Message #1075

From: Melinda Green <>
Subject: Re: [MC4D] 3^4 in 237 twists
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:32:22 -0700

Hello Klaus,

It is certainly a puzzle to figure out how best to treat this subject. I
don’t think that it is as simple as computer-assisted versus not because
all 4D solutions are computer-assisted to one degree or another. The
question will always be where to draw the line. I think that we will
always just need to make rulings based on how each technique feels to
us. In this case you seem to feel as if this sort of help is
over-the-line, and I suppose I agree. How do other people feel on this
one? Your idea of creating new record categories seems like a good one
though I can see a couple of problems with that. First is that it opens
up a wide gray area full of techniques that may or may not qualify, and
second is that I don’t personally really want to maintain a new set of
categories. If people think that new categories are a good idea, then
it’s fine with me that those records are self-maintained in the wiki.
Otherwise I guess I’d prefer to rule this one out of bounds. Thoughts?


Klaus Weidinger wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> the last two days I finally found enough time to finish my third solve
> of the 3^4. This time I broke Matthew’s record and managed to get down
> to 237 twists. However, I have to admit, that I would not have been
> able to do so without some help from CubeExplorer. The programme
> solved two 3^3s for me (17 and 18 twists). By the way: "my" parity
> occured again and this time I managed to solve it without help (but
> only because I knew, that it was able within 5 twists).
> Next weekend I will try to finish this solve again, but this time,
> without a computer. I hope that I will stay below 300 twists, but I
> don’t think I can get anywhere close to Matthew with this method
> without usage of a computer. Therefore I have to congratulate Matthew
> again on his astonishing solve.
> It would be really nice if you (Melinda) could add a new category to
> the hall of fame which says "Shortest solution with computer aid",
> because I really don’t want to "rob" Matthew’s record in this manner.
> I think this category might get really necessary in the future,
> because in 4D I expect god’s number to lie out of human range unlike
> in 3D. Therefore there should be two records. One for humans and one
> for computers.
> I have already sent the logfile to Melinda and will put it in my
> MC4D-wiki profile in the next few days.
> Happy Hypercubing,
> Klaus