Message #1286

From: Melinda Green <melinda@superliminal.com>
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Re: 3^4 one 4C left to orient
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 11:17:50 -0800

Gosh, that brings back memories from the Paleolithic era. Did you see
the descriptions of the computers they were using? Truly frightening. I
remember seeing their visualization, and I doubt that they had any sort
of visualization beyond tables of numbers. Even if they had an
interactive version of the unfolded cube visualization, it doesn’t sound
like any fun to use. I vaguely remember thinking that there had to be
better visualizations and that may well have been the jumping off point
for the first version of MC4D. I’m long past guessing that solving the
puzzle with their system wouldn’t be possible but the paper doesn’t give
any indication that they even had the slightest interest in attempting
it. They just seemed interested in the math. Maybe once they had proved
that a solution was possible, they felt that they had accomplished it. :-)

-Melinda

On 12/8/2010 10:04 AM, Andrey wrote:
> It’s very interesting. How do you think, is there any chance that they haven’t solved full scrambled cube?
>
>
>
> — In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, "David Vanderschel"<DvdS@…> wrote:
>> Roice wrote:
>>> I’m chiming in a bit late here, but I thought I’d mention
>>> that David Smith based the portion of his argument for M120C
>>> corner orientations on material from a paper called "The
>>> Rubik Tesseract" by Kamack/Keane, and there you can find the
>>> proof you’re seeking for the hypercube puzzle.
>> It is of interest that that paper is 28 years old!
>> A reference closer to the source is the following:
>> http://udel.edu/~tomkeane/
>>
>> (Had Roice not offered a pointer to the Kamack and Keane
>> paper, I was going to do so myself.)
>>
>> Regards,
>> David V.
>>
>
>
>
> ————————————
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>