Archived Thread

To: ps.com=20
href=3D"mailto:4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com">4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com <=
/DIV>

Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 1:4=
0=20
AM

Subject: [MC4D] Cooperative Solvin=
g of=20
Large Puzzles

=20

See GitHub discussion here=
: href=3D"https://github.com/roice3/MagicTile/issues/25" rel=3Dnofollow=20
target=3D_blank>https://github.com/roice3/MagicTile/issues/25<=
/P>

What do you think? Would teamwork make solving big =
puzzles=20
go faster?

------=_NextPart_000_005C_01D38DFF.CB77CF80--

From: Roice Nelson <roice3@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 11:52:51 -0600
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Re: Cooperative Solving of Large Puzzles

--001a114e71a27fe1c40562d448bf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I personally have no issue with multiple individuals getting listed
together as the first solve. It's kind of like the "Polymath
" projects, which are collaborative math
efforts where all participants get listed as authors on resulting papers.
It may be that no individual will ever be masochistic enough to tame the
cell-turning 600-cell their own, whereas I could see a polypuzzle effort
making such solves a possibility.

I like what Nan laid out in terms of mechanisms because it doesn't require
new software development. It's interesting that it does require making the
solve abelian, that is the macros used will need to commute. I think this
may mean the solution will be solving the commutator subgroup
of the full puzzle
group.

The biggest immediate hurdle seems like it'd be garnering enough interest
and getting a solution group going, and finding a leader to keep things
moving.

Best,
Roice

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 8:26 PM, Luna Pe=C3=B1a scarecrowfish@gmail.com
[4D_Cubing] <4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

>
>
> This reminds me of FMC strategies, with commutator insertions and that
> sort of stuff. I think it would totally be possible. I don't know how I'd
> feel about it counting as the first solve, but so long as the first perso=
n
> to do it alone got recognition, that seems reasonable.
>
> ~Luna
>
> On 15 Jan 2018 02:21, "mananself@gmail.com [4D_Cubing]" <
> 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> The first puzzle that comes into my mind is the full cell-turning 600
>> cell. Andrey included it in MPUlt in 2011.
>> https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/4D_Cubing/conversations/topics/1745
>>
>> It has 259800 stickers. Later on, Andrey created a simplified version,
>> keeping only about 2000 stickers. In today's MPUlt, the "600-cell puzzle=
"
>> is only the simplified one. But one should still be able to create a con=
fig
>> to run the full version.
>>
>> I don't think anyone has attempted the full 600-cell.
>>
>> I think the cooperative solving idea is possible. Many people can work o=
n
>> isolated areas. For example people can divide piece types, and use macro=
s
>> that only affect their own types.
>>
>> To track progress, we can have the solution and macro definition files i=
n
>> a git repo, assuming macro move takes one line in such files. One can
>> branch from master, work on their piece types, send pull requests and
>> carefully merge back to master. There should only be line insertions in =
the
>> merge but no modification.
>>
>> We may also have some scripts to track the percentage of solved pieces i=
n
>> each type, to guard us from making bad merges. In any case, we can alway=
s
>> go back to an old commit. I used such scripts to track some of my big
>> solves, but working alone, I never have to create branches.
>>
>> Does this approach sound reasonable?
>>
>> Nan
>>
>>
>
>=20
>

--001a114e71a27fe1c40562d448bf
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I personally have no issue with multiple individuals getti=
ng listed together as the first solve.=C2=A0 It's kind of like the &quo=
t;Polymath" projects, wh=
ich are collaborative math efforts where all participants get listed as aut=
hors on resulting papers.=C2=A0 It may be that no individual will ever be m=
asochistic enough to tame the cell-turning 600-cell their own, whereas I co=
uld see a polypuzzle effort making such solves a possibility.

I like what Nan laid out in terms of mechanisms because it doesn'=
t require new software development.=C2=A0 It's interesting that it does=
=C2=A0require making the solve abelian, that is the macros used will need t=
o commute.=C2=A0 I think this may mean the solution will be solving the href=3D"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commutator_subgroup">commutator subgr=
oup of the full puzzle group.=C2=A0=C2=A0

The =
biggest immediate hurdle seems like it'd be garnering enough interest a=
nd getting a solution group going, and finding a leader to keep things movi=
ng.

Best,

Roice

On Sun, Jan=
14, 2018 at 8:26 PM, Luna Pe=C3=B1a com">scarecrowfish@gmail.com [4D_Cubing] <=3D"mailto:4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com" target=3D"_blank">4D_Cubing@yahoogrou=
ps.com> wrote:

margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">

=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20

This reminds me of FMC strategies, with commutator insert=
ions and that sort of stuff. I think it would totally be possible. I don=
9;t know how I'd feel about it counting as the first solve, but so long=
as the first person to do it alone got recognition, that seems reasonable.=

~Luna
=3D"">

On 15 Jan 2=
018 02:21, "m=
ananself@gmail.com [4D_Cubing]" <hoogroups.com" target=3D"_blank">4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com> wrote:r type=3D"attribution">
0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">

=20

=C2=A0

=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20

The first puzzle that comes into my mind is the full cell-turning =
600 cell. Andrey included it in MPUlt in 2011.
href=3D"https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/4D_Cubing/conversations/topics/=
1745" target=3D"_blank">https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/4D_Cubing/=
conversations/topics/1745

It has 2598=
00 stickers. Later on, Andrey created a simplified version, keeping only ab=
out 2000 stickers. In today's MPUlt, the "600-cell puzzle" is=
only the simplified one. But one should still be able to create a config t=
o run the full version.

I don't think anyone h=
as attempted the full 600-cell.

I think the cooper=
ative solving idea is possible. Many people can work on isolated areas. For=
example people can divide piece types, and use macros that only affect the=
ir own types.

=
To track progress, we can have the solution and macro definition files in a=
git repo, assuming macro move takes one line in such files.=C2=A0On=
e can branch from master, work on their piece types, send pull requests and=
carefully merge back to master. There should only be line insertions in th=
e merge but no modification.

We may also have some=
scripts to track the percentage of solved pieces in each type, to guard us=
from making bad merges. In any case, we can always go back to an old commi=
t. I used such scripts to track some of my big solves, but working alone, I=
never have to create branches.

Does this approach=
sound reasonable?

Nan

=20=20=20=20=20

=20=20=20=20

=20=20

--001a114e71a27fe1c40562d448bf--

From: =?UTF-8?Q?Luna_Pe=C3=B1a?= <scarecrowfish@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 17:56:07 +0000
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Re: Cooperative Solving of Large Puzzles

--001a114396cc208c990562d45470
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

For me it's less that a group might get listed as first, because they'd
deserve it, but it's just that someone might be solving it all alone, and
then suddenly they're beaten to it by a team all working together, you
know? But it's not that important really.

I'd be up for joining in with a solve, depending on the time. (Although I
can't run Andrey's puzzles right now =F0=9F=99=83)

~Luna

On 15 Jan 2018 17:53, "Roice Nelson roice3@gmail.com [4D_Cubing]" <
4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

>
>
> I personally have no issue with multiple individuals getting listed
> together as the first solve. It's kind of like the "Polymath
> " projects, which are collaborative math
> efforts where all participants get listed as authors on resulting papers.
> It may be that no individual will ever be masochistic enough to tame the
> cell-turning 600-cell their own, whereas I could see a polypuzzle effort
> making such solves a possibility.
>
> I like what Nan laid out in terms of mechanisms because it doesn't requir=
e
> new software development. It's interesting that it does require making t=
he
> solve abelian, that is the macros used will need to commute. I think thi=
s
> may mean the solution will be solving the commutator subgroup
> of the full puzzle
> group.
>
> The biggest immediate hurdle seems like it'd be garnering enough interest
> and getting a solution group going, and finding a leader to keep things
> moving.
>
> Best,
> Roice
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 8:26 PM, Luna Pe=C3=B1a scarecrowfish@gmail.com
> [4D_Cubing] <4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> This reminds me of FMC strategies, with commutator insertions and that
>> sort of stuff. I think it would totally be possible. I don't know how I'=
d
>> feel about it counting as the first solve, but so long as the first pers=
on
>> to do it alone got recognition, that seems reasonable.
>>
>> ~Luna
>>
>> On 15 Jan 2018 02:21, "mananself@gmail.com [4D_Cubing]" <
>> 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The first puzzle that comes into my mind is the full cell-turning 600
>>> cell. Andrey included it in MPUlt in 2011.
>>> https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/4D_Cubing/conversations/topics/1745
>>>
>>> It has 259800 stickers. Later on, Andrey created a simplified version,
>>> keeping only about 2000 stickers. In today's MPUlt, the "600-cell puzzl=
e"
>>> is only the simplified one. But one should still be able to create a co=
nfig
>>> to run the full version.
>>>
>>> I don't think anyone has attempted the full 600-cell.
>>>
>>> I think the cooperative solving idea is possible. Many people can work
>>> on isolated areas. For example people can divide piece types, and use
>>> macros that only affect their own types.
>>>
>>> To track progress, we can have the solution and macro definition files
>>> in a git repo, assuming macro move takes one line in such files. One
>>> can branch from master, work on their piece types, send pull requests a=
nd
>>> carefully merge back to master. There should only be line insertions in=
the
>>> merge but no modification.
>>>
>>> We may also have some scripts to track the percentage of solved pieces
>>> in each type, to guard us from making bad merges. In any case, we can
>>> always go back to an old commit. I used such scripts to track some of m=
y
>>> big solves, but working alone, I never have to create branches.
>>>
>>> Does this approach sound reasonable?
>>>
>>> Nan
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>=20
>

--001a114396cc208c990562d45470
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

For me it's less that a group might get listed as fir=
st, because they'd deserve it, but it's just that someone might be =
solving it all alone, and then suddenly they're beaten to it by a team =
all working together, you know? But it's not that important really.=C2=
=A0

I'd be up for joining =
in with a solve, depending on the time. (Although I can't run Andrey=
9;s puzzles right now =F0=9F=99=83)=C2=A0

~Luna

s=3D"gmail_quote">On 15 Jan 2018 17:53, "Roice Nelson o:roice3@gmail.com">roice3@gmail.com [4D_Cubing]" <ailto:4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com">4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com> wrote:r type=3D"attribution">

0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">

=20

=C2=A0

=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20

I personally have no issue with multiple individu=
als getting listed together as the first solve.=C2=A0 It's kind of like=
the "Poly=
math" projects, which are collaborative math efforts where all par=
ticipants get listed as authors on resulting papers.=C2=A0 It may be that n=
o individual will ever be masochistic enough to tame the cell-turning 600-c=
ell their own, whereas I could see a polypuzzle effort making such solves a=
possibility.

I like what Nan laid out in terms of mecha=
nisms because it doesn't require new software development.=C2=A0 It'=
;s interesting that it does=C2=A0require making the solve abelian, that is =
the macros used will need to commute.=C2=A0 I think this may mean the solut=
ion will be solving the _subgroup" target=3D"_blank">commutator subgroup of the full puzzle gro=
up.=C2=A0=C2=A0

The biggest immediate hurdle seems=
like it'd be garnering enough interest and getting a solution group go=
ing, and finding a leader to keep things moving.

iv>Best,
Roice

a">
On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 8:26 PM, Luna Pe=
=C3=B1a scarec=
rowfish@gmail.com [4D_Cubing] <D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com" target=3D"_blank">4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com&g=
t; wrote:
1px #ccc solid">

=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20

This reminds me of FMC strategies, with commutator insert=
ions and that sort of stuff. I think it would totally be possible. I don=
9;t know how I'd feel about it counting as the first solve, but so long=
as the first person to do it alone got recognition, that seems reasonable.=

~Luna
lass=3D"gmail_extra">
On 15 Jan 2018 02:21, &=
quot;mananself@gma=
il.com [4D_Cubing]" <m" target=3D"_blank">4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
tribution">
solid">

=20

=C2=A0

ygrp-mlmsg">

26ygrp-msg">

4526ygrp-text">
=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20

The first puzzle that comes into my mind is the full cell-turning =
600 cell. Andrey included it in MPUlt in 2011.
href=3D"https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/4D_Cubing/conversations/topics/=
1745" target=3D"_blank">https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/4D_Cubing/=
conversations/topics/1745

It has 2598=
00 stickers. Later on, Andrey created a simplified version, keeping only ab=
out 2000 stickers. In today's MPUlt, the "600-cell puzzle" is=
only the simplified one. But one should still be able to create a config t=
o run the full version.

I don't think anyone h=
as attempted the full 600-cell.

I think the cooper=
ative solving idea is possible. Many people can work on isolated areas. For=
example people can divide piece types, and use macros that only affect the=
ir own types.

=
To track progress, we can have the solution and macro definition files in a=
git repo, assuming macro move takes one line in such files.=C2=A0On=
e can branch from master, work on their piece types, send pull requests and=
carefully merge back to master. There should only be line insertions in th=
e merge but no modification.

We may also have some=
scripts to track the percentage of solved pieces in each type, to guard us=
from making bad merges. In any case, we can always go back to an old commi=
t. I used such scripts to track some of my big solves, but working alone, I=
never have to create branches.

Does this approach=
sound reasonable?

Nan

=20=20=20=20=20

=20=20=20=20

=20=20

=20=20=20=20=20

=20=20=20=20

=20=20

--001a114396cc208c990562d45470--

From: Melinda Green <melinda@superliminal.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:52:30 -0800
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Re: Cooperative Solving of Large Puzzles

--------------232E8B31D1A83011307CEF41
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Out of the interested participants, some could potentially work together ov=
er wi-fi while taking buses and trains to work. A suitable leader might the=
n be able to generate a commuter subgroup.

I'll see myself out.
-Melinda

On 1/15/2018 9:56 AM, Luna Pe=C3=B1a scarecrowfish@gmail.com [4D_Cubing] wr=
ote:
>
>
> For me it's less that a group might get listed as first, because they'd d=
eserve it, but it's just that someone might be solving it all alone, and th=
en suddenly they're beaten to it by a team all working together, you know? =
But it's not that important really.
>
> I'd be up for joining in with a solve, depending on the time. (Although I=
can't run Andrey's puzzles right now =F0=9F=99=83)
>
> ~Luna
>
> On 15 Jan 2018 17:53, "Roice Nelson roice3@gmail.com .com> [4D_Cubing]" <4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com .com>> wrote:
>
> I personally have no issue with multiple individuals getting listed t=
ogether as the first solve.=C2=A0 It's kind of like the "Polymath polymathprojects.org/>" projects, which are collaborative math efforts wher=
e all participants get listed as authors on resulting papers.=C2=A0 It may =
be that no individual will ever be masochistic enough to tame the cell-turn=
ing 600-cell their own, whereas I could see a polypuzzle effort making such=
solves a possibility.
>
> I like what Nan laid out in terms of mechanisms because it doesn't re=
quire new software development.=C2=A0 It's interesting that it does=C2=A0re=
quire making the solve abelian, that is the macros used will need to commut=
e.=C2=A0 I think this may mean the solution will be solving the commutator =
subgroup of the full pu=
zzle group.
>
> The biggest immediate hurdle seems like it'd be garnering enough inte=
rest and getting a solution group going, and finding a leader to keep thing=
s moving.
>
> Best,
> Roice
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 8:26 PM, Luna Pe=C3=B1a scarecrowfish@gmail.c=
om [4D_Cubing] <4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com =
> wrote:
>
>
>
> This reminds me of FMC strategies, with commutator insertions and=
that sort of stuff. I think it would totally be possible. I don't know how=
I'd feel about it counting as the first solve, but so long as the first pe=
rson to do it alone got recognition, that seems reasonable.
>
> ~Luna
>
> On 15 Jan 2018 02:21, "mananself@gmail.com l.com> [4D_Cubing]" <4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com s.com>> wrote:
>
> The first puzzle that comes into my mind is the full cell-tur=
ning 600 cell. Andrey included it in MPUlt in 2011.
>
> https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/4D_Cubing/conversations/t=
opics/1745 ics/1745>
>
> It has 259800 stickers. Later on, Andrey created a simplified=
version, keeping only about 2000 stickers. In today's MPUlt, the "600-cell=
puzzle" is only the simplified one. But one should still be able to create=
a config to run the full version.
>
> I don't think anyone has attempted the full 600-cell.
>
> I think the cooperative solving idea is possible. Many people=
can work on isolated areas. For example people can divide piece types, and=
use macros that only affect their own types.
>
> To track progress, we can have the solution and macro definit=
ion files in a git repo, assuming macro move takes one line in such files. =
One can branch from master, work on their piece types, send pull requests a=
nd carefully merge back to master. There should only be line insertions in =
the merge but no modification.
>
> We may also have some scripts to track the percentage of solv=
ed pieces in each type, to guard us from making bad merges. In any case, we=
can always go back to an old commit. I used such scripts to track some of =
my big solves, but working alone, I never have to create branches.
>
> Does this approach sound reasonable?
>
> Nan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>=20

--------------232E8B31D1A83011307CEF41
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

">

Out of the interested participants, some could potentially work
together over wi-fi while taking buses and trains to work. A
suitable leader might then be able to generate a commuter subgroup.

I'll see myself out.

-Melinda

On 1/15/2018 9:56 AM, Luna Pe=C3=B1a
ail.com">scarecrowfish@gmail.com [4D_Cubing] wrote:

cite=3D"mid:CAK-NJMDiG10mt=3D1iPWb6GBLQBoPsZNKVVHT_tjYy26+96mGngg@mail.gmai=
l.com">

For me it's less that a group might get listed as
first, because they'd deserve it, but it's just that someone
might be solving it all alone, and then suddenly they're beaten
to it by a team all working together, you know? But it's not
that important really.=C2=A0

I'd be up for joining in with a solve, depending
on the time. (Although I can't run Andrey's puzzles right now
=F0=9F=99=83)=C2=A0

~Luna

On 15 Jan 2018 17:53, "Roice Nelson href=3D"mailto:roice3@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send=3D"true">roice=
3@gmail.com
[4D_Cubing]" < moz-do-not-send=3D"true">4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com>
wrote:

.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">

=C2=A0

I personally have no issue with
multiple individuals getting listed together as
the first solve.=C2=A0 It's kind of like the " href=3D"https://polymathprojects.org/"
target=3D"_blank" moz-do-not-send=3D"true">Polymath=
"
projects, which are collaborative math efforts
where all participants get listed as authors on
resulting papers.=C2=A0 It may be that no individual
will ever be masochistic enough to tame the
cell-turning 600-cell their own, whereas I could
see a polypuzzle effort making such solves a
possibility.

I like what Nan laid out in terms of
mechanisms because it doesn't require new
software development.=C2=A0 It's interesting that i=
t
does=C2=A0require making the solve abelian, that is
the macros used will need to commute.=C2=A0 I think
this may mean the solution will be solving the href=3D"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commutator_subgroup" target=3D"_blank=
"
moz-do-not-send=3D"true">commutator subgroup
of the full puzzle group.=C2=A0=C2=A0

The biggest immediate hurdle seems like it'd
be garnering enough interest and getting a
solution group going, and finding a leader to
keep things moving.

Best,

Roice

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at
8:26 PM, Luna Pe=C3=B1a href=3D"mailto:scarecrowfish@gmail.com"
target=3D"_blank" moz-do-not-send=3D"true">scarec=
rowfish@gmail.com
[4D_Cubing] < href=3D"mailto:4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com"
target=3D"_blank" moz-do-not-send=3D"true">4D_C=
ubing@yahoogroups.com>
wrote:

style=3D"border-left:1px #ccc solid">

This reminds me of FMC
strategies, with commutator insertions and
that sort of stuff. I think it would
totally be possible. I don't know how I'd
feel about it counting as the first solve,
but so long as the first person to do it
alone got recognition, that seems
reasonable.

~Luna

On 15 Jan 2018
02:21, " href=3D"mailto:mananself@gmail.com"
target=3D"_blank"
moz-do-not-send=3D"true">mananself@gmai=
l.com
[4D_Cubing]" < href=3D"mailto:4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.co=
m"
target=3D"_blank"
moz-do-not-send=3D"true">4D_Cubing@yaho=
ogroups.com>
wrote:

style=3D"border-left:1px #ccc solid">

=C2=A0
id=3D"m_-6095944507630165813m_7734974861400767277m_-653830415881924526ygrp-=
mlmsg">
id=3D"m_-6095944507630165813m_7734974861400767277m_-653830415881924526ygrp-=
msg">
id=3D"m_-6095944507630165813m_7734974861400767277m_-653830415881924526ygrp-=
text">

The first puzzle that
comes into my mind is the
full cell-turning 600
cell. Andrey included it
in MPUlt in 2011.

href=3D"https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/4D_Cubing/conversations/topics/=
1745"
target=3D"_blank"
moz-do-not-send=3D"true">ht=
tps://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/4D_Cubing/conversations/topics/=
1745

It has 259800 stickers.
Later on, Andrey created a
simplified version,
keeping only about 2000
stickers. In today's
MPUlt, the "600-cell
puzzle" is only the
simplified one. But one
should still be able to
create a config to run the
full version.

I don't think anyone
has attempted the full
600-cell.

I think the cooperative
solving idea is possible.
Many people can work on
isolated areas. For
example people can divide
piece types, and use
macros that only affect
their own types.

style=3D"word-spacing:norma=
l">To
track progress, we can
have the solution and
macro definition files
in a git repo, assuming
macro move takes one
line in such files.=C2=A0span>One
can branch from master,
work on their piece types,
send pull requests and
carefully merge back to
master. There should only
be line insertions in the
merge but no modification.iv>

We may also have some
scripts to track the
percentage of solved
pieces in each type, to
guard us from making bad
merges. In any case, we
can always go back to an
old commit. I used such
scripts to track some of
my big solves, but working
alone, I never have to
create branches.

Does this approach
sound reasonable?

Nan

--001a113eca8ca6277b0562deddd8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

That's a good point. There is still a commutative requirement (order can't
matter if multiple people are working simultaneously then merging). But
you are definitely right to point out that things don't have to commute at
the level of macros, or over the entire length of the solve. Only the sets
of state changes being worked on in parallel at a given time must commute.
My suspicion about the commutator subgroup was definitely not accurate.

Cheers,
Roice

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:42 PM, chris.d.king.42@gmail.com [4D_Cubing] <
4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

>
>
> Also, you the moves don't necessarily need to abelian. People would just
> need to work on different parts of the puzzle, and merge often. That way
> conflicts don't crop up.
>
>=20
>

--001a113eca8ca6277b0562deddd8
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

That's a good point.=C2=A0 There is still a commutativ=
e requirement (order can't matter if multiple people are working simult=
aneously then merging).=C2=A0 But you are definitely right to point out tha=
t things don't have to commute at the level of macros, or over the enti=
re length of the solve.=C2=A0 Only the sets of state changes being worked o=
n in parallel at a given time must commute.=C2=A0 My suspicion about the co=
mmutator subgroup was definitely not accurate.

Cheers,div>

Roice

s=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:42 PM, .d.king.42@gmail.com">chris.d.king.42@gmail.com [4D_Cubing] =3D"ltr"><>4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

ail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-le=
ft:1ex">

=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20

Also, you the moves don't necessarily need to abelian. People would jus=
t need to work on different parts of the puzzle, and merge often. That way =
conflicts don't crop up.

--001a113eca8ca6277b0562deddd8--

From: chris.d.king.42@gmail.com
Date: 20 Jan 2018 23:11:48 +0000
Subject: Re: Cooperative Solving of Large Puzzles

From: chris.d.king.42@gmail.com
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 15:26:20 -0800
Subject: Re: Cooperative Solving of Large Puzzles

--------------B9D7F4F31CE2759EFD11B152
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I don't know.=C2=A0 I need you guys to tell me. Marc says that this is a 4-=
cycle which should not be possible. Also, what about the two restacking mov=
es? Are either of these usable during scrambling? Even if they are, maybe i=
t's not worth the confusion even mentioning them. I'm now thinking it would=
be better to simply leave out everything beyond the canonical 7. Maybe I s=
hould even leave out the clamshell move like you suggested. Does anyone els=
e find that move particularly useful? If not, then it's probably not worth =
it and I should reduce the set to 6 moves.

Thanks,
-Melinda

On 1/20/2018 3:10 PM, Luna Pe=C3=B1a scarecrowfish@gmail.com [4D_Cubing] wr=
ote:
>
>
> Isn't doing a single 90=C2=B0 end cap twist breaking parity?
>
> On 20 Jan 2018 23:08, "Melinda Green melinda@superliminal.com inda@superliminal.com> [4D_Cubing]" <4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com ubing@yahoogroups.com>> wrote:
>
> Dear cubists,
>
> I posted a follow-up video here:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Du2I6Z0jg44A m/watch?v=3Du2I6Z0jg44A>
>
> I may have screwed it up regarding the moves beyond the 7 canonical o=
nes and would love your feedback. In particular, I said that the single end=
cap twist is illegal though it can be used for scrambling. First, is that =
true, and second, was I clear enough about that? And finally, did I make an=
y more mistakes? I'm happy to reshoot this to get it right.
>
> Thanks,
> -Melinda
>
>
>
>
>=20

--------------B9D7F4F31CE2759EFD11B152
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

">

I don't know.=C2=A0 I need you guys to tell me. Marc says that this is =
a
4-cycle which should not be possible. Also, what about the two
restacking moves? Are either of these usable during scrambling? Even
if they are, maybe it's not worth the confusion even mentioning
them. I'm now thinking it would be better to simply leave out
everything beyond the canonical 7. Maybe I should even leave out the
clamshell move like you suggested. Does anyone else find that move
particularly useful? If not, then it's probably not worth it and I
should reduce the set to 6 moves.

Thanks,

-Melinda

On 1/20/2018 3:10 PM, Luna Pe=C3=B1a
ail.com">scarecrowfish@gmail.com [4D_Cubing] wrote:

cite=3D"mid:CAK-NJMBsmRXx36z-vzCxESrdNZdSD-+KwX1iiqn+7AxBQbbDRQ@mail.gmail.=
com">

Isn't doing a single 90=C2=B0 end cap twist breaking parity?=
=C2=A0

On 20 Jan 2018 23:08, "Melinda
Green moz-do-not-send=3D"true">melinda@superliminal.com
[4D_Cubing]" < href=3D"mailto:4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com"
moz-do-not-send=3D"true">4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com>
wrote:

.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">

=C2=A0

Dear cubists,

I posted a follow-up video here:

=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=
=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 href=3D"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Du2I6Z=
0jg44A"
target=3D"_blank" moz-do-not-send=3D"true">http=
s://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Du2I6Z0jg44A

I may have screwed it up regarding the moves
beyond the 7 canonical ones and would love
your feedback. In particular, I said that the
single end cap twist is illegal though it can
be used for scrambling. First, is that true,
and second, was I clear enough about that? And
finally, did I make any more mistakes? I'm
happy to reshoot this to get it right.

Thanks,

-Melinda

=20=20=20=20=20=20

--------------B9D7F4F31CE2759EFD11B152--

Return to MagicCube4D main page
Return to the Superliminal home page

Thread: "Cooperative Solving of Large Puzzles"