Thread: "Second solve of 3^7 !!!"

And just in time for him to be in the running for the first 600 cell
solve! :-)
I have ceased trying to judge what people will and will not do anymore,
but seriously, is anyone actually going to attempt this new one? I would
love to hear Charlie's story of conquest. I'm very impressed that he was
able to place so many pieces is just a week.

Regarding the 600 cell, is this level of slicing really the best for
this object? There sure are a lot of sliver stickers near the corners.
Also, there are so many that I think we'll need a way to turn off the
face outlines because the screen can devolve into a huge mess towards
the middle. I'm getting about 1 frame per second, so it is not
unworkable in that regard.

Deep congratulations to the both of you,
-Melinda

On 5/26/2011 11:17 PM, Andrey wrote:
> Again, it's a message from Charlie Mckiz. He says that solve took just one week (27 hours by times) and 300K twists. My solve was longer (by time) - 17 days (about 72 hours), but it was sub-100K :)

Melinda,
yes, it is the shallowest-cut 600-cell. But we always knew that it will b=
e this fractioned, didn't we? But I'm going to code the truncated 600-cell =
(not sure - with twisting of icosahedral cells or not). So we'll cut off al=
l this mess around corners, and the puzzle will be a little more acceptable=
.

Andrey

--- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, Melinda Green wrote:
>
> And just in time for him to be in the running for the first 600 cell=20
> solve! :-)
> I have ceased trying to judge what people will and will not do anymore,=20
> but seriously, is anyone actually going to attempt this new one? I would=
=20
> love to hear Charlie's story of conquest. I'm very impressed that he was=
=20
> able to place so many pieces is just a week.
>=20
> Regarding the 600 cell, is this level of slicing really the best for=20
> this object? There sure are a lot of sliver stickers near the corners.=20
> Also, there are so many that I think we'll need a way to turn off the=20
> face outlines because the screen can devolve into a huge mess towards=20
> the middle. I'm getting about 1 frame per second, so it is not=20
> unworkable in that regard.
>=20
> Deep congratulations to the both of you,
> -Melinda
>=20
> On 5/26/2011 11:17 PM, Andrey wrote:
> > Again, it's a message from Charlie Mckiz. He says that solve took just =
one week (27 hours by times) and 300K twists. My solve was longer (by time)=
- 17 days (about 72 hours), but it was sub-100K :)
>

--00151773e98c93ca2a04a44c0ef9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

I have a question:

Is collaboration possible?

I'm imagining the following way of collaboration. Suppose we have pure
3-cycle algorithms for type-A pieces and also pure 3-cycle algorithms for
type-B pieces. Suppose we have the log file for which only these two types
of pieces need to be solved. Now person-A and person-B get this log file an=
d
work on type-A and type-B pieces respectively. When they are done, we may
identify the new moves in the new log files, and copy/paste them into a
single log file, which solves the puzzle.

I wonder if the format of the log file supports this proposal. Can we copy
and paste some part of log files to create a new legitimate log file?

If several people can work on the same puzzle at the same time in parallel
as a team, we may be able to solve more complicated puzzles.

Nan

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Andrey wrote:

>
>
> Melinda,
> yes, it is the shallowest-cut 600-cell. But we always knew that it will b=
e
> this fractioned, didn't we? But I'm going to code the truncated 600-cell
> (not sure - with twisting of icosahedral cells or not). So we'll cut off =
all
> this mess around corners, and the puzzle will be a little more acceptable=
.
>
> Andrey
>
>
> --- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, Melinda Green wrote:
> >
> > And just in time for him to be in the running for the first 600 cell
> > solve! :-)
> > I have ceased trying to judge what people will and will not do anymore,
> > but seriously, is anyone actually going to attempt this new one? I woul=
d
> > love to hear Charlie's story of conquest. I'm very impressed that he wa=
s
> > able to place so many pieces is just a week.
> >
> > Regarding the 600 cell, is this level of slicing really the best for
> > this object? There sure are a lot of sliver stickers near the corners.
> > Also, there are so many that I think we'll need a way to turn off the
> > face outlines because the screen can devolve into a huge mess towards
> > the middle. I'm getting about 1 frame per second, so it is not
> > unworkable in that regard.
> >
> > Deep congratulations to the both of you,
> > -Melinda
> >
> > On 5/26/2011 11:17 PM, Andrey wrote:
> > > Again, it's a message from Charlie Mckiz. He says that solve took jus=
t
> one week (27 hours by times) and 300K twists. My solve was longer (by tim=
e)
> - 17 days (about 72 hours), but it was sub-100K :)
> >
>
>=20=20
>

--00151773e98c93ca2a04a44c0ef9
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

I have a question:

Is collaboration possible?

I&=
#39;m imagining the following way of collaboration. Suppose we have pure 3-=
cycle algorithms for type-A pieces and also pure 3-cycle algorithms for typ=
e-B pieces. Suppose we have the log file for which only these two types of =
pieces need to be solved. Now person-A and person-B get this log file and w=
ork on type-A and type-B pieces respectively. When they are done, we may id=
entify the new moves in the new log files, and copy/paste them into a singl=
e log file, which solves the puzzle.


I wonder if the format of the log file supports this proposal. Can we c=
opy and paste some part of log files to create a new legitimate log file?r>
If several people can work on the same puzzle at the same time in par=
allel as a team, we may be able to solve more complicated puzzles.


Nan

--0-1937086171-1306494945=:36864
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Andrey,
I still don't understand why you only need 95000 twists . Anyway, I will so=
lve other cubes.
Thanks!
Charlie.

From: Andrey
To: 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 2:44 PM
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Second solve of 3^7 !!!


=C2=A0=20
Melinda,
yes, it is the shallowest-cut 600-cell. But we always knew that it will be =
this fractioned, didn't we? But I'm going to code the truncated 600-cell (n=
ot sure - with twisting of icosahedral cells or not). So we'll cut off all =
this mess around corners, and the puzzle will be a little more acceptable.

Andrey

--- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, Melinda Green wrote:
>
> And just in time for him to be in the running for the first 600 cell=20
> solve! :-)
> I have ceased trying to judge what people will and will not do anymore,=20
> but seriously, is anyone actually going to attempt this new one? I would=
=20
> love to hear Charlie's story of conquest. I'm very impressed that he was=
=20
> able to place so many pieces is just a week.
>=20
> Regarding the 600 cell, is this level of slicing really the best for=20
> this object? There sure are a lot of sliver stickers near the corners.=20
> Also, there are so many that I think we'll need a way to turn off the=20
> face outlines because the screen can devolve into a huge mess towards=20
> the middle. I'm getting about 1 frame per second, so it is not=20
> unworkable in that regard.
>=20
> Deep congratulations to the both of you,
> -Melinda
>=20
> On 5/26/2011 11:17 PM, Andrey wrote:
> > Again, it's a message from Charlie Mckiz. He says that solve took just =
one week (27 hours by times) and 300K twists. My solve was longer (by time)=
- 17 days (about 72 hours), but it was sub-100K :)
>



--0-1937086171-1306494945=:36864
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

--------------050909060901090008090704
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

That's an interesting idea, Nan. I never thought about that before. I
don't know if any of the log formats would be simple enough for such
cutting and pasting. Maybe you can do that with MC4D but I think that
only the last person in the chain can use rotation moves as opposed to
twists. Maybe if their results are collected into a complete solution in
the right order, it might work. I hope that David or some other master
of "Math-fu" will enlighten us".

I can even imagine holding some team speedsolving events. I imagine that
in a competition between the Poles and the rest of the world, the Poles
would beat us every time. I think the teenagers among us would likewise
beat all of us over 20. What other teams would be interesting?

This could also just be a bad idea. I would not want to hold a
particular contest unless literally nobody on the list would find it
offensive in any way. And then it could also be awesome fun! ;-)

-Melinda

On 5/27/2011 6:34 PM, Nan Ma wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I have a question:
>
> Is collaboration possible?
>
> I'm imagining the following way of collaboration. Suppose we have pure
> 3-cycle algorithms for type-A pieces and also pure 3-cycle algorithms
> for type-B pieces. Suppose we have the log file for which only these
> two types of pieces need to be solved. Now person-A and person-B get
> this log file and work on type-A and type-B pieces respectively. When
> they are done, we may identify the new moves in the new log files, and
> copy/paste them into a single log file, which solves the puzzle.
>
> I wonder if the format of the log file supports this proposal. Can we
> copy and paste some part of log files to create a new legitimate log file?
>
> If several people can work on the same puzzle at the same time in
> parallel as a team, we may be able to solve more complicated puzzles.

--------------050909060901090008090704
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit




http-equiv="Content-Type">


That's an interesting idea, Nan. I never thought about that before.
I don't know if any of the log formats would be simple enough for
such cutting and pasting. Maybe you can do that with MC4D but I
think that only the last person in the chain can use rotation moves
as opposed to twists. Maybe if their results are collected into a
complete solution in the right order, it might work. I hope that
David or some other master of "Math-fu" will enlighten us".



I can even imagine holding some team speedsolving events. I imagine
that in a competition between the Poles and the rest of the world,
the Poles would beat us every time. I think the teenagers among us
would likewise beat all of us over 20. What other teams would be
interesting?



This could also just be a bad idea. I would not want to hold a
particular contest unless literally nobody on the list would find it
offensive in any way. And then it could also be awesome fun! ;-)



-Melinda



On 5/27/2011 6:34 PM, Nan Ma wrote:
cite="mid:BANLkTinyPkPnkM=9mNwHOsiKGKKBR=cNwg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">


Hi,



I have a question:



Is collaboration possible?



I'm imagining the following way of collaboration. Suppose we have
pure 3-cycle algorithms for type-A pieces and also pure 3-cycle
algorithms for type-B pieces. Suppose we have the log file for
which only these two types of pieces need to be solved. Now
person-A and person-B get this log file and work on type-A and
type-B pieces respectively. When they are done, we may identify
the new moves in the new log files, and copy/paste them into a
single log file, which solves the puzzle.



I wonder if the format of the log file supports this proposal. Can
we copy and paste some part of log files to create a new
legitimate log file?



If several people can work on the same puzzle at the same time in
parallel as a team, we may be able to solve more complicated
puzzles.



--------------050909060901090008090704--