Nice work Andrey! 4032 pieces and 12288 stickers is what my formulae in Ex=
cel tell me, which is more pieces and stickers than the 3^7, even if it has=
one less dimension (which at this scale doesn't even matter as much). I w=
onder how long it will be before someone conquers the 4^7 or even the 5^7, =
and I wish good luck to anyone attempting them, as it will require a lot of=
patience! What are your plans now Andrey? Any more huge puzzles to solve=
, or are you working on the speedsolving now? Speaking of which, it is ama=
zing that you were working on this at the same time as getting some really =
good times on the 3^4! I can only wonder how you managed it all. Congrats=
again :)
Matt
--- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, "Andrey"
>
> It was long. Took about a month from me. I hadn't expected any parity pro=
blems - and there wre none. I had serious orientation problem in the end of=
5C stage (3-cycle of one last piece; it looked for me like 5C orientation =
of 3^5, that is very difficult for my algorithm), but now I see that there =
was easy way around this problem). Timer shows 40+ hours, but it started at=
the middle of 3C, so actual time is close to 70h. 175K twists, with longes=
t macro of 65 twists (swap of 5C).
> Not very difficut... it's only a cube :P
>=20
> 3^6 is still waiting for its solver.
> Good luck!
>=20
> Andrey
>
--------------030304070609070602000503
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Congrats indeed! Pretty funny to because it was only back in July that
Andrey said
"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." Well he kept his word by
leapfrogging straight to the 4^6. I find it very odd that any puzzles
are being solved out of order in either edge length or dimension since
any shorter or lower puzzle should be practice for a larger version
requiring only a fraction of the time.
And let's not forget to give congratulations to Nan for his success with
the {3}x{3}-3. Wasn't that the one that Andrey gave up on, or was that
someone else or another puzzle altogether? I love his story of his
patient and happy persistence as he repeatedly hit and then conquered
one parity problem after another. This puzzle seems have a very high
difficult-over-size quotient. I've long felt that the original 3^3 was
the hardest puzzle for it's size but now I'm thinking that this one tops
it. Does anyone think that there are any puzzles that are harder for
their size? I'd *love* to hold a speedsolving contest using this puzzle.
As before, I'll be happy to run that contest if 3 or more people compete
and I'll put up another custom t-shirt prize even if we only bet 4
contestants.
Most of all I just want to give the highest congratulations to both
Andrey and Nan for their amazing firsts. Well done, guys!
-Melinda
On 9/26/2010 1:46 PM, Matthew wrote:
> Nice work Andrey! 4032 pieces and 12288 stickers is what my formulae in Excel tell me, which is more pieces and stickers than the 3^7, even if it has one less dimension (which at this scale doesn't even matter as much). I wonder how long it will be before someone conquers the 4^7 or even the 5^7, and I wish good luck to anyone attempting them, as it will require a lot of patience! What are your plans now Andrey? Any more huge puzzles to solve, or are you working on the speedsolving now? Speaking of which, it is amazing that you were working on this at the same time as getting some really good times on the 3^4! I can only wonder how you managed it all. Congrats again :)
>
> Matt
>
> --- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, "Andrey"
>> It was long. Took about a month from me. I hadn't expected any parity problems - and there wre none. I had serious orientation problem in the end of 5C stage (3-cycle of one last piece; it looked for me like 5C orientation of 3^5, that is very difficult for my algorithm), but now I see that there was easy way around this problem). Timer shows 40+ hours, but it started at the middle of 3C, so actual time is close to 70h. 175K twists, with longest macro of 65 twists (swap of 5C).
>> Not very difficut... it's only a cube :P
>>
>> 3^6 is still waiting for its solver.
>> Good luck!
>>
>> Andrey
--------------030304070609070602000503
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Congrats indeed! Pretty funny to because it was only back in July
that Andrey
"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." Well he kept his
word by leapfrogging straight to the 4^6. I find it very odd that
any puzzles are being solved out of order in either edge length or
dimension since any shorter or lower puzzle should be practice for a
larger version requiring only a fraction of the time.
And let's not forget to give congratulations to Nan for his success
with the {3}x{3}-3. Wasn't that the one that Andrey gave up on, or
was that someone else or another puzzle altogether? I love his story
of his patient and happy persistence as he repeatedly hit and then
conquered one parity problem after another. This puzzle seems have a
very high difficult-over-size quotient. I've long felt that the
original 3^3 was the hardest puzzle for it's size but now I'm
thinking that this one tops it. Does anyone think that there are any
puzzles that are harder for their size? I'd *love* to hold a
speedsolving contest using this puzzle. As before, I'll be happy to
run that contest if 3 or more people compete and I'll put up another
custom t-shirt prize even if we only bet 4 contestants.
Most of all I just want to give the highest congratulations to both
Andrey and Nan for their amazing firsts. Well done, guys!
-Melinda
On 9/26/2010 1:46 PM, Matthew wrote:
Nice work Andrey! 4032 pieces and 12288 stickers is what my formulae in Excel tell me, which is more pieces and stickers than the 3^7, even if it has one less dimension (which at this scale doesn't even matter as much). I wonder how long it will be before someone conquers the 4^7 or even the 5^7, and I wish good luck to anyone attempting them, as it will require a lot of patience! What are your plans now Andrey? Any more huge puzzles to solve, or are you working on the speedsolving now? Speaking of which, it is amazing that you were working on this at the same time as getting some really good times on the 3^4! I can only wonder how you managed it all. Congrats again :)
Matt
--- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, "Andrey" <andreyastrelin@...> wrote:
It was long. Took about a month from me. I hadn't expected any parity problems - and there wre none. I had serious orientation problem in the end of 5C stage (3-cycle of one last piece; it looked for me like 5C orientation of 3^5, that is very difficult for my algorithm), but now I see that there was easy way around this problem). Timer shows 40+ hours, but it started at the middle of 3C, so actual time is close to 70h. 175K twists, with longest macro of 65 twists (swap of 5C).
Not very difficut... it's only a cube :P
3^6 is still waiting for its solver.
Good luck!
Andrey
--------------030304070609070602000503--
Matthew, Melinda, thank you!
I don't think about huge puzzles solving in the next months. Somedays I'l=
l try 5^5 and may be 6^4 (but not before Ray solves the latter) - just to c=
lose all N+D=3D10 puzzles (N>2). Probably, I'll give another try to {3}x{3}=
,3 and some other douprisms. Yes, I tried to solve it two or three times, o=
riented all cubies, set some classes of them to their place, but then saw t=
hat I need to do some paperwork to find "operations" for next stages - and =
put it aside till next time.=20
Speedsolving of {3}x{3},3 with no macros? It will be terrible, but intere=
sting ))) And there is one more 6-side puzzle - {3,3}x{}. I haven't try it =
yet, just checked that I can twist its sides (with difficulty - there is no=
120-deg rotation of prism, I need to turn it over twice for such twist). I=
t may be also more difficult than 3^4.
And I have in mind at least 5 different projects to implement - two in 4D=
, one in 5/6D and two in slightly different space... Don't know where to st=
art )))
Good luck and happy hypercubing!
Andrey
--- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, Melinda Green
>
> Congrats indeed! Pretty funny to because it was only back in July that=
=20
> Andrey said
> "I'm sure that I'll not try to solve 3^6 in the nearest future. Even if=20
> it'll take 5 days, it's too much for me now." Well he kept his word by=20
> leapfrogging straight to the 4^6. I find it very odd that any puzzles=20
> are being solved out of order in either edge length or dimension since=20
> any shorter or lower puzzle should be practice for a larger version=20
> requiring only a fraction of the time.
>=20
> And let's not forget to give congratulations to Nan for his success with=
=20
> the {3}x{3}-3. Wasn't that the one that Andrey gave up on, or was that=20
> someone else or another puzzle altogether? I love his story of his=20
> patient and happy persistence as he repeatedly hit and then conquered=20
> one parity problem after another. This puzzle seems have a very high=20
> difficult-over-size quotient. I've long felt that the original 3^3 was=20
> the hardest puzzle for it's size but now I'm thinking that this one tops=
=20
> it. Does anyone think that there are any puzzles that are harder for=20
> their size? I'd *love* to hold a speedsolving contest using this puzzle.=
=20
> As before, I'll be happy to run that contest if 3 or more people compete=
=20
> and I'll put up another custom t-shirt prize even if we only bet 4=20
> contestants.
>=20
> Most of all I just want to give the highest congratulations to both=20
> Andrey and Nan for their amazing firsts. Well done, guys!
> -Melinda
>=20
> On 9/26/2010 1:46 PM, Matthew wrote:
> > Nice work Andrey! 4032 pieces and 12288 stickers is what my formulae i=
n Excel tell me, which is more pieces and stickers than the 3^7, even if it=
has one less dimension (which at this scale doesn't even matter as much). =
I wonder how long it will be before someone conquers the 4^7 or even the 5=
^7, and I wish good luck to anyone attempting them, as it will require a lo=
t of patience! What are your plans now Andrey? Any more huge puzzles to s=
olve, or are you working on the speedsolving now? Speaking of which, it is=
amazing that you were working on this at the same time as getting some rea=
lly good times on the 3^4! I can only wonder how you managed it all. Cong=
rats again :)
> >
> > Matt
> >
Congratulations, Andrey! I can do nothing but admire your achievement.
Melinda, thanks. Talking about puzzles that look easy but are hard to solve=
, I can only think of the 3D puzzle called Little Chop, a.k.a. 24-Cube. It =
looks identical to the Dino Cube. It has only 24 pieces, less than 26 piece=
s for 3x3x3. But it is way much harder to solve than 3x3x3. You could try i=
t here:
http://users.skynet.be/gelatinbrain/Applets/Magic%20Polyhedra/index.htm
number 3.3.7.=20
All clean 3-cycle algorithms I know are pretty long. I think Little Chop ha=
s a higher difficulty-to-size quotient than {3}x{3}-3. {3}x{3}-3 is tricky,=
but Little Chop is just hard.=20
Interestingly, the internal structure of Little Chop is also very hard to b=
uild. The best structure without magnet has 209 pieces in total for the onl=
y 24 external pieces. Check the following link for details.
http://twistypuzzles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3D15&t=3D14128
So, Little Chop is really a monster for both solving and building.=20
Nan
--- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, Melinda Green
>
> Congrats indeed! Pretty funny to because it was only back in July that=
=20
> Andrey said
> "I'm sure that I'll not try to solve 3^6 in the nearest future. Even if=20
> it'll take 5 days, it's too much for me now." Well he kept his word by=20
> leapfrogging straight to the 4^6. I find it very odd that any puzzles=20
> are being solved out of order in either edge length or dimension since=20
> any shorter or lower puzzle should be practice for a larger version=20
> requiring only a fraction of the time.
>=20
> And let's not forget to give congratulations to Nan for his success with=
=20
> the {3}x{3}-3. Wasn't that the one that Andrey gave up on, or was that=20
> someone else or another puzzle altogether? I love his story of his=20
> patient and happy persistence as he repeatedly hit and then conquered=20
> one parity problem after another. This puzzle seems have a very high=20
> difficult-over-size quotient. I've long felt that the original 3^3 was=20
> the hardest puzzle for it's size but now I'm thinking that this one tops=
=20
> it. Does anyone think that there are any puzzles that are harder for=20
> their size? I'd *love* to hold a speedsolving contest using this puzzle.=
=20
> As before, I'll be happy to run that contest if 3 or more people compete=
=20
> and I'll put up another custom t-shirt prize even if we only bet 4=20
> contestants.
>=20
> Most of all I just want to give the highest congratulations to both=20
> Andrey and Nan for their amazing firsts. Well done, guys!
> -Melinda
>=20
> On 9/26/2010 1:46 PM, Matthew wrote:
> > Nice work Andrey! 4032 pieces and 12288 stickers is what my formulae i=
n Excel tell me, which is more pieces and stickers than the 3^7, even if it=
has one less dimension (which at this scale doesn't even matter as much). =
I wonder how long it will be before someone conquers the 4^7 or even the 5=
^7, and I wish good luck to anyone attempting them, as it will require a lo=
t of patience! What are your plans now Andrey? Any more huge puzzles to s=
olve, or are you working on the speedsolving now? Speaking of which, it is=
amazing that you were working on this at the same time as getting some rea=
lly good times on the 3^4! I can only wonder how you managed it all. Cong=
rats again :)
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > --- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, "Andrey"
> >> It was long. Took about a month from me. I hadn't expected any parity =
problems - and there wre none. I had serious orientation problem in the end=
of 5C stage (3-cycle of one last piece; it looked for me like 5C orientati=
on of 3^5, that is very difficult for my algorithm), but now I see that the=
re was easy way around this problem). Timer shows 40+ hours, but it started=
at the middle of 3C, so actual time is close to 70h. 175K twists, with lon=
gest macro of 65 twists (swap of 5C).
> >> Not very difficut... it's only a cube :P
> >>
> >> 3^6 is still waiting for its solver.
> >> Good luck!
> >>
> >> Andrey
>