Message #1287

From: Andrey <andreyastrelin@yahoo.com>
Subject: [MC4D] Re: 3^4 one 4C left to orient
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 20:03:21 -0000

Yes, something like Sinclair. Probably with cassette tape for program storage and with 2-color graphics. I haven’t work with such computer, but spent couple of years playing with MSX-2 ("Yamaha"). I think that there shouldn’t be any problem to write 3^4 in assembler code at that time (thousand or two lines of code with text output and keyboard input) - and first version of 4D tetris had been written exactly in this style :)
And they mention "several computer simulations in which a Rubik tesseract can be scrambled and unscrambled"… Probably there were more solves before 2000 than we know. But they are hiding from us :)

— In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, Melinda Green <melinda@…> wrote:
>
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>