Some time ago I said that I'd made some progress on this front and would
soon post about it. Well, now that the topic has come up again I figure
now would be a good time to do that. Just as was recently brought up, my
thinking was that a 2^4 analog is the place to start. My first thought
was of a puzzle with 4-colored pieces that could move along the edges of
a hypercube like beads on hoops, with a central mechanism like a 2^3.
Twists would only happen in that center position, and rotations would be
required to bring faces into that position. Think of a standard 2^3 but
with the pieces hollowed out into a framework such that solid pieces
could slide into and through them to be twisted by the mechanism. I made
a few sketches of the basic idea and then had an email exchange with
Oskar von Deventer about his thoughts on whether something like this
could be built. He was helpful and encouraging, and came up with the
following nice rendering of the basic idea:
http://superliminal.com/cube/physical2x2x2x2oskar.jpg.
The twisting part is no problem, but a rotation mechanism didn't present
itself to him. One idea I had was to construct the pieces out of some
very squishy material. He pointed out that there are 3D printers that
can print in colored foam rubber which seems perfect, but we couldn't
think of any way to attach them to each other and to the hoops that
guide them during rotations. That idea also doesn't sound like it would
be very easy or fun to use anyway, so we dropped it.
I then spent a lot more time thinking about 4D rotational mechanisms and
came up with an approach that I really like. I don't quite see how to
take it all the way to a working puzzle, but perhaps some of you will
have some ideas. I realized that the puzzle can be thought of as two
cubes that can sort of roll against each other. Imagine two 2^3 puzzles
snapped together at a face. Now imagine breaking them apart so that they
hinge on any one of their four common edges. Continue to flex that hinge
until two other faces meet and snap together. This constitutes a proper
4D rotation! Here is a sketch:
http://superliminal.com/cube/physical2x2x2x2rotations.png.
The puzzle is shown in its solved state, and no number of rotational
moves will change its state, just like you would expect from rotations.
Six of the faces are easily seen as embedded octahedra. Look at the red
face in the first rotation. Once snapped in place, it makes a solid
octahedron in the very center. A standard 2^3 mechanism should then
allow twists that cut through its central planes. The final two faces
(green and magenta) are a little more difficult to see and can never be
moved into the center, but I think that all the puzzle states of the 2^4
should still be reachable. This is a compromise I would be very happy to
make.
So now the problem reduces to finding a mechanism that will allow two
cubical frameworks to roll against each other and snapping into place
such that they always create a working 2^3 mechanism in the middle.
That's still a lot to ask, I know, but the exciting part is that it
shouldn't require any exotic materials. I think this can even be
considered to be a proof-of-principle. Now, we just need to reduce it to
a proof-of-concept.
Unfortunately, Oskar couldn't think of a way to do this, but he did say
that this sort of rolling mechanism has been his holy grail for a long
time! I find that fascinating because I don't think that he came at that
from thinking about 4D puzzles, and this has been our holy grail too. I
don't like the idea of using magnets to implement twisty puzzles because
I find the idea unsatisfying. Still, I'm open to it if it works and
there is no better solution available. In this case it looks like a
magnet-based solution to the rotational part should work without too
much difficulty. Still, I can imagine instead, a cage-like outer
structure made of cylindrical rods, with clips that grab onto them and
hinge like the hands of Lego mini-figures.
In any case, marrying a rotational mechanism with 2^3 twisting
mechanisms that split apart and join in their centers is still a big
task. Do you have any ideas?
-Melinda
------=_NextPart_000_0018_01D11626.9A4F4670
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Wow!
Very fascinating topic and presentation !
Kind regards
Ed
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Melinda Green melinda@superliminal.com [4D_Cubing]=20
To: MagicCube4D=20
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 3:40 AM
Subject: [MC4D] Physical 4D puzzle progress
=20=20=20=20
Some time ago I said that I'd made some progress on this front and would=
=20
soon post about it. Well, now that the topic has come up again I figure=20
now would be a good time to do that. Just as was recently brought up, my=
=20
thinking was that a 2^4 analog is the place to start. My first thought=20
was of a puzzle with 4-colored pieces that could move along the edges of=
=20
a hypercube like beads on hoops, with a central mechanism like a 2^3.=20
Twists would only happen in that center position, and rotations would be=
=20
required to bring faces into that position. Think of a standard 2^3 but=20
with the pieces hollowed out into a framework such that solid pieces=20
could slide into and through them to be twisted by the mechanism. I made=
=20
a few sketches of the basic idea and then had an email exchange with=20
Oskar von Deventer about his thoughts on whether something like this=20
could be built. He was helpful and encouraging, and came up with the=20
following nice rendering of the basic idea:=20
http://superliminal.com/cube/physical2x2x2x2oskar.jpg.
The twisting part is no problem, but a rotation mechanism didn't present=
=20
itself to him. One idea I had was to construct the pieces out of some=20
very squishy material. He pointed out that there are 3D printers that=20
can print in colored foam rubber which seems perfect, but we couldn't=20
think of any way to attach them to each other and to the hoops that=20
guide them during rotations. That idea also doesn't sound like it would=20
be very easy or fun to use anyway, so we dropped it.
I then spent a lot more time thinking about 4D rotational mechanisms and=
=20
came up with an approach that I really like. I don't quite see how to=20
take it all the way to a working puzzle, but perhaps some of you will=20
have some ideas. I realized that the puzzle can be thought of as two=20
cubes that can sort of roll against each other. Imagine two 2^3 puzzles=20
snapped together at a face. Now imagine breaking them apart so that they=
=20
hinge on any one of their four common edges. Continue to flex that hinge=
=20
until two other faces meet and snap together. This constitutes a proper=20
4D rotation! Here is a sketch:=20
http://superliminal.com/cube/physical2x2x2x2rotations.png.
The puzzle is shown in its solved state, and no number of rotational=20
moves will change its state, just like you would expect from rotations.=20
Six of the faces are easily seen as embedded octahedra. Look at the red=20
face in the first rotation. Once snapped in place, it makes a solid=20
octahedron in the very center. A standard 2^3 mechanism should then=20
allow twists that cut through its central planes. The final two faces=20
(green and magenta) are a little more difficult to see and can never be=20
moved into the center, but I think that all the puzzle states of the 2^4=
=20
should still be reachable. This is a compromise I would be very happy to=
=20
make.
So now the problem reduces to finding a mechanism that will allow two=20
cubical frameworks to roll against each other and snapping into place=20
such that they always create a working 2^3 mechanism in the middle.=20
That's still a lot to ask, I know, but the exciting part is that it=20
shouldn't require any exotic materials. I think this can even be=20
considered to be a proof-of-principle. Now, we just need to reduce it to=
=20
a proof-of-concept.
Unfortunately, Oskar couldn't think of a way to do this, but he did say=20
that this sort of rolling mechanism has been his holy grail for a long=20
time! I find that fascinating because I don't think that he came at that=
=20
from thinking about 4D puzzles, and this has been our holy grail too. I=20
don't like the idea of using magnets to implement twisty puzzles because=
=20
I find the idea unsatisfying. Still, I'm open to it if it works and=20
there is no better solution available. In this case it looks like a=20
magnet-based solution to the rotational part should work without too=20
much difficulty. Still, I can imagine instead, a cage-like outer=20
structure made of cylindrical rods, with clips that grab onto them and=20
hinge like the hands of Lego mini-figures.
In any case, marrying a rotational mechanism with 2^3 twisting=20
mechanisms that split apart and join in their centers is still a big=20
task. Do you have any ideas?
-Melinda
=20=20
------=_NextPart_000_0018_01D11626.9A4F4670
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=EF=BB=BF
Some time ago I said that I'd made some progress on this front and wou=
ld=20
soon post about it. Well, now that the topic has come up again I figu=
re=20
now would be a good time to do that. Just as was recently brought up,=
my=20
thinking was that a 2^4 analog is the place to start. My first though=
t=20
was of a puzzle with 4-colored pieces that could move along the edges=
of=20
a hypercube like beads on hoops, with a central mechanism like a 2^3.=
=20
Twists would only happen in that center position, and rotations would=
be=20
required to bring faces into that position. Think of a standard 2^3 b=
ut=20
with the pieces hollowed out into a framework such that solid pieces=
=20
could slide into and through them to be twisted by the mechanism. I m=
ade=20
a few sketches of the basic idea and then had an email exchange with=
=20
Oskar von Deventer about his thoughts on whether something like this=
=20
could be built. He was helpful and encouraging, and came up with the=
=20
following nice rendering of the basic idea:=20
http://superliminal.com/cube/physical2x2x2x2oskar.jpg.
The twi=
sting=20
part is no problem, but a rotation mechanism didn't present
itself to=
him.=20
One idea I had was to construct the pieces out of some
very squishy=20
material. He pointed out that there are 3D printers that
can print in=
=20
colored foam rubber which seems perfect, but we couldn't
think of any=
way=20
to attach them to each other and to the hoops that
guide them during=
=20
rotations. That idea also doesn't sound like it would
be very easy or=
fun=20
to use anyway, so we dropped it.
I then spent a lot more time thin=
king=20
about 4D rotational mechanisms and
came up with an approach that I re=
ally=20
like. I don't quite see how to
take it all the way to a working puzzl=
e,=20
but perhaps some of you will
have some ideas. I realized that the puz=
zle=20
can be thought of as two
cubes that can sort of roll against each oth=
er.=20
Imagine two 2^3 puzzles
snapped together at a face. Now imagine break=
ing=20
them apart so that they
hinge on any one of their four common edges.=
=20
Continue to flex that hinge
until two other faces meet and snap toget=
her.=20
This constitutes a proper
4D rotation! Here is a sketch:=20
http://superliminal.com/cube/physical2x2x2x2rotations.png.
The=
=20
puzzle is shown in its solved state, and no number of rotational
move=
s=20
will change its state, just like you would expect from rotations.
Six=
of=20
the faces are easily seen as embedded octahedra. Look at the red
face=
in=20
the first rotation. Once snapped in place, it makes a solid
octahedro=
n in=20
the very center. A standard 2^3 mechanism should then
allow twists th=
at=20
cut through its central planes. The final two faces
(green and magent=
a)=20
are a little more difficult to see and can never be
moved into the ce=
nter,=20
but I think that all the puzzle states of the 2^4
should still be=20
reachable. This is a compromise I would be very happy to
make.
now the problem reduces to finding a mechanism that will allow two
cu=
bical=20
frameworks to roll against each other and snapping into place
such th=
at=20
they always create a working 2^3 mechanism in the middle.
That's stil=
l a=20
lot to ask, I know, but the exciting part is that it
shouldn't requir=
e any=20
exotic materials. I think this can even be
considered to be a=20
proof-of-principle. Now, we just need to reduce it to
a=20
proof-of-concept.
Unfortunately, Oskar couldn't think of a way to =
do=20
this, but he did say
that this sort of rolling mechanism has been his=
holy=20
grail for a long
time! I find that fascinating because I don't think =
that=20
he came at that
from thinking about 4D puzzles, and this has been our=
holy=20
grail too. I
don't like the idea of using magnets to implement twisty=
=20
puzzles because
I find the idea unsatisfying. Still, I'm open to it i=
f it=20
works and
there is no better solution available. In this case it look=
s=20
like a
magnet-based solution to the rotational part should work witho=
ut=20
too
much difficulty. Still, I can imagine instead, a cage-like outer=
=20
structure made of cylindrical rods, with clips that grab onto them an=
d=20
hinge like the hands of Lego mini-figures.
In any case, marryi=
ng a=20
rotational mechanism with 2^3 twisting
mechanisms that split apart an=
d=20
join in their centers is still a big
task. Do you have any=20
ideas?
-Melinda
--------------010306070909040403070409
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hello Nan,
Both required hinged edges, but the folding cube, hinges are permanent,
and the puzzle's hinges need to easily connect and disconnect. Perhaps
this tells us one main thing people should be on the lookout for:
temporary hinges.
Thanks,
-Melinda
On 11/3/2015 4:27 PM, mananself@gmail.com [4D_Cubing] wrote:
>
>
> The 4D roation you proposed reminds me of this thing:
>
> Folding Cube
>
> Search "folding cube" on youtube and you can find some tutorials. What
> you need here is not really that folding cube. But I wonder if you can
> borrow something.
>
> Nan
--------------010306070909040403070409
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hello Nan,
Both required hinged edges, but the folding cube, hinges are
permanent, and the puzzle's hinges need to easily connect and
disconnect. Perhaps this tells us one main thing people should be on
the lookout for: temporary hinges.
Thanks,
-Melinda
The 4D roation you proposed reminds me of this thing:
tutorials. What you need here is not really that folding cube.
But I wonder if you can borrow something.
--------------010306070909040403070409--