Thanks Melinda!

I'm still not very good at wikis, but I managed to cobble something together
after a lot of effort.  If anyone spots any amateur mistakes I made, feel free
to let me know so I can learn from it :)

Happy polytoping

Matt

--- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, Melinda Green <melinda@...> wrote:
>
> Matthew James Sheerin wrote:
> > Hi Melinda
> >
> >
> >
> > The wiki may work well for the more programming inclined, but when I tried
to add my record I was baffled about what I actually had to do!
> > Sorry for the bother
>
> No bother at all, Matthew. I hope you'll forgive me for replying to the
> whole group because I'm sure other people can use this information, and
> others can correct me if I get anything wrong.
>
> Wiki editing is the same everywhere, so even though this will seem kind
> of complicated, you'll get used to it quickly and it will let you make
> corrections to Wikipedia and other wiki's. You simply use the "Edit" tab
> of the page you want to change (or the "edit" link of just one section).
> You need to use the particular Wiki's mark-up notation, but I think that
> links are universally implemented by bracketing the link text with
> double square braces [[like this]]. When you save the page, that text
> will appear as a red link, meaning that there's no page there yet. You
> then simply click the link and edit the empty page to make it real.
> Basically, you start with the end result you want and work backwards to
> fill in the details. Mostly, people just follow the formatting patterns
> they see when editing pages, but when stuck, see the documentation on
> the entire syntax for the particular wiki we're using here:
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Formatting.
>
> To add your record, first edit the table on the records page and add
> your data to the appropriate row if it already exists. If it doesn't,
> then add the row. In both cases, just carefully follow the pattern of
> the other rows. IMPORTANT: hit the "Preview" button often to see the
> effect of your changes, and just hit "Submit" once it all looks correct.
>
> Now, you need to create your user page to hold your log files. If that
> page doesn't exist, then maybe you should do this in two steps. First
> make your link to be simply your user page. In my case it's
> [[User:Cutelyaware]]. Next, click it and add some personal data at the
> top, and then add a named section containing your solution below that.
> Just look at other people's pages and click "Edit" to see the format
> they used. The "div" lines create named sections that can be linked to.
> Once you've created one containing your log file, go back to the records
> page and change your link to point to the exact section. For example, my
> first record link looks like this:
>        [[User:Cutelyaware#333-2-1|Melinda Green]]
> This is just a fancy way to say that the link should point to the
> 333-2-1 section of my User:Cutelyaware page, and that the link text
> should simply say "Melinda Green" since I don't want the link to show my
> user name and section. Other solutions of mine display the same text but
> point to different sections on my page.
>
> The last thing you should consider doing is to click the puzzle name in
> the first column and add your solution info to the solution history for
> that puzzle. This part is optional but highly encouraged.
>
> That's it. Now if someone wants to add some of the above to a wiki help
> page, that'd be wonderful.  ;-)
>
> > PS. When I finished the solve it didn't show a message on-screen as
expected, any ideas as to why this is?
>
> Eek! I've seen false positive notices of full solves, but never a
> failure to notice a real one. Has anyone else seen this too? One
> possibility is that you didn't perform a full scramble before solving. 8
> random twists on small puzzles scramble them pretty well but officially,
> the scrambles need to begin with Scramble > Full for solutions to be
> valid. Did it beep when you finished your solve? If so, this is probably
> what happened, or at least what the program *thought* happened. Send me
> your log file and I'll see if I can learn more.
>
> Good luck!
> -Melinda
>

Matthew James Sheerin wrote:
> Hi Melinda
>
>
>
> The wiki may work well for the more programming inclined, but when I tried to
add my record I was baffled about what I actually had to do!
> Sorry for the bother

No bother at all, Matthew. I hope you'll forgive me for replying to the
whole group because I'm sure other people can use this information, and
others can correct me if I get anything wrong.

Wiki editing is the same everywhere, so even though this will seem kind
of complicated, you'll get used to it quickly and it will let you make
corrections to Wikipedia and other wiki's. You simply use the "Edit" tab
of the page you want to change (or the "edit" link of just one section).
You need to use the particular Wiki's mark-up notation, but I think that
links are universally implemented by bracketing the link text with
double square braces [[like this]]. When you save the page, that text
will appear as a red link, meaning that there's no page there yet. You
then simply click the link and edit the empty page to make it real.
Basically, you start with the end result you want and work backwards to
fill in the details. Mostly, people just follow the formatting patterns
they see when editing pages, but when stuck, see the documentation on
the entire syntax for the particular wiki we're using here:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Formatting.

To add your record, first edit the table on the records page and add
your data to the appropriate row if it already exists. If it doesn't,
then add the row. In both cases, just carefully follow the pattern of
the other rows. IMPORTANT: hit the "Preview" button often to see the
effect of your changes, and just hit "Submit" once it all looks correct.

Now, you need to create your user page to hold your log files. If that
page doesn't exist, then maybe you should do this in two steps. First
make your link to be simply your user page. In my case it's
[[User:Cutelyaware]]. Next, click it and add some personal data at the
top, and then add a named section containing your solution below that.
Just look at other people's pages and click "Edit" to see the format
they used. The "div" lines create named sections that can be linked to.
Once you've created one containing your log file, go back to the records
page and change your link to point to the exact section. For example, my
first record link looks like this:
        [[User:Cutelyaware#333-2-1|Melinda Green]]
This is just a fancy way to say that the link should point to the
333-2-1 section of my User:Cutelyaware page, and that the link text
should simply say "Melinda Green" since I don't want the link to show my
user name and section. Other solutions of mine display the same text but
point to different sections on my page.

The last thing you should consider doing is to click the puzzle name in
the first column and add your solution info to the solution history for
that puzzle. This part is optional but highly encouraged.

That's it. Now if someone wants to add some of the above to a wiki help
page, that'd be wonderful.  ;-)

> PS. When I finished the solve it didn't show a message on-screen as expected,
any ideas as to why this is?

Eek! I've seen false positive notices of full solves, but never a
failure to notice a real one. Has anyone else seen this too? One
possibility is that you didn't perform a full scramble before solving. 8
random twists on small puzzles scramble them pretty well but officially,
the scrambles need to begin with Scramble > Full for solutions to be
valid. Did it beep when you finished your solve? If so, this is probably
what happened, or at least what the program *thought* happened. Send me
your log file and I'll see if I can learn more.

Good luck!
-Melinda

1. It appears well formatted in your favorite browsers
2. The text makes sense and has no typos
3. You can download the new puzzle via the form button
4. The resulting download appears to run correctly

Hi everyone!

I finally finished my second solve today and I needed 386 twists. Of course I
also have to thank Matthew for helping me with some parity cases. Especially the
second one was really helpful.

But I have to say that the closer I come to Roice's record, the more I have to
acknowledge what a good job he has done. And if I compare my solves I think it
will really be hard to cut away another 88 twists. Well, of course there was a
parity which used up 22 twists and if I'm lucky I won't encouter this in my next
solve. But the rest of this 88 twists will almost be impossible to cut away with
just solving even more carefully.

So here is a little comparison of my two solves:
1. step: I really made improvements here and managed to go from 323 twists down
to 76 or, with disregard to the parity, 54. That is a reduction of 76.5% (83.3%)
and I'm really content with this step. I don't think I can make any further
improvements here.

2. step: Here I needed 306 twists in my first solve and reduce it to 181 twists
(-40.8%). But I didn't improve my system. I just did this step really bad in my
first solve because I only wanted to finish the 3^4 fast. But I think if I want
to beat the 300 twists, I have to change my system here.

[ ;-) While writing this post I had an idea how to change my system. If it gets
more efficient by this - or at least efficient enough - I can't tell, but I do
have a really good feeling about this. ;-) ]

3. step: This step is the same as solving the 3^3, just with two little parities
which both need about 5 twists to get them done. In this step I made the fewest
improvements and so I only got down from 146 to 129 twists (-11.6%). However, I
can't really improve here either because if I only count the twists I needed for
the solution of the 3^3 I used up 70 quarter twists, however I had many half
turns in there, so it perhaps was about 50-55 twists in half turn metric, which
is really good with my system.

I think I will start another solve tomorrow, but this could take even longer
than my second one, because, despite the fact that I reduce twists, the solution
proceeds slower and I get less and less time due to school.

btw: I broke Remi's record on the {3}x{3} 2. I only needed 5 turns within my 5th
try (I solved roughly 5 out of 10 scrambled "cubes"). However, I don't think he
will wait long to start pressing "Ctrl + F" all over again as he did with the
simplex last time ;-)

Have a nice twist,
Klaus

Brandon Enright wrote:
>> n-jdk-1.6.0.17 on Linux amd64/x86_64
>>
>> I'm pretty adept with GDB and troubleshooting compiled applications
>> but I don't know enough about Java to be useful.  If you can give me
>> the steps to force Java to print a stack trace when it is hung I'd be
>> happy to do so. I'm also up for running a special build if you have
>> some patches in mind. I may need my hand held through the build phase
>> though.
>>
>
> I ended up figuring out how to take a stacktrace (jstack -l <pid>).  It
> looks like it could be a deadlock.  Almost all of the threads are
> waiting on various locks.
>
> Rather than clutter the list, I have put the stacktrace here:
>
> http://noh.ucsd.edu/~bmenrigh/jstack_mc4d_4_0.txt
>
> This was taken with the application hung after pressing ^F
Hey, that's cool. Thanks for looking into this, Brandon; that's a very
helpful tool! I don't know what all the SyntheticImageGenerator threads
are doing, but the most important thread is always the AWT EventQueue
thread in which all the application UI work happens (or should happen!)
It's especially great to have someone actively testing on Linux. Now if
only we could find a similarly motivated Mac user, we'd have the bases
covered.

As you now know, you weren't using the latest build (r164). That's
entirely my fault because I uploaded and deleted several versions today
as I rapidly found problems, fixed them, and created more problems. At
this point I seem to have repaired the worst of them. There are still
some annoying jumping around of the panels when you rebuild puzzles, but
everything *appears* to be functionally solid to me. Please retest as
much as you have patience for and let us know how it goes. With a bit of
luck tomorrow could be the day!

Thanks again,
-Melinda

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 02:20:20 +0000
Brandon Enright <bmenrigh@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Melinda,
>
[...snip...]
> I'm running sun-jdk-1.6.0.17 on Linux amd64/x86_64
>
> I'm pretty adept with GDB and troubleshooting compiled applications
> but I don't know enough about Java to be useful.  If you can give me
> the steps to force Java to print a stack trace when it is hung I'd be
> happy to do so. I'm also up for running a special build if you have
> some patches in mind. I may need my hand held through the build phase
> though.

I ended up figuring out how to take a stacktrace (jstack -l <pid>).  It
looks like it could be a deadlock.  Almost all of the threads are
waiting on various locks.

Rather than clutter the list, I have put the stacktrace here:

http://noh.ucsd.edu/~bmenrigh/jstack_mc4d_4_0.txt

This was taken with the application hung after pressing ^F

Brandon

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAksCEjoACgkQqaGPzAsl94JyhACgmHhy0RkM8YjJZG6Wq7JYrpFZ
98QAn12Yk7spFH6VMTfDyu8vpKMyJOZ8
=3cAA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:09:12 -0800
Melinda Green <melinda@...> wrote:

> Dear Cubists,
>
> Because of the testing that you've done on the 4th beta build, I
> think we're good to go. At the same time, we couldn't resist making a
> couple of last minute improvements. Specifically, we've implemented
> the popular suggestion of storing the mc4d.props file in the same
> folder as the jar file
> (http://code.google.com/p/magiccube4d/issues/detail?id=70), and we
> also made puzzle resets and full scrambles faster. I've installed the
> new jar file in the downloads section as usual. We don't need any
> serious testing of this build but would definitely appreciate it if
> some of you would test both the property file thing and puzzle
> resetting and scrambling. Unless anyone discovers problems with this
> build, I intend to make it the first public 4.0 tomorrow.
>
> Thanks for all of your help and suggestions!
> -Melinda


Hi Melinda,

Normally I'd file a bug report on via the Google project but since
you're so close to a release I thought this would be a more timely
place.  If you'd prefer these to stay in the bug tracker rather than on
list let me know.

When I first executed 4.0 today the process hung and I did not get an
interface.  After a ^C and a second execution it was fine.  I tried
reproducing the problem but was unable to.  I suspect it had to do with
the creation of the mc4d.props file but I tried with and without the
file and was not able to reproduce the issue.

Now, actually using the interface (3^4 hypercube), the first time I
chose Scramble->Full the interface froze and was non-responsive.  Java
was not using any CPU though so it wasn't stuck in a busy loop.

This doesn't happen every time I run the program.  Sometimes I run it
and I can scramble like 30 times in a row.  Other times I open the
program it hangs on the first or second scramble.  In fact, I haven't
yet had it hang in a case where it didn't hang on the five or so
scrambles.  Put another way, if I can scramble it 5 times without error,
it seems I can scramble it an unlimited number of times.  It generally
hangs on the 2nd scramble rather than the first.

I should point out that when it hangs, the Scramble menu stays open and
the "Full" option stays highlighted.  I can also reproduce this by
choosing a 1 or 2 move scramble rather than a full scramble.  It may
not be menu code though because It also will hang via ^F

I'm running sun-jdk-1.6.0.17 on Linux amd64/x86_64

I'm pretty adept with GDB and troubleshooting compiled applications but
I don't know enough about Java to be useful.  If you can give me the
steps to force Java to print a stack trace when it is hung I'd be happy
to do so. I'm also up for running a special build if you have some
patches in mind. I may need my hand held through the build phase though.

Regards,

Brandon

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAksCCG4ACgkQqaGPzAsl94LR+ACfcx2na6UeM1wXPsnIMxPX5va6
71MAoKv61C0FmmpT38+g65B7Txxrmg4x
=1E6G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Remi,

Thank you so much for the bug report.

I did check and found that the problem you're seeing is not due to
scramble commands queuing up. I suspect the problem is actually that the
scrambling is so fast that the graphics system can't keep up. Holding
the Ctrl-F will hang the display depending upon how long you hold it,
but it seem to always come back to normal eventually. I currently don't
see a good way to keep that from happening, so until then I suppose the
best workaround is to simply not do that.  ;-)

While I've not fixed that problem, I did discover that an important
related problem was making a mess of the log files. I've fixed that one,
uploaded the fixed version and deleted the previous one (162).

Thanks again!
-Melinda

thesamer@... wrote:
> Thank you Melinda for time spend on mc4D.props!
>
> Unfortunately I've found a bug:
>
> If you hold Ctr+F (full scramble) for few seconds the whole program is
> blocked (java process is getting 50% on CPU and you can't do anything)
> on small and bigger cubes.
>
> I think it's due to not finishing scrambling process and getting command
> to scramble it again.
>
> In previous version I could get faster scrambles on small cubes -
> simplex-2 (in one second I could change at least 3 scrambles so if I
> push Ctr+F I saw constant change of scrambles; now it's impossible)
>
> (Scrambling of bigger cubes is now really faster). Solution to that
> problem could be (in worst scenario) disable shortcut Ctr+F
>
> Parameters of my laptop: Windows7Ultimate, Lenovo g530, Intel Pentium
> Dual Core 2,16 GHz, new java installed
>
> Remi
>
>
>
>
> Melinda Green pisze:
>
>> Dear Cubists,
>>
>> Because of the testing that you've done on the 4th beta build, I think
>> we're good to go. At the same time, we couldn't resist making a couple
>> of last minute improvements. Specifically, we've implemented the popular
>> suggestion of storing the mc4d.props file in the same folder as the jar
>> file (http://code.google.com/p/magiccube4d/issues/detail?id=70
>> <http://code.google.com/p/magiccube4d/issues/detail?id=70>), and we
>> also made puzzle resets and full scrambles faster. I've installed the
>> new jar file in the downloads section as usual. We don't need any
>> serious testing of this build but would definitely appreciate it if some
>> of you would test both the property file thing and puzzle resetting and
>> scrambling. Unless anyone discovers problems with this build, I intend
>> to make it the first public 4.0 tomorrow.
>>
>> Thanks for all of your help and suggestions!
>> -Melinda
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yoskine i Anna Maria Jopek zapraszaja do konkursu
> Wygraj 3 luksusowe weekendy w SPA lub 10 zestawow kosmetykow od Yoskine
> Sprawdz >> http://link.interia.pl/f2438
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Thank you Melinda for time spend on mc4D.props!

Unfortunately I've found a bug:

If you hold Ctr+F (full scramble) for few seconds the whole program is
blocked (java process is getting 50% on CPU and you can't do anything)
on small and bigger cubes.

I think it's due to not finishing scrambling process and getting command
to scramble it again.

In previous version I could get faster scrambles on small cubes -
simplex-2 (in one second I could change at least 3 scrambles so if I
push Ctr+F I saw constant change of scrambles; now it's impossible)

(Scrambling of bigger cubes is now really faster). Solution to that
problem could be (in worst scenario) disable shortcut Ctr+F

Parameters of my laptop: Windows7Ultimate, Lenovo g530, Intel Pentium
Dual Core 2,16 GHz, new java installed

Remi




Melinda Green pisze:
>
> Dear Cubists,
>
> Because of the testing that you've done on the 4th beta build, I think
> we're good to go. At the same time, we couldn't resist making a couple
> of last minute improvements. Specifically, we've implemented the popular
> suggestion of storing the mc4d.props file in the same folder as the jar
> file (http://code.google.com/p/magiccube4d/issues/detail?id=70
> <http://code.google.com/p/magiccube4d/issues/detail?id=70>), and we
> also made puzzle resets and full scrambles faster. I've installed the
> new jar file in the downloads section as usual. We don't need any
> serious testing of this build but would definitely appreciate it if some
> of you would test both the property file thing and puzzle resetting and
> scrambling. Unless anyone discovers problems with this build, I intend
> to make it the first public 4.0 tomorrow.
>
> Thanks for all of your help and suggestions!
> -Melinda
>
>


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yoskine i Anna Maria Jopek zapraszaja do konkursu
Wygraj 3 luksusowe weekendy w SPA lub 10 zestawow kosmetykow od Yoskine
Sprawdz >> http://link.interia.pl/f2438

Hey all!  I'm pleased to introduce myself to such a small group of
smart and dedicated people.  My name is Brandon Enright, I'm 25 and
have been playing with a Rubik's cube of some form now for nearly 8
years.  I have known about MC4D for a long time now (before the
Slashdot article!) but until recently I was too scared to make an
attempt.

Well, last week I decided to use Roice's really excellent solving
guide (THANK YOU Roice!) as a basis for my own 3^4 attempt.  It took
me about 10 hours and *way* too many twists (4106) but I succeeded in
solving the hypercube :-)  It was great fun and now I'm disappointed
that I didn't solve it years ago.

Solving the 3^4 was great fun and I really appreciate all the hard work
Don, Jay, Melinda, Roice, and others have put into this software.  I
own a lot of twisty puzzles but I think solving the hypercube was the
most enjoyable solve of any twisty puzzle I have done.

I was going to send an introduction a few days ago but I got busy at
work and then I got busier thinking about how I would go about solving
the 4^4.  After about 9 hours of work hypercubing today, I'm excited to
say I have successfully solved the 4^4 too via reduction.  I was
quite worried about this solve before I started because I thought there
was a good chance I would run into some strange parity I have never seen
before and I'd either not recognize it or not know how to solve it.  I
did run into a position parity between two groups of 2c face pieces but
it was trivial to adapt a 4^3 parity algorithm to the 4^4.  My solution
took 5246 moves but again, I was pretty wasteful in my solving,
especially durring pairing of 3c edge pieces to make 3c edge groups.

I'm now thinking about how I would go about solving the 5^4.  My only
concern right now is the 1c centers are likely to be much harder than
they were on the 4^4.

I have some technical questions about the turning mechanics simulated
in MC4D but I'm still reading the archives and doing research.  I'll
probably ask a few questions in the coming weeks.

In looking through the MC4D Hall of Fame, I can't believe Matt went
from solving the 3^4, 4^4, and 5^4 to solving the the 7^5 all in less
than a year. Congratulations Matt, you truly are insane :-).  And
thanks again to everybody else here that has conceived of, programmed,
and solved so many great puzzles.  Your effort and dedication is what
has allowed me to also enjoy these great puzzles.

Brandon

Dear Cubists,

Because of the testing that you've done on the 4th beta build, I think
we're good to go. At the same time, we couldn't resist making a couple
of last minute improvements. Specifically, we've implemented the popular
suggestion of storing the mc4d.props file in the same folder as the jar
file (http://code.google.com/p/magiccube4d/issues/detail?id=70), and we
also made puzzle resets and full scrambles faster. I've installed the
new jar file in the downloads section as usual. We don't need any
serious testing of this build but would definitely appreciate it if some
of you would test both the property file thing and puzzle resetting and
scrambling. Unless anyone discovers problems with this build, I intend
to make it the first public 4.0 tomorrow.

Thanks for all of your help and suggestions!
-Melinda

I have a surprisingly short solution, but I just got a surprise early birthday
present, the laptop I am using just now! :)  It's my 18th on tuesday :D

As such I don't have MC4D and I'm busy just now anyway, I have uni stuff to do.

On a side note, that makes me currently the same age I believe (17 until
Tuesday) and nationality as Breandan Vallance, the current world champion at
3x3.  I guess this is the year for Scottish cubers to make themselves known :)

The solution will be on its way soon though, and good luck with future
iterations on the 3^4

@everyone who has replied to my post: Thanks for the great replies :)

Matt

Hello,

Matthew:

we are not insane but if one plays with puzzles having way more
configurations that atoms in the Universe (10^80) is not normal either.
:-) Something terribly went wrong with evolution if people can do that
(remembering that it was all about survival in 3D bushes :)

Result under 300 000 on such monster is truly unquestionably amazingly
efficient! Huge congratulations and respect, Matthew! Coming from
highlands of 5D surely will give you huge boost in 4D. I remember
looking on 2^4 after solving 5^4 and it seemed, as Melinda mentioned,
that I could solve this with my eyes closed. New program offers new
spectrum of moves on 2^4 so good luck with new record. I think it is now
possible to get sub60 twists (or even 50 twists if one is lucky). But I
really recommend new puzzles: 4D pyramid, prisms, ect. There is still
plenty records to gain for everybody :-)

Klauss:
- it is not what you wanted but still it can be helpful to construct
solution to your problem:
-------------------------------------
MagicCube4D 3 0 6 {4,3,3} 3
0.036994469250059066 -0.07538850022451551 -0.23668017109024864
-0.9679516929534734
0.07714795153098913 0.7788631783066837 0.5888457470532142
-0.20169538723016242
-0.7741212066013144 0.4349869098281526 -0.4573655612014547
0.04836826640637566
-0.6272287942287117 -0.4455054565210889 0.6229445611103055
-0.14159449736279095
*
131,-1,2 160,-1,1 160,-1,1 131,1,2 160,1,1 160,1,1.
--------------------------------------
Good luck with another try on 3^4 (I've broke Roice previous record
after third serious try (starting from circa 500, going to 400 something
and making 333 at the end with huge amount of effort), so you are on
good way and everything before you). Cutting another hundred twists from
solution will make you REALLY appreciate Roice solution, because no
matter what you do it seem that there is nothing to cut from solution
and still you are so far.

Roice, I always wonder why you won't try 2^4 and other shortest
(especially now when there is plenty "smaller" puzzles)? :-)


Best,
Remi


matthewsheerin pisze:
>
> Hey guys,
> If you thought Levi was insane solving the 6^5, I wonder what you will
> think of me having just finished the 7^5. That's right, for some
> reason I started it near the end of May this year, and finished
> yesterday yesterday on Friday 13th. I think Levi certainly wins on
> speed, maybe partially because I never managed to average even close
> to 6 hours a day, but I took 293280 twists as opposed to his >1.9
> million. And luckily I'm not superstitious or I would have had to have
> waited another day to finish it! So at last, the highest peak has been
> conquered.
>
> In his reply to my log file, Roice asked about my mood throughout the
> solve. Upon scrambling my first impression was, understandably, fear.
> Several times during the solve when I was faced with a new section of
> randomly distributed blobs across the screen the view was terrifying.
> Sometimes it just became a little tedious (13672 moveable pieces can
> have that effect). But now and then it was rather fun and interesting
> when I had to think myself out of a new and mind-bending predicament.
> I had a bit of a scare near the end of solving the 3C pieces, when I
> seemed to have 1 piece left which had 2 stickers swapped, which I
> didn't think could be solved on its own. Thankfully I managed to find
> another of the same type of piece which wasn't solved correctly
> earlier in the step and I could solve both simultaneously.
>
> He also asked how the program might be changed to help with the solve.
> I have to say that, for the most part, I found the software to be
> really useful, but there are a few things which were troublesome. One
> of the main problems was with the piece finding capability. While it
> is staggeringly useful for solving, it distinguishes pieces only by
> colour, and no further distinction is made between various types of
> pieces with the same colour combination. This isn't a problem with the
> 3^5 as every piece has a unique combination, but where the larger
> cubes are concerned it can make things a little difficult. For the 1C
> pieces (maybe I should mention that my method was reduction, unlike
> Levi using cage), I could work around this problem. I used the
> capability to choose face colours to make the face I was working on
> yellow, solved faces white, and everything else grey, combined with
> only showing 1C pieces. Rather than having a mass of 625 pieces strewn
> across the screen (I have an interesting screenshot of this, its
> stunning and also pretty damn scary, I can upload it if anyone is
> curious) I could only see pieces I needed in the faces i was looking
> at. However, this wouldn't work for the other pieces, and this was
> particularly annoying for the 2C pieces due to number (250 pieces
> visible is not very useful).
>
> Another problem was (for me, I don't know if everyone has this
> problem) a glitchy macros feature. It worked fine usually and was
> invaluable, but had one predictable glitch, and one bizarre one, which
> I will leave as an open problem for the community to try and figure
> out. First, I had to close the program shortly after recording a macro
> I intended for long-term use, otherwise it would disappear. The second
> had a long story. When recording macros for matching up 4C pieces I
> used a commutator withing a commutator (I think it was actually 3
> comms.) So I used a macro which affected only 4C pieces (X), moved a
> few things around (Y), then the usual X'Y', only to find it affected
> 3C pieces too. I changed the macro which affected only the 4C pieces
> to one which had the EXACT same effect, and it worked perfectly. Does
> anyone know what's going on here? I'm sure I tried the first several
> times with the same effect.
>
> Now that I've finished solving Everest (I actually named the folder
> with my log file 'everest'), I can sit back and enjoy the weird and
> wonderful new puzzles in 4D, which you now know why I didn't have
> enough time to play with before! They look like a lot of fun :)
>
> Since I seem to have written a short novel here, I guess I should
> finish up. I would like to say a huge thank you to those involved in
> programming all these puzzles, and making them freely available to
> everyone. Melinda, Don, Roice and Jay (I think that's everyone,
> apologies for anyone left out), you are amazing people for bringing
> these to life. They have given me, and many others, hours upon hours
> of enjoyment and I'm sure we all appreciate the effort you have all
> put in on our behalf. You have also rendered my usual sign-off line
> 'happy hypercubing' useless in the best way possible by making
> hyper-non-cubes available.
>
> Happy polytoping everyone ;)
> Matt
>
> P.S. Hi Klaus, as last time I will have a look at your parity problem
> and see if I can help any, but it will wait until morning :) Also well
> done to Remi for staying true to form and beating my 2^4 record by 1
> move exactly. Good work!
>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wst±p do Klubu Gracza, wygraj telefon!
Sprawdz >>> http://link.interia.pl/f243a

Well done, Matt!!

Thanks for the great story. Length is not a problem as it's easy enough
for anyone to delete messages they're not interested in. Besides,
something tells me that nobody deleted yours before reading it in it's
entirety. Most of us know that we're never going to tackle a puzzle that
challenging, but we can all appreciate what it requires, and so it's
great to be able to live it through you in a tiny way. Thank you for
sharing the story.

I found it interesting to hear you switch from talking about the 7^5 to
the 2^4. Their scales are so extremely different that I can only imagine
that at this point the 2^4 must look like a toy. I half expect you to be
able to simply look at a scrambled 2^4 and to *see* the shortest path to
its solution!

I hope that you will enjoy solving some of the beautiful new puzzles
that Don has given us. I hope to see your name all over the records
page. In fact I'm going to propose that we create one special
meta-record for the person who currently holds the most records!  Right
now that prize goes to Remi. Let's see how long he can hold it! :-)

Congratulations again on your amazing accomplishment, Matt. I don't know
if I'm more impressed or horrified that someone would actually do this,
but I think I'll just sit quietly in amazement and enjoy the fact that
this shining peak has been summited.

-Melinda

Hey guys,
          If you thought Levi was insane solving the 6^5, I wonder what you will
think of me having just finished the 7^5.  That's right, for some reason I
started it near the end of May this year, and finished yesterday yesterday on
Friday 13th.  I think Levi certainly wins on speed, maybe partially because I
never managed to average even close to 6 hours a day, but I took 293280 twists
as opposed to his >1.9 million.  And luckily I'm not superstitious or I would
have had to have waited another day to finish it!  So at last, the highest peak
has been conquered.

In his reply to my log file, Roice asked about my mood throughout the solve. 
Upon scrambling my first impression was, understandably, fear.  Several times
during the solve when I was faced with a new section of randomly distributed
blobs across the screen the view was terrifying.  Sometimes it just became a
little tedious (13672 moveable pieces can have that effect).  But now and then
it was rather fun and interesting when I had to think myself out of a new and
mind-bending predicament.  I had a bit of a scare near the end of solving the 3C
pieces, when I seemed to have 1 piece left which had 2 stickers swapped, which I
didn't think could be solved on its own.  Thankfully I managed to find another
of the same type of piece which wasn't solved correctly earlier in the step and
I could solve both simultaneously.

He also asked how the program might be changed to help with the solve.  I have
to say that, for the most part, I found the software to be really useful, but
there are a few things which were troublesome.  One of the main problems was
with the piece finding capability.  While it is staggeringly useful for solving,
it distinguishes pieces only by colour, and no further distinction is made
between various types of pieces with the same colour combination.  This isn't a
problem with the 3^5 as every piece has a unique combination, but where the
larger cubes are concerned it can make things a little difficult.  For the 1C
pieces (maybe I should mention that my method was reduction, unlike Levi using
cage), I could work around this problem.  I used the capability to choose face
colours to make the face I was working on yellow, solved faces white, and
everything else grey, combined with only showing 1C pieces.  Rather than having
a mass of 625 pieces strewn across the screen (I have an interesting screenshot
of this, its stunning and also pretty damn scary, I can upload it if anyone is
curious) I could only see pieces I needed in the faces i was looking at. 
However, this wouldn't work for the other pieces, and this was particularly
annoying for the 2C pieces due to number (250 pieces visible is not very
useful).

Another problem was (for me, I don't know if everyone has this problem) a
glitchy macros feature.  It worked fine usually and was invaluable, but had one
predictable glitch, and one bizarre one, which I will leave as an open problem
for the community to try and figure out.  First, I had to close the program
shortly after recording a macro I intended for long-term use, otherwise it would
disappear.  The second had a long story.  When recording macros for matching up
4C pieces I used a commutator withing a commutator (I think it was actually 3
comms.)  So I used a macro which affected only 4C pieces (X), moved a few things
around (Y), then the usual X'Y', only to find it affected 3C pieces too.  I
changed the macro which affected only the 4C pieces to one which had the EXACT
same effect, and it worked perfectly.  Does anyone know what's going on here? 
I'm sure I tried the first several times with the same effect.

Now that I've finished solving Everest (I actually named the folder with my log
file 'everest'), I can sit back and enjoy the weird and wonderful new puzzles in
4D, which you now know why I didn't have enough time to play with before!  They
look like a lot of fun :)

Since I seem to have written a short novel here, I guess I should finish up.  I
would like to say a huge thank you to those involved in programming all these
puzzles, and making them freely available to everyone.  Melinda, Don, Roice and
Jay (I think that's everyone, apologies for anyone left out), you are amazing
people for bringing these to life.  They have given me, and many others, hours
upon hours of enjoyment and I'm sure we all appreciate the effort you have all
put in on our behalf.  You have also rendered my usual sign-off line 'happy
hypercubing' useless in the best way possible by making hyper-non-cubes
available.

Happy polytoping everyone ;)
Matt

P.S.  Hi Klaus, as last time I will have a look at your parity problem and see
if I can help any, but it will wait until morning :)  Also well done to Remi for
staying true to form and beating my 2^4 record by 1 move exactly.  Good work!

Hi everyone,

I finally found some time to continue with my 3^4 solve and now another
unexpected parity occured. I have posted a screenshot of it to the gallery. It
is the second image in the album "parity problems".
If anyone knows how to solve this, please tell me.

btw: my current turn count is 391, so I didn't manage to come close enough to
Roice's record for having a chance to break it. With another parity sequence
aplied, it won't even be possible to stay below 400. However, I hope I will by
chance find a way to optimize the second step of my 3-step solution, which took
the most twists this time.

Have a nice twist,
Klaus

Good point, Chris. Maybe call them the 6-4 and 6-5 duoprisms, etc.?
Good luck with the templates. That would be a great way to make a
contribution.
-Melinda

Chris Locke wrote:
> This is a good idea.  Maybe if I find myself with some time in the future I
> will help out with it too.  I also noticed that we need to find a way to
> give consistent names to the duoprisms.  I assume that we go with the
> Schlafi symbol convention {n}x{m} where n >= m, but what about names?
> {6}x{4} and {6}x{5} for instance would need names to distinguish them from
> each other, because "hexagonal duoprism" doesn't distinguish between the
> two.
>
> Chris
>
> 2009/11/9 Roice Nelson <roice3@...>
>
>
>> For the wiki, I would like to suggest creating a standard template page for
>> puzzles, and for all puzzle specific pages to use this template.  This will
>> help keep all these visually in sync, and will allow us to more easily do
>> across-the-board changes when/if they are desired.  Info on wiki templates
>> is here <http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Templates> and
here<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Template>
>> .
>>
>> I've been wanting to set this up for the current pages for the last few
>> weeks, but don't know when I'll be able to get to it.  So in the mean time I
>> thought I'd throw it out there in case anyone else would like to take on the
>> task :)  And if you do, thanks!
>>
>> Take care all,
>> Roice
>>
>> P.S. I also wanted to apologize for some formatting problems in recent
>> emails from me.  I think I have the issue under control now...
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Damn it! After sending you previous message to Melinda I suddenly felt
an urge to open  simplex-2 because something was telling me that I'll be
lucky this time (to find scramble with one twist to solve). I was trying
couple of times last week and I must say, I spend too much time clicking
scramble on this puzzle... I think I've generated about  thousand  of
them. Don't judge me :) This small record was breaking symmetry of my
solutions <roftl> But today... I don't know. I was sure I will be
lucky... and in second scramble I was! Damn it!


>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Melinda wrote:
>
> At that time, Remi was dominating the leaderboard for a long time. He
> still holds a bunch of checkerboard records but is down to only one
> shortest full solve. And then before him, Noel Chalmers was king of
> the hill for a while but now all of his shortest records have been
> bested. I find it interesting how history repeats itself in new
> situations.
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hi!
>
> Noel Chalmers was afer me :) But nevermind. I'm sending my new
> solution of 2^4 (made in old program with restricted twists :P) - and
> it is shorter only by ... one twist from previous shortest record. For
> sure I will try make shortest in new program but in next month.
>
> Therefore list of my shortest extended to : 2^4 (old version), 4^4,
> simplex-3, simplex-4, and  Pentagonal Duoprism-2 :D!
>
> Take care,
> Remi
>
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mapa fotoradarow!
Pobierz >> http://link.interia.pl/f2413

Tonight I started working on the piece-counting formulas.  To be
complete I have decided to find formulas for all acceptable
polytopes.  Unfortunately, I started with the simplex rather than
the more important duoprisms, and it took longer than expected.
I have found formulas for the number of pieces and stickers of
a {3,3,3} n puzzle for n >= 2.  When I finish I will upload a pdf
file with all the formulas, but for now here are the simplex ones:

{3,3,3} n, n >= 2

Piece Count: 5 + 5*ceil((n-2)/n) + floor(2/n) +
              (20n - 50)ceil((n-2)/n) + 10((n-3)^2)ceil((n-3)/n) +
              5(C(n,3) + C(n-2,3) + C(n-3,3))

Sticker Count: 5n(n^2 + 1)/2

where ceil is the ceiling function, and c(n,k) is the binomial
coefficient.

These formulas completely agree with Roice's counts.  As you can
see, the piece count is quite complex, which is why I did not get
further with the task tonight.  Tomorrow I will start on the more
pertinent duoprism formulas, although I will not have much free
time, and will most likely finish Thursday.

There were some interesting things I found out about the simplex
puzzles.  For one thing, there are 2 different types of pieces,
one with tetrahedral stickers and the other with octahedral
stickers.  Most of you probably already noticed the octahedral
stickers if you looked at that puzzle.  In fact, for the simple
reason that higher-dimensional simplices are not easily tiled by
lower-dimensional simplices, it may be impossible to define a Rubik's
simplex puzzle for dimensions greater than 4.  The other really cool
thing concerns the {3,3,3} 2 puzzle.  It contains a 5-colored piece!
What at first appears to be five separate 1-colored pieces are in
fact a single piece.  It's not hard to see once you load up the
puzzle and take a look, but this surprised me.

I apologize for the way my last post appears, I'm not sure why that
happened.  I sent this post from the website to prevent it from
happening again.  I'll write back when I get the duoprism formulas,
hopefully they won't be too complex and will be helpful for fixing
any even-length duoprism piece counting issues.  Thanks Melinda for
your assistance, and will work on the puzzle scrambling function
once I finish this (it will actually depend upon this work), but
hopefully the algorithm won't be as complex as this simplex piece
count; I will try to keep it computation-friendly.

Best wishes,
David

--- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, David Smith <djs314djs314@...> wrote:
>
> Wow, thanks for entrusting me with this task!  Now I actually feel like I will
be contributing to the program itself! :)  By the way, I (believe I) was able to
resolve one of the issues with the program (although a trivial one).  I am very
happy to be of as much help as I can.
>
> About the Goldilocks function, this doesn't seem to be too difficult and I
believe I will be able to produce numbers that are neither too large nor too
small, and without too much computation.  My basic idea is to approximate the
number of positions of each puzzle.  Of course, finding the actual number of
positions would involve using my formulas, and we all know how complex those can
get. ;)  To get the approximation, I will simply calculate the total number of
configurations (i.e. all positions, regardless of whether they can be reached or
not.)  Then I would find the number of face turns necessary to reach that number
of positions.  I don't believe we need to worry that the estimate of the number
of positions is always larger than the actual value, as making face turns in
succession produces numbers of possibilities which grow exponentially.  The only
difficulty will be to find the general formula for any possible puzzle,
including user-created
>  ones.  It would be helpful if you have a list of all of the possible schlafli
symbol configurations that the program accepts, as I have not been able to find
a complete list offhand, only a list of the regular polychora.  If not, I will
be able to figure it out. :)
>
> Thanks again!  I will start working on this and the piece-counting formulas
tomorrow.
>
> Take care,
> David
>
> --- On Mon, 11/2/09, Melinda Green <melinda@...> wrote:
>
> From: Melinda Green <melinda@...>
> Subject: Re: [MC4D] MC4D 4.0 is really fantastic!
> To: 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, November 2, 2009, 7:03 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> David,
>
>
>
> Yes, you're quite valuable to this community. In fact I have another
> task that I'd love to put into your queue just after Roice's request,
> and this one will be quite interesting to our power-solvers. What I
> need is a formula for the minimum number of random twists needed to
> fully scramble a given puzzle. It's similar to the well-known question
> of how many shuffles it takes to fully mix a
> deck of cards. (The answer is six or seven.) I've implemented a
> function that seems to work reasonably well but I'm not at all
> convinced that it's good enough. It's important to not overestimate too
> much because that fills the log files rather quickly for large puzzles.
> It's also important to not underestimate because that could bring into
> question the validity of some people's solutions. I need a really good
> Goldilocks function, and you seem like just the person to produce one! 
> :-)
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Melinda
>
>
>
> David Smith wrote:
>
>   Note: Melinda sent me a message similar to Roice's that I did not realize
was off of the group until this moment.  But I would like to thank both Melinda
and Roice for their support, so I think I'll leave the message as-is.  Thanks!
>
> Thank you Melinda and Roice for your assurance that my math results
> have a place in this group!  Melinda, I especially appreciate that you
> want to see my work continue. :)  After reading that, it hit me that I
> can find formulas for all of the polytopes in MC4D 4.0!  Perhaps I can
> even categorize all of the possible polychora that can exist as a
> Rubik-like puzzle and find formulas for all of them, which would take
> care of the Create Your Own option.  The n^d simplex and {m}x{n}
> duoprisms of any size would be a good place to start.  Thanks again to
> both of you for helping me realize that my projects are important to
> those other than myself. :)  Roice, I'll get started on formulas to count
pieces of
> the puzzles as soon as possible; that's the first step in finding permutation
counts anyway.
>
>
>
> Thanks again, and I look forward to continuing my work!
>
>
>
> All the best,
>
> David
>
> --- On Mon, 11/2/09, Roice Nelson <roice3@gmail. com> wrote:
>
> From: Roice Nelson <roice3@gmail. com>
> Subject: Re: [MC4D] MC4D 4.0 is really fantastic!
> To: 4D_Cubing@yahoogrou ps.com
> Date: Monday, November 2, 2009, 11:32 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>                   For the record, I think the permutation count formulas have
been some of the richest contributions to the group :D  They are definitely as
helpful and important as the many other ways people have chosen to help out. 
Like Melinda said, it definitely takes a village!
>
>  
> I haven't heard back from anyone on piece counting yet, so I think those
problems are still open if you'd like to play with any of them.  I bet a general
formula for the number of pieces on any {n}x{m} duoprism would be fun to work
through, and it would cover a great many of the puzzles in the list!  There is
also a known problem for large n or m on even length duoprism puzzles, and so
having such a formula would help us be able to know what exactly that cutoff is
that people shouldn't go past.
>
>  
> All the best,
> Roice
>
>  
> On 11/2/09, David Smith <djs314djs314@ yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Sorry I haven't chimed in until now!  I would like to thank and congratulate
Melinda, Don, Jay, and Roice for their hard work and efforts in getting the beta
out to us!  As a novice programmer (and I mean extremely novice), I can
appreciate how much work you all put into this.  I would also like to
congratulate Chris, Remi, Anthony, Roice, and Melinda for their solving
accomplishments.  I'm not the type of person to offer suggestions or
improvements to others' work, which is probably a bad thing.  But I would be
happy to help with the piece-counting efforts if that is still needed.
>
>
> Also, thanks to Roice for your wonderful essay!  It has been a lot of fun to
be a member of this community and read about all of your experiences and
contributions.  I know I have not been much of an active member, only presenting
my obscure mathematical results here and there, and for that I apologize.  Such
results are not of much use to the community, and definitely not as helpful or
important as everyone else's contributions regarding MC4D 4.0.
>
>
> Anyway, sorry I can't provide any experiences with the new program, as I have
not tried to solve the puzzles.  I respect everyone else very much for their
efforts in supporting the new program.  Congratulations again to Melinda, Don,
Jay, and Roice, and to everyone else who has successfully solved the puzzles.
>
>
> Best wishes,
> David
>