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
>
>
>