Message #3988
From: Ed Ussery <metamind@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Re: Notation
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 14:21:44 -0800
How are you doing, Roice?
I’ve taken a few preliminary looks at MC5D. I’m still familiarizing myself with it.
After having read some of the comments on the number of twists for certain
sequences (hundreds!), macros look like the way to go.
Thanks for your comments.
Hmmm…
It becomes a life issue. How deeply do I want to dive into the 3^5? I’m looking at different
views, examining the component penteracts/face tesseracts, reviewing my understanding of 5D geometry,
visualizing the twists, the colors, the pieces. Not to mention formulating the analogies to MC4D.
It is quite beautiful. Perhaps the singularity has happened.
Nice to know that I’m not too late in joining the club to contribute more knowledge
about the 3^4, as well as the 3^5.
What wonderful, consciousness-raising toys!
I’ll keep you posted.
Hyper-dimensionally,
Ed
—–Original Message—–
From: "Roice Nelson roice3@gmail.com [4D_Cubing]" <4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Jan 17, 2018 5:04 PM
To: "4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com" <4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Re: Notation
Hi Ed,
Thanks for your kind words :)
I’m not aware of anyone having solved the 3^5 without macros yet, so there is room for a new first there. It’s surely possible, though the puzzle is quite tedious even with macros! We used to have a separate 3^4 Hall of Fame category for the first no-macro solve but decided to remove it at some point… sort of pointless because macros are very accepted around here, part and parcel of solutions.
Some have taken automation further. As you mentioned, Don wrote a program to solve Rubik’s cubes in any dimension. We’ve also discussed leveraging computers for the shortest solve competition, but that hasn’t happened as far as I know, and so we haven’t been forced into the debate of whether computer-assisted solves count. Someone should force us :)
One thing I love about MC4D is that I never will fully grok it, and if I have the energy/interest, I can always pick out things I don’t know to investigate. Writing this now makes me think of one - I’m wondering what the center of the 3^4 group is. For the Rubik’s cube, it contains two elements: the identity and the superflip. Another question is God’s number for the 3^4, which we may never know.
The solve routines in MC4D and MC5D are a sneaky magic trick btw. They aren’t actually finding a proper solution like Don’s program, but simply running the scramble file in reverse. And regarding the singularity, I love a thought Melinda shared here once: maybe it has already happened and we just aren’t aware!
I’ll have to leave your questions about MC7D to the others to give a proper response (I haven’t solved with it), but I gather that some find it a simpler interface because more of the mess of the projection can be hidden away.
Keep us posted on your 3^5 solve!
Roice
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 10:08 PM, metamind@earthlink.net [4D_Cubing] <4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Roice,
Wow. I can’t think of a more sophisticated word with which to respond, so "Wow!" will have to do for the moment. I looked at your links. Thank you. I’m wondering how much automation I’ll want in my first MC5D solution. Noting that some solvers took…quite a few twists, I see the appeal. Congratulations on being the first person to solve the 3^5, by the way.
The romantic in me wants to solve the 3^5 with no macros, but the more I look around, the less likely that seems. Hmmm…what’s the etiquette in the community about incorporating macros? How much automation is permitted for a person to be able to take credit for a solution?
Of course, there are challenges in developing effective and compact macros, as well as in simply "eyeballing" one’s way through. I’m not really in a hurry to finish the penteract, but I don’t want to spend the rest of my life on it either. LOL. I still have a lot of questions on the tesseract, and find myself wondering just how much is actually known. Since people have written programs to solve the cube for any number of dimensions, one might assume that the phenomenon has been fully "grokked."
Then again, there is the beauty of the process…
When I run the solve routines on MC4D (and MC5D), I am humbled by the computer’s ability to generate solutions to highly complicated puzzles in such a short time. We’re still a good ways from the singularity, too!
Incidentally Roice, I’ve looked at your web presence, and find your creations rather enchanting. Admittedly, I’ve only scratched the surface. I’m a longtime fan of computer graphics and animation, and I fear that I’m susceptible to spending long sessions just gawking at your oeuvre.
I hope to get started on MC5D by the end of the week.
What’s the advantage, if any, of solving the 5D cube with MC7D? Is it clearer? Is the interface better developed? I can certainly see doing the hexeract with MC7D (why make another program?), but I don’t know what criteria to apply when deciding which app to use?
At some point, I’d like to solve a puzzle no one has managed to, and add that knowledge to the community.
Time to catch my breath.
Ed : )