# Message #1003

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

Subject: Re: [MC4D] Sub-100K for 3^7

Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:06:31 -0400

I would say that solving MC5D makes you more than qualified to solve MC7D.

Understanding 4D is difficult, of course, but it’s close enough to 3D that

you can solve the puzzle without a really deep understanding of it. By the

time you finish MC5D, at least in my experience, you stop thinking of it in

a visual way and more so in a mathematical/conceptual way. From that point

on, it’s kind of like being able to solve a 5^3 and you know you’d be able

to solve a 9^3 if you sat down long enough to do it.

I’m in the middle of an MC7D solve, and to me, it’s very similar to the 5D,

since I use all the same theorems in order to solve it.

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 7:18 PM, deustfrr <deustfrr@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>

>

> Don’t push yourself! Learning a new 3D puzzle takes a while, but learning

> new 4D and 5D puzzles?

> solving MC5D doesn’t mean you can do MC7D? Darn. I wonder how you did it?

> (Magic!)

>

> — In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com <4D_Cubing%40yahoogroups.com>, "Andrey"

> <andreyastrelin@…> wrote:

>

> >And there are too many challenges ahead: 4^5, some 4D puzzles (like

> {3}x{3},4), maybe 120cell (but I’m not sure about it), implementation of

> 24cell and 5D simplex…

>

> > Andrey

>

>

>