Thread: "noteworthy new hypersolutions"

--------------050204070706020805090500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The audacity! These are crazy amazing pieces of news, guys! This is the
best news I've read this New Year that so far has only been full of bad
news. Matt's 120 Cell solution is extra-special for me because I had
predicted early on that we would see exactly one solution to this
monster and then we would never see another in my lifetime. Well I it
seems that two years in hyper-puzzling time is like a lifetime in our
flat 3D existence given all the other wonderful puzzles that I never
even dreamed of that have also appeared and been conquered in that same
span. I will now officially stop making predictions about what will or
will not ever happen in in this magical land because I surely do not know.

Ethan: I don't even know what to say to you intrepid 5D explorers. You
went from 3^4 straight to 5^4 in just ten days. I was wondering what you
would turn your attention to next and then you went dark, only to return
from bagging one of the most frightening beasts around. The number of
twists it took is so astounding that I can't even say it aloud. You are
truly one patient and determined hyperpuzzler!!!

I'm sure that I speak for everyone when I say that we would all just
*love* to hear both of your stories of conquest. How long did these
solutions take? What made you decide to attempt them? How many times did
you decide to give up, only to continue again? In short, what the *hell*
were you guys thinking!!! :-) Please tell us all that you care to
share. We will read very carefully and savor your victories through your
stories because very few of us will even think seriously of following
where you have gone.

It's no surprise that Matthew holds the current shortest solution to
original 3^4 that started this whole crazy quest thing. I bet that when
either of you look at that puzzle now it must look like a baby's
plaything. OK, I have a new idea to throw out because this makes it feel
like the right time to think about new challenges. Who here thinks you
can solve a 3^4 blindfolded? You wouldn't be literally blindfolded. What
we could do is add an option to switch all sticker colors to gray. That
way you could study a scrambled puzzle for as long as you like, put on
your virtual blindfold, and see what you can do. Your time ends when you
pull off the blindfold. You can take notes as you study it, but you can
not use notes or any other aids once you start twisting though prepared
macros seem fair to me. Who's up for this challenge? I promise to make
no more predictions because something tells me there are a handful of
you who might just be able to do it. Speak up now or I will have to
start babbling about 120 Cell speedsolving contests that we will time
using calendars instead of stopwatches!

This is truly fabulous stuff, folks. Matt and Ethan: What can I say? You
guys rock!!

Breathlessly,
-Melinda


On 1/10/2011 7:08 PM, Roice Nelson wrote:
>
>
> Any hypersolution is noteworthy of course, but I thought I would post
> that for both Magic120Cell
> and the 7x7x7x7x7
> , it is
> not as lonely at the top anymore!
> Matt Galla sent me a completed Magic120Cell log file just prior to the
> new year, joining Noel Chalmers.
>
> And on January 6th, I received a 7^5 solution from Ethan Muldoon,
> joining Matthew Sheerin.
> I've updated the online pages with their log files if any would like
> to take a look (the solutions both impress in terms of length).
> Sincere congratulations to Matt and Ethan for completing these monster
> puzzles. I'm amazed by your fortitude!
>
> And really, I'm blown away by how many solvers we have in the group
> now. I just browsed over the MC4D hall of fame and the MC5D hall of
> insanity, and it is wild how much they have grown :)
> Take care everyone,
> Roice
>

--------------050204070706020805090500
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit




http-equiv="Content-Type">


The audacity! These are crazy amazing pieces of news, guys! This is
the best news I've read this New Year that so far has only been full
of bad news. Matt's 120 Cell solution is extra-special for me
because I had predicted early on that we would see exactly one
solution to this monster and then we would never see another in my
lifetime. Well I it seems that two years in hyper-puzzling time is
like a lifetime in our flat 3D existence given all the other
wonderful puzzles that I never even dreamed of that have also
appeared and been conquered in that same span. I will now officially
stop making predictions about what will or will not ever happen in
in this magical land because I surely do not know.



Ethan: I don't even know what to say to you intrepid 5D explorers.
You went from 3^4 straight to 5^4 in just ten days. I was wondering
what you would turn your attention to next and then you went dark,
only to return from bagging one of the most frightening beasts
around. The number of twists it took is so astounding that I can't
even say it aloud. You are truly one patient and determined
hyperpuzzler!!!



I'm sure that I speak for everyone when I say that we would all just
*love* to hear both of your stories of conquest. How long did these
solutions take? What made you decide to attempt them? How many times
did you decide to give up, only to continue again? In short, what
the *hell* were you guys thinking!!! :-)  Please tell us all that
you care to share. We will read very carefully and savor your
victories through your stories because very few of us will even
think seriously of following where you have gone.



It's no surprise that Matthew holds the current shortest solution to
original 3^4 that started this whole crazy quest thing. I bet that
when either of you look at that puzzle now it must look like a
baby's plaything. OK, I have a new idea to throw out because this
makes it feel like the right time to think about new challenges. Who
here thinks you can solve a 3^4 blindfolded? You wouldn't be
literally blindfolded. What we could do is add an option to switch
all sticker colors to gray. That way you could study a scrambled
puzzle for as long as you like, put on your virtual blindfold, and
see what you can do. Your time ends when you pull off the blindfold.
You can take notes as you study it, but you can not use notes or any
other aids once you start twisting though prepared macros seem fair
to me. Who's up for this challenge? I promise to make no more
predictions because something tells me there are a handful of you
who might just be able to do it. Speak up now or I will have to
start babbling about 120 Cell speedsolving contests that we will
time using calendars instead of stopwatches!



This is truly fabulous stuff, folks. Matt and Ethan: What can I say?
You guys rock!!



Breathlessly,

-Melinda





On 1/10/2011 7:08 PM, Roice Nelson wrote:
cite="mid:AANLkTim68vyC2sf8f8jwB2SwenixEoD6f1BbMsCEzSe+@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">

Oops, a small correction: It is Matthew Sheerin with the shortest 3^4,
not Matt Galla, but I suspect that any of you guys could handle it
blindfolded. ;-)

Congrats to my namesake for beating the 120-cell, and to Ethan, welcome to =
the club! Membership includes a free straight-jacket and a psychiatrist (j=
ust kidding of course). I would also love to hear about your experiences w=
ith the solves. When I get the time I plan to try and have a look at Ethan=
's solution to see how he went about the solve, though a description would =
be a good place to start.

To answer some of Melinda's points: I believe that any challenge available =
for these puzzles which is humanly possible will eventually be conquered by=
someone. Also, 3^4 blindfolded is already on my to-do list. I have alrea=
dy posted about trying to solve the 2^4 this way, though after several atte=
mpts I have not been successful yet (my closest was off by 2 corner twists)=
. I have a memorisation method planned out for the 3^4, all I need is to f=
inish planning the execution method and enough free time (and to get better=
at blindsolving). I will try and beat the 2^4 first though, and maybe get=
the solve stage on video if I can.
This presents a question, are pre-recorded macros allowed? Are macros reco=
rded during the solve allowed? Solving the 2^4 blind without them is easy =
enough, but it will be significantly more difficult to conquer the 3^4 with=
out them. I also wonder about the commutator and conjugate ability of MC7D=
. Part of the difficulty of blindfold solving is doing and undoing the set=
up moves correctly (significantly harder in 4D!), and these functions would=
reduce that difficulty. My aim is to blindfold solve without these aids, =
but I was wondering what other people's thoughts are.

Sorry for getting a little carried away when this is supposed to be about t=
hese two great solves (and solvers). Now we have to wait and see what they=
solve next!

Matt

--- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, Melinda Green wrote:
>
> The audacity! These are crazy amazing pieces of news, guys! This is the=20
> best news I've read this New Year that so far has only been full of bad=20
> news. Matt's 120 Cell solution is extra-special for me because I had=20
> predicted early on that we would see exactly one solution to this=20
> monster and then we would never see another in my lifetime. Well I it=20
> seems that two years in hyper-puzzling time is like a lifetime in our=20
> flat 3D existence given all the other wonderful puzzles that I never=20
> even dreamed of that have also appeared and been conquered in that same=20
> span. I will now officially stop making predictions about what will or=20
> will not ever happen in in this magical land because I surely do not know=
.
>=20
> Ethan: I don't even know what to say to you intrepid 5D explorers. You=20
> went from 3^4 straight to 5^4 in just ten days. I was wondering what you=
=20
> would turn your attention to next and then you went dark, only to return=
=20
> from bagging one of the most frightening beasts around. The number of=20
> twists it took is so astounding that I can't even say it aloud. You are=20
> truly one patient and determined hyperpuzzler!!!
>=20
> I'm sure that I speak for everyone when I say that we would all just=20
> *love* to hear both of your stories of conquest. How long did these=20
> solutions take? What made you decide to attempt them? How many times did=
=20
> you decide to give up, only to continue again? In short, what the *hell*=
=20
> were you guys thinking!!! :-) Please tell us all that you care to=20
> share. We will read very carefully and savor your victories through your=
=20
> stories because very few of us will even think seriously of following=20
> where you have gone.
>=20
> It's no surprise that Matthew holds the current shortest solution to=20
> original 3^4 that started this whole crazy quest thing. I bet that when=20
> either of you look at that puzzle now it must look like a baby's=20
> plaything. OK, I have a new idea to throw out because this makes it feel=
=20
> like the right time to think about new challenges. Who here thinks you=20
> can solve a 3^4 blindfolded? You wouldn't be literally blindfolded. What=
=20
> we could do is add an option to switch all sticker colors to gray. That=20
> way you could study a scrambled puzzle for as long as you like, put on=20
> your virtual blindfold, and see what you can do. Your time ends when you=
=20
> pull off the blindfold. You can take notes as you study it, but you can=20
> not use notes or any other aids once you start twisting though prepared=20
> macros seem fair to me. Who's up for this challenge? I promise to make=20
> no more predictions because something tells me there are a handful of=20
> you who might just be able to do it. Speak up now or I will have to=20
> start babbling about 120 Cell speedsolving contests that we will time=20
> using calendars instead of stopwatches!
>=20
> This is truly fabulous stuff, folks. Matt and Ethan: What can I say? You=
=20
> guys rock!!
>=20
> Breathlessly,
> -Melinda
>=20
>=20
> On 1/10/2011 7:08 PM, Roice Nelson wrote:
> >
> >
> > Any hypersolution is noteworthy of course, but I thought I would post=20
> > that for both Magic120Cell=20
> > and the 7x7x7x7x7=20
> > , it is=20
> > not as lonely at the top anymore!
> > Matt Galla sent me a completed Magic120Cell log file just prior to the=
=20
> > new year, joining Noel Chalmers.
> >
> > And on January 6th, I received a 7^5 solution from Ethan Muldoon,=20
> > joining Matthew Sheerin.
> > I've updated the online pages with their log files if any would like=20
> > to take a look (the solutions both impress in terms of length).=20=20
> > Sincere congratulations to Matt and Ethan for completing these monster=
=20
> > puzzles. I'm amazed by your fortitude!
> >
> > And really, I'm blown away by how many solvers we have in the group=20
> > now. I just browsed over the MC4D hall of fame and the MC5D hall of=20
> > insanity, and it is wild how much they have grown :)
> > Take care everyone,
> > Roice
> >
>

Ethan and Matt, congratulations! It's very impressive.=20
I'm not sure that I'll try 7^5 somewhere, but 120 cell is definitely in my =
todo list. And I have some relatively free weeks for it...

Good luck!
Andrey

I'm changing the subject line so as to not steal any thunder from Matt
and Ethan's amazing accomplishments.

Although it would be neat if the first ever blindfolded 3^4 solution
were done without macros, I think that you should be able to make full
use of predefined macros. I see no reason to make this harder than it
needs to be. To me the feat is about the ability to hold an entire
solution in your head for long enough to affect the solution. Other
people may feel that the experience should be closer to the 3D version
and I fully respect that view. Whatever the majority opinion of those
who are thinking of attempting this is just fine with me.

Although I have no concern that anyone on this list would ever cheat in
such a contest, I think it would be good if we at least addressed the
possibility. My suggestion for a simple safeguard is to require the
solver to declare a witness willing to affirm that they observed that
the entire solution was performed fairly. This should also make any such
solution a bit more formal which might feel more satisfying because it
makes it very clear when you are making a serious attempt.

-Melinda

On 1/11/2011 6:06 AM, Matthew wrote:
> Congrats to my namesake for beating the 120-cell, and to Ethan, welcome to the club! Membership includes a free straight-jacket and a psychiatrist (just kidding of course). I would also love to hear about your experiences with the solves. When I get the time I plan to try and have a look at Ethan's solution to see how he went about the solve, though a description would be a good place to start.
>
> To answer some of Melinda's points: I believe that any challenge available for these puzzles which is humanly possible will eventually be conquered by someone. Also, 3^4 blindfolded is already on my to-do list. I have already posted about trying to solve the 2^4 this way, though after several attempts I have not been successful yet (my closest was off by 2 corner twists). I have a memorisation method planned out for the 3^4, all I need is to finish planning the execution method and enough free time (and to get better at blindsolving). I will try and beat the 2^4 first though, and maybe get the solve stage on video if I can.
> This presents a question, are pre-recorded macros allowed? Are macros recorded during the solve allowed? Solving the 2^4 blind without them is easy enough, but it will be significantly more difficult to conquer the 3^4 without them. I also wonder about the commutator and conjugate ability of MC7D. Part of the difficulty of blindfold solving is doing and undoing the setup moves correctly (significantly harder in 4D!), and these functions would reduce that difficulty. My aim is to blindfold solve without these aids, but I was wondering what other people's thoughts are.
>
> Sorry for getting a little carried away when this is supposed to be about these two great solves (and solvers). Now we have to wait and see what they solve next!
>
> Matt

--000e0cd1e07a49e149049a7f17e3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi everyone,

Thanks for the mention and congrats on completing the 120Cell. In my email
to Roice I mentioned several things about my solve that he suggested I
forward to the group:

"By 4 separate samples I took throughout my solve, I estimate the actual
time of completion to be right around 150 hours. To be honest I am quite
frustrated the solve took as long as it did, but as a college student, I
have very little free time to begin with and it is difficult to dedicate so
much time to something that remains so repetitive for large amounts of time.
As you may remember, I solved the puzzle by piece type, 2C, 3C, and then 4C.
Partway through solving the 3C pieces I lost a significant portion of my
solve and I had to just about restart solving the 3C pieces. During this
time I actually interacted with the log file, opening it up and seeing how
the information was stored. After doing this I decided to write a simple
Java program that would scan through the current state of the puzzle and
give an estimate of how many of each type of piece I had solved, along with
a percentage completed of the entire puzzle. After writing this program I
discovered that 2 2C pieces were actually flipped in place, one of which was
two slightly different shades of green, the other two slightly different
shades of off-white/light gray. I decided to leave these until the very end
of my solve. They were corrected in the final 40 moves.

You might find it interesting to know that I solved the 2C by layer, the 3C
by ring, and the 4C by hypercube cell, thereby incorporating every given
symmetry into my solve except the tori. After our conversation about
building up solves in local groups to minimize the distance between the
remaining unsolved pieces I solved all of the 4C pieces in odd numbered cube
cells first and then finished up with the evens (so my solving order was 1 3
5 7 2 4 6 8, but by the time I got to 6 just the stragglers remained
["hypercube cell" 9 was solved automatically as no 4C piece lies exclusively
in those 8 cells]) I can actually confirm that your hypothesis holds true
and makes a very noticeable difference while solving. Once I got to the even
numbered hypercube cells, my solving speed nearly doubled with the improved
proximity of the remaining pieces. Had I realized this early, I would not
have solved the 2C pieces by ring as this doesn't consolidate unsolved
pieces well at all (but then I couldn't say I solved by rings either so
maybe it was worth it).

As an experienced enthusiast not only in playing with and solving Rubik-like
puzzles but also in the group theory and related mathematics behind the
puzzles, I believe the most "naturally correct" way of counting moves in any
Rubik puzzle is face-turn metric and for the 120Cell this means any number
of clicks made on a single cell should count as a single move. From
experience solving the 120Cell any desired rotation of a cell can be
accomplished in exactly one click EXCEPT one that requires 2/5 of a rotation
about a pentagonal face piece. Interestingly enough, from experience it
seems to be possible to never require such a turn in 2 moves to get any
given piece to a specific destination 1 cell away. There are typically 3
ways to pass a piece from one cell to the next and if one of these three
ways requires a 2/5 rotation about a pentagonal face of the new cell to get
the piece to its final destination, then it seems guaranteed that another
way will also require a 2/5 turn but the third way will not. So starting
from the point in my solve where I lost so much of my log, I successively
avoiding using 2/5 rotations during any setups or algorithms. This meant
there were MANY times that I attempted to do a set up only to find I would
need a 2/5 rotation so I would undo and try one of the other 2 possibilities
of manipulating a piece along the same "path" of cells. Half of these
resulted in another 2/5 rotation so once again I would undo to use the final
choice instead. The completed log does not show the hundreds of setups that
were rejected due to a 2/5 rotation ;) However I was occasionally forced to
use a 2/5 rotation whenever a setup required only one "movement" of a cell.
Although this felt like one true move, it of course counted as two since a
2/5 rotation requires you to click twice. If any number of clicks on a cell
counted as only one move, this could have saved me A LOT of time as I could
have always accepted the first setup I came up with and skipped the checking
process. It would be interesting to see how Noel's solve compared with mine
in move count if moves were counted only when a new cell was clicked on. I
don't know about his solve, but since I specifically set out to avoid them
in my solve, the decrease in move count may be much less for me and may even
make his solution shorter than mine. Then again maybe I shouldn't tell you
about this and just silently let the numbers stand as is ;) After all, a
good 30 hours of my solve was probably dedicated purely to undoing and
finding new setups for the purpose of saving 2 moves by avoiding a 2/5 turn.
"

-UPDATE-

After this conversation, Roice wrote a program to calculate the number of
moves required by each of myself and Noel using the above metric (where any
number of consecutive clicks on a single face only counts as 1 move). Sadly,
I must report that under this metric, my solution is actually LONGER than
Noel's! (looking through parts of Noel's solve, it seems he was reluctant to
use any rotation except those around the pentagonal faces of each cell,
while in my solve, I explicitly did everything I could to avoid using more
than one consecutive click on a single cell).

The exact move count under each metric is given below:
Original Metric (analogue of quarter turn metric)
Noel-33,546
Matt-23,185

My Suggested Metric (analogue of face turn metric)
Noel-22,576
Matt-22,856


Despite its size and the time it took me to solve it, the 120Cell really
isn't that hard, as I'm sure some of you have already concluded. Yes it is
4-Dimensional, and certainly that makes it inherently confusing. Yes there
are a large number of pieces, and certainly that makes it a very, VERY LONG
puzzle. But when it comes down to it, the moves are SOOOO shallow compared
to the whole puzzle that you have an extraordinary amount of room to
manipulate the pieces however you want. Solving the puzzle by piece type
basically amounted to repeating the same process up to 600 times, and then
finding a little bit of excitement when the last few pieces of the current
type required an extra little bit of trickery to get into place and/or
reorient. The main reason this solve took so long was honestly, in the midst
of solving the 1200 3C pieces, it got quite boring and I had to constantly
force myself to reserve an hour or so each night to make progress. I would
keep this up for maybe a week or two before eventually dropping it, picking
it up again a few months down the road (often times, the only motivation I
had during this time was a desire to not see my previous work on the puzzle
be wasted). But I am glad I stuck it out because I can now say I am one of
two people to have "walked the walk" and solved the entire puzzle by hand
(although I suspect many others have already found a minimal set of
algorithms that legitimately prove they could solve the puzzle).
Based on this observation, I have been experimenting with other 4D shapes
and trying to visualize the 4D analogues of other twisty puzzles like the
Skewb and Helicopter Cube. I am about to share some of my results on these
in another topic :)

I want to thank Roice for writing the Magic120Cell program and giving me the
opportunity to complete a journey so rare, it has only been completed twice
:)

-Matt Galla

PS If anyone is curious to know, I am a 20yo undergraduate pursuing a double
degree in Mathematics and Engineering at Trinity University in San Antonio

--000e0cd1e07a49e149049a7f17e3
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable