Message #2773

From: Philip Strimpel <iamrubikman@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MC4D] FW: Magic Cube 7d SOLVED!!!!!
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 21:01:20 -0700

Hey Melinda,
I don’t know if you have already known this, but when I solved Roice’s Mc5d I did that whole puzzle without macros! :)
It really was a pretty big challenge to say the least. :} Actually understanding how the 3^5 cube rotated was SO hard to see that it actually took me a good month or more, because in Roice’s program things are not as near as straightforward as they are in Mc7d with 3^5. Then solving it took about a year! O.O I figure if I can solve a 3^5 hypercube without macros, then what’s 1 more dimension? :) It will probably take me a good 3 months, though. Maybe even more. It all depends if I am courageous enough to go to college or not this year…
As for a twisty puzzle program that you can rotate by screen swiping; that sounds awesome!! :D It’s one step closer to a physical 4d cube! Boy I wish a mech was easy enough to construct! :/ Maybe it is, but we just haven’t stumbled upon a solution… Yet. :)

  GOD bless, <br>    Philip Strimpel

——————————
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 12:50 AM EDT Melinda Green wrote:

>All of these monsters are almost unthinkable. I don’t want to affect
>your choices at all. That’s far too much responsibility. I feel more
>like a frozen witness to an impending train crash! I’m sure whatever you
>do will work out fine. These are just my emotions.
>
>Regarding piece-type visibility toggles, it seems to me like the sort of
>tool we should expect from all of these sorts of puzzles. I’m not
>talking to at any puzzle-makers other than myself. The next version of
>MC4D should be a full-featured implementation for Android tablets
>specifically. I’ve been giving it some thought and I think we can have a
>lot of fun on big multi-finger touch interfaces. Think of the ability to
>reach out and use physical gestures to twist and rotate.
>
>I want to ask "why no macros for such a huge puzzle?", but I think you
>already answered that, and deep down I understand anyway. In the same
>vane there is also the first 3^4 blindfold prize, and really for all of
>these puzzles. That’s another feature that should be standard.
>
>Best of luck whatever you do!
>-Melinda
>
>On 8/26/2013 8:26 PM, Philip Strimpel wrote:
>> Hi Melinda,
>> Well, I was tinkering around with the 120cell halfcut, and I have found two algorithms that seemed like they did something; then I realized later that other pieces had been moved around that I couldn’t see easily. The algs cycle 2 sets of 3 groups,
>> but I am really having a hard time turning them into even a 2 set 3 piece pure alg; when I really need to make them cycle only 3 pieces purely! :/ I believe that the hardest part will be recognizing whether or not any other pieces have moved through space when you attempt to invent algs. I’m really afraid that with the current parameters that it will be impossible to see what is really staying put and what is not. If only certain layers could be hidden like in Roice’s 120cell program. I think that for now it may be wisest to try to solve 3^6 first. That way I can focus all of my attention on this monster! Especially because it would be very easy to forget algs on this one… Well, wish me luck. This one will not be easy at all! O.o
>>
>> GOD bless,
>> Philip Strimpel
>>
>>
>> ——————————
>> On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 11:11 PM EDT Melinda Green wrote:
>>
>> Hello Philip,
>>
>> These really are beasts of puzzles. Just the idea of going up against
>> any of them is enough to make most people run. What happens when you
>> tell people about this activity? If I’m gentle enough I can get people
>> to accept the fact that the 4D cube is really not so terrible, but if I
>> also mention any of these other puzzles their eyes glaze over and they
>> start looking for exits. It’s really a shame that there is so much math
>> phobia around but I guess I understand it. I just think that you guys
>> should be as celebrated as mountain climbers and astronauts.
>>
>> Noel’s 120 Cell video only displayed something like every 10th twist and
>> it came out pretty good. I especially liked the slow auto-rotation
>> during the playback which gave it a very strong 3D effect. You can
>> probably just divide your twist count by the length you want your video
>> to be and the result will be fine. For the half-cut 120 Cell I really do
>> think we need to alert the press; someone really needs to document the
>> attempt. If you or anyone else knows any journalists, please let them
>> know about this opportunity.
>>
>> Good luck!!!
>> -Melinda
>>
>> On 8/25/2013 7:46 PM, Philip Strimpel wrote:
>>> Hello Melinda,
>>> Thank you very much for the congratulations and the compliments! E-)
>>> Yeah, this 3^7 hypercube was quite difficult at first for me to even see how one 6 dimensional hyperface even rotated! I spent a whole week devoting to learning every possible rotation of the hypercube faces and I actually began solving it before I finished Mht633 52 colored! I originally downloaded this beast to my computer as a joke, not really expecting myself to comprehend it. However, a few months after I solved Mht633 and after I was starting to get over the pain of my divorce was actually when the real work began. I had to keep changing perspectives probably at least 1000 or more times, because I needed to get the pieces into a lesser dimensional perspective… One that I could actually understand. I did full 3 layer rotations a lot because the pieces that were within the same block were deceptively far apart in distance and single 3 cycles were not enough to permute them. So I had to change paradigms so I could see where they REALLY
were
>> in
>>> relation with one another. Sometimes in order to move three pieces around that SEEMED close to one another it would take several algs combined to make one macro!
>>> It is DEFINATELY going to be a challenge to solve 3^6 without macros! But I definately would like to make a youtube video of my solve of it, so hopefully my solution will take less than 500,000 moves! Even then, it will be hard to make a video of it; but I will definately try! :D
>>> I think that I will also be working on the 120cell halfcut during my 3^6 solve, but I don’t really think that I can solve it as of now. There are so many parts moving through space that I find it hard to find any algs that are useful. Maybe I can solve it. I sure will try my hardest!!! :) Maybe I’ll have it solved within a year or two! :P
>>>
>>> GOD bless,
>>> Philip Strimpel
>>>
>>> ——————————
>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 5:17 AM EDT Melinda Green wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Philip,
>>>
>>> I’m sorry for your unhappy break-up and happy for your rare achievement. You won’t see *me* attempting anything like 7D puzzles! It’s certainly huge though I would like to know more about its complexity you mentioned. And now attempting a 3^6 without
>
>>> s? You have an impressive tolerance for a certain sort of pain. When you’re finished you might consider making a YouTube video of the playback like Noel Chalmers did with his 120 Cell solution <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4bkU3nC1Jw>.
>>>
>>> Congratulations and good luck!!!
>>> -Melinda
>>>
>>> On 8/22/2013 8:59 PM, Philip Strimpel wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> First off, I apologize as I know that I haven’t been on here in a while. I just went through a sad divorce with my wife of almost 4 years, so I’ve been too depressed to write anything; but I am now back with exciting news! I am now #5 in the world to solve Magic Cube 7d! :D Boy, this has DEFINATELY been the most complex twisty puzzle that I have ever solved! o.o However, you can only view the last 300,000 moves. For some strange reason the program stops one you get down to the 991,771st move! :/ Now I think that I will attempt to solve 3^6 cube WITHOUT macros, ‘gulp’, so everybody can actually view the log file without lag or bugs! Wish me luck!
>>> GOD Bless,
>>> Philip Strimpel
>>
>>
>
>