Does anybody know how to do algorithms for edges without affecting the face=
s? you can do d R F' R' F d' on a 4X4X4 and swap two edges, but you can't d=
o the same thing on 4^4 without swapping 2 more edges and 2 faces.=20
Hello Klaus,
It is certainly a puzzle to figure out how best to treat this subject. I
don't think that it is as simple as computer-assisted versus not because
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
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
Does anybody know how to do algorithms for edges without affecting= I don't want to be the one to say this, but you can't expect us = Does anybody know how to do algorithms for edges without affecting the f= Yes! I found out how to do it. Although I'm worried about larg=
--00504501751960dd8f048c4b28b2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I don't want to be the one to say this, but you can't expect us to walk you
through every step in a solve. Play around with it, try out all kinds of
commutators and/or conjugates, use macros you used for fixing faces, take a
break, and try again later. You should realize that the algorithm for
solving 3D edges is not going to work on the 4D edges, because 4D edges are
made of 3c pieces, not 2c. Using 3D methods, one should be able to fix
centers and faces of a 4D cube with a little refinement, but edges require
something more. If we just gave you macros for fixing the edges, then we'd
basically be solving it for you at this stage.
2010/7/25 deustfrr
>
>
> Does anybody know how to do algorithms for edges without affecting the
> faces? you can do d R F' R' F d' on a 4X4X4 and swap two edges, but you
> can't do the same thing on 4^4 without swapping 2 more edges and 2 faces.
>
>=20=20
>
--00504501751960dd8f048c4b28b2
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I don't want to be the one to say this, but you can't expect us to =
walk you through every step in a solve.=C2=A0 Play around with it, try out =
all kinds of commutators and/or conjugates, use macros you used for fixing =
faces, take a break, and try again later.=C2=A0 You should realize that the=
algorithm for solving 3D edges is not going to work on the 4D edges, becau=
se 4D edges are made of 3c pieces, not 2c.=C2=A0 Using 3D methods, one shou=
ld be able to fix centers and faces of a 4D cube with a little refinement, =
but edges require something more.=C2=A0 If we just gave you macros for fixi=
ng the edges, then we'd basically be solving it for you at this stage.<=
br>
t: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
=C2=A0
=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20
the faces? you can do d R F' R' F d' on a 4X4X4 and swap two e=
dges, but you can't do the same thing on 4^4 without swapping 2 more ed=
ges and 2 faces.
=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20
=20=20
--00504501751960dd8f048c4b28b2--
From: Jonathan Mecias <jonathan.mecias001@mymdc.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:41:37 -0400
Subject: Re: [MC4D] edge algorithms
--0015175d077ef7b078048c52ecd4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cris is right, but if you think you can not solve it now, relax and let the
solution come. You are very young and smart! Try thinking about a problem
right before you go to bed. I know you can do it!!!
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Chris Locke
ote:
>
>
> I don't want to be the one to say this, but you can't expect us to walk y=
ou
> through every step in a solve. Play around with it, try out all kinds of
> commutators and/or conjugates, use macros you used for fixing faces, take=
a
> break, and try again later. You should realize that the algorithm for
> solving 3D edges is not going to work on the 4D edges, because 4D edges a=
re
> made of 3c pieces, not 2c. Using 3D methods, one should be able to fix
> centers and faces of a 4D cube with a little refinement, but edges requir=
e
> something more. If we just gave you macros for fixing the edges, then we=
'd
> basically be solving it for you at this stage.
>
> 2010/7/25 deustfrr
>
>
>>
>> Does anybody know how to do algorithms for edges without affecting the
>> faces? you can do d R F' R' F d' on a 4X4X4 and swap two edges, but you
>> can't do the same thing on 4^4 without swapping 2 more edges and 2 faces=
.
>>
>>
>=20=20
>
--0015175d077ef7b078048c52ecd4
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
and let the solution come. You are very young and smart! Try thinking about=
a problem right before you go to bed.=A0 I know you can do it!!!
<=
/div>
topia@gmail.com> wrote:; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote">
to walk you through every step in a solve.=A0 Play around with it, try out =
all kinds of commutators and/or conjugates, use macros you used for fixing =
faces, take a break, and try again later.=A0 You should realize that the al=
gorithm for solving 3D edges is not going to work on the 4D edges, because =
4D edges are made of 3c pieces, not 2c.=A0 Using 3D methods, one should be =
able to fix centers and faces of a 4D cube with a little refinement, but ed=
ges require something more.=A0 If we just gave you macros for fixing the ed=
ges, then we'd basically be solving it for you at this stage.l_quote">
aces? you can do d R F' R' F d' on a 4X4X4 and swap two edges, =
but you can't do the same thing on 4^4 without swapping 2 more edges an=
d 2 faces.
--0015175d077ef7b078048c52ecd4--
From: "deustfrr" <deustfrr@yahoo.ca>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 23:07:26 -0000
Subject: Re: [MC4D] edge algorithms
Yes! I found out how to do it. Although I'm worried about larger/higher-dim=
ensional puzzles because the solution to this problem itself took about 150=
moves!
--- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, Chris Locke
>
> I don't want to be the one to say this, but you can't expect us to walk y=
ou
> through every step in a solve. Play around with it, try out all kinds of
> commutators and/or conjugates, use macros you used for fixing faces, take=
a
> break, and try again later. You should realize that the algorithm for
> solving 3D edges is not going to work on the 4D edges, because 4D edges a=
re
> made of 3c pieces, not 2c. Using 3D methods, one should be able to fix
> centers and faces of a 4D cube with a little refinement, but edges requir=
e
> something more. If we just gave you macros for fixing the edges, then we=
'd
> basically be solving it for you at this stage.
>=20
> 2010/7/25 deustfrr
>=20
> >
> >
> > Does anybody know how to do algorithms for edges without affecting the
> > faces? you can do d R F' R' F d' on a 4X4X4 and swap two edges, but you
> > can't do the same thing on 4^4 without swapping 2 more edges and 2 face=
s.
> >
> >=20=20
> >
>
From: Anthony Deschamps <anthony.j.deschamps@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 23:13:11 -0400
Subject: Re: [MC4D] edge algorithms
--000e0cd70504922ae6048c55e1d1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
As you move into higher dimensions, your algorithms will become a lot
longer, but they're still based on the same concepts. If you write some
macros and use those to build more complex macros, then most problems becom=
e
a matter of a few set up moves, applying the macro, and then those set up
moves in reverse. Don't worry, the transition from 4D to 5D is much easier
than the transition from 3D to 4D.
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 7:07 PM, deustfrr
>
>
> Yes! I found out how to do it. Although I'm worried about
> larger/higher-dimensional puzzles because the solution to this problem
> itself took about 150 moves!
>
>
> --- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com <4D_Cubing%40yahoogroups.com>, Chris
> Locke
> >
> > I don't want to be the one to say this, but you can't expect us to walk
> you
> > through every step in a solve. Play around with it, try out all kinds o=
f
> > commutators and/or conjugates, use macros you used for fixing faces, ta=
ke
> a
> > break, and try again later. You should realize that the algorithm for
> > solving 3D edges is not going to work on the 4D edges, because 4D edges
> are
> > made of 3c pieces, not 2c. Using 3D methods, one should be able to fix
> > centers and faces of a 4D cube with a little refinement, but edges
> require
> > something more. If we just gave you macros for fixing the edges, then
> we'd
> > basically be solving it for you at this stage.
> >
> > 2010/7/25 deustfrr
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Does anybody know how to do algorithms for edges without affecting th=
e
> > > faces? you can do d R F' R' F d' on a 4X4X4 and swap two edges, but y=
ou
> > > can't do the same thing on 4^4 without swapping 2 more edges and 2
> faces.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>=20=20
>
--000e0cd70504922ae6048c55e1d1
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
As you move into higher dimensions, your algorithms will become a lot longe=
r, but they're still based on the same concepts.=A0 If you write some m=
acros and use those to build more complex macros, then most problems become=
a matter of a few set up moves, applying the macro, and then those set up =
moves in reverse.=A0 Don't worry, the transition from 4D to 5D is much =
easier than the transition from 3D to 4D.
/a>> wrote: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left=
: 1ex;">
=A0
=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20
er/higher-dimensional puzzles because the solution to this problem itself t=
ook about 150 moves!
--- In 4D_=
Cubing@yahoogroups.com, Chris Locke <project.eutopia@...> wrote:<=
br>
>
> I don't want to be the one to say this, but you can't expect u=
s to walk you
> through every step in a solve. Play around with it, try out all kinds=
of
> commutators and/or conjugates, use macros you used for fixing faces, t=
ake a
> break, and try again later. You should realize that the algorithm for=
> solving 3D edges is not going to work on the 4D edges, because 4D edge=
s are
> made of 3c pieces, not 2c. Using 3D methods, one should be able to fi=
x
> centers and faces of a 4D cube with a little refinement, but edges req=
uire
> something more. If we just gave you macros for fixing the edges, then=
we'd
> basically be solving it for you at this stage.
>
> 2010/7/25 deustfrr <deustfrr@...>
>
> >
> >
> > Does anybody know how to do algorithms for edges without affectin=
g the
> > faces? you can do d R F' R' F d' on a 4X4X4 and swap =
two edges, but you
> > can't do the same thing on 4^4 without swapping 2 more edges =
and 2 faces.
> >
> >
> >
>
=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20
=20=20
--000e0cd70504922ae6048c55e1d1--
From: "deustfrr" <deustfrr@yahoo.ca>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 21:14:08 -0000
Subject: Re: [MC4D] edge algorithms
Sure. I didn't even know that I'll get stuck at the last 2 faces,edges. It'=
s pretty embarrassing. Ok, I'll try some more ;^)
--- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, Chris Locke
>
> I don't want to be the one to say this, but you can't expect us to walk y=
ou
> through every step in a solve. Play around with it, try out all kinds of
> commutators and/or conjugates, use macros you used for fixing faces, take=
a
> break, and try again later. You should realize that the algorithm for
> solving 3D edges is not going to work on the 4D edges, because 4D edges a=
re
> made of 3c pieces, not 2c. Using 3D methods, one should be able to fix
> centers and faces of a 4D cube with a little refinement, but edges requir=
e
> something more. If we just gave you macros for fixing the edges, then we=
'd
> basically be solving it for you at this stage.
>=20
> 2010/7/25 deustfrr
>=20
> >
> >
> > Does anybody know how to do algorithms for edges without affecting the
> > faces? you can do d R F' R' F d' on a 4X4X4 and swap two edges, but you
> > can't do the same thing on 4^4 without swapping 2 more edges and 2 face=
s.
> >
> >=20=20
> >
>