Message #247

From: Don Hatch <hatch@plunk.org>
Subject: Re: [MC4D] MC5D solution posted
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 14:02:10 -0700

Hey Roice,

Good job :-)

Any surprises?
What did your macros look like?

Here are some average solution lengths
given by my solve program on a 100-twist scramble…
this might give some idea of the relative difficulty of the 3^6.
Each new dimension seems to multiply the solution length
by roughly 6 (using this program’s algorithm, it may be different
for other algorithms).

3&#94;3&#58;     251<br>
3&#94;4&#58;    1738<br>
3&#94;5&#58;   10108<br>
3&#94;6&#58;   60896<br>
3&#94;7&#58;  360000<br>
3&#94;8&#58; crashes my java VM

However, the ideas are recursive–
so, assuming you can make macros out of other macros,
I bet the 3^6 would really not be significantly
harder than the 3^5, once you get the user interface going :-)
I don’t think there are any conceptual surprises after 5 dimensions.

Don

On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 02:38:09AM -0500, Roice Nelson wrote:
> Hey guys. I finished my MC5D solution tonight and went ahead and
> posted it. It ended up taking a little over 6000 moves, so it takes
> forever to play back. But it is kind of fun to play with the
> projection parameters while it is doing so :)

–
Don Hatch
hatch@plunk.org
http://www.plunk.org/~hatch/