# Message #747

From: Anthony Deschamps <anthony.j.deschamps@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: [MC4D] Re: Chronicles of a Rubik junkie’s experience with the {5}x{5}

Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:37:29 -0400

I can understand how important it is to solve the 2C pieces around the rings

first. When I did the {5}x{4}, I made quite a bit of progress before

realizing that doing them as I work my way around the pentagonal tori was a

bad idea. They’re so easy to solve as the first step though.

I doubt the even duoprisms would have as many parity problems. If you look

at the {5}x{4}, the 2C pieces around the pentagonal tori are easy to solve

(since there are 4 sides) while the others, since there are 5 of them,

require you to actually think.

–Anthony

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Roice Nelson <roice3@gmail.com> wrote:

>

>

> Because I like responding to myself…

>

>

> As an aside, it seemed I hit every possible parity problem along the

>> way, and it made me wonder if the statistical chances of this were higher

>> than on the 4^4. I also wonder if parity problems are more prevalent on odd

>> uniform duoprisms. The "{4}x{4} 3", aka the 4^3, certainly doesn’t do these

>> kinds of things. Would a {6}x{6}?

>>

>

> I wanted to be a little more clear on this. The issues I ran into with the

> 3C and 4C pieces did not require undoing previous work (I could find

> sequences to solve the pieces). So I am perhaps using the term "parity

> problem" too loosely, but what I meant is that when 2 or 3 pieces were left,

> their positions/orientations were in states that were very strange looking

> compared to the 4^3.

>

> On the 2C pieces, I think you can get yourself into more a genuine "parity

> problem" if you don’t solve the 2C pieces along the rings first. And by

> this I mean, you’d have to undo previous work to fix the issue…

>

> All the best,

> Roice

>

>

>