=C2=A0 =20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20
Hello everyone,
n>I am Marnix and I recently made the 4D hall of fame list. I was asked to =
write a little message on here. I am a software developer. Thirty years old=
. In my free time I like reading about software related things, I play vide=
ogames, watch movies and tv-shows. Sometimes I read popularising science bo=
oks.
I solved the regular rubik&=
#39;s cube about 10 years ago. It took me a month and a week of on and off =
trying. I think it was around that time I found out about the 4D magic cube=
and it just seemed ridiculous. I remember opening the application and just=
going, yeah what the hell is this. I never really tried to solve it and kn=
owing there were only dozens of people who solved it I thought it would be =
super hard. That is until the Mathologers video appeared in my feed with th=
e title "Solving the 4D cube with simple 3D tricks". I didn't=
watch the video but I decided to give it a try. It took me around 6 days s=
o that's actually faster than the regular cube.
=
My experience solving it was as follows: First I tried =
to get my head around what i was actually looking at. Figuring out that the=
sides were cubes, were connected to 6 other sides, and realizing that the =
cubies were actually just stickers and not pieces. This was also when I rea=
lized there were still 3 layers (I know that's obvious but it wasn'=
t immediately obvious to me) and I decided to just use the three layer meth=
od to try and solve it.
I made steady =
progress and solved the first two layers using the keyhole tactic. After fi=
nishing that I had realized that moving a single piece from the unfinished =
layer to the finished layer wasn't as straightforward as the regular cu=
be because when you use the normal moves you end up moving 3 pieces to the =
other layer instead of 1. So I worked on making a few macro's that can =
isolate hypercorners, corners, and edges. Knowing that if I figured out tho=
se then you can solve it like normal. Probably different than most but I so=
lved the edges and hypercorners first and the corners last because that'=
;s how I taught myself to do the regular cube too (doing corners first and =
edges last).=C2=A0
I made a time lapse and put it on youtu=
be=C2=A0" target=3D"_blank">https://youtu.be/m8T2tCJ6i0k=C2=A0it's not part=
icularly interesting and it's 10 minutes long but it's there.
>
I am probably going to try a higher dimension one next.
<=
br>
Cheers,=C2=A0
Marnix
=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20
=20=20
--000000000000154dde058dbfca6a--
From: Melinda Green <melinda@superliminal.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 16:04:07 -0700
Subject: Re: [MC4D] New member introduction
--------------3E9A81DA5767A5F893DC81E7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Ty,
A good new puzzle to start with is the Pentagonal Duoprism {5}x{4} 3. It is=
almost identical to the 3^4 but with some pentagons in one dimension rathe=
r than squares. Your current skills will be almost enough to solve this one=
and the related puzzles. Once you solve that, you may like the {5}x{5} 3 w=
hich is one more dimension with pentagons. I find myself attracted to the s=
implicies {3,3,3} 3 and larger. They are easier in some ways, and eerily di=
fferent in others. If you find yourself proud of solving any new 4D puzzles=
, or if you find yourself stuck on any, please let us know.
Happy puzzling!
-Melinda
On 7/15/2019 3:29 PM, Ty Jones whotyjones@gmail.com [4D_Cubing] wrote:
>
>
> That sounds almost identical to my life story =F0=9F=98=82
>
> I've yet to tackle any of the other puzzles. Does anyone have suggestions=
for which ones are a good intro? I've been thinking I should try something=
new one of these days
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 3:31 PM marnix.lenoble@gmail.com oble@gmail.com> [4D_Cubing] <4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com hoogroups.com>> wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
>
> I am Marnix and I recently made the 4D hall of fame list. I was asked=
to write a little message on here. I am a software developer. Thirty years=
old.. In my free time I like reading about software related things, I play=
videogames, watch movies and tv-shows. Sometimes I read popularising scien=
ce books.
>
>
> I solved the regular rubik's cube about 10 years ago. It took me a mo=
nth and a week of on and off trying. I think it was around that time I foun=
d out about the 4D magic cube and it just seemed ridiculous. I remember ope=
ning the application and just going, yeah what the hell is this. I never re=
ally tried to solve it and knowing there were only dozens of people who sol=
ved it I thought it would be super hard. That is until the Mathologers vide=
o appeared in my feed with the title "Solving the 4D cube with simple 3D tr=
icks". I didn't watch the video but I decided to give it a try. It took me =
around 6 days so that's actually faster than the regular cube.
>
>
> My experience solving it was as follows: First I tried to get my head=
around what i was actually looking at. Figuring out that the sides were cu=
bes, were connected to 6 other sides, and realizing that the cubies were ac=
tually just stickers and not pieces. This was also when I realized there we=
re still 3 layers (I know that's obvious but it wasn't immediately obvious =
to me) and I decided to just use the three layer method to try and solve it=
.
>
>
> I made steady progress and solved the first two layers using the keyh=
ole tactic. After finishing that I had realized that moving a single piece =
from the unfinished layer to the finished layer wasn't as straightforward a=
s the regular cube because when you use the normal moves you end up moving =
3 pieces to the other layer instead of 1. So I worked on making a few macro=
's that can isolate hypercorners, corners, and edges. Knowing that if I fig=
ured out those then you can solve it like normal. Probably different than m=
ost but I solved the edges and hypercorners first and the corners last beca=
use that's how I taught myself to do the regular cube too (doing corners fi=
rst and edges last).
>
>
> I made a time lapse and put it on youtube https://youtu.be/m8T2tCJ6i0=
k=C2=A0it's not particularly interesting and it's 10 minutes long but it's =
there.
>
>
> I am probably going to try a higher dimension one next.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Marnix
>
>
>
>=20
--------------3E9A81DA5767A5F893DC81E7
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
">
Dear Ty,
A good new puzzle to start with is the Pentagonal Duoprism {5}x{4}
3. It is almost identical to the 3^4 but with some pentagons in one
dimension rather than squares. Your current skills will be almost
enough to solve this one and the related puzzles. Once you solve
that, you may like the {5}x{5} 3 which is one more dimension with
pentagons. I find myself attracted to the simplicies {3,3,3} 3 and
larger. They are easier in some ways, and eerily different in
others. If you find yourself proud of solving any new 4D puzzles, or
if you find yourself stuck on any, please let us know.
Happy puzzling!
-Melinda
cite=3D"mid:CAFv5D4SfqVnHg_8FU07jPiLk+QJjw_=3DfrMLF_VXzFYszObGSEw@mail.gmai=
l.com">
-8">
That sounds almost identical to my life story =F0=
=9F=98=82
I've yet to tackle any of the other puzzles.
Does anyone have suggestions for which ones are a good intro?
I've been thinking I should try something new one of these
days=C2=A0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
=C2=A0 Hello everyone,
I am Marnix and I recently made the 4D hall
of fame list. I was asked to write a little
message on here. I am a software developer. Thirty
years old.. In my free time I like reading about
software related things, I play videogames, watch
movies and tv-shows. Sometimes I read popularising
science books.
I solved the regular rubik's cube about 10
years ago. It took me a month and a week of on and
off trying. I think it was around that time I
found out about the 4D magic cube and it just
seemed ridiculous. I remember opening the
application and just going, yeah what the hell is
this. I never really tried to solve it and knowing
there were only dozens of people who solved it I
thought it would be super hard. That is until the
Mathologers video appeared in my feed with the
title "Solving the 4D cube with simple 3D tricks".
I didn't watch the video but I decided to give it
a try. It took me around 6 days so that's actually
faster than the regular cube.
My experience solving it was as follows:
First I tried to get my head around what i was
actually looking at. Figuring out that the sides
were cubes, were connected to 6 other sides, and
realizing that the cubies were actually just
stickers and not pieces. This was also when I
realized there were still 3 layers (I know that's
obvious but it wasn't immediately obvious to me)
and I decided to just use the three layer method
to try and solve it.
I made steady progress and solved the first two
layers using the keyhole tactic. After finishing
that I had realized that moving a single piece from
the unfinished layer to the finished layer wasn't as
straightforward as the regular cube because when you
use the normal moves you end up moving 3 pieces to
the other layer instead of 1. So I worked on making
a few macro's that can isolate hypercorners,
corners, and edges. Knowing that if I figured out
those then you can solve it like normal. Probably
different than most but I solved the edges and
hypercorners first and the corners last because
that's how I taught myself to do the regular cube
too (doing corners first and edges last).=C2=A0
I made a time lapse and put it on youtube=C2=A0 rel=3D"nofollow noreferrer"
href=3D"https://youtu.be/m8T2tCJ6i0k"
target=3D"_blank" moz-do-not-send=3D"true">https://yo=
utu.be/m8T2tCJ6i0k=C2=A0it's
not particularly interesting and it's 10 minutes
long but it's there.
I am probably going to try a higher dimension one
next.
Cheers,=C2=A0
Marnix
=20=20=20=20=20=20
--------------3E9A81DA5767A5F893DC81E7--