Thread: "3^4 in 237 twists"

From: Klaus Weidinger <klaus.weidinger@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 08:41:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 3^4 in 237 twists



--0-1855402240-1280072518=:98369
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Hi everyone,

the last two days I finally found enough time to finish my third solve of the
3^4. This time I broke Matthew's record and managed to get down to 237 twists.
However, I have to admit, that I would not have been able to do so without some
help from CubeExplorer. The programme solved two 3^3s for me (17 and 18 twists).
By the way: "my" parity occured again and this time I managed to solve it
without help (but only because I knew, that it was able within 5 twists).

Next weekend I will try to finish this solve again, but this time, without a
computer. I hope that I will stay below 300 twists, but I don't think I can get
anywhere close to Matthew with this method without usage of a computer.
Therefore I have to congratulate Matthew again on his astonishing solve.

It would be really nice if you (Melinda) could add a new category to the hall of
fame which says "Shortest solution with computer aid", because I really don't
want to "rob" Matthew's record in this manner. I think this category might get
really necessary in the future, because in 4D I expect god's number to lie out
of human range unlike in 3D. Therefore there should be two records. One for
humans and one for computers.

I have already sent the logfile to Melinda and will put it in my MC4D-wiki
profile in the next few days.

Happy Hypercubing,
Klaus



--0-1855402240-1280072518=:98369
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii


Hi everyone,

the last two days I finally found enough time to finish my third solve of the 3^4. This time I broke Matthew's record and managed to get down to 237 twists. However, I have to admit, that I would not have been able to do so without some help from CubeExplorer. The programme solved two 3^3s for me (17 and 18 twists). By the way: "my" parity occured again and this time I managed to solve it without help (but only because I knew, that it was able within 5 twists).

Next weekend I will try to finish this solve again, but this time, without a computer. I hope that I will stay below 300 twists, but I don't think I can get anywhere close to Matthew with this method without usage of a computer. Therefore I have to congratulate Matthew again on his astonishing solve.

It would be really nice if you (Melinda) could add a new category to the hall of
fame which says "Shortest solution with computer aid", because I really don't want to
"rob" Matthew's record in this manner. I think this category might get really necessary in the future, because in 4D I expect god's number to lie out of human range unlike in 3D. Therefore there should be two records. One for humans and one for computers.

I have already sent the logfile to Melinda and will put it in my MC4D-wiki profile in the next few days.

Happy Hypercubing,
Klaus







--0-1855402240-1280072518=:98369--




From: Klaus Weidinger <klaus.weidinger@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:57:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [MC4D] 3^4 in 237 twists



--0-2110162930-1280167046=:1334
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Melinda,

I don't really understand what you mean by "all 4D solutions are=20
computer-assisted to one degree or another". Well, of course you need a=20
computer, because otherwise you can't run MC4D, but that is no assistance, =
yet.=20
In my first solve I only used a pen, some sheet of paper, a regular rubik's=
cube=20
and one pocket cube. In my second solve I computed one PLL alg for the 3^3,=
but=20
if I had known 2-look Fridrich and used the same alg or looked it up on the=
=20
internet, there wouldn't have been any difference. Therefore I would not ca=
ll my=20
first two solves computer-assisted.
My third solve, however, is computer-assisted, because I would not have bee=
n=20
able to solve a 3^3 in less that 30 twists.

Concerning the categories, I would suggest the following three:
- Without any help of a computer
- Computer-assisted
- Completely done by a computer

If you don't want to maintain these, I could do the job for now.

Happy Hypercubing,
Klaus





________________________________
From: Melinda Green
To: 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, July 25, 2010 8:32:22 PM
Subject: Re: [MC4D] 3^4 in 237 twists

=20=20
Hello Klaus,

It is certainly a puzzle to figure out how best to treat this subject. I=20
don't think that it is as simple as computer-assisted versus not because=20
all 4D solutions are computer-assisted to one degree or another. The=20
question will always be where to draw the line. I think that we will=20
always just need to make rulings based on how each technique feels to=20
us. In this case you seem to feel as if this sort of help is=20
over-the-line, and I suppose I agree. How do other people feel on this=20
one? Your idea of creating new record categories seems like a good one=20
though I can see a couple of problems with that. First is that it opens=20
up a wide gray area full of techniques that may or may not qualify, and=20
second is that I don't personally really want to maintain a new set of=20
categories. If people think that new categories are a good idea, then=20
it's fine with me that those records are self-maintained in the wiki.=20
Otherwise I guess I'd prefer to rule this one out of bounds. Thoughts?

-Melinda

Klaus Weidinger wrote:
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> the last two days I finally found enough time to finish my third solve=20
> of the 3^4. This time I broke Matthew's record and managed to get down=20
> to 237 twists. However, I have to admit, that I would not have been=20
> able to do so without some help from CubeExplorer. The programme=20
> solved two 3^3s for me (17 and 18 twists). By the way: "my" parity=20
> occured again and this time I managed to solve it without help (but=20
> only because I knew, that it was able within 5 twists).
>
> Next weekend I will try to finish this solve again, but this time,=20
> without a computer. I hope that I will stay below 300 twists, but I=20
> don't think I can get anywhere close to Matthew with this method=20
> without usage of a computer. Therefore I have to congratulate Matthew=20
> again on his astonishing solve.
>
> It would be really nice if you (Melinda) could add a new category to=20
> the hall of fame which says "Shortest solution with computer aid",=20
> because I really don't want to "rob" Matthew's record in this manner.=20
> I think this category might get really necessary in the future,=20
> because in 4D I expect god's number to lie out of human range unlike=20
> in 3D. Therefore there should be two records. One for humans and one=20
> for computers.
>
> I have already sent the logfile to Melinda and will put it in my=20
> MC4D-wiki profile in the next few days.
>
> Happy Hypercubing,
> Klaus
>
>
>
>
>=20

=20


=20=20=20=20=20=20
--0-2110162930-1280167046=:1334
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

ad>

t-size:12pt">
Hi Melinda,

I don't really understand what you mea=
n by "all 4D solutions are computer-assisted to one degree or another". Wel=
l, of course you need a computer, because otherwise you can't run MC4D, but=
that is no assistance, yet. In my first solve I only used a pen, some shee=
t of paper, a regular rubik's cube and one pocket cube. In my second solve =
I computed one PLL alg for the 3^3, but if I had known 2-look Fridrich and =
used the same alg or looked it up on the internet, there wouldn't have been=
any difference. Therefore I would not call my first two solves computer-as=
sisted.
My third solve, however, is computer-assisted, because I would n=
ot have been able to solve a 3^3 in less that 30 twists.

Concerning =
the categories, I would suggest the following three:
- Without any
help of a computer
- Computer-assisted
- Completely done by a comput=
er

If you don't want to maintain these, I could do the job for now.<=
br>
Happy Hypercubing,
Klaus

times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">
adding-left: 5px; margin: 5px 0px 5px 5px; border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 1=
6, 255); font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt=
;">
eight: bold;">From: Melinda Green <melinda@superliminal.com&g=
t;
To: 4D_Cubing@yahoog=
roups.com
Sent: Sun, Ju=
ly 25, 2010 8:32:22 PM
Subject:pan> Re: [MC4D] 3^4 in 237 twists









 




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

Hello Klaus,



It is certainly a puzzle to figure out how best to treat this subject. I r>
don't think that it is as simple as computer-assisted versus not because r>
all 4D solutions are computer-assisted to one degree or another. The

question will always be where to draw the line. I think that we will

always just need to make rulings based on how each technique feels to

us. In this case you seem to feel as if this sort of help is

over-the-line, and I suppose I agree. How do other people feel on this

one? Your idea of creating new record categories seems like a good one

though I can see a couple of problems with that. First is that it opens >
up a wide gray area full of techniques that may or may not qualify, and >
second is that I don't personally really want to maintain a new set of

categories. If people think that new categories are a good idea, then

it's fine with me that those records are self-maintained in the wiki.

Otherwise I guess I'd prefer to rule this one out of bounds. Thoughts?



-Melinda



Klaus Weidinger wrote:

>

>

> Hi everyone,

>

> the last two days I finally found enough time to finish my third solve=


> of the 3^4. This time I broke Matthew's record and managed to get down=


> to 237 twists. However, I have to admit, that I would not have been r>
> able to do so without some help from CubeExplorer. The programme

> solved two 3^3s for me (17 and 18 twists). By the way: "my" parity >
> occured again and this time I managed to solve it without help (but r>
> only because I knew, that it was able within 5 twists).

>

> Next weekend I will try to finish this solve again, but this time, >
> without a computer. I hope that I will stay below 300 twists, but I r>
> don't think I can get anywhere close to Matthew with this method

> without usage of a computer. Therefore I have to congratulate Matthew =


> again on his astonishing solve.

>

> It would be really nice if you (Melinda) could add a new category to <=
br>
> the hall of fame which says "Shortest solution with computer aid", >
> because I really don't want to "rob" Matthew's record in this manner. =


> I think this category might get really necessary in the future,

> because in 4D I expect god's number to lie out of human range unlike <=
br>
> in 3D. Therefore there should be two records. One for humans and one <=
br>
> for computers.

>

> I have already sent the logfile to Melinda and will put it in my

> MC4D-wiki profile in the next few days.

>

> Happy Hypercubing,

> Klaus

>

>

>

>

>




=20=20=20=20=20









--0-2110162930-1280167046=:1334--




From: Melinda Green <melinda@superliminal.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:31:54 -0700
Subject: Re: [MC4D] 3^4 in 237 twists



Klaus,

I don't mean to assert that a solution is computer-assisted simply
because the puzzle is implemented in software. In the case of MC4D the
most obvious forms of assistance are undo/redo and the macro facilities.
The piece finding tool in Magic120Cell is another obvious computer aid.
I also consider the reset command to be a computer aid. You can see how
intelligent minds can begin to disagree about just what constitutes an
aid and the degree to which those aids should or should not matter when
comparing solutions.

I'll continue to maintain the existing record categories in the HOF but
please feel free to create and curate any new categories on the wiki
that you feel motivated to maintain.

Congratulations on your amazingly short solution BTW,
-Melinda

Klaus Weidinger wrote:
>
>
> Hi Melinda,
>
> I don't really understand what you mean by "all 4D solutions are
> computer-assisted to one degree or another". Well, of course you need
> a computer, because otherwise you can't run MC4D, but that is no
> assistance, yet. In my first solve I only used a pen, some sheet of
> paper, a regular rubik's cube and one pocket cube. In my second solve
> I computed one PLL alg for the 3^3, but if I had known 2-look Fridrich
> and used the same alg or looked it up on the internet, there wouldn't
> have been any difference. Therefore I would not call my first two
> solves computer-assisted.
> My third solve, however, is computer-assisted, because I would not
> have been able to solve a 3^3 in less that 30 twists.
>
> Concerning the categories, I would suggest the following three:
> - Without any help of a computer
> - Computer-assisted
> - Completely done by a computer
>
> If you don't want to maintain these, I could do the job for now.
>




From: Jonathan Mecias <jonathan.mecias001@mymdc.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:13:56 -0400
Subject: Re: [MC4D] 3^4 in 237 twists



--0016361e7e56a074b2048c5f1c8e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Klaus, thanks for you honesty and respect for Mathew's solution.

"because in 4D I expect god's number to lie out of human range unlike in 3D=
.
Therefore there should be two records. One for humans and one for computers
."
-Klaus
What do you mean by this? and gods number? how do computers solve this?
Won't that mean that programmers solve it using the aid of other people and
computers and math?

how did you manage to get the solution so low even without the computer
help in solving the 3x3x3? I'm curious now. Is there a thread on this in th=
e
archives? i apologise for my incoherent questions.

jonathan

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 9:31 PM, Melinda Green wr=
ote:

>
>
> Klaus,
>
> I don't mean to assert that a solution is computer-assisted simply
> because the puzzle is implemented in software. In the case of MC4D the
> most obvious forms of assistance are undo/redo and the macro facilities.
> The piece finding tool in Magic120Cell is another obvious computer aid.
> I also consider the reset command to be a computer aid. You can see how
> intelligent minds can begin to disagree about just what constitutes an
> aid and the degree to which those aids should or should not matter when
> comparing solutions.
>
> I'll continue to maintain the existing record categories in the HOF but
> please feel free to create and curate any new categories on the wiki
> that you feel motivated to maintain.
>
> Congratulations on your amazingly short solution BTW,
> -Melinda
>
>
> Klaus Weidinger wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi Melinda,
> >
> > I don't really understand what you mean by "all 4D solutions are
> > computer-assisted to one degree or another". Well, of course you need
> > a computer, because otherwise you can't run MC4D, but that is no
> > assistance, yet. In my first solve I only used a pen, some sheet of
> > paper, a regular rubik's cube and one pocket cube. In my second solve
> > I computed one PLL alg for the 3^3, but if I had known 2-look Fridrich
> > and used the same alg or looked it up on the internet, there wouldn't
> > have been any difference. Therefore I would not call my first two
> > solves computer-assisted.
> > My third solve, however, is computer-assisted, because I would not
> > have been able to solve a 3^3 in less that 30 twists.
> >
> > Concerning the categories, I would suggest the following three:
> > - Without any help of a computer
> > - Computer-assisted
> > - Completely done by a computer
> >
> > If you don't want to maintain these, I could do the job for now.
> >
>
>=20
>

--0016361e7e56a074b2048c5f1c8e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Klaus, thanks for you honesty and respect for Mathew's solution.div>
=A0

"because in 4D I expect=
god's number to lie out of human range unlike in 3D. Therefore there s=
hould be two records. One for humans and one for computers
."iv>

-Klaus

=A0What do you mean by this? and gods number? how do computers solve t=
his? Won't that mean that programmers solve it using the aid of other p=
eople and computers and math?

=A0

=A0how did you manage to get the solution so low even without the comp=
uter help in solving the 3x3x3? I'm curious now. Is there a thread on t=
his in the archives? i apologise for my incoherent questions.

=A0

jonathan


On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 9:31 PM, Melinda Green <=
span dir=3D"ltr"><melinda@su=
perliminal.com
> wrote:

; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote">
=A0=20



Klaus,

I don't mean to assert that a solution is computer-ass=
isted simply
because the puzzle is implemented in software. In the case=
of MC4D the
most obvious forms of assistance are undo/redo and the mac=
ro facilities.

The piece finding tool in Magic120Cell is another obvious computer aid. >I also consider the reset command to be a computer aid. You can see how r>intelligent minds can begin to disagree about just what constitutes an r>
aid and the degree to which those aids should or should not matter when >comparing solutions.

I'll continue to maintain the existing rec=
ord categories in the HOF but
please feel free to create and curate any=
new categories on the wiki

that you feel motivated to maintain.

Congratulations on your amazing=
ly short solution BTW,
-Melinda=20



Klaus Weidinger wrote:
>
>
> Hi=
Melinda,
>
> I don't really understand what you mean by &q=
uot;all 4D solutions are
> computer-assisted to one degree or anothe=
r". Well, of course you need

> a computer, because otherwise you can't run MC4D, but that is no <=
br>> assistance, yet. In my first solve I only used a pen, some sheet of=

> paper, a regular rubik's cube and one pocket cube. In my seco=
nd solve

> I computed one PLL alg for the 3^3, but if I had known 2-look Fridrich=

> and used the same alg or looked it up on the internet, there woul=
dn't
> have been any difference. Therefore I would not call my f=
irst two

> solves computer-assisted.
> My third solve, however, is computer=
-assisted, because I would not
> have been able to solve a 3^3 in le=
ss that 30 twists.
>
> Concerning the categories, I would sugge=
st the following three:

> - Without any help of a computer
> - Computer-assisted
> -=
Completely done by a computer
>
> If you don't want to mai=
ntain these, I could do the job for now.
>


=



--0016361e7e56a074b2048c5f1c8e--




From: Klaus Weidinger <klaus.weidinger@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 14:39:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [MC4D] 3^4 in 237 twists



--0-1223556136-1280266755=:62600
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Jonathan,

nothing to apologize for. God's number is the number of moves you need to s=
olve=20
the cube from any given state. For example, it is very likely that God's nu=
mber=20
for the normal Rubik's is 20. Every position that has been tested up to now=
=20
could be solved in 20 twists or less and it is mathematically proven, that =
no=20
state of the cube is more than 22 face twists away from the solved state. T=
his=20
is a very low move count, but not out of human range, because out there, so=
me=20
guys have already solved the cube within 19 moves.

For the 3^4 God's number is at least 56 as computed by Andrey and I expect =
it to=20
be anything from 58 to 62. And I'm quite optimistic that someday we will be=
able=20
to solve a 3^4 optimally with a computer. I might take SOME more years (tho=
se=20
programmes are not even developed, nor are our computers capable of this ta=
sk=20
yet), but I think we have a good chance to get this done within our lifetim=
e.=20
But I just can't imagine that there will ever be some human being able to s=
olve=20
the 3^4 with a move count this low. Therefore, in my opinion there have to =
be=20
seperate categories for humans and computers in fewest move solving, even i=
f the=20
latter ones do not even have entered the "competition" yet.

You also asked how computers solve a 3^4. Well, at the moment, they don't d=
o it=20
at all, but if they will ever do, they won't use MC4D, because I expect the=
=20
graphical user interface to be kind of cumbersome for them ;-) But if you w=
ant=20
to understand how a computer can solve a Rubik's I would suggest having a p=
eek=20
at the manuals and FAQs of CubeExplorer. They are quite informative. This s=
hould=20
also answer your last question on how programmers are solving a Rubik's.

If you want to know how I solved the 3^4 with so few twists you will have t=
o=20
either search the archives (you will find a very rough description of my=20
method), or have to be a little bit patient, because I'm going to put some=
=20
precise descriptions of my methods on the wiki. Before that, I will, howeve=
r, do=20
some more solves, which may take some time.

Happy Hypercubing,
Klaus




________________________________
From: Jonathan Mecias
To: 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, July 27, 2010 4:13:56 PM
Subject: Re: [MC4D] 3^4 in 237 twists

=20=20
Klaus, thanks for you honesty and respect for Mathew's solution.
=20
"because in 4D I expect god's number to lie out of human range unlike in 3D=
.=20
Therefore there should be two records. One for humans and one for computers=
."
-Klaus
What do you mean by this? and gods number? how do computers solve this? Wo=
n't=20
that mean that programmers solve it using the aid of other people and compu=
ters=20
and math?
=20
how did you manage to get the solution so low even without the computer he=
lp in=20
solving the 3x3x3? I'm curious now. Is there a thread on this in the archiv=
es? i=20
apologise for my incoherent questions.
=20
jonathan


On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 9:31 PM, Melinda Green =
=20
wrote:

=20=20
>Klaus,
>
>I don't mean to assert that a solution is computer-assisted simply=20
>because the puzzle is implemented in software. In the case of MC4D the=20
>most obvious forms of assistance are undo/redo and the macro facilities.=20
>The piece finding tool in Magic120Cell is another obvious computer aid.=20
>I also consider the reset command to be a computer aid. You can see how=20
>intelligent minds can begin to disagree about just what constitutes an=20
>aid and the degree to which those aids should or should not matter when=20
>comparing solutions.
>
>I'll continue to maintain the existing record categories in the HOF but=20
>please feel free to create and curate any new categories on the wiki=20
>that you feel motivated to maintain.
>
>Congratulations on your amazingly short solution BTW,
>-Melinda=20
>
>
>Klaus Weidinger wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi Melinda,
>>
>> I don't really understand what you mean by "all 4D solutions are=20
>> computer-assisted to one degree or another". Well, of course you need=20
>> a computer, because otherwise you can't run MC4D, but that is no=20
>> assistance, yet. In my first solve I only used a pen, some sheet of=20
>> paper, a regular rubik's cube and one pocket cube. In my second solve=20
>> I computed one PLL alg for the 3^3, but if I had known 2-look Fridrich=20
>> and used the same alg or looked it up on the internet, there wouldn't=20
>> have been any difference. Therefore I would not call my first two=20
>> solves computer-assisted.
>> My third solve, however, is computer-assisted, because I would not=20
>> have been able to solve a 3^3 in less that 30 twists.
>>
>> Concerning the categories, I would suggest the following three:
>> - Without any help of a computer
>> - Computer-assisted
>> - Completely done by a computer
>>
>> If you don't want to maintain these, I could do the job for now.
>>=20
>

=20


=20=20=20=20=20=20
--0-1223556136-1280266755=:62600
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

ad>

t-size:12pt">
Hi Jonathan,

nothing to apologize for. God's numbe=
r is the number of moves you need to solve the cube from any given state. F=
or example, it is very likely that God's number for the normal Rubik's is 2=
0. Every position that has been tested up to now could be solved in 20 twis=
ts or less and it is mathematically proven, that no state of the cube is mo=
re than 22 face twists away from the solved state. This is a very low move =
count, but not out of human range, because out there, some guys have alread=
y solved the cube within 19 moves.

For the 3^4 God's number is at le=
ast 56 as computed by Andrey and I expect it to be anything from 58 to 62. =
And I'm quite optimistic that someday we will be able to solve a 3^4 optima=
lly with a computer. I might take SOME more years (those programmes are
not even developed, nor are our computers capable of this task yet), but I=
think we have a good chance to get this done within our lifetime. But I ju=
st can't imagine that there will ever be some human being able to solve the=
3^4 with a move count this low. Therefore, in my opinion there have to be =
seperate categories for humans and computers in fewest move solving, even i=
f the latter ones do not even have entered the "competition" yet.

Yo=
u also asked how computers solve a 3^4. Well, at the moment, they don't do =
it at all, but if they will ever do, they won't use MC4D, because I expect =
the graphical user interface to be kind of cumbersome for them ;-) But if y=
ou want to understand how a computer can solve a Rubik's I would suggest ha=
ving a peek at the manuals and FAQs of CubeExplorer. They are quite informa=
tive. This should also answer your last question on how programmers are sol=
ving a Rubik's.

If you want to know how I solved the 3^4 with
so few twists you will have to either search the archives (you will find a=
very rough description of my method), or have to be a little bit patient, =
because I'm going to put some precise descriptions of my methods on the wik=
i. Before that, I will, however, do some more solves, which may take some t=
ime.

Happy Hypercubing,
Klaus
times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">
padding-left: 5px; margin: 5px 0px 5px 5px; border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, =
16, 255); font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12p=
t;">
weight: bold;">From: Jonathan Mecias <jonathan.mecias001@mymd=
c.net>
To: 4D_Cubing=
@yahoogroups.com
Sent: =
Tue, July 27, 2010 4:13:56 PM
bold;">Subject: Re: [MC4D] 3^4 in 237 twists









 




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

Klaus, thanks for you honesty and respect for Mathew's so=
lution.

 

"because in 4D I=
expect god's number to lie out of human range unlike in 3D. Therefore ther=
e should be two records. One for humans and one for computers
.">

-Klaus

 What do you mean by this? and gods number? how do computers solv=
e this? Won't that mean that programmers solve it using the aid of other pe=
ople and computers and math?

 

 how did you manage to get the solution so low even without the c=
omputer help in solving the 3x3x3? I'm curious now. Is there a thread on th=
is in the archives? i apologise for my incoherent questions.

 

jonathan


On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 9:31 PM, Melinda Green <=
span dir=3D"ltr"><inal.com" target=3D"_blank" href=3D"mailto:melinda@superliminal.com">melind=
a@superlimina l.com
> wrote:

mail_quote">
 =20



Klaus,

I don't mean to assert that a solution is computer-assiste=
d simply
because the puzzle is implemented in software. In the case of =
MC4D the
most obvious forms of assistance are undo/redo and the macro f=
acilities.

The piece finding tool in Magic120Cell is another obvious computer aid. >I also consider the reset command to be a computer aid. You can see how r>intelligent minds can begin to disagree about just what constitutes an r>
aid and the degree to which those aids should or should not matter when >comparing solutions.

I'll continue to maintain the existing record =
categories in the HOF but
please feel free to create and curate any new=
categories on the wiki

that you feel motivated to maintain.

Congratulations on your amazing=
ly short solution BTW,
-Melinda=20



Klaus Weidinger wrote:
>
>
>=
; Hi Melinda,
>
> I don't really understand what you mean by "a=
ll 4D solutions are
> computer-assisted to one degree or another". W=
ell, of course you need

> a computer, because otherwise you can't run MC4D, but that is no
&=
gt; assistance, yet. In my first solve I only used a pen, some sheet of >> paper, a regular rubik's cube and one pocket cube. In my second solve=


> I computed one PLL alg for the 3^3, but if I had known 2-look Fridrich=

> and used the same alg or looked it up on the internet, there woul=
dn't
> have been any difference. Therefore I would not call my first=
two

> solves computer-assisted.
> My third solve, however, is computer=
-assisted, because I would not
> have been able to solve a 3^3 in le=
ss that 30 twists.
>
> Concerning the categories, I would sugge=
st the following three:

> - Without any help of a computer
> - Computer-assisted
> -=
Completely done by a computer
>
> If you don't want to maintai=
n these, I could do the job for now.
>


ote>





=20=20=20=20=20









--0-1223556136-1280266755=:62600--




From: Roice Nelson <roice3@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 17:19:58 -0500
Subject: Re: [MC4D] 3^4 in 237 twists



--0015174c3c48cf578d048c65e6a2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

>
> You also asked how computers solve a 3^4. Well, at the moment, they don't
> do it at all, but if they will ever do, they won't use MC4D, because I
> expect the graphical user interface to be kind of cumbersome for them ;-)


Actually, Don wrote a computer solver that works for Rubik's Cubes in any
dimension...that is, until your computer's resources run out :)

http://www.plunk.org/~hatch/MagicCubeNdSolve/

You were right about it not using the gui interface. Don's file format for
specifying the state is text based, and Andrey's recent fractal-like MC7D
design actually reminded me of it a little (since they both rely
on recursion in a manner reminiscent of each other).
Don's initial post about this is
here.
A post describing typical results (~1700 moves for the 3^4 and ~10K moves
for the 3^5) is here
.

Cheers,
Roice

--0015174c3c48cf578d048c65e6a2
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote">You also asked how computers sol=
ve a 3^4. Well, at the moment, they don't do it at all, but if they wil=
l ever do, they won't use MC4D, because I expect the graphical user int=
erface to be kind of cumbersome for them ;-)


=A0

Actually,=A0Don wrote=A0a computer solver that works for Rubik's C=
ubes=A0in any dimension...that is, until your computer's resources run =
out :)

=A0

http://www.p=
lunk.org/~hatch/MagicCubeNdSolve/

=A0

You were right about it not using the gui interface.=A0 Don's file=
format for specifying the state is text based, and Andrey's recent fra=
ctal-like MC7D design actually reminded me of it a little (since they both=
=A0rely on=A0recursion in a manner reminiscent of each other).


Don's initial post about this is hoo.com/group/4D_Cubing/message/243">here.=A0 A post describing typical=
results (~1700 moves for the 3^4 and ~10K moves for the 3^5) is "http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/4D_Cubing/message/249">here.


=A0

Cheers,

Roice


--0015174c3c48cf578d048c65e6a2--




From: "Matthew" <damienturtle@hotmail.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:46:11 -0000
Subject: Re: 3^4 in 237 twists



Just to let everyone know that I had an attempt at using cube explorer to i=
mprove my 251 twist solution, which gave a result of 210 twists. I like th=
e idea of the new categories: human only, human plus computer (what Klaus a=
nd I have done, by doing part of the solve by hand, and part by computer), =
and computer only. For years we were just concentrating on human only solv=
es, but there is a certain interest to be had in the other catagories, as l=
ong as they stay separate. It will be interesting to see what someone coul=
d achieve by making a program for fewest moves solving, and I don't think i=
t has been explored for 4D yet.

I have been distracted by other cube things recently so I haven't put in a =
lot of effort to optimise my solution more by hand, but now I have a target=
of 237 twists (and I think I can maybe manage it ...)

Matt

--- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, Klaus Weidinger wro=
te:
>
> Hi everyone,
>=20
> the last two days I finally found enough time to finish my third solve of=
the=20
> 3^4. This time I broke Matthew's record and managed to get down to 237 tw=
ists.=20
> However, I have to admit, that I would not have been able to do so withou=
t some=20
> help from CubeExplorer. The programme solved two 3^3s for me (17 and 18 t=
wists).=20
> By the way: "my" parity occured again and this time I managed to solve it=
=20
> without help (but only because I knew, that it was able within 5 twists).
>=20
> Next weekend I will try to finish this solve again, but this time, withou=
t a=20
> computer. I hope that I will stay below 300 twists, but I don't think I c=
an get=20
> anywhere close to Matthew with this method without usage of a computer.=20
> Therefore I have to congratulate Matthew again on his astonishing solve.
>=20
> It would be really nice if you (Melinda) could add a new category to the =
hall of=20
> fame which says "Shortest solution with computer aid", because I really d=
on't=20
> want to "rob" Matthew's record in this manner. I think this category mig=
ht get=20
> really necessary in the future, because in 4D I expect god's number to li=
e out=20
> of human range unlike in 3D. Therefore there should be two records. One f=
or=20
> humans and one for computers.
>=20
> I have already sent the logfile to Melinda and will put it in my MC4D-wik=
i=20
> profile in the next few days.
>=20
> Happy Hypercubing,
> Klaus
>




From: Klaus Weidinger <klaus.weidinger@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 11:14:06 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [MC4D] 3^4 in 237 twists



--0-1915316203-1280772846=:12563
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Melinda,

I think I don't share your point of view in this issue. For me, everything =
that=20
relieves you of thinking is a computer aid. Simple utilities like undo/redo=
and=20
reset are a big help, but they only help you to use the programme, not to s=
olve=20
the cube. And if you wrote down every twist you made (which would be REALLY=
=20
cumbersome), you could achieve the exact same thing, just a little more=20
error-prone and time-consuming. The piece finder is another example for tho=
se=20
utilities. It literally helps you to find a piece. You don't need to think =
to=20
find a piece on a 3^3. The same stays true for a 3^4, there are just more o=
f=20
those little cubies. This means, the piecefinder does some monotonous work =
for=20
you, but it does not help you with the solution itself. Therefore, the ment=
ioned=20
ones are nice and very helpful tools, but I would not consider them as a he=
lp or=20
an aid, because they don't do the thinking for you.
With macros this gets more difficult. But I still think, they don't help yo=
u=20
with the solution. They just spare you from making the same considerations =
over=20
and over again and save you lots of time. Therefore I would not consider th=
em a=20
real aid (in the sense of my definition) as long as we concern fewest move=
=20
solving. If we get to speed-hypercubing, they naturally are an aid, but we =
have=20
already discussed how to work around this in an older thread.

In conclusion, I would only call a solve computer-aided if one directly com=
putes=20
4D algs (and of course higher dimensional algs), or uses 3D algs from the n=
ormal=20
rubiks, which were computed for one specific solve (that means optimal solu=
tions=20
or parts of them). Using existing 3D algs which belong to any already exist=
ing=20
method should not be called an aid, because otherwise everyone knowing that=
=20
method would be allowed to use those algs, and for the rest it would be=20
forbidden.

I hope this point of view and my reasoning seem agreeable or at least=20
understandable to most of you, but please feel free to further discuss this=
=20
important topic.
Happy Hypercubing,
Klaus






________________________________
From: Melinda Green
To: 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, July 27, 2010 3:31:54 AM
Subject: Re: [MC4D] 3^4 in 237 twists

=20=20
Klaus,

I don't mean to assert that a solution is computer-assisted simply=20
because the puzzle is implemented in software. In the case of MC4D the=20
most obvious forms of assistance are undo/redo and the macro facilities.=20
The piece finding tool in Magic120Cell is another obvious computer aid.=20
I also consider the reset command to be a computer aid. You can see how=20
intelligent minds can begin to disagree about just what constitutes an=20
aid and the degree to which those aids should or should not matter when=20
comparing solutions.

I'll continue to maintain the existing record categories in the HOF but=20
please feel free to create and curate any new categories on the wiki=20
that you feel motivated to maintain.

Congratulations on your amazingly short solution BTW,
-Melinda

Klaus Weidinger wrote:
>
>
> Hi Melinda,
>
> I don't really understand what you mean by "all 4D solutions are=20
> computer-assisted to one degree or another". Well, of course you need=20
> a computer, because otherwise you can't run MC4D, but that is no=20
> assistance, yet. In my first solve I only used a pen, some sheet of=20
> paper, a regular rubik's cube and one pocket cube. In my second solve=20
> I computed one PLL alg for the 3^3, but if I had known 2-look Fridrich=20
> and used the same alg or looked it up on the internet, there wouldn't=20
> have been any difference. Therefore I would not call my first two=20
> solves computer-assisted.
> My third solve, however, is computer-assisted, because I would not=20
> have been able to solve a 3^3 in less that 30 twists.
>
> Concerning the categories, I would suggest the following three:
> - Without any help of a computer
> - Computer-assisted
> - Completely done by a computer
>
> If you don't want to maintain these, I could do the job for now.
>=20

=20


=20=20=20=20=20=20
--0-1915316203-1280772846=:12563
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

ad>

t-size:12pt">
12pt;">
Hi Melinda,

I think I don't share your point of view in=
this issue. For me, =
everything that relieves you of thinking is a computer aid
. Simple u=
tilities like undo/redo and reset are a big help, but they only help you to=
use the programme, not to solve the cube. And if you wrote down every twis=
t you made (which would be REALLY cumbersome), you could achieve the exact =
same thing, just a little more error-prone and time-consuming. The piece fi=
nder is another example for those utilities. It literally helps you to find=
a piece. You don't need to think to find a piece on a 3^3. The same stays =
true for a 3^4, there are just more of those little cubies. This means, the=
piecefinder does some monotonous work for you, but it does not help you wi=
th the solution itself. Therefore, the mentioned ones are nice and very
helpful tools, but I would not consider them as a help or an aid, because =
they don't do the thinking for you.
With macros this gets more difficult=
. But I still think, they don't help you with the solution. They just spare=
you from making the same considerations over and over again and save you l=
ots of time. Therefore I would not consider them a real aid (in the sense o=
f my definition) as long as we concern fewest move solving. If we get to sp=
eed-hypercubing, they naturally are an aid, but we have already discussed h=
ow to work around this in an older thread.

In conclusion, I would on=
ly call a solve computer-aided if one directly computes 4D algs (and of cou=
rse higher dimensional algs), or uses 3D algs from the normal rubiks, which=
were computed for one specific solve (that means optimal solutions or part=
s of them). Using existing 3D algs which belong to any already existing met=
hod should not be called an aid, because otherwise everyone knowing
that method would be allowed to use those algs, and for the rest it would =
be forbidden.

I hope this point of view and my reasoning seem agreea=
ble or at least understandable to most of you, but please feel free to furt=
her discuss this important topic.
Happy Hypercubing,
Klaus

>
t-size: 12pt;">
; border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); font-family: times new roman,new=
york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">
ize=3D"1">From: Melinda Gr=
een <melinda@superliminal.com>
;">To: 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com
t: bold;">Sent: Tue, July 27, 2010 3:31:54 AM
=3D"font-weight: bold;">Subject: Re: [MC4D] 3^4 in 237 twists>









 




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

Klaus,



I don't mean to assert that a solution is computer-assisted simply

because the puzzle is implemented in software. In the case of MC4D the

most obvious forms of assistance are undo/redo and the macro facilities. r>
The piece finding tool in Magic120Cell is another obvious computer aid. >
I also consider the reset command to be a computer aid. You can see how >
intelligent minds can begin to disagree about just what constitutes an

aid and the degree to which those aids should or should not matter when >
comparing solutions.



I'll continue to maintain the existing record categories in the HOF but >
please feel free to create and curate any new categories on the wiki

that you feel motivated to maintain.



Congratulations on your amazingly short solution BTW,

-Melinda



Klaus Weidinger wrote:

>

>

> Hi Melinda,

>

> I don't really understand what you mean by "all 4D solutions are

> computer-assisted to one degree or another". Well, of course you need =


> a computer, because otherwise you can't run MC4D, but that is no

> assistance, yet. In my first solve I only used a pen, some sheet of r>
> paper, a regular rubik's cube and one pocket cube. In my second solve =


> I computed one PLL alg for the 3^3, but if I had known 2-look Fridrich=


> and used the same alg or looked it up on the internet, there wouldn't =


> have been any difference. Therefore I would not call my first two

> solves computer-assisted.

> My third solve, however, is computer-assisted, because I would not >
> have been able to solve a 3^3 in less that 30 twists.

>

> Concerning the categories, I would suggest the following three:

> - Without any help of a computer

> - Computer-assisted

> - Completely done by a computer

>

> If you don't want to maintain these, I could do the job for now.

>




=20=20=20=20=20










--0-1915316203-1280772846=:12563--





Return to MagicCube4D main page
Return to the Superliminal home page