Thread: "My physical 2^4 solution"

Congrats, Luna!

I really like the sound of your method.    Your use of a variety of past
techniques is great, and the mix of notations you're using seems clear
to me.   It sounds interestingly distinct from what Bob and Joel have
done, so this will probably leave us with three quite different
approaches to compare.

If you can upload an example solve video sometime, that would be very
cool and helpful.   In my view, even a raw video with few words and zero
editing can clear up a wide range of uncertainties about what you are
doing.

Bob and Joel, I really hope to see videos from you too!   Hint hint.   
Who'll be first to upload a solve video?   Currently we only have
Zander's, and his solve uses 4-cycles, so is not a "proper" solve to
most of us.


Cheers
Marc

--001a113d3272c5fc8a0563028b52
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Ed,

Thanks for your kind words :)

I'm not aware of anyone having solved the 3^5 without macros yet, so there
is room for a new first there. It's surely possible, though the puzzle is
quite tedious even with macros! We used to have a separate 3^4 Hall of
Fame category for the first no-macro solve but decided to remove it at some
point... sort of pointless because macros are very accepted around here,
part and parcel of solutions.

Some have taken automation further. As you mentioned, Don wrote a program
to solve Rubik's cubes in any dimension. We've also discussed leveraging
computers for the shortest solve competition, but that hasn't happened as
far as I know, and so we haven't been forced into the debate of whether
computer-assisted solves count. Someone should force us :)

One thing I love about MC4D is that I never will fully grok it, and if I
have the energy/interest, I can always pick out things I don't know to
investigate. Writing this now makes me think of one - I'm wondering what
the center of the 3^4
group is. For the Rubik's cube, it contains two elements: the identity and
the superflip. Another question is God's number for the 3^4, which we may
never know.

The solve routines in MC4D and MC5D are a sneaky magic trick btw. They
aren't actually finding a proper solution like Don's program, but simply
running the scramble file in reverse. And regarding the singularity, I
love a thought Melinda shared here once: maybe it has already happened and
we just aren't aware!

I'll have to leave your questions about MC7D to the others to give a proper
response (I haven't solved with it), but I gather that some find it a
simpler interface because more of the mess of the projection can be hidden
away.

Keep us posted on your 3^5 solve!

Roice


On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 10:08 PM, metamind@earthlink.net [4D_Cubing] <
4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

>
>
> Roice,
>
> Wow. I can't think of a more sophisticated word with which to respond, so
> "Wow!" will have to do for the moment. I looked at your links. Thank you.
> I'm wondering how much automation I'll want in my first MC5D solution.
> Noting that some solvers took...quite a few twists, I see the appeal.
> Congratulations on being the first person to solve the 3^5, by the way.
>
> The romantic in me wants to solve the 3^5 with no macros, but the more I
> look around, the less likely that seems. Hmmm...what's the etiquette in t=
he
> community about incorporating macros? How much automation is permitted fo=
r
> a person to be able to take credit for a solution?
>
> Of course, there are challenges in developing effective and compact
> macros, as well as in simply "eyeballing" one's way through. I'm not real=
ly
> in a hurry to finish the penteract, but I don't want to spend the rest of
> my life on it either. LOL. I still have a lot of questions on the
> tesseract, and find myself wondering just how much is actually known. Sin=
ce
> people have written programs to solve the cube for any number of
> dimensions, one might assume that the phenomenon has been fully "grokked.=
"
>
> Then again, there is the beauty of the process...
>
> When I run the solve routines on MC4D (and MC5D), I am humbled by the
> computer's ability to generate solutions to highly complicated puzzles in
> such a short time. We're still a good ways from the singularity, too!
>
> Incidentally Roice, I've looked at your web presence, and find your
> creations rather enchanting. Admittedly, I've only scratched the surface.
> I'm a longtime fan of computer graphics and animation, and I fear that I'=
m
> susceptible to spending long sessions just gawking at your oeuvre.
>
> I hope to get started on MC5D by the end of the week.
> What's the advantage, if any, of solving the 5D cube with MC7D? Is it
> clearer? Is the interface better developed? I can certainly see doing the
> hexeract with MC7D (why make another program?), but I don't know what
> criteria to apply when deciding which app to use?
>
> At some point, I'd like to solve a puzzle no one has managed to, and add
> that knowledge to the community.
>
> Time to catch my breath.
>
> Ed : )
>
>=20
>

--001a113d3272c5fc8a0563028b52
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable