Online since 2002. Over 3300 puzzles, 2600 worldwide members, and 270,000 messages.

TwistyPuzzles.com Forum

It is currently Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:24 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3096 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 ... 62  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:41 am
Location: The Blue Mountains, Australia
:shock: :shock: :shock:
Even though i knew you were so close i'm still amazed you actually did it :lol:
Astonishing achievement! i can't comprehend how you did it so quickly as well.
Nice to know my move counts for the spheres i did weren't too easily beatable but i still get confused every time i try turning them :lol:
sure makes my goal of all 1.1.X seem a little bit small hahaha.
Katten wrote:
I just started university and barely have no time to do anything besides it
hahaha i'm in a similar boat, i've spent a fair bit of time i should be studying on this site and gelatinbrain.
Julian wrote:
Next month I hope to get back to solving again
I really hope you do, i'm still stuck looking for
Julian wrote:
1.3.2 - Deep cut face and corner turns
((2 setups) (1,1) (2 setups)', 1) = (8,1)
from page 33 and i've kind of given up looking for it even though i would really like to try reduction to pentultimate on that puzzle.

_________________
Some PBs
3x3x3 :20.7 seconds, 5x5x5 2:33, gigaminx 16:40, 7x7x7 9:48, pyraminx crystal 3:42


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 7:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:52 am
Location: Brighton, UK
Elwyn wrote:
Julian wrote:
Next month I hope to get back to solving again
I really hope you do, i'm still stuck looking for
Julian wrote:
1.3.2 - Deep cut face and corner turns
((2 setups) (1,1) (2 setups)', 1) = (8,1)
from page 33 and i've kind of given up looking for it even though i would really like to try reduction to pentultimate on that puzzle.
The inner (1,1) is made from a face move of 72 degrees and a vertex move, as far apart from each other as possible. Then the inner setup move pushes a group of 4 swapped pieces (a clump of three triangles and a corner) into a Pentultimate layer; the outer setup move slices off the corner and two triangles from that group to leave a single wide triangle isolated in the Pentultimate layer.

P.S. 356 for 1.3.7?! :shock: a) Congrats! b) Please can you give an outline/hints?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 8:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:06 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA, USA
Elwyn wrote:
Nice to know my move counts for the spheres i did weren't too easily beatable but i still get confused every time i try turning them

Your move count records are almost impossible for me to beat. I'm not good at finding efficient algorithms to solve a puzzle.

My style is like, to find a minimum set of algorithms that are sufficient to solve it. Once have found them, I don't have to think much during solving. It's less painful for me to work in this way. This method also enables me to figure out the methods and then solve the last five puzzles in two days.

The down side is, I usually use many more steps. Like, in the 6.2.1 series, I found a long algorithm to do a clean 3-cycle for the smallest triangles. In the last stage of solving, I used this algorithm for several times. This stage alone took hundreds of steps. But you can solve the whole thing in 193 steps. So your method is philosophically different from mine. I can never compete with you in terms of move counts unless I adopt another way of thinking.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 12:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:15 pm
Location: Sandnes, Norway
schuma wrote:
The down side is, I usually use many more steps. Like, in the 6.2.1 series, I found a long algorithm to do a clean 3-cycle for the smallest triangles. In the last stage of solving, I used this algorithm for several times. This stage alone took hundreds of steps. But you can solve the whole thing in 193 steps.
I use a similar approach also requiring a lot of moves. Take 1.1.20 for example: I needed over 7000 moves to solve it, which is ridiculously much. I bet if I try doing it the way Elwyn did, I'll get a better count, but I imagine it's still going to be rather high. Getting as few moves as possible isn't something I'm good at.
Elwyn wrote:
sure makes my goal of all 1.1.X seem a little bit small hahaha.
Solving them all makes every other goal seem small :lol: Though completing all of the 1.1.x series seems to be unlikely in my case. I feel that some of the puzzles there look really scary and intimidating. My goal for the time being is to solve at least 100 applets, which I'm no where near doing at the moment.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 12:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:41 am
Location: The Blue Mountains, Australia
Julian wrote:
P.S. 356 for 1.3.7?! a) Congrats! b) Please can you give an outline/hints?
surprisingly I solved in a similar way to 1.1.15 but looking at your movecount for that one i suppose an outline of both would help. I solved both of them centers first, not centre pentagons but the whole center area. Building the centers isn't too hard, i do it kindof like 1.1.10. For both 1.1.15 and 1.3.7 the centres are made up of esentialy the same pieces. I kind of use these steps but i'll try to explain how i make the individual centres in more detail.

For the first 6 centers first i place 1 thin triangle with the two wide ones around it on the correct face then in the top half of the puzzle place two thin triangles around the pentagon and build another wide, thin, wide triangle group and slide it with the pentagon then group the single remaining thin and wide triangle and slide the grouped (now kind of a rhombus shape) pieces to join them. it's then just a matter of sliding this large trapazoidal group of pieces to join the 1 thin and 2 wide triangles that are already in place. (this would probably be a lot easier with pictures but i'm at uni and the computer's here don't like to let me use galatinbrain)

I do that for the first 6 centers of 1.1.15 but then solve the remaining center pentagons and use a slightly different method (actually kind of similar but you move the pentagon out of place to group it with some pieces then rotate it so those pieces come with it when you move it back) but you can pretty much do that for all but the last 2 centers of 1.3.7. When doing a slice on 1.1.15 or turning a corner on 1.3.7 you move the very center, 4 thin triangles and 3 wide triangles but for the last two centers i try and think of it as moving just the remaining 1 thin and 2 wide triangles (the ones that actually don't move) instead, that alwoes me to see it more clearly and solve the last two almost like gigaminx centres.

Finally solve like a megaminx or edges only megaminx for the two respective puzzles, though by that point i have already solved the bottom 10 edges (and 5 corners on 1.1.15) because i just like doing it that way like the gigaminx but in this case i doubt it saves manny moves.

I actually really like both of these puzzles hence why i put a fair bit of effort into explaining them, that and i still have 30 minutes till my lecture.

katten wrote:
my goal for the time being is to solve at least 100
that was my other goal, i plan solve 2 more then 1.1.42 as practice for 1.1.17 (they're surprisingly similar) then 1.1.17 for my 100th

_________________
Some PBs
3x3x3 :20.7 seconds, 5x5x5 2:33, gigaminx 16:40, 7x7x7 9:48, pyraminx crystal 3:42


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 9:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:41 am
Location: The Blue Mountains, Australia
Julian wrote:
The inner (1,1) is made from a face move of 72 degrees and a vertex move, as far apart from each other as possible. Then the inner setup move pushes a group of 4 swapped pieces (a clump of three triangles and a corner) into a Pentultimate layer; the outer setup move slices off the corner and two triangles from that group to leave a single wide triangle isolated in the Pentultimate layer.
I give up!!!!! I just spent an hour looking for it and even with all those hints i feel like i couldn't find it in a million years. I don't know why, pretty sure i know the (1,1) because you told me it but it's those 2 setup moves, they just escape me no matter how long i look at it. I've never felt so much like something is right in front of me but completely unobtainable for no apparent reason at all.
On a less pathetic note do you think it's possible to find a shorter one if it didn't matter weather it messed up where the pentultimate centers and corners were, as in if i were doing reduction to pentultimate? As i would currently use a 6 move alg to esentialy cycle the thin triangles between pentultimate centres (1,(1,1)) with only doing the inner (1,1) once. This cycles groups of three triangles 2 wide one thin (though it actually is cycling the entire centre EXCEPT those three triangles but it can be looked at as almost the same thing) and messes up the pentultimate but that doesn't matter. If either of us find a shorter less pure one for the wide triangles or even if you tell me that one or the impossible happens and i find it, assuming the solver doesn't get parity sub 1000 would probably be rather possible. That was a lot of IFs wasn't it :roll:
schuma wrote:
My style is like, to find a minimum set of algorithms that are sufficient to solve it. Once have found them, I don't have to think much during solving. It's less painful for me to work in this way.
I am very different. First i have a good think about weather it can be reduced to another puzzle then if not what order would be the most efficient to cycle pieces, I think this phase is the one i like best because it involves trying to think about a puzzle in a new and different way and because i usually find it easier than the next step. I then try to find an alg then look for a shorter one until i think no shorter can be found, the problem is i now feel my ability to find said algs is very poor after looking for the above one for so long, this is often the most painful part for me, though it does feel good when you find a nice short alg by yourself. I find the actual solving to be more just something to do whilst i listen to music, i look around for complete three cycles and cycles that require the fewest set-up moves or if it's reduced i sometimes try a multiple things for one step to see how it affects the rest of the puzzle. I usualy solve to relax and hence prefer fewest moves to speed. I much prefer this step to the one before it because i never get the feeling i am completely lost of have no idea what i'm doing. I can just concentrate on doing something i know can be done and just see how well i can do it.

_________________
Some PBs
3x3x3 :20.7 seconds, 5x5x5 2:33, gigaminx 16:40, 7x7x7 9:48, pyraminx crystal 3:42


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 12:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:54 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
Elwyn wrote:
schuma wrote:
My style is like, to find a minimum set of algorithms that are sufficient to solve it. Once have found them, I don't have to think much during solving. It's less painful for me to work in this way.
I am very different. First i have a good think about weather it can be reduced to another puzzle then if not what order would be the most efficient to cycle pieces, I think this phase is the one i like best because it involves trying to think about a puzzle in a new and different way and because i usually find it easier than the next step. I then try to find an alg then look for a shorter one until i think no shorter can be found, the problem is i now feel my ability to find said algs is very poor after looking for the above one for so long, this is often the most painful part for me, though it does feel good when you find a nice short alg by yourself. I find the actual solving to be more just something to do whilst i listen to music, i look around for complete three cycles and cycles that require the fewest set-up moves or if it's reduced i sometimes try a multiple things for one step to see how it affects the rest of the puzzle. I usualy solve to relax and hence prefer fewest moves to speed. I much prefer this step to the one before it because i never get the feeling i am completely lost of have no idea what i'm doing. I can just concentrate on doing something i know can be done and just see how well i can do it.

There have been a couple of puzzles where I know you and I have solved the puzzle using the exact same length routines and solved pieces in the exact same order. Even trying to be moderately efficient you still get about 50% of my move count. My only explanation is that you must be much more efficient about picking pieces in your 3-cycle that will place 2 or 3 rather than my usual 1 and sometimes 2. You must be much more efficient about setup moves too.

If I weren't so far behind in the efficient-solving basics I would be more motivated to compete against you and Julian for fewest moves. As it stands now, using the same strategy but getting double the moves is discouraging.

My only motivation for low-move routines is that since I don't use macros I want to keep my clicks below 3000 or so :?

_________________
Prior to using my real name I posted under the account named bmenrigh.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 1:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:15 pm
Location: Sandnes, Norway
I don't mean to change the "subject", but for some reason I'm not able to use any applets. I only get a blank screen where the puzzle is supposed to be. Anybody else having this problem?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 2:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:54 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
Katten wrote:
I don't mean to change the "subject", but for some reason I'm not able to use any applets. I only get a blank screen where the puzzle is supposed to be. Anybody else having this problem?
This is usually caused by your browser/Java cache getting out of sync with what Gelatinbrain puts up on his site. On Windows you should clear your browser's cache, then close your browser (all instances of your browser). Then clear your Java cache (use the "Java" control panel applet, clear "Temporary Internet Files").

If that doesn't work for you, I have a test mirror that uses the bleeding edge JOGL native binaries here:
http://noh.ucsd.edu/~bmenrigh/gb/gb_mir ... g_edge.htm

You should only use that for testing, not solving. I keep it around so I can use the applet on my Linux boxes. I have confirmed that it works on Windows (32 and 64 bit).

If you can get my test working then you should be able to get the official applet working.

_________________
Prior to using my real name I posted under the account named bmenrigh.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 8:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:54 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
Julian wrote:
Elwyn wrote:
Julian wrote:
Next month I hope to get back to solving again
I really hope you do, i'm still stuck looking for
Julian wrote:
1.3.2 - Deep cut face and corner turns
((2 setups) (1,1) (2 setups)', 1) = (8,1)
from page 33 and i've kind of given up looking for it even though i would really like to try reduction to pentultimate on that puzzle.
The inner (1,1) is made from a face move of 72 degrees and a vertex move, as far apart from each other as possible. Then the inner setup move pushes a group of 4 swapped pieces (a clump of three triangles and a corner) into a Pentultimate layer; the outer setup move slices off the corner and two triangles from that group to leave a single wide triangle isolated in the Pentultimate layer.
Dang Julian, this was HARD! I spent almost an hour figuring it out. I didn't understand your setup moves description so I just worked off of your (1,1) idea. I suppose my setup moves could be different than yours. Coming up with a (14,1) was pretty easy. I'm surprised you spotted the (8,1), it doesn't seem possible until you do it. You need to come back soon so you can share more brilliant routines like this :D

Elwyn wrote:
On a less pathetic note do you think it's possible to find a shorter one if it didn't matter weather it messed up where the pentultimate centers and corners were, as in if i were doing reduction to pentultimate?
I just spent 20 minutes or so looking for a shorter non-pure wide-triangle cycle with no success. The (1,1) Julian suggested seems to need 2 setup moves to avoid two wide-triangle 3-cycles simultaneously.

_________________
Prior to using my real name I posted under the account named bmenrigh.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 11:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:41 am
Location: The Blue Mountains, Australia
Katten wrote:
Solving them all makes every other goal seem small
Not really, i'd say getting all the time records or all the FM records or all the records of both would make solving them all pale in comparison :D , it's just close to impossible with people like Michael and Julian to compete with :lol:
bmenrigh wrote:
I just spent 20 minutes or so looking for a shorter non-pure wide-triangle cycle with no success. The (1,1) Julian suggested seems to need 2 setup moves to avoid two wide-triangle 3-cycles simultaneously.
damn. I'm really up to the point of just asking for the alg if Julian is ok with telling it to me.
bmenrigh wrote:
There have been a couple of puzzles where I know you and I have solved the puzzle using the exact same length routines and solved pieces in the exact same order. Even trying to be moderately efficient you still get about 50% of my move count. My only explanation is that you must be much more efficient about picking pieces in your 3-cycle that will place 2 or 3 rather than my usual 1 and sometimes 2. You must be much more efficient about setup moves too.
Well i must admit i try much harder than just trying to be "moderately efficient" :lol: I only ever solve one at a time very rarely on the pentultimate corners or other pieces that require orientation and i only do it then if there is a corner in the correct spot miss oriented so i can solve one and get the other out of place.
What puzzles are you talking about because my advice would really be just to pick one or two, the two i practised cycling on the most were by far are pentultimate and starminx, and try to get as few moves as possible on that puzzle a few solves in a row. Those two work well because pentultimate corners need orienting but starminx triangles don't so you can practice both. Strangely the part i think i waste the most moves on the starminx, compared to Michael, is the pyraminx crystal edges. when i solve i spend far more time looking for cycles and short set-up moves than actually performing them :lol:
I check the whole puzzle for complete 3 cycles then if there are none at all look for few set up moves, this get's pretty ridiculouse on the starminx because of the crazy amount of different ways to perform my current three cycle, if i knew all the possible positions that can be cycled by it i think set-up moves would very rarely go above 2 or 3

Sometimes look of a cycle that will solve 2 and the third piece that is moved will then allow for another complete three cycle but that is a little difficult, does anyone else ever try this, Julian?

_________________
Some PBs
3x3x3 :20.7 seconds, 5x5x5 2:33, gigaminx 16:40, 7x7x7 9:48, pyraminx crystal 3:42


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 2:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:15 pm
Location: Sandnes, Norway
Elwyn wrote:
Not really, i'd say getting all the time records or all the FM records or all the records of both would make solving them all pale in comparison , it's just close to impossible with people like Michael and Julian to compete with
Now that you put it that way, I absolutely agree! Solving them all and getting first in both time and fewest moves would without a doubt not be a small goal. It would also mean that you would have to solve a lot of the puzzles more than once. But for now I feel that my own goal of solving 100 is plenty! Even compared to the goals others may have set for them selfs. You're almost there :D
bmenrigh wrote:
This is usually caused by your browser/Java cache getting out of sync with what Gelatinbrain puts up on his site.
Thank you for the instructions. I did as you suggested, but it's still only a blank screen :? Quite frustrating, as last night was my only night off in a while, and hence my only chance to get some good solving time. But oh well.

Also, 1.3.2 looks very difficult. I would love to join in on the discussion about it and give this method a try, but that's going to be a little hard if GB doesn't work for me :lol:

Finally, I have a question regarding 1.1.19: would this count as an orientation parity?
Attachment:
Prosjekt 1.1.19 dritttingpåslutten.jpg
Prosjekt 1.1.19 dritttingpåslutten.jpg [ 63.24 KiB | Viewed 5909 times ]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 2:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 1:47 am
Location: near Utrecht, Netherlands
No, that's a permutation parity.

_________________
Tom's Shapeways Puzzle Shop - your order from my shop includes free stickers!
Tom's Puzzle Website


Buy my mass produced puzzles at Mefferts:
- 4x4x6 Cuboid for just $38
- Curvy Copter for just $18
- 3x4x5 Cuboid for just $34


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 3:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:54 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
TomZ wrote:
No, that's a permutation parity.
Well to me, this situation doesn't fit my definition of a parity at all. For permutation parities you need to be in an odd permutation situation that requires a single swap of pieces to get back to an even permutation. In the screenshot, a 3-cycle of orange1->orange2, orange2->red, red->orange1 will solve the puzzle.

Sorry to quibble over semantics.

_________________
Prior to using my real name I posted under the account named bmenrigh.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:52 am
Location: Brighton, UK
1.3.2
Elwyn wrote:
those 2 setup moves, they just escape me no matter how long i look at it. I've never felt so much like something is right in front of me but completely unobtainable for no apparent reason at all.
When I look for setups, I take them one by one, otherwise I find it too tricky to see exactly what is going on. I may need to chop off a chunk of pieces first, then if necessary successively slice off parts to expose the piece I want (not needed with 1.3.2), then finally grab the piece. "That's too much, let's try further over... oops, missed completely! ... a bit back over... HA! got ya... BUT I also caught this little chunk over here. I wonder if there's a way of hiding that chunk out of the way?" Having found promising move A, I'll undo everything and try A' (core) A and then look for a B, and so on. Also, if an algo is pushing the limits of what is possible, it's quite likely I will need to use nearly every bit of space available. Let's say we need to shimmy some trucks around a tight parking lot without crashing into each other. If they all have paint on their tires, and we see after a few near-miss attempts that part of the lot has no paint at all, my thought is, "Hey, we aren't using all the space available! Is there a way of slipping a truck into this region in a way we haven't thought of yet, that will free up space elsewhere?"

Elwyn wrote:
On a less pathetic note do you think it's possible to find a shorter one if it didn't matter weather it messed up where the pentultimate centers and corners were, as in if i were doing reduction to pentultimate?
I don't think it's possible. When face and vertex moves are mixed to chop off a wide triangle, various Pentultimate centers are going to get sliced up. It's a very tall order to leave all of those 11-piece Pentultimate centers intact except for the ones where we're swapping wide triangles, other than with a pure algo. However, there's no reason why a pure (8,1) algo can't be used to reduce 1.3.2 to a Pentultimate anyway, even though it's pure, because we save lots of moves by not having to undo any Pentultimate moves that start off setup sequences.

Elwyn wrote:
I find the actual solving to be more just something to do whilst i listen to music, i look around for complete three cycles and cycles that require the fewest set-up moves or if it's reduced i sometimes try a multiple things for one step to see how it affects the rest of the puzzle. I usualy solve to relax and hence prefer fewest moves to speed.
Same here! I often take breaks between stages too, to do something completely different. I like coming back fresh to see a puzzle with a huge amount of work done already, and move into the next stage.


Last edited by Julian on Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:52 am
Location: Brighton, UK
1.3.2
Elwyn wrote:
If either of us find a shorter less pure one for the wide triangles or even if you tell me that one or the impossible happens and i find it, assuming the solver doesn't get parity sub 1000 would probably be rather possible. That was a lot of IFs wasn't it :roll:
When I did my old solve of 1772 moves, I solved the Pentultimate pieces first, then I cycled the thin triangles with non-pure (8,1) cycles and the wide triangles with pure (14,1) cycles. I estimate I can save around 400 moves by using the new, shorter algos, maybe another 120 setup moves by reducing to a Pentultimate, and maybe another 120 moves by solving the reduced Pentultimate faster than I knew how to do back then. That would make a solve of 1132 moves. I'm not sure if sub-1000 is possible for me, but if it's possible, if anyone can do it, you will!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:52 am
Location: Brighton, UK
1.3.2
bmenrigh wrote:
Dang Julian, this was HARD! I spent almost an hour figuring it out. I didn't understand your setup moves description so I just worked off of your (1,1) idea. I suppose my setup moves could be different than yours. Coming up with a (14,1) was pretty easy. I'm surprised you spotted the (8,1), it doesn't seem possible until you do it. You need to come back soon so you can share more brilliant routines like this :D
Aw shucks! The one I am most proud of is my (8,1) pure cycle for the outer pieces of 3.6.2. I was very surprised when I found it.

I found a (14,1) pure algo fairly easily too, and I happily rushed into the puzzle to solve it. I had no idea that later on I would find a much shorter algo.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:52 am
Location: Brighton, UK
1.3.2
Elwyn wrote:
damn. I'm really up to the point of just asking for the alg if Julian is ok with telling it to me.
Below, in invisible ink, are two 8-move sequences to isolate a single wide triangle. The first one I described in an earlier post; the second one I found by accident when looking for a shorter non-pure one!

ABC',DGK',
F',DCG,F,DCG',
DGK,ABC
/* Wide triangle now isolated in a Pentultimate half */

E,J,
F',DCG,F,DCG',
J',E'
/* Wide triangle now isolated in a HalfMinx half */


Elwyn wrote:
Sometimes look of a cycle that will solve 2 and the third piece that is moved will then allow for another complete three cycle but that is a little difficult, does anyone else ever try this, Julian?
No, I do just one cycle at a time. That's an interesting idea though, that I ought to try during the "perfect 3-cycles have dried up so let's do some 2-out-of-3 cycles for a while" stage.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 2:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:54 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
For reducing 1.3.2 to a Pentultimate, I'm pretty sure you can shorten the corner cycling and orienting routines by making use of vertex twists. At the very least you should be reduce the the setup moves significantly. With a lot of work I think you guys could sub-100 the pentultimate phase.

_________________
Prior to using my real name I posted under the account named bmenrigh.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 4:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:52 am
Location: Brighton, UK
bmenrigh wrote:
For reducing 1.3.2 to a Pentultimate, I'm pretty sure you can shorten the corner cycling and orienting routines by making use of vertex twists. At the very least you should be reduce the the setup moves significantly. With a lot of work I think you guys could sub-100 the pentultimate phase.
If we were solving the Pentultimate pieces at the beginning, not caring what happens to the triangles, we could slot the 2nd to 6th centers into place more quickly using vertex moves, and we'd have a choice of (4,1) corner cycles in addition to the usual (6,1) ones. But I can't see a way to use vertex moves in algos to solve the reduced Pentultimate. We could only use vertex setups when cycling the corners pure, and the setup sequences there are very short anyway (around 2.5 moves average I think).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 4:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:52 am
Location: Brighton, UK
Length of commutators to solve Gelatinbrain puzzles (corrected)

Hypothesis: If one solves all the regular sliced polyhedra Gelatinbrain puzzles (in other words, excluding the cube-within cube 3.9.x puzzles and the spheres) entirely with (x-or-less, 1) commutators and setup moves, where the 1 can be a regular move or a slice move, x is 8 or smaller for all puzzles except:

x = 9 or 10
1.1.35x, 3.5.1, 3.6.5, 4.7.2

x = 11 or 12
1.2.9, 1.4.3x, 1.4.7x, 2.1.5, 2.3.1, 3.3.6, 3.3.7, 4.3.3, 4.3.4

Disclaimer: I obviously can't be completely sure of sufficient x values until I've solved all of the puzzles, and the only way of knowing if the above x values can be reduced is when someone finds shorter algos.

Even though I may need to make corrections later, I'm posting this draft because I find it fun and interesting. I'd say the size of x is a major determinant of the difficulty of a puzzle, whether or not one uses commutators to solve it.


Last edited by Julian on Tue Aug 17, 2010 4:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 10:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:41 am
Location: The Blue Mountains, Australia
Katten wrote:
I don't mean to change the "subject", but for some reason I'm not able to use any applets. I only get a blank screen where the puzzle is supposed to be. Anybody else having this problem?
I'm in the same boat. Java updated and now just get a blank screen. clearing the cache didn't fix it this time.
At the bottom of the java console it says
"15/08/2010 12:59:24 PM org.jdesktop.applet.util.JNLPAppletLauncher displayError
SEVERE: Class not found: jzzz.CMainApplet"

Any ideas? i'll PM gelatinbrain as well.

_________________
Some PBs
3x3x3 :20.7 seconds, 5x5x5 2:33, gigaminx 16:40, 7x7x7 9:48, pyraminx crystal 3:42


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 11:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:54 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
Elwyn wrote:
Katten wrote:
I don't mean to change the "subject", but for some reason I'm not able to use any applets. I only get a blank screen where the puzzle is supposed to be. Anybody else having this problem?
I'm in the same boat. Java updated and now just get a blank screen. clearing the cache didn't fix it this time.
At the bottom of the java console it says
"15/08/2010 12:59:24 PM org.jdesktop.applet.util.JNLPAppletLauncher displayError
SEVERE: Class not found: jzzz.CMainApplet"

Any ideas? i'll PM gelatinbrain as well.
I just updated Java to 1.6.0_21 on a Windows XP machine I have access to and the applet still works for me. Do you get as far as the "Warning - Security" dialog box where Java complains about signed and unsigned code being mixed? If I choose the default "yes" option, Java blocks the applet because it isn't signed. I have to close and reopen my browser to get Java to pop the dialog box back up so I can choose "no". You can make this always happen by setting your Java security to ignore mixed signing:
Attachment:
java_sec.png
java_sec.png [ 22.44 KiB | Viewed 5753 times ]

After you choose this setting and apply it, clear your Java and browser cache again. Hopefully it will start working again :?

_________________
Prior to using my real name I posted under the account named bmenrigh.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:41 am
Location: The Blue Mountains, Australia
no i don't even get that far, i get JAVA with a circle going around it pop up for a second but not every time and after that just blank white. Changing the setting you mentioned didn't help.

_________________
Some PBs
3x3x3 :20.7 seconds, 5x5x5 2:33, gigaminx 16:40, 7x7x7 9:48, pyraminx crystal 3:42


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:15 pm
Location: Sandnes, Norway
Elwyn wrote:
no i don't even get that far, i get JAVA with a circle going around it pop up for a second but not every time and after that just blank white. Changing the setting you mentioned didn't help.
Yes, this is exactly what's happening to me as well. It also happened just after I installed the new version of Java. BUT - I got it running again after changing the settings advised by Brandon :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:15 pm
Location: Sandnes, Norway
bmenrigh wrote:
Well to me, this situation doesn't fit my definition of a parity at all. For permutation parities you need to be in an odd permutation situation that requires a single swap of pieces to get back to an even permutation. In the screenshot, a 3-cycle of orange1->orange2, orange2->red, red->orange1 will solve the puzzle.
This was the reason I asked in the first place; I wasn't sure myself. It looks similar to the orientation parity you get on i.e. a 4x4x4, but I didn't get the chance to test it before I had to leave for class. Actually I don't have a 3-cycle for that puzzle yet. I've paired up the Megaminx edges using simply intuition. It's worked out pretty well, except for a case like that. So I guess I'll have to come up with one :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 3:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:41 am
Location: The Blue Mountains, Australia
Julian wrote:
That would make a solve of 1132 moves. I'm not sure if sub-1000 is possible for me, but if it's possible, if anyone can do it, you will!
That really is a big complement coming from you :)
As for the move count have you taken into account how many wide triangles i think i can solve along with the thin ones if i am rather sneaky with how i cycle them? And the fact you can fudge together the first few centres with no algs at all i.e. this
Attachment:
1.3.2.jpg
1.3.2.jpg [ 132.43 KiB | Viewed 5731 times ]
1/3 of the centers completely solved at 108 moves. With both those things i will try to get away without resorting to your (8,1) for as long as possible.

WOW something just screwed up rather badly on my computer and i have to shut it down how annoying!!!

Edit: The first three took only 66 moves and the 4th took 42 by it'self so i don't know when it would start being too hard to do it that way but i think the 5th would still be more efficient than cycling, perhaps even 6. Technically i think i could get all of them by cycling the wide thin wide groups of three but it would be VERY hard and the last few would probably take longer than normal methods. This is really what i was relying on to get sub 1000 but i was going to keep it a secret till i had done it but the fact i'll end up using your alg which i don't think i would have ever found makes me think i should almost put both of our names in the record if i get it :lol:

_________________
Some PBs
3x3x3 :20.7 seconds, 5x5x5 2:33, gigaminx 16:40, 7x7x7 9:48, pyraminx crystal 3:42


Last edited by Elwyn on Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 7:13 pm
Location: Bruxelles, Belgium
Elwyn wrote:
WOW something just screwed up rather badly on my computer and i have to shut it down how annoying!!!

Looks like the problem is fixed after rebooting, because you can take a screenshot. Or do you have several computers?

Katten wrote:
Yes, this is exactly what's happening to me as well. It also happened just after I installed the new version of Java. BUT - I got it running again after changing the settings advised by Brandon

This could be dangerous with other aplpets. Choose rather the second option(hide warning and run with protection).
As far as my applet is concerned, there's no problem with this.

My first recommendation is:
Don't update a software without good reason.
In many cases "update" only means compatibility problems and more hardware requirements for useless new features .
As far as the hardware is concerned, a computer is as robust as a refrigerator. A 10 year old computer works fine with 10 year old softwares. :D

_________________
Virtual Magic Polyhedra
Applet(Online)
Executable Jar Installer
Win32 Executable(Download)
troubleshooting


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 6:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:41 am
Location: The Blue Mountains, Australia
gelatinbrain wrote:
Looks like the problem is fixed after rebooting, because you can take a screenshot. Or do you have several computers?
Well at that stage it had fixed but there was a different problem. I was about to explain that the applet was working but i couldn't see the main page for some very odd reason, all i could see was the html source in writing all over the page but it seems that fixed it'self. I think my computer is about to die permanently :(

_________________
Some PBs
3x3x3 :20.7 seconds, 5x5x5 2:33, gigaminx 16:40, 7x7x7 9:48, pyraminx crystal 3:42


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:52 am
Location: Brighton, UK
1.3.2
Elwyn wrote:
As for the move count have you taken into account how many wide triangles i think i can solve along with the thin ones if i am rather sneaky with how i cycle them? And the fact you can fudge together the first few centres with no algs at all. With both those things i will try to get away without resorting to your (8,1) for as long as possible.
No, I didn't think about those things. I also suddenly realized that by leaving out the first 3 moves of my second algo, we can cycle 3 wide triangles in 15 moves. I took these ideas for a testdrive this afternoon, and ended up with a single twisted corner after 921 moves:

Image

I might as well keep going and see how long it takes me to fix this, seeing as it will still be so much of an improvement over my previous solve of 1772 moves!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:41 am
Location: The Blue Mountains, Australia
Julian wrote:
No, I didn't think about those things. I also suddenly realized that by leaving out the first 3 moves of my second algo, we can cycle 3 wide triangles in 15 moves. I took these ideas for a testdrive this afternoon, and ended up with a single twisted corner after 921 moves:
The only way i can think of fixing that parity is just to turn the corner and cycle the centres back using only commutators. It wouldn't be as bad as i first thought because you could easily do all the cycles using the short 6 move cycle or 10 moves + set-ups if you wanted to preserve your pentultimate solve. That said you are much better at fixing parity than i so you might come up with something a little more elegant.
I'm a little curious how many centres you solved without algs and how many moves it took you if you remember.
Nice to know i was right and sub 1000 is very possible, I'll be busy with uni most of this week but i do plan on solving this soon (as long as my computer is still working).

_________________
Some PBs
3x3x3 :20.7 seconds, 5x5x5 2:33, gigaminx 16:40, 7x7x7 9:48, pyraminx crystal 3:42


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:52 am
Location: Brighton, UK
1.3.2
Elwyn wrote:
The only way i can think of fixing that parity is just to turn the corner and cycle the centres back using only commutators. It wouldn't be as bad as i first thought because you could easily do all the cycles using the short 6 move cycle or 10 moves + set-ups if you wanted to preserve your pentultimate solve. That said you are much better at fixing parity than i so you might come up with something a little more elegant.
I took 41 moves to repair the centers and then "too long" to re-solve the Pentultimate! (Sometimes the corners keep landing in inconvenient places, you know how it is.) I finished around 1130-1140 I think.

Elwyn wrote:
I'm a little curious how many centres you solved without algs and how many moves it took you if you remember.
I solved 2 complete centers in 58 block-building moves, then I found it too tough to do a 3rd center completely so I just placed its thin triangles, then I switched to cycles. The puzzle was reduced to a Pentultimate after 742 moves.

Elwyn wrote:
Nice to know i was right and sub 1000 is very possible, I'll be busy with uni most of this week but i do plan on solving this soon (as long as my computer is still working).
My target next time will be sub-900, but I think you might be able to aim for sub-800, judging by how efficiently you solved the first 3 centers of this one, and your movecounts for other reduction-y puzzles.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 6:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:41 am
Location: The Blue Mountains, Australia
Julian wrote:
My target next time will be sub-900, but I think you might be able to aim for sub-800, judging by how efficiently you solved the first 3 centers of this one, and your movecounts for other reduction-y puzzles.
So i started, i made 4 centres with block building again but it took 12 more moves than last time so 120 all up. I just finished cycling the thin triangles completely and have been trying to get as many wide ones as I can along with them. There were even times where i cycled thin triangles onto the wrong face to group them with wide triangles, this is kind of how i built the 3rd and 4th centres as well and i think it could be done a little better than i have here and leave you with even less wide triangles. Now i have just gotten to the point i'll need to resort to your alg at 330 moves.
Attachment:
1.3.2.jpg
1.3.2.jpg [ 107.96 KiB | Viewed 5634 times ]
So if i can count correctly there are 22 wide triangles left. Assuming it will take 20 moves to solve 2 (5 set-ups and then the 15 move alg) that makes 20 x 11 more moves so that would take me to 550 moves and i can usually solve a pentultimate in under 200 so that would take me to 750. If all goes well and i get no parity i suppose sub 800 is possible but i am about to start using an alg i have had no practice with which is always very confusing and if i'm not mistaken i have a 2/3 chance of parity. But i do now agree sub 800 is possible which i was a little sceptical about when i first read your comment, in fact with practice i think i could really get close to all the wide triangles (perhaps say less than 15 left) done without your alg but it's time consuming involves a lot of thinking ahead.

Set ups are hard! perhaps 5 was optimistic.
Edit: No i got used to them and 5 was about right
Reduced at 522 moves, no parity for a change :D :D and solved at 708 moves. Perhaps my goal should have been sub 700 because i think i could have saved 10 moves on just the pentultimate step but i just couldn't be bothered going back and looking for a shorter way, i forget how hard the normal pentultimate is sometimes.
Attachment:
1.3.2 solved.jpg
1.3.2 solved.jpg [ 127.38 KiB | Viewed 5626 times ]
Big thank you to Julian for the algorithm! I don't think i'll re-solve this for a while unless someone beats my record.

_________________
Some PBs
3x3x3 :20.7 seconds, 5x5x5 2:33, gigaminx 16:40, 7x7x7 9:48, pyraminx crystal 3:42


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:06 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA, USA
Hi fellas, GB has added 7 new puzzles. They are all cubes with circles. They are:

3.1.24, 3.2.9, 3.2.10, 3.3.10, 3.3.11, 3.4.23, 3.4.24

This thing never ends...

btw, solving 3.1.24 is really fun


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 8:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:54 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
schuma wrote:
Hi fellas, GB has added 7 new puzzles. They are all cubes with circles. They are:

3.1.24, 3.2.9, 3.2.10, 3.3.10, 3.3.11, 3.4.23, 3.4.24

This thing never ends...

btw, solving 3.1.24 is really fun
Great to see new puzzles, especially the wild circle with the strange piece shapes. Gelatinbrain can't rest with all of his puzzles solved 8-)

I decided to poke at 3.1.24. My plan wasn't to solve it but just to figure out a solving strategy. I turned it a bit and got nervous that I had no idea how to relate it back to any of the other circle puzzles. I turned it some more and figured I'd just never solve it. Then I realized how the circle pieces are connected... :oops:

Michael could solve this in 3 seconds :lol:

I can't solve the Little Chop but I'm thinking the circle pieces might make it a bit easier (show orientation). I'll have to give it a bunch of turns this weekend.

_________________
Prior to using my real name I posted under the account named bmenrigh.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 8:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:41 am
Location: The Blue Mountains, Australia
bmenrigh wrote:
I decided to poke at 3.1.24. My plan wasn't to solve it but just to figure out a solving strategy. I turned it a bit and got nervous that I had no idea how to relate it back to any of the other circle puzzles. I turned it some more and figured I'd just never solve it. Then I realized how the circle pieces are connected...
hahaha i did the same thing
schuma wrote:
This thing never ends...
Gelatinbrain's adding puzzles around about as fast as i am solving them, when i started i think there were around 190 puzzles, i've since solved around 100 and still have 190 to solve just like before :lol:

_________________
Some PBs
3x3x3 :20.7 seconds, 5x5x5 2:33, gigaminx 16:40, 7x7x7 9:48, pyraminx crystal 3:42


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 5:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:52 am
Location: Brighton, UK
Tonight I was playing around with 4.3.4 to find a shorter pure algo for the Little Chop pieces, and I found a (12,1) commutator of the form:
{(2 setups) + (3,1) + (2 setups)', 1}.

It is an interesting exception to the usual assumption that one must isolate a single swapped piece in a layer to make a pure algo. Here is the position after the 12th move:

Image

The pieces with an arrow between them simply swap places again, while the ringed piece is what the algo is "really" about. It also works with the equivalent pieces of the dual puzzle 3.3.6. My previous best algo for these was (15,1), so this pulls my upper limit down from 15 to 12 for the Gelatinbrain polyhedra.

Hypothesis: If one solves all the regular sliced Gelatinbrain polyhedra (i.e. excluding cube-within cube and spheres) entirely with (x-or-less, 1) commutators and setup moves, where the 1 can be a regular move or a slice move, x is 8 or smaller for all puzzles except:

x = 9 or 10
1.1.35x, 3.5.1, 3.6.5, 4.7.2

x = 11 or 12
1.2.9, 1.4.3x, 1.4.7x, 2.1.5, 2.3.1, 3.3.6, 3.3.7, 4.3.3, 4.3.4


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 6:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:54 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
Julian wrote:
Hypothesis: If one solves all the regular sliced Gelatinbrain polyhedra (i.e. excluding cube-within cube and spheres) entirely with (x-or-less, 1) commutators and setup moves, where the 1 can be a regular move or a slice move, x is 8 or smaller for all puzzles except:

x = 9 or 10
1.1.35x, 3.5.1, 3.6.5, 4.7.2

x = 11 or 12
1.2.9, 1.4.3x, 1.4.7x, 2.1.5, 2.3.1, 3.3.6, 3.3.7, 4.3.3, 4.3.4
Hi Julian, I agree with you that the length of the shortest useful commutator is a big factor in the difficulty of a puzzle. There are other factors though like "extra room" -- that is, is there extra space on the puzzle where you can stuff things while you work. The Pentultimate is hard because there isn't really any extra room. Generally the deep cut puzzles have this property. I think the standard 3x3x3 Rubik's cube also has this property to a lesser degree. There isn't much extra space to move pieces. If we didn't all learn it first we'd probably consider it a harder puzzle. The commutator length is a nice, quantifiable value whereas "extra room" isn't.

On the topic of routines, I'm about 75% of the way through a program to find short sequences on the Pentultimate. I chose the Pentultimate because it only has two types of pieces so it's easier from a programming standpoint. I hope to expand the program to cover more of the dodecahedra including 1.1.35x. I suspect that there are some shorter sequences on the 1.1.35x that aren't based on commutation.

I know Doug and Noah both analyzed the Pentultitmate with a computer so I'm not sure if there is much more to be "discovered"... I sure hope there is though!

Michael, if you still read this thread, have you done any analysis of the Pentultimate with any of your simulation software?

_________________
Prior to using my real name I posted under the account named bmenrigh.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:41 am
Location: The Blue Mountains, Australia
bmenrigh wrote:
There are other factors though like "extra room" -- that is, is there extra space on the puzzle where you can stuff things while you work. The Pentultimate is hard because there isn't really any extra room. Generally the deep cut puzzles have this property. I think the standard 3x3x3 Rubik's cube also has this property to a lesser degree. There isn't much extra space to move pieces. If we didn't all learn it first we'd probably consider it a harder puzzle. The commutator length is a nice, quantifiable value whereas "extra room" isn't.
If i understand you correctly wouldn't the two be closely linked? What i mean is i doubt there would be many (if any) puzzles that requiered exceptionally long algorithms (x>8) that had this "extra room" but i could be wrong especially because i havn't solved anything that requiered longer than (8,1) commutators. Also i have always thought of the pentultimate as having a fair bit of extra room, I use the whole top half of the puzzle like the top layer of a 3x3x3 is used durin F2L (if you solve using Fridrich) that's why so much, almost half, of it can be solved intuitively same with the 3x3x3, lots of people can get it 2/3 solved without commutators, that said i do agree there are puzzles that have more room than those, the megaminx springs to mind but it's not as easy as a 3x3x3 in my opinion only because there aren't any easy pure edge cycles (or at least none that i know) and hence the last layer edges have to be solved before the corners.

I'd say something that would add difficulty would be if the pieces that requiered the long algorithms, or more specificly if the pieces that requier long algorithms and that also should be solved last, have multiple orientations. The more ways they can be oriented the harder setups become. This is why i think if people didn't learn the 3x3x3 first they might consider it hard because without orientation on the corners it is a hell of a lot easier. As the corners have three orientations they are difficult. To get around this a lot of "easier" early methods involved solving corners first hence why i added "that should be solved last" but i'm actually not sure how much easier that makes it, if it does at all.
Julian wrote:
It is an interesting exception to the usual assumption that one must isolate a single swapped piece in a layer to make a pure algo.
That is nice how the two pieces get swaped 4 times and hence don't actually move. I'm surprised you noticed it, i probably would have looked and thought that it was no good. I have a long way to go until i can find crazy algs like that so i'll stick to looking for efficient methods for the puzzles with low values for x for now.

I've also been wondering about your 1.3.3 method, I know i can cycle everything but the wide triangles relatively easily so i'd say you did them first but even then they don't look too easy for some reason and that leavs me with an (8,1) for both the corners and thin triangles and i don't see that getting below 2000 but your solve was near 1000. Have i got the order completely wrong or have i missed shorter algs for the corners/thin triangles?

_________________
Some PBs
3x3x3 :20.7 seconds, 5x5x5 2:33, gigaminx 16:40, 7x7x7 9:48, pyraminx crystal 3:42


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:54 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
Elwyn wrote:
If i understand you correctly wouldn't the two be closely linked? What i mean is i doubt there would be many (if any) puzzles that requiered exceptionally long algorithms (x>8) that had this "extra room" but i could be wrong especially because i havn't solved anything that requiered longer than (8,1) commutators.
I suppose they are somewhat linked. I was referring more to the difficulty in finding a commutator in the first place rather than the actual length of the commutator. There are puzzles with lots of room where it is easy to find a long commutator. Puzzles like 1.1.39 have lots of "extra room" so finding a commutator for the various piece types isn't so hard.
Elwyn wrote:
Also i have always thought of the pentultimate as having a fair bit of extra room, I use the whole top half of the puzzle like the top layer of a 3x3x3 is used durin F2L (if you solve using Fridrich) that's why so much, almost half, of it can be solved intuitively same with the 3x3x3, lots of people can get it 2/3 solved without commutators,
I sure can't! I have no intuition for the Pentultimate at all. I was referring more to the difficultly of finding commutators on it in the first place. Even if you can solve 2/3rds of it using F2L tricks, the last bit you have to use corner-cycling commutators for and those commutators seem very, very hard to find. Finding the wide-triangle 3-cycle on 1.3.2 was very difficult for the same reason -- not much room. To isolate a piece in a deep cut puzzle you need only 1 piece in an entire half of the puzzle out of place.

Perhaps I the only reason I find puzzles with limited room so hard and you don't is that you're a much better solver than me.

Elwyn wrote:
that said i do agree there are puzzles that have more room than those, the megaminx springs to mind but it's not as easy as a 3x3x3 in my opinion only because there aren't any easy pure edge cycles (or at least none that i know) and hence the last layer edges have to be solved before the corners.
Well I don't hold the fewest moves record in the Megaminx like you but I find it to be a very easy puzzle. On my drive home from work I was thinking about this and I was certain you wrote pure corner (not edge) cycles and I came up with this:

Pure corner 3-cycle: E,[D,C',D'],E',[D,C,D']

I'm pleased that it is much shorter than Jaap's routine ([C,H',C'],A,[C,H,C'],A,[C,H',C'],A'2,[C,H,C']).

But you're right, finding a pure edge 3-cycle is a bit harder. This is what I got after 10 minutes of twisting:

Pure edge 3-cycle: [K'2,[A2,D2],C,[D'2,A'2],K2],D',[K'2,[A2,[D2,C',D'2],A'2],K2],D

I'm certain that can be shortened substantially.

Elwyn wrote:
I'd say something that would add difficulty would be if the pieces that requiered the long algorithms, or more specificly if the pieces that requier long algorithms and that also should be solved last, have multiple orientations. The more ways they can be oriented the harder setups become. This is why i think if people didn't learn the 3x3x3 first they might consider it hard because without orientation on the corners it is a hell of a lot easier. As the corners have three orientations they are difficult. To get around this a lot of "easier" early methods involved solving corners first hence why i added "that should be solved last" but i'm actually not sure how much easier that makes it, if it does at all.
Your need for fewest moves/efficiency is showing through :D On puzzles where pieces require orientation I place all the pieces first and then I orient them second. I find orienting quite easy, albeit tedious and inefficient.


Edit: of course, immediately after posting I thought of a less convoluted pure edge 3-cycle on the Megaminx: F2,[C',B2,C],[F',A,F],[C',B'2,C],[F',A',F']

_________________
Prior to using my real name I posted under the account named bmenrigh.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 2:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:52 am
Location: Brighton, UK
bmenrigh wrote:
Elwyn wrote:
Also i have always thought of the pentultimate as having a fair bit of extra room, I use the whole top half of the puzzle like the top layer of a 3x3x3 is used durin F2L (if you solve using Fridrich) that's why so much, almost half, of it can be solved intuitively same with the 3x3x3, lots of people can get it 2/3 solved without commutators,
I sure can't! I have no intuition for the Pentultimate at all.
Pentultimate (1.1.7) hints

Try calling two adjacent Pentultimate faces U and R, and do the Rubik's cube Sune sequence of 7 moves. You've isolated a single swapped corner in half of the puzzle.

Try calling three all-adjacent Pentultimate faces F, U, and R, and do the Rubik's cube algo to flip two adjacent edges in the last layer without messing up the F2L. You've isolated a single swapped corner in half of the puzzle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 9:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:41 am
Location: The Blue Mountains, Australia
bmenrigh wrote:
Perhaps I the only reason I find puzzles with limited room so hard and you don't is that you're a much better solver than me.
I wouldn't go that far, i'd say you are better at finding commutators and i'm just practised at using them efficiently or finding odd ways of looking at puzzles to reduce move count. To be honest i think i'm just more competitive by nature and can't help but try to beat records no matter how long it takes hahaha. Remember you have solved 55 puzzles more than me and i started before you.
I put a lot of effort into the pentultimate, (though i don't think as much as Julian considering his amazing outline) i've been thinking of recording a solve if i find good screen recording software but it could be rather boring, If i try to be fast most of my time is spent looking for cycles or undoing because i forgot setups :lol: .

_________________
Some PBs
3x3x3 :20.7 seconds, 5x5x5 2:33, gigaminx 16:40, 7x7x7 9:48, pyraminx crystal 3:42


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 2:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:52 am
Location: Brighton, UK
Elwyn wrote:
I've also been wondering about your 1.3.3 method, I know i can cycle everything but the wide triangles relatively easily so i'd say you did them first but even then they don't look too easy for some reason and that leavs me with an (8,1) for both the corners and thin triangles and i don't see that getting below 2000 but your solve was near 1000. Have i got the order completely wrong or have i missed shorter algs for the corners/thin triangles?
Now that I've experimented a bit more with 1.3.3, I've shortened all my commutators! Same order as before though.

First 10-11 corners intuitively, then finish by cycling (3,1).
Centers non pure (3,1).
Wide triangles non pure (3,1).
Thin triangles pure (6,1).

I aim to re-solve this one sub-1000 if I can, sometime.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:15 pm
Location: Sandnes, Norway
Elwyn wrote:
To be honest i think i'm just more competitive by nature and can't help but try to beat records no matter how long it takes hahaha.
Competitive, ey? I just beat your FM record on 5.2.1 :D Not that it's a puzzle getting few moves on is hard. Still, it's not everyday I get to beat you in something. By the way, I think 5.2.1 is my favorite on GB's by far. Don't know why, there's just something I really like about it.

Also, congratulations on your 1.3.2 record. I'm truly amazed!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 4:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:41 am
Location: The Blue Mountains, Australia
Competitive yes but i also try to stick to what i'm good at and that doesn't include 5.2.x yet. I find them harder than i think i should and hence don't like spending time on them. I do like your time of 41 seconds for that puzzle though :wink:
Julian wrote:
First 10-11 corners intuitively, then finish by cycling (3,1).
Centers non pure (3,1).
Wide triangles non pure (3,1).
Thin triangles pure (6,1).
Hahaha ok then seems i should give up on actually solving that one for now then until i find some better algs. I really should do 1.1.42 next because i did say i would do it then 1.1.17 but they are both pretty daunting especially 1.1.17.

_________________
Some PBs
3x3x3 :20.7 seconds, 5x5x5 2:33, gigaminx 16:40, 7x7x7 9:48, pyraminx crystal 3:42


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Fri Aug 20, 2010 7:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:52 am
Location: Brighton, UK
1.3.2 all solved except for one twisted corner after 760 moves and 1 hour 43 minutes. :|

I would need to solve at least 15 more wide triangles at the same time as thin triangles to aim for 700. I'll be happy just to get lucky with the corner orientation and put a sub-800 solve on the board.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 1:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:52 am
Location: Brighton, UK
Little Chopping

First happy discovery -- the peculiar pure (12,1) algo I described here for the Little Chop pieces of 3.3.6/4.3.4 solves the same pieces of 3.3.10 (circle version of Little Chop) without messing up the centers - yay!

Then I noticed that the (3,1) in the middle can be shortened to (2,1). It only has to be the longer version for 3.3.6 and 4.3.4 to avoid messing up other pieces. So (12,1) came down to (10,1) for finishing 3.3.10. But wait a minute -- what about the Little Chop (3.3.7) itself?!

{(2 setups) + (FU DR, FR) + (2 setups)', 1}

3.3.7 pure cycle with (10,1) commutator:
Image

This was a nice surprise. So 3.3.7 and 4.3.3 move to the x = 9 or 10 list, and are joined by 3.3.10.


Solution Outline for 3.3.10 (circle Little Chop)

1. Pair Little Chop pieces with the corner pieces non pure with (3,1) algos.
2. Solve circle pieces pure with (2 + (AB)*3 + 2', 1) = (10,1) algos.
3. Solve paired Little Chop pieces pure with the (10,1) algo described above.

I haven't done an actual solve yet. The circle pieces are insanely difficult to set up, and it's going to take me hours. In case you're wondering, I did look hard for shorter non-pure algos for stages 2 & 3, but I just couldn't find any. It's really hard not to end up with a stray crescent/corner piece getting in the way.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 2:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:52 am
Location: Brighton, UK
bmenrigh wrote:
Hi Julian, I agree with you that the length of the shortest useful commutator is a big factor in the difficulty of a puzzle. There are other factors though like "extra room" -- that is, is there extra space on the puzzle where you can stuff things while you work. The Pentultimate is hard because there isn't really any extra room. Generally the deep cut puzzles have this property. I think the standard 3x3x3 Rubik's cube also has this property to a lesser degree. There isn't much extra space to move pieces. If we didn't all learn it first we'd probably consider it a harder puzzle. The commutator length is a nice, quantifiable value whereas "extra room" isn't.
Yes, depth of cut is definitely a factor. For example, an (8,1) pure algo to finish is usually much harder to find for a deeper cut puzzle than the same length algo for a shallower cut puzzle, where with the latter you're often just shimmying around the space available to isolate the chosen piece.

I agree with Elwyn about the problem of orienting pieces near the end of the solve. Also, recognition is another factor. With some puzzles, the most efficient solution involves solving pieces into a color scheme that you have to know off by heart from all orientations, because the centers come later -- and setup and undo sequences can make this very confusing. Also, parity issues. If 1/2 of the time I find just two pieces need to swap pieces, or 2/3 or 4/5 of the time a single piece needs re-orienting, I might not know how to fix the problem, or have to make so many extra moves that I can easily severely mess up the solve. If there's a chance of having to click Scramble due to a parity issue, straight away I would say that's a harder puzzle than a similar one where no such issue exists. For example, the Super-Pentultimate is quite a bit harder than the Pentultimate.

bmenrigh wrote:
On the topic of routines, I'm about 75% of the way through a program to find short sequences on the Pentultimate. I chose the Pentultimate because it only has two types of pieces so it's easier from a programming standpoint. I hope to expand the program to cover more of the dodecahedra including 1.1.35x. I suspect that there are some shorter sequences on the 1.1.35x that aren't based on commutation.
Sounds cool! I'd be interested to know how efficiently it is possible to rearrange the centers of one half of the Pentultimate without affecting any pieces in the other half.

bmenrigh wrote:
I know Doug and Noah both analyzed the Pentultitmate with a computer so I'm not sure if there is much more to be "discovered"... I sure hope there is though!
I think they analyzed ways of using their manually-found algos, rather than programmatically finding new algos, so I'm sure there is more to be found.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 4:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:54 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
Julian wrote:
bmenrigh wrote:
On the topic of routines, I'm about 75% of the way through a program to find short sequences on the Pentultimate. I chose the Pentultimate because it only has two types of pieces so it's easier from a programming standpoint. I hope to expand the program to cover more of the dodecahedra including 1.1.35x. I suspect that there are some shorter sequences on the 1.1.35x that aren't based on commutation.
Sounds cool! I'd be interested to know how efficiently it is possible to rearrange the centers of one half of the Pentultimate without affecting any pieces in the other half.
I hadn't thought of looking for center routines and especially not a metric that doesn't allow half the puzzle to change.

There are no sequences of length 7 that meet your criteria but there is a class of routines that come pretty close: [A2, B1, E2, B4, A1, E2, A2] which is a 2-2 center swap and only moves 2 corners in the bottom half.

I haven't finished searching the length-8 space yet but there is a class of routines like [A1, B2, I4, B3, I1, F2, A4, F3] that do a 3-cycle in the centers and only affects 3 corners in a 3-cycle.

I have searched all sequences up to and including length 8 for corner 3-cycles. There aren't any. Trying all length-8 moves takes about 90 minutes. Length 9 will take 53 hours (each face added is 38x longer in processing time).

I have searched all commutators of up to length 14 such as (5,1), (6, 1), (5, 2), etc. and found that the shortest corner 3-cycle built on commutation is 14 moves (6,1).

My program is decent at canceling symmetries to reduce the search space but there are hundreds of minor variations on each sequence that have the same effect on the puzzle. My next step will be to recognize sequences that have the same effect and suppress reporting for all but the first. My program is multi-threaded to take advantage of all 16 CPUs in the machine I'm running it on. This canceling is going to require share memory or message passing between threads which I've been trying to avoid. Perhaps I'll use MPI so that my program is cluster-ready. I have access to a 2048 processor cluster which would enable me to search all length-10 sequences and possibly even length-11.

_________________
Prior to using my real name I posted under the account named bmenrigh.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 7:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:52 am
Location: Brighton, UK
bmenrigh wrote:
There are no sequences of length 7 that meet your criteria but there is a class of routines that come pretty close: [A2, B1, E2, B4, A1, E2, A2] which is a 2-2 center swap and only moves 2 corners in the bottom half.
It only moves 1 corner if we look at a different half, so this is a useful algo. Provided I leave one corner unsolved in the first half, it takes care of one center perm in 7 moves, and with a setup move, two others in 9 moves.
bmenrigh wrote:
I haven't finished searching the length-8 space yet but there is a class of routines like [A1, B2, I4, B3, I1, F2, A4, F3] that do a 3-cycle in the centers and only affects 3 corners in a 3-cycle.
Excellent! Thanks. That's exactly the kind of useful sequence I was looking for. With just one setup move, that takes care of another center perm that had been bugging me. Rotated, this algo cycles centers F --> C--> A--> F, with no effect on any of the pieces in the G-L half of the puzzle:

F2,
I,H2,G',H'2,G,L2,I',L'2,
F'2

And with two setups, another pesky perm is taken care of, B --> D --> E --> B:

H,L',
A,B2,I',B'2,I,F2,A',F'2,
L,H'

Two other 3-cycles I already have 8-move algos for:
A --> B --> C --> A with [D',E',D,A,D,A',D',E]
F --> B --> C --> F with [E,D',E',D,A,D,A',D']

So, thanks to your help, if I don't mind leaving one corner unsolved in the first half, I can fix 7 out of the 9 center patterns in 12 or fewer moves. This is good!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3096 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 ... 62  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Forum powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group