Thread: "Tetrahedral prism {3,3}x{}, 3 layers solved"

It's strange that one of the smallest 4D puzzles is not listed inMC4D puzzl=
e list, so you have to generate it by "Invent my own" command (with line "{=
3,3}x{} 3").=20
It took some time to find the most convenient views of the puzzle (view w=
ith two tetrahedrons has very different "shrink face" value than view with =
4 prisms). You can't rotate prism to 120 deg, so use sequence of two 180-de=
g turns instead. Not very easy...
I started with sorting of pieces - top, middle and lower layers (like the=
solver who plays with 3^3 first time - build one single-color face :) ). T=
hen there was orientation of middle layer pieces and then combining of 3rd =
layers parallel to prisms (just 3-cubie segments) with adjacent cubies. Nex=
t step was to put all corners in their place - and there were first two pro=
blems.
First, middle layer was upside-down - and I had to flip all its pieces an=
d save colors of top and bottom faces.
Second, in the end of this stage I found one corner piece (pair of pieces=
, really) with wrong orientation! It is normal for pyraminx, but here you h=
ave to think how it can be :)
When all corners ans 3Cs of middle layer were in place I found myself wit=
h 3 parallel pyraminxs and with the task to put all their 2Cs in place.=20
One operation was enough for it... well, almost enough. At first I tried =
to move cubies to places in proper orientation, but soon found that I can'=
t remember setup twists that contain of pairs of prism flips... So I decide=
d to position pieces first.
Solving of 3 pyraminxs with the same sequence of 3-cycles went smoothly..=
. until there were two transpositions on opposite faces (parity problem?). =
When I solved it there was one wrong oriented cubie on top side (and 3 on b=
ottom) - but this time I could remember setup twist ))) So when I twisted 3=
sets of 2 cubies, puzzle was almost solved.
So this one is solvable from the scratch, without operations development.=
It doesn't beat {3}x{3},3 :)

Andrey

Congratulations! Nice work!

Yesterday after seeing you mentioned {3,3}x{}, I tried the 2-layer version =
immediately. For the 2-layer version, any automatic scramble freezes the pr=
ogram. So I have to manually scramble it. But all allowed scrambles are alw=
ays trivial to solve.=20

Then I went on to see the 3-layer version. I found it not easy and I didn't=
that ctrl-f work for this version. I should give it a try soon.

Nan

--- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, "Andrey" wrote:
>
> It's strange that one of the smallest 4D puzzles is not listed inMC4D puz=
zle list, so you have to generate it by "Invent my own" command (with line =
"{3,3}x{} 3").=20
> It took some time to find the most convenient views of the puzzle (view=
with two tetrahedrons has very different "shrink face" value than view wit=
h 4 prisms). You can't rotate prism to 120 deg, so use sequence of two 180-=
deg turns instead. Not very easy...
> I started with sorting of pieces - top, middle and lower layers (like t=
he solver who plays with 3^3 first time - build one single-color face :) ).=
Then there was orientation of middle layer pieces and then combining of 3r=
d layers parallel to prisms (just 3-cubie segments) with adjacent cubies. N=
ext step was to put all corners in their place - and there were first two p=
roblems.
> First, middle layer was upside-down - and I had to flip all its pieces =
and save colors of top and bottom faces.
> Second, in the end of this stage I found one corner piece (pair of piec=
es, really) with wrong orientation! It is normal for pyraminx, but here you=
have to think how it can be :)
> When all corners ans 3Cs of middle layer were in place I found myself w=
ith 3 parallel pyraminxs and with the task to put all their 2Cs in place.=20
> One operation was enough for it... well, almost enough. At first I trie=
d to move cubies to places in proper orientation, but soon found that I ca=
n't remember setup twists that contain of pairs of prism flips... So I deci=
ded to position pieces first.
> Solving of 3 pyraminxs with the same sequence of 3-cycles went smoothly=
... until there were two transpositions on opposite faces (parity problem?)=
. When I solved it there was one wrong oriented cubie on top side (and 3 on=
bottom) - but this time I could remember setup twist ))) So when I twisted=
3 sets of 2 cubies, puzzle was almost solved.
> So this one is solvable from the scratch, without operations developmen=
t. It doesn't beat {3}x{3},3 :)
>=20
> Andrey
>

--0016e6d55a862def21049154ab13
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi Andrey and Nan,

Cool to hear about your adventures with the tetrahedral prism puzzles. The
reason the {3,3}x{} puzzles aren't in the UI is that there were known
problems with them, as you've found. Plus, we had to leave some items for
future releases :) I dug up the development emails we were exchanging last
year to refresh my memory, and am including a few relevant portions below.

on 11/11/09, roice wrote:

> So... we have coded a possible change in the sticker twisting behavior and
> are curious of your thoughts compared to the current behavior you just
> tested. The candidate behavior is that all 2C pieces only do "face center"
> twists, all 3C pieces only do "edge" twists, and all 4C pieces "corner"
> twists. 1C pieces wouldn't twist anything at all. So 2C pieces that are
> very close to a corner would no longer do a corner twist. This change also
> would correct the behavior you noted on the length-7 dodecahedral prism.


on 11/11/09, roice wrote:

> However, I already happened to run into an interesting downside behavior
> with the change. I got the tetrahedral prism puzzles working tonight, but
> held off enabling in the UI just yet because of the following. Similar to
> David's observation of how the length-2 simplex puzzle has a 5C piece, the
> length-2 and length-3 tetrahedral prism puzzles have a number of stickers
> which should twist like 2C pieces, but actually are part of 4C pieces. So
> the wrong grips get considered, and the end result is some twists which we
> want are being disallowed. The puzzles are therefore unduly limited. In
> fact, on the length-2 puzzle, the end result is that only the two
> tetrahedral faces can be twisted, and the current scrambling code goes into
> an infinite loop because it doesn't like the lack of variance there.


In short, MC4D currently uses a "piece type" property (2C/3C/4C) to help
control twist types. This is mostly good, but number-of-colors turns out
to not be a discriminating enough property in all situations (in particular,
on the tetrahedral prisms). The problem of matching up pieces with twist
types is a difficult one to find an elegant general solution for. When this
is worked out and these puzzles are officially released, they will likely
have slightly different twisting behavior.

I think it'd be nice to change the relative sizes of the tetrahedra and
prism portions on these puzzles as well. Unlike other polytopes which are
constrained to have fixed cell sizes, prisms have some extra flexibility
there...

Take Care,
Roice


On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 10:17 AM, schuma wrote:

> Congratulations! Nice work!
>
> Yesterday after seeing you mentioned {3,3}x{}, I tried the 2-layer version
> immediately. For the 2-layer version, any automatic scramble freezes the
> program. So I have to manually scramble it. But all allowed scrambles are
> always trivial to solve.
>
> Then I went on to see the 3-layer version. I found it not easy and I didn't
> that ctrl-f work for this version. I should give it a try soon.
>
> Nan
>
> --- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, "Andrey" wrote:
> >
> > It's strange that one of the smallest 4D puzzles is not listed inMC4D
> puzzle list, so you have to generate it by "Invent my own" command (with
> line "{3,3}x{} 3").
> > It took some time to find the most convenient views of the puzzle (view
> with two tetrahedrons has very different "shrink face" value than view with
> 4 prisms). You can't rotate prism to 120 deg, so use sequence of two 180-deg
> turns instead. Not very easy...
> > I started with sorting of pieces - top, middle and lower layers (like
> the solver who plays with 3^3 first time - build one single-color face :) ).
> Then there was orientation of middle layer pieces and then combining of 3rd
> layers parallel to prisms (just 3-cubie segments) with adjacent cubies. Next
> step was to put all corners in their place - and there were first two
> problems.
> > First, middle layer was upside-down - and I had to flip all its pieces
> and save colors of top and bottom faces.
> > Second, in the end of this stage I found one corner piece (pair of
> pieces, really) with wrong orientation! It is normal for pyraminx, but here
> you have to think how it can be :)
> > When all corners ans 3Cs of middle layer were in place I found myself
> with 3 parallel pyraminxs and with the task to put all their 2Cs in place.
> > One operation was enough for it... well, almost enough. At first I
> tried to move cubies to places in proper orientation, but soon found that I
> can't remember setup twists that contain of pairs of prism flips... So I
> decided to position pieces first.
> > Solving of 3 pyraminxs with the same sequence of 3-cycles went
> smoothly... until there were two transpositions on opposite faces (parity
> problem?). When I solved it there was one wrong oriented cubie on top side
> (and 3 on bottom) - but this time I could remember setup twist ))) So when I
> twisted 3 sets of 2 cubies, puzzle was almost solved.
> > So this one is solvable from the scratch, without operations
> development. It doesn't beat {3}x{3},3 :)
> >
> > Andrey
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--0016e6d55a862def21049154ab13
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

--------------040409050407000401090800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I'm glad that you guys are having fun with the tetrahedral prisms but
I have to remind everyone that solutions to puzzles not included in the
menu must be considered as unofficial results, at least for ones that
are not trivial extensions to ones already there. Not all twists that
should be allowed on this puzzle are currently allowed, making it on one
hand harder to solve, but on the other hand, the scrambling may not
reach all possible positions, making it potentially easier to solve. I
think that we'll have to consider any firsts or shortests as tentative
at best. Please do continue to explore experimental puzzles because this
is a great way to help us figure out how they should work. Just remember
that any such solutions are unofficial until they are added to the menu
of supported puzzles.

-Melinda

On 9/28/2010 9:52 AM, Roice Nelson wrote:
>
>
> Hi Andrey and Nan,
> Cool to hear about your adventures with the tetrahedral prism
> puzzles. The reason the {3,3}x{} puzzles aren't in the UI is that
> there were known problems with them, as you've found. Plus, we had to
> leave some items for future releases :) I dug up the development
> emails we were exchanging last year to refresh my memory, and am
> including a few relevant portions below.
> on 11/11/09, roice wrote:
>
> So... we have coded a possible change in the sticker twisting
> behavior and are curious of your thoughts compared to the current
> behavior you just tested. The candidate behavior is that all 2C
> pieces only do "face center" twists, all 3C pieces only do "edge"
> twists, and all 4C pieces "corner" twists. 1C pieces wouldn't
> twist anything at all. So 2C pieces that are very close to a
> corner would no longer do a corner twist. This change also would
> correct the behavior you noted on the length-7 dodecahedral prism.
>
> on 11/11/09, roice wrote:
>
> However, I already happened to run into an interesting downside
> behavior with the change. I got the tetrahedral prism puzzles
> working tonight, but held off enabling in the UI just yet because
> of the following. Similar to David's observation of how the
> length-2 simplex puzzle has a 5C piece, the length-2 and length-3
> tetrahedral prism puzzles have a number of stickers which should
> twist like 2C pieces, but actually are part of 4C pieces. So the
> wrong grips get considered, and the end result is some twists
> which we want are being disallowed. The puzzles are therefore
> unduly limited. In fact, on the length-2 puzzle, the end result
> is that only the two tetrahedral faces can be twisted, and the
> current scrambling code goes into an infinite loop because it
> doesn't like the lack of variance there.
>
> In short, MC4D currently uses a "piece type" property (2C/3C/4C) to
> help control twist types. This is mostly good, but number-of-colors
> turns out to not be a discriminating enough property in all situations
> (in particular, on the tetrahedral prisms). The problem of matching
> up pieces with twist types is a difficult one to find an elegant
> general solution for. When this is worked out and these puzzles are
> officially released, they will likely have slightly different
> twisting behavior.
> I think it'd be nice to change the relative sizes of the tetrahedra
> and prism portions on these puzzles as well. Unlike other polytopes
> which are constrained to have fixed cell sizes, prisms have some extra
> flexibility there...
> Take Care,
> Roice
>
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 10:17 AM, schuma > > wrote:
>
> Congratulations! Nice work!
>
> Yesterday after seeing you mentioned {3,3}x{}, I tried the 2-layer
> version immediately. For the 2-layer version, any automatic
> scramble freezes the program. So I have to manually scramble it.
> But all allowed scrambles are always trivial to solve.
>
> Then I went on to see the 3-layer version. I found it not easy and
> I didn't that ctrl-f work for this version. I should give it a try
> soon.
>
> Nan
>
> --- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com
> , "Andrey"
> wrote:
> >
> > It's strange that one of the smallest 4D puzzles is not listed
> inMC4D puzzle list, so you have to generate it by "Invent my own"
> command (with line "{3,3}x{} 3").
> > It took some time to find the most convenient views of the
> puzzle (view with two tetrahedrons has very different "shrink
> face" value than view with 4 prisms). You can't rotate prism to
> 120 deg, so use sequence of two 180-deg turns instead. Not very
> easy...
> > I started with sorting of pieces - top, middle and lower
> layers (like the solver who plays with 3^3 first time - build one
> single-color face :) ). Then there was orientation of middle layer
> pieces and then combining of 3rd layers parallel to prisms (just
> 3-cubie segments) with adjacent cubies. Next step was to put all
> corners in their place - and there were first two problems.
> > First, middle layer was upside-down - and I had to flip all
> its pieces and save colors of top and bottom faces.
> > Second, in the end of this stage I found one corner piece
> (pair of pieces, really) with wrong orientation! It is normal for
> pyraminx, but here you have to think how it can be :)
> > When all corners ans 3Cs of middle layer were in place I found
> myself with 3 parallel pyraminxs and with the task to put all
> their 2Cs in place.
> > One operation was enough for it... well, almost enough. At
> first I tried to move cubies to places in proper orientation, but
> soon found that I can't remember setup twists that contain of
> pairs of prism flips... So I decided to position pieces first.
> > Solving of 3 pyraminxs with the same sequence of 3-cycles went
> smoothly... until there were two transpositions on opposite faces
> (parity problem?). When I solved it there was one wrong oriented
> cubie on top side (and 3 on bottom) - but this time I could
> remember setup twist ))) So when I twisted 3 sets of 2 cubies,
> puzzle was almost solved.
> > So this one is solvable from the scratch, without operations
> development. It doesn't beat {3}x{3},3 :)
> >
> > Andrey
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> 4D_Cubing-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--------------040409050407000401090800
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit




http-equiv="Content-Type">


I'm glad that you guys are having fun with the tetrahedral prisms
but I have to remind everyone that solutions to puzzles not included
in the menu must be considered as unofficial results, at least for
ones that are not trivial extensions to ones already there. Not all
twists that should be allowed on this puzzle are currently allowed,
making it on one hand harder to solve, but on the other hand, the
scrambling may not reach all possible positions, making it
potentially easier to solve. I think that we'll have to consider any
firsts or shortests as tentative at best. Please do continue to
explore experimental puzzles because this is a great way to help us
figure out how they should work. Just remember that any such
solutions are unofficial until they are added to the menu of
supported puzzles.



-Melinda



On 9/28/2010 9:52 AM, Roice Nelson wrote:
cite="mid:AANLkTimnYpN7NgzL=V44Qwc8dzE-8kCRU+5YU+6Tqi7Z@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">

Melinda,
Of course, when you show me the twist in new puzzle that can't be perform=
ed in the old one, I'll agree that this puzzle is different. But now I can'=
t imagine such twist )))

Andrey



--- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, Melinda Green wrote:
>
> I'm glad that you guys are having fun with the tetrahedral prisms but=20
> I have to remind everyone that solutions to puzzles not included in the=20
> menu must be considered as unofficial results, at least for ones that=20
> are not trivial extensions to ones already there. Not all twists that=20
> should be allowed on this puzzle are currently allowed, making it on one=
=20
> hand harder to solve, but on the other hand, the scrambling may not=20
> reach all possible positions, making it potentially easier to solve. I=20
> think that we'll have to consider any firsts or shortests as tentative=20
> at best. Please do continue to explore experimental puzzles because this=
=20
> is a great way to help us figure out how they should work. Just remember=
=20
> that any such solutions are unofficial until they are added to the menu=20
> of supported puzzles.
>=20
> -Melinda
>=20

--------------000608090003000005010206
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I don't know if there is or is not such a difference. Roice was the
one directly supporting the Don's puzzle creation code so I mostly
deferred to his opinions in such matters while I'd veto puzzles with
other problems such as infinite loops while scrambling, etc. In general
we didn't include any puzzles that didn't get the thumbs up from both of
us, therefore any puzzles not in that set are considered unsupported.
We're both happy that people explore outside these bounds of the
supported set but you're basically on your own with them in that you
risk losing your records if we end up defining a particular puzzle
differently from what you solved. It's also not up to us to prove
whether such a change makes for a fundamentally different puzzle. By
adding your solution to the wiki's firsts and shortests, it becomes your
responsibility to make sure that it's accurate according to the puzzle
definitions that end up being supported. I suggest that until that time
you add an asterisk on the records page with a footnote flagging it as a
tentative record. I think that should hold for any more such solutions
by anyone. Alternatively, if you can convince Roice that the puzzle is
well defined and implemented, then we should add it to the supported
list. Of course if you'd like to work on extending the range of
supported puzzles, we'd love your help. Just note that Don has a more
up-to-date engine that we didn't know about at the time and the task of
incorporating that new engine is our highest priority issue #94
. We're just
not doing any development currently.

-Melinda

On 9/28/2010 10:02 PM, Andrey wrote:
> Melinda,
> Of course, when you show me the twist in new puzzle that can't be performed in the old one, I'll agree that this puzzle is different. But now I can't imagine such twist )))
>
> Andrey
>
>
>
> --- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, Melinda Green wrote:
>> I'm glad that you guys are having fun with the tetrahedral prisms but
>> I have to remind everyone that solutions to puzzles not included in the
>> menu must be considered as unofficial results, at least for ones that
>> are not trivial extensions to ones already there. Not all twists that
>> should be allowed on this puzzle are currently allowed, making it on one
>> hand harder to solve, but on the other hand, the scrambling may not
>> reach all possible positions, making it potentially easier to solve. I
>> think that we'll have to consider any firsts or shortests as tentative
>> at best. Please do continue to explore experimental puzzles because this
>> is a great way to help us figure out how they should work. Just remember
>> that any such solutions are unofficial until they are added to the menu
>> of supported puzzles.
>>
>> -Melinda
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--------------000608090003000005010206
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit




http-equiv="Content-Type">


I don't know if there is or is not such a difference. Roice was the
one directly supporting the Don's puzzle creation code so I mostly
deferred to his opinions in such matters while I'd veto puzzles with
other problems such as infinite loops while scrambling, etc.  In
general we didn't include any puzzles that didn't get the thumbs up
from both of us, therefore any puzzles not in that set are
considered unsupported. We're both happy that people explore outside
these bounds of the supported set but you're basically on your own
with them in that you risk losing your records if we end up defining
a particular puzzle differently from what you solved. It's also not
up to us to prove whether such a change makes for a fundamentally
different puzzle. By adding your solution to the wiki's firsts and
shortests, it becomes your responsibility to make sure that it's
accurate according to the puzzle definitions that end up being
supported. I suggest that until that time you add an asterisk on the
records page with a footnote flagging it as a tentative record. I
think that should hold for any more such solutions by anyone.
Alternatively, if you can convince Roice that the puzzle is well
defined and implemented, then we should add it to the supported
list. Of course if you'd like to work on extending the range of
supported puzzles, we'd love your help. Just note that Don has a
more up-to-date engine that we didn't know about at the time and the
task of incorporating that new engine is our highest priority href="http://code.google.com/p/magiccube4d/issues/detail?id=94">issue
#94. We're just not doing any development currently.



-Melinda



On 9/28/2010 10:02 PM, Andrey wrote:

Melinda,
  Of course, when you show me the twist in new puzzle that can't be performed in the old one, I'll agree that this puzzle is different. But now I can't imagine such twist )))

  Andrey



--- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, Melinda Green <melinda@...> wrote:

  I'm glad that you guys are having fun with the tetrahedral prisms but 
I have to remind everyone that solutions to puzzles not included in the 
menu must be considered as unofficial results, at least for ones that 
are not trivial extensions to ones already there. Not all twists that 
should be allowed on this puzzle are currently allowed, making it on one 
hand harder to solve, but on the other hand, the scrambling may not 
reach all possible positions, making it potentially easier to solve. I 
think that we'll have to consider any firsts or shortests as tentative 
at best. Please do continue to explore experimental puzzles because this 
is a great way to help us figure out how they should work. Just remember 
that any such solutions are unofficial until they are added to the menu 
of supported puzzles.

-Melinda

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/4D_Cubing/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/4D_Cubing/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    4D_Cubing-digest@yahoogroups.com 
    4D_Cubing-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    4D_Cubing-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--0016e645ba5e8a4089049161a9c3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

There is only one parituclar type of move that you cannot make in 1 click o=
n
the {3,3}x{}, 3 puzzle: the rotation of one of the triangular prism faces b=
y
120 degrees. This move can, however, be accomplished in 2 moves (click a 2C
piece that faces another triangular prism and then click an edge piece[3C]
between 3 triangular prism faces on the same face as the first click)

Therefore, the bug doesn't lose any states but does potentially change the
move count, depending on the solve of course. I think any record made on th=
e
current implementation should stay becuase if anything, the bug makes the
record worse than it could have been.

Just my two cents :)
-Matt Galla

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Melinda Green w=
rote:

>
>
> I don't know if there is or is not such a difference. Roice was the one
> directly supporting the Don's puzzle creation code so I mostly deferred t=
o
> his opinions in such matters while I'd veto puzzles with other problems s=
uch
> as infinite loops while scrambling, etc. In general we didn't include an=
y
> puzzles that didn't get the thumbs up from both of us, therefore any puzz=
les
> not in that set are considered unsupported. We're both happy that people
> explore outside these bounds of the supported set but you're basically on
> your own with them in that you risk losing your records if we end up
> defining a particular puzzle differently from what you solved. It's also =
not
> up to us to prove whether such a change makes for a fundamentally differe=
nt
> puzzle. By adding your solution to the wiki's firsts and shortests, it
> becomes your responsibility to make sure that it's accurate according to =
the
> puzzle definitions that end up being supported. I suggest that until that
> time you add an asterisk on the records page with a footnote flagging it =
as
> a tentative record. I think that should hold for any more such solutions =
by
> anyone. Alternatively, if you can convince Roice that the puzzle is well
> defined and implemented, then we should add it to the supported list. Of
> course if you'd like to work on extending the range of supported puzzles,
> we'd love your help. Just note that Don has a more up-to-date engine that=
we
> didn't know about at the time and the task of incorporating that new engi=
ne
> is our highest priority issue #94sues/detail?id=3D94>.
> We're just not doing any development currently.
>
> -Melinda
>
>
> On 9/28/2010 10:02 PM, Andrey wrote:
>
> Melinda,
> Of course, when you show me the twist in new puzzle that can't be perfo=
rmed in the old one, I'll agree that this puzzle is different. But now I ca=
n't imagine such twist )))
>
> Andrey
>
>
>
> --- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, Melinda Green .> wrote:
>
> I'm glad that you guys are having fun with the tetrahedral prisms but
> I have to remind everyone that solutions to puzzles not included in the
> menu must be considered as unofficial results, at least for ones that
> are not trivial extensions to ones already there. Not all twists that
> should be allowed on this puzzle are currently allowed, making it on one
> hand harder to solve, but on the other hand, the scrambling may not
> reach all possible positions, making it potentially easier to solve. I
> think that we'll have to consider any firsts or shortests as tentative
> at best. Please do continue to explore experimental puzzles because this
> is a great way to help us figure out how they should work. Just remember
> that any such solutions are unofficial until they are added to the menu
> of supported puzzles.
>
> -Melinda
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>=20=20
>

--0016e645ba5e8a4089049161a9c3
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

--------------040604050803010108060902
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Matt,

I'm not suggesting the removal of any records. I'm just asking that
solutions to unsupported puzzles be flagged as such because they're at
increased risk of being later invalidated. This case may be perfectly
safe as you suggest but there are more reasons why we might not have
felt confident enough to support particular puzzles. For example,
creating a truly and properly scrambled state is not a trivial thing.
It's very easy to not scramble it enough or to not use enough operators
such as to reach all types of states or to make certain types of
scrambled states wildly more or less likely.

Thanks for weighing in,
-Melinda

On 9/29/2010 1:22 AM, Galla, Matthew wrote:
>
>
> There is only one parituclar type of move that you cannot make in 1
> click on the {3,3}x{}, 3 puzzle: the rotation of one of the triangular
> prism faces by 120 degrees. This move can, however, be accomplished in
> 2 moves (click a 2C piece that faces another triangular prism and then
> click an edge piece[3C] between 3 triangular prism faces on the same
> face as the first click)
> Therefore, the bug doesn't lose any states but does potentially change
> the move count, depending on the solve of course. I think any record
> made on the current implementation should stay becuase if anything,
> the bug makes the record worse than it could have been.
> Just my two cents :)
> -Matt Galla
>
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Melinda Green
> > wrote:
>
> I don't know if there is or is not such a difference. Roice was
> the one directly supporting the Don's puzzle creation code so I
> mostly deferred to his opinions in such matters while I'd veto
> puzzles with other problems such as infinite loops while
> scrambling, etc. In general we didn't include any puzzles that
> didn't get the thumbs up from both of us, therefore any puzzles
> not in that set are considered unsupported. We're both happy that
> people explore outside these bounds of the supported set but
> you're basically on your own with them in that you risk losing
> your records if we end up defining a particular puzzle differently
> from what you solved. It's also not up to us to prove whether such
> a change makes for a fundamentally different puzzle. By adding
> your solution to the wiki's firsts and shortests, it becomes your
> responsibility to make sure that it's accurate according to the
> puzzle definitions that end up being supported. I suggest that
> until that time you add an asterisk on the records page with a
> footnote flagging it as a tentative record. I think that should
> hold for any more such solutions by anyone. Alternatively, if you
> can convince Roice that the puzzle is well defined and
> implemented, then we should add it to the supported list. Of
> course if you'd like to work on extending the range of supported
> puzzles, we'd love your help. Just note that Don has a more
> up-to-date engine that we didn't know about at the time and the
> task of incorporating that new engine is our highest priority
> issue #94
> . We're
> just not doing any development currently.
>
> -Melinda
>
>
>
> On 9/28/2010 10:02 PM, Andrey wrote:
>> Melinda,
>> Of course, when you show me the twist in new puzzle that can't be performed in the old one, I'll agree that this puzzle is different. But now I can't imagine such twist )))
>>
>> Andrey
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com , Melinda Green wrote:
>>> I'm glad that you guys are having fun with the tetrahedral prisms but
>>> I have to remind everyone that solutions to puzzles not included in the
>>> menu must be considered as unofficial results, at least for ones that
>>> are not trivial extensions to ones already there. Not all twists that
>>> should be allowed on this puzzle are currently allowed, making it on one
>>> hand harder to solve, but on the other hand, the scrambling may not
>>> reach all possible positions, making it potentially easier to solve. I
>>> think that we'll have to consider any firsts or shortests as tentative
>>> at best. Please do continue to explore experimental puzzles because this
>>> is a great way to help us figure out how they should work. Just remember
>>> that any such solutions are unofficial until they are added to the menu
>>> of supported puzzles.
>>>
>>> -Melinda
>>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>> change settings online go to:
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/4D_Cubing/join (Yahoo! ID required)
>> 4D_Cubing-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>

--------------040604050803010108060902
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable




http-equiv=3D"Content-Type">


Matt,



I'm not suggesting the removal of any records. I'm just asking that
solutions to unsupported puzzles be flagged as such because they're
at increased risk of being later invalidated. This case may be
perfectly safe as you suggest but there are more reasons why we
might not have felt confident enough to support particular puzzles.
For example, creating a truly and properly scrambled state is not a
trivial thing. It's very easy to not scramble it enough or to not
use enough operators such as to reach all types of states or to make
certain types of scrambled states wildly more or less likely.



Thanks for weighing in,

-Melinda



On 9/29/2010 1:22 AM, Galla, Matthew wrote:
cite=3D"mid:AANLkTi=3D6vuVncXCZA_NKyOM+L+9ptkRhYdpHZsVZ3pXY@mail.gmai=
l.com"
type=3D"cite">

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01CB6022.4698BA80
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0002_01CB6022.4698BA80"

------=_NextPart_001_0002_01CB6022.4698BA80
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

IIIIIII see now. So the triangular prism stickers that are part of 4C
pieces can't be clicked on. I bet you'll add 120-degree face twists to at
least the 2D triangle sides of the rectangular prism stickers.
Specifically, on the rectangular prisms of the {3,3}x{} 2 (where you can't
click on any part of any rectangular prism sticker) you could add 180-degree
twists when clicking on their 2D rectangular faces and add 120-degree twists
to their 2D triangular faces. The idea is inspired by how you did 120 &
90-degree twists to the {4,3,3} 2.



I just imagined having multiple ways the user can choose between 90, 120,
and 180 degree twists (seeing as 180-degree twists aren't possible on the
{4,3,3} 2). Possibly keyboard shortcuts like 'A + Click', 'B + Click', 'C +
Click', but also possibly (and/or) a third tab on the left side titled
'twists'. In this, you could also add the 2D twist feature I have wished to
see.



1) Speaking of which, last night I verified that some non-3D-face twists are
mathematically possible on the {3,3}x{}, like rotating only a 4C piece ALONE
by 120 degrees (no other piece moves nor twists).



2) Tonight I have found that on the {3,3}x{} 2 it's also mathematically
possible to twist two 4C pieces alone by 180 degrees (they can't have the
same color tetrahedron sticker--the two 4Cs would end up switching
location--if the side length were 3 or greater, then 3C pieces on the line
directly between them are also involved). It's possible without grooves in
other stickers. Neither is any extra space needed between stickers.



3) I'm now looking at this one: Take a 3D face that isn't a tetrahedron (so
it's a bunch of rectangular prism stickers). Take one of the rectangular 2D
faces of that (most likely includes the upside down rectangular prisms that
are really close to that face). I'll check if it's possible to twist this
by 180 degrees.



--

Andy









From: 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com [mailto:4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Melinda Green
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 3:36
To: 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Re: Tetrahedral prism {3,3}x{}, 3 layers solved





Matt,

I'm not suggesting the removal of any records. I'm just asking that
solutions to unsupported puzzles be flagged as such because they're at
increased risk of being later invalidated. This case may be perfectly safe
as you suggest but there are more reasons why we might not have felt
confident enough to support particular puzzles. For example, creating a
truly and properly scrambled state is not a trivial thing. It's very easy to
not scramble it enough or to not use enough operators such as to reach all
types of states or to make certain types of scrambled states wildly more or
less likely.

Thanks for weighing in,
-Melinda

On 9/29/2010 1:22 AM, Galla, Matthew wrote:

There is only one parituclar type of move that you cannot make in 1 click on
the {3,3}x{}, 3 puzzle: the rotation of one of the triangular prism faces by
120 degrees. This move can, however, be accomplished in 2 moves (click a 2C
piece that faces another triangular prism and then click an edge piece[3C]
between 3 triangular prism faces on the same face as the first click)



Therefore, the bug doesn't lose any states but does potentially change the
move count, depending on the solve of course. I think any record made on the
current implementation should stay becuase if anything, the bug makes the
record worse than it could have been.



Just my two cents :)

-Matt Galla

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Melinda Green
wrote:



I don't know if there is or is not such a difference. Roice was the one
directly supporting the Don's puzzle creation code so I mostly deferred to
his opinions in such matters while I'd veto puzzles with other problems such
as infinite loops while scrambling, etc. In general we didn't include any
puzzles that didn't get the thumbs up from both of us, therefore any puzzles
not in that set are considered unsupported. We're both happy that people
explore outside these bounds of the supported set but you're basically on
your own with them in that you risk losing your records if we end up
defining a particular puzzle differently from what you solved. It's also not
up to us to prove whether such a change makes for a fundamentally different
puzzle. By adding your solution to the wiki's firsts and shortests, it
becomes your responsibility to make sure that it's accurate according to the
puzzle definitions that end up being supported. I suggest that until that
time you add an asterisk on the records page with a footnote flagging it as
a tentative record. I think that should hold for any more such solutions by
anyone. Alternatively, if you can convince Roice that the puzzle is well
defined and implemented, then we should add it to the supported list. Of
course if you'd like to work on extending the range of supported puzzles,
we'd love your help. Just note that Don has a more up-to-date engine that we
didn't know about at the time and the task of incorporating that new engine
is our highest priority issue #94
. We're just not
doing any development currently.

-Melinda



On 9/28/2010 10:02 PM, Andrey wrote:

Melinda,
Of course, when you show me the twist in new puzzle that can't be
performed in the old one, I'll agree that this puzzle is different. But now
I can't imagine such twist )))

Andrey



--- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, Melinda Green
wrote:

I'm glad that you guys are having fun with the tetrahedral prisms but
I have to remind everyone that solutions to puzzles not included in the
menu must be considered as unofficial results, at least for ones that
are not trivial extensions to ones already there. Not all twists that
should be allowed on this puzzle are currently allowed, making it on one
hand harder to solve, but on the other hand, the scrambling may not
reach all possible positions, making it potentially easier to solve. I
think that we'll have to consider any firsts or shortests as tentative
at best. Please do continue to explore experimental puzzles because this
is a great way to help us figure out how they should work. Just remember
that any such solutions are unofficial until they are added to the menu
of supported puzzles.

-Melinda


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links











------=_NextPart_001_0002_01CB6022.4698BA80
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

osoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns=3D"http:=
//www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">