Message #1749

From: Nan Ma <>
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Second solve of 3^7 !!!
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 18:34:35 -0700


I have a question:

Is collaboration possible?

I’m imagining the following way of collaboration. Suppose we have pure
3-cycle algorithms for type-A pieces and also pure 3-cycle algorithms for
type-B pieces. Suppose we have the log file for which only these two types
of pieces need to be solved. Now person-A and person-B get this log file and
work on type-A and type-B pieces respectively. When they are done, we may
identify the new moves in the new log files, and copy/paste them into a
single log file, which solves the puzzle.

I wonder if the format of the log file supports this proposal. Can we copy
and paste some part of log files to create a new legitimate log file?

If several people can work on the same puzzle at the same time in parallel
as a team, we may be able to solve more complicated puzzles.


On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Andrey <> wrote:

> Melinda,
> yes, it is the shallowest-cut 600-cell. But we always knew that it will be
> this fractioned, didn’t we? But I’m going to code the truncated 600-cell
> (not sure - with twisting of icosahedral cells or not). So we’ll cut off all
> this mess around corners, and the puzzle will be a little more acceptable.
> Andrey
> — In, Melinda Green <melinda@…> wrote:
> >
> > And just in time for him to be in the running for the first 600 cell
> > solve! :-)
> > I have ceased trying to judge what people will and will not do anymore,
> > but seriously, is anyone actually going to attempt this new one? I would
> > love to hear Charlie’s story of conquest. I’m very impressed that he was
> > able to place so many pieces is just a week.
> >
> > Regarding the 600 cell, is this level of slicing really the best for
> > this object? There sure are a lot of sliver stickers near the corners.
> > Also, there are so many that I think we’ll need a way to turn off the
> > face outlines because the screen can devolve into a huge mess towards
> > the middle. I’m getting about 1 frame per second, so it is not
> > unworkable in that regard.
> >
> > Deep congratulations to the both of you,
> > -Melinda
> >
> > On 5/26/2011 11:17 PM, Andrey wrote:
> > > Again, it’s a message from Charlie Mckiz. He says that solve took just
> one week (27 hours by times) and 300K twists. My solve was longer (by time)
> - 17 days (about 72 hours), but it was sub-100K :)
> >