deschamps > wrote:
> >
> > I would say that solving MC5D makes you more than qualified to solve MC=
7D.
> > Understanding 4D is difficult, of course, but it's close enough to 3D t=
hat
> > you can solve the puzzle without a really deep understanding of it. By=
the
> > time you finish MC5D, at least in my experience, you stop thinking of i=
t in
> > a visual way and more so in a mathematical/conceptual way. From that p=
oint
> > on, it's kind of like being able to solve a 5^3 and you know you'd be a=
ble
> > to solve a 9^3 if you sat down long enough to do it.
> >=20
> > I'm in the middle of an MC7D solve, and to me, it's very similar to the=
5D,
> > since I use all the same theorems in order to solve it.
> >=20





From: Roice Nelson <roice3@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 20:57:44 -0500
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Sub-100K for 3^7



--00163623acd07a3481048b778bca
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

duestfrr wrote:

> Check out a vid of translucent 4D cubes made on paint here!
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6s_P3OTHGhw


Thanks for the link. I've been fascinated in the past with the idea of
using transparency for an MC4D interface (to somehow allow it to be less
exploded but still workable). Early in 2009, I played around with POV-Ray a
little to make some renderings of what things might look like, but didn't
share them at the time. Ray tracing isn't currently a "real-time" rendering
method, plus I didn't find the visual usability I was looking for, but they
are pretty to look at anyway. Since you posted this, I just uploaded a few
pics to the group photo area, in case anyone would like to check them out...

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/4D_Cubing/photos/album/1036215908/pic/list

Roice

--00163623acd07a3481048b778bca
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

duestfrr wrote:=A0
gin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; bo=
rder-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-st=
yle: solid; padding-left: 1ex; ">
Check out a vid of translucent 4D cubes made on paint here!=A0tp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D6s_P3OTHGhw" target=3D"_blank">=3D"Apple-style-span" color=3D"#000000">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D6s=
_P3OTHGhw


Thanks for the link. =A0I'=
;ve been fascinated in the past with the idea of using transparency for an =
MC4D interface (to somehow allow it to be less exploded but still workable)=
. =A0Early in 2009, I played around with POV-Ray a little to make some rend=
erings of what things might look like, but didn't share them at the tim=
e. =A0Ray tracing isn't currently a "real-time" rendering met=
hod, plus I didn't find the visual usability I was looking for, but the=
y are pretty to look at anyway. =A0Since you posted this, I just uploaded a=
few pics to the group photo area, in case anyone would like to check them =
out...


o.com/group/4D_Cubing/photos/album/1036215908/pic/list">http://groups.yahoo=
.com/group/4D_Cubing/photos/album/1036215908/pic/list
=3D"im">

Roice


--00163623acd07a3481048b778bca--





Return to MagicCube4D main page
Return to the Superliminal home page