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

TwistyPuzzles.com Forum

It is currently Wed Apr 23, 2014 11:56 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Crazy2face CrazyB4cube Nomenclature discussion thread
PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 3:17 am
Location: Australia
I have set up this thread to provide a place to discuss the Crazy2f/B4cube nomenclature, so that the solving thread here doesn't become cluttered with discussion about the nomenclature.

I don't feel like the Nomenclature is perfect, I've given it a pretty good shot, but I consider it a bit of a work in progress, so constructive criticism is welcome and I'll try to iron out any bugs as we go along.

I'm sure people will have some questions or comments :)

Cheers,
Burgo.

_________________
1st 3x3 solve Oct 2010 (Even though I lived through the 80s).
PB 3x3 55sec Jan 2011 (When I was a kid 1:30 was speedcubing so I'm stoked).
1st 3x3 Earth (nemesis) solve Jan 2011 My You Tube (Now has ALLCrazy 3X3 Planets with Reduction)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Crazy2face CrazyB4cube Nomenclature discussion thread
PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 8:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 7:42 am
Not so much a nomenclature question, but is there an easy way to make the diagrams?

_________________
Call me Seth :)

Crazy2Face & Crazy3Face Puzzle Spreadsheet
Named 3x3x3 Bandaging Patterns


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Crazy2face CrazyB4cube Nomenclature discussion thread
PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 8:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 3:17 am
Location: Australia
Hi Seth,

It's the right place to put the question for sure :) .

Under the first post in the solving thread, under the heading `Downloadables`, follow the following three links:

Link to template instructions MS Word
Link to a PSD TEMPLATE for use with Adobe Photoshop
Link to a BMP TEMPLATE for use with MS Paint or other simple image editing programs

Cheers,
Burgo.

_________________
1st 3x3 solve Oct 2010 (Even though I lived through the 80s).
PB 3x3 55sec Jan 2011 (When I was a kid 1:30 was speedcubing so I'm stoked).
1st 3x3 Earth (nemesis) solve Jan 2011 My You Tube (Now has ALLCrazy 3X3 Planets with Reduction)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Crazy2face CrazyB4cube Nomenclature discussion thread
PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 6:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:04 pm
I've had a quick look at the post (and it looks very good), and I'll start some discussion here by mentioning a couple of thoughts (more probably later).

First, "Crazy2face(2L) Uranus(WO) has 2x 2faces" is certainly better than the exploded-with-more-spaces-than-anyone-would-probably-use version. But, it buries the lede and could probably be tightened up a lot. The planet name should ideally be out front and prominent, but the word "Crazy" is instead. In fact, the first ~10 characters only represent 2 bits of information (ie there are only 4 things those 9-11 characters represent), which is very inefficient/noisy. It's probably useful to use the long names when other puzzles are talked about and the context isn't clearly Crazy cubes, because of things like other planet series like Bermuda. But for the most part, where context is established, those 2bits could be represented just by the format of the name.

So I'm thinking shorter forms like this will be useful:

Uranus [the basic Crazy333 version]
Uranus-1 [the Crazy2face with one 2face... treating this exactly like the multiple two faces]
Uranus-2L (WO) [the Crazy2face with two 2faces, WO are 1faces]

For B4 information, that will require a bit more thought, but it can also be represented by format, perhaps something along the lines of "Uranus-1 (B4: 3f-B)", for a Uranus with a yellow 2face and a blue 3face.

As for the RC and circle naming... I use Sun and Moon for those in my notes. This is largely because I use the symbols instead of the names when I'm writing or making charts, and so that gives those configurations symbols I can use as well (they also have the benefit of being distinct from the planets by not being planets). I don't really expect that to catch on, though... but "Regular" and "Circle" also work as roots, although there should probably always be a "cube" after the basic form.

Moving on...

Secondly, in the other thread, I talked vaguely about three face types I was hoping for. And the one I was sure would be the 5face. But the other two are not represented.

Basically, I don't really like the conflation of the center aspect with the face type aspect all that much (as I've said elsewhere). But that's how things evolved, and it is kind of useful at times, so I'm living with it currently. Part of the reason is because I see the center aspect as being defined by what the center is locked to... with the 0face, the center is bandaged to the core, with the 1face center the outer collar is locked to the center. This is done with a pair of features on the center shaft: long/short, and square/round. And that makes for 2bits, and four different centers. The third of which is the very free short/round babyfacing 5face centers. The fourth which is the impermissible long/square which locks the collar to the center and the center to the core, so that that face doesn't move even if you build a circle on it (which is how it differs from a 3face). That was the second of the three I was talking about.

Note that there's one other thing that's locked to the center, the inner circle. This is locked in all cases so far. However, if the head of the center was made circular and the top 1mm of the shaft was rounded, center types where the inner circle is not constrained by the center would be possible. Of the four of these, one seems potentially interesting to me... the one I call the baby-doughnut, which is the impermissible face, but with the inner circle free to turn. The result is a face that's like the opposite of a 0face when it has a full circle on it. This was the third (although it really was 4 more). So you can see why I'm starting to wince about conflating the aspects... with 8 centers based off three things they can lock to (plus other potentials like the constraining and other things to come) times the number of face configurations (circle, square, bandaging of different types), that's a lot of centers to just go numbering them. And I'm at least glad that the nomenclature doesn't go that way by having, say, a 6face which is a 5face without a circle on it.

Anyway, that's probably enough for now.

_________________
-- Brent Ross


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Crazy2face CrazyB4cube Nomenclature discussion thread
PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 7:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 3:17 am
Location: Australia
Thanks for your comments bwross :)

My point was that unless you `stacked the nomenclature` it could get confusing in sentences, I was saying why I was doing it. The nomenclature was designed with respect to the traditions that have been established, I didn’t want to make something new, I don’t think it’s helpful to make something foreign, even if it's `better`.

Crazy2face and CrazyB4cube are `the names of the puzzle`: Like Crazy 333 Cube, Crazy Megaminx or Crazy Tetrahedron. They are what they are. To say the full name for those puzzles you would need to say `Crazy Megaminx Saturn`.

Unfortunately, in your examples, just saying the planet name doesn’t give enough information. It doesn’t tell us the most important thing.. `what the puzzle is`.

I would expect that over time Crazy2face and CrazyB4cube might obtain shorthand and possibly become C2f and CB4, just like Crazy Tetrahedron Saturn has become Crazy Tet Saturn. I would have no objections to using that shorthand in written text. So Crazy2face(2L) Uranus(WO) becomes C2f(2L) Uranus(WO). But to introduce the nomenclature as that, looks like a jumble of digits.

I think leading with the `puzzle name` is correct.

Your version of a permanently blocked face could be interesting. You can just glue the small end of a 0face centre onto a 1face centre.

As it stands, for the versions with the rounded centres, the pieces would fall out unless another mechanism was designed. Then you have to consider which ones add enough value to the solve. The mechanism for this would be a 2-part centre piece with a `tongue and groove` sliding outer part. A circular centre as you described, but with the square part free to rotate around it.

Another way of doing it (that could be hand modified) would be to divide the centre column in two, have the square shaft fixed to the core, and the head as a separate part, spinning independently.

There is hope of an expansion kit, I can possibly include some of these things in there if you like.

_________________
1st 3x3 solve Oct 2010 (Even though I lived through the 80s).
PB 3x3 55sec Jan 2011 (When I was a kid 1:30 was speedcubing so I'm stoked).
1st 3x3 Earth (nemesis) solve Jan 2011 My You Tube (Now has ALLCrazy 3X3 Planets with Reduction)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Crazy2face CrazyB4cube Nomenclature discussion thread
PostPosted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 4:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 10:57 am
Location: In my study drooling over my puzzle hoard - Precioussssss!
Burgo wrote:
There is hope of an expansion kit, I can possibly include some of these things in there if you like.

:shock: :shock: :shock:
Omg! Are you trying to kill us?

I can't wait! :lol: :lol:

_________________
Kevin
Hopelessly addicted to puzzles!! :oops:
Visit my blog: Puzzlemad


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Crazy2face CrazyB4cube Nomenclature discussion thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 4:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 3:17 am
Location: Australia
Hi bwross,

The last thing I need is an unsatisfied customer :) .. so I made something for you. I'll get it in the mail as soon as I can. I've tested it, and it's all good. I'll get a Youtube video up over the next few days.
Attachment:
Xface & Rface centres.jpg
Xface & Rface centres.jpg [ 419.87 KiB | Viewed 1394 times ]


I think I might call the fully blocked centre an Xcentre (after your dislike of `face types`).. so when we apply it to a one of the 2x possible face types, we could call it an X1face or an X2face.

For the donut face, I'm looking for a single letter /character.. I'm thinking Rface, it's a `Reverse` standard circle cube face (R is a pretty common symbol for reverse), and it's also named after you, what do you think?

Cheers,
Burgo.

_________________
1st 3x3 solve Oct 2010 (Even though I lived through the 80s).
PB 3x3 55sec Jan 2011 (When I was a kid 1:30 was speedcubing so I'm stoked).
1st 3x3 Earth (nemesis) solve Jan 2011 My You Tube (Now has ALLCrazy 3X3 Planets with Reduction)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Crazy2face CrazyB4cube Nomenclature discussion thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 4:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 3:39 am
Location: Rye, East Sussex
Another Addition to the expansion kit well done Bwross & Burgo. Looking forward to the video though seeing as I'm not entirely sure what I am looking at here. I Have the general gist I just need someone to baby the explanation for me.

_________________
How to sum up my solving skills..."I try, I try, I fail. I try, I try, PREVAIL!"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Crazy2face CrazyB4cube Nomenclature discussion thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 3:17 am
Location: Australia
Functionality video for Xcentre and Rface (donut):
http://youtu.be/9lVdwg671DI

_________________
1st 3x3 solve Oct 2010 (Even though I lived through the 80s).
PB 3x3 55sec Jan 2011 (When I was a kid 1:30 was speedcubing so I'm stoked).
1st 3x3 Earth (nemesis) solve Jan 2011 My You Tube (Now has ALLCrazy 3X3 Planets with Reduction)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Crazy2face CrazyB4cube Nomenclature discussion thread
PostPosted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 4:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:04 pm
Burgo wrote:
Thanks for your comments bwross :)

My point was that unless you `stacked the nomenclature` it could get confusing in sentences, I was saying why I was doing it. The nomenclature was designed with respect to the traditions that have been established, I didn’t want to make something new, I don’t think it’s helpful to make something foreign, even if it's `better`.


The thing is that the way it evolved and the naming traditions from it ended up creating some "warts" (to use jargon) that might actually be confusing to people approaching the system for the first time with no background. It's sometimes better to do some orthogonalization once the fuller picture becomes visible, but leave the old nomenclature around for reference to older documents, but deprecated for newer. The goal being not to fully overhaul, but ideally smooth things out.

By "warts" here, I'm talking about things that seem similar but are handled differently. Like having puzzles with one 2face handled separately from multiple 2faces. Or the fact that 3faces, which aren't really that different than 2faces, don't have a parallel notation. Of course, then there's when you have say a pattern of non-circles that overlaps both 0 and 1 centers, and should things be generalized to ultimately treat that the same... but that's where things start getting to being a radical overhaul.

Quote:
Crazy2face and CrazyB4cube are `the names of the puzzle`: Like Crazy 333 Cube, Crazy Megaminx or Crazy Tetrahedron. They are what they are. To say the full name for those puzzles you would need to say `Crazy Megaminx Saturn`.

Unfortunately, in your examples, just saying the planet name doesn’t give enough information. It doesn’t tell us the most important thing.. `what the puzzle is`.


Well, that would be from context, or if that needs to be set "Crazy Cube" would be enough, better matching the other examples which don't have nomenclature brought up into the what's really the puzzle class. But with that, it could certainly give enough, because it's encoded into the format/specification after the planet name. Although, as pointed out above, maybe that should be changed to distinguish 2face from 3face, at which point I'd still put that notation after the planet name. The current notation puts the planet in the middle, with some of the classification up in the puzzle class... and really, you don't want to force it to be there, you want those specification details to be part of the lower name (moving from very general to more specific as you go along), so the class can be dropped when it's understood (people don't go around sticking Crazy Tet in front of every planet in a post, once it's established, it's assumed for other planet references), with those details still presentable. And I guess that's really part of the reason I balk at it... the fact that the current notation doesn't really provide a definite specification for that even as a shorthand, and it should at least do that.

Quote:
I would expect that over time Crazy2face and CrazyB4cube might obtain shorthand and possibly become C2f and CB4, just like Crazy Tetrahedron Saturn has become Crazy Tet Saturn. I would have no objections to using that shorthand in written text. So Crazy2face(2L) Uranus(WO) becomes C2f(2L) Uranus(WO). But to introduce the nomenclature as that, looks like a jumble of digits.


Well that at least would get information into the first couple characters. Part of any UI is avoiding a lot of header, people will miss details if you bury them too deep. At the very least the word "Crazy" would become invisible to people... seeing the overall structure, people would very quickly jump to the middle where the planet is and work left and right from there, I think it's simpler to pull that to the front and then just work to the right. But even with this, there's the thing that C2f(2L) looks pretty opaque even knowing the nomenclature. I think that "C2f Uranus-2L (WO)", works much better. The "C2f" can be dropped when understood, with the 2L still around. And it moves Uranus up, where it's identifiable in the first 6 characters. And that's more about what I'm talking about here... no so much radical change, but keeping traditional stuff around and reworking the order.

Although, that still doesn't give orthogonality for 3faces, so it could use work ("C3f" has the problem again of moving information up into the class). Maybe something like "Uranus3-2", moving the 2/3/B4 status to immediately after the name, with additional specification afterward? Needs some more thinking.

Quote:
I think leading with the `puzzle name` is correct.


When it needs to be mentioned, sure. But there should be recognized way for dropping it. Which would mean that it could be moved to after or separate, when that feels more natural.

Quote:
Your version of a permanently blocked face could be interesting. You can just glue the small end of a 0face centre onto a 1face centre.


That's why I was kind of hoping for one. And apparently, my wish is coming true! So, thank you, thank you, thank you... :D

Quote:
As it stands, for the versions with the rounded centres, the pieces would fall out unless another mechanism was designed. Then you have to consider which ones add enough value to the solve. The mechanism for this would be a 2-part centre piece with a `tongue and groove` sliding outer part. A circular centre as you described, but with the square part free to rotate around it.

Another way of doing it (that could be hand modified) would be to divide the centre column in two, have the square shaft fixed to the core, and the head as a separate part, spinning independently.


Yeah, this is why I figured that one of these wasn't going to be in the set (but was wondering if it might be mentioned as a possibility, because it is a natural extension). It requires more work in the details with some design and testing (I only mentioned the need to change the top of the shaft, because it's that little extra pushing I figure is why a 0face feels more rickety than a 1face). I suppose the ultimate design would be a set of parts that could be assembled into a center with the locks you want on it.

There should probably be a notation for specifying them. I'm thinking maybe a quick way would be to use CIO flags (for core, inner circle, and outer collar), with the parts that are locked being listed, and a dash ('-') used as a placeholder (for when you want to make tables with all names the same length or specify the --- center, but otherwise it could be dropped) for the parts that are allowed free. So a 0face would have a CI center and a 1face would have an IO center. This at least allows for a way to label and talk about all eight faces easily, and it shows the functionality clearly. They wouldn't be used for actual puzzle naming (just for lower level discussion).

With that I can say that the C-O is the most limiting and different of the X-X centers, which is why I see it as interesting. The ---, C--, and --O centers are essentially the same when you don't have center face orientation, because they all allow the inner ring and the outer collar to be moved separately (the difference being that --- allows spinning the center, C-- doesn't, and --O forces the center to move with the outer ring). Which mean that they're really just small variations of -I- (ie the baby face, 5face, the regular cube center piece (short/round with a square head), etc.).

Quote:
I think I might call the fully blocked centre an Xcentre (after your dislike of `face types`).. so when we apply it to a one of the 2x possible face types, we could call it an X1face or an X2face.

For the donut face, I'm looking for a single letter /character.. I'm thinking Rface, it's a `Reverse` standard circle cube face (R is a pretty common symbol for reverse), and it's also named after you, what do you think?


X is definitely an excellent choice for the fully blocked... it tells you exactly that this is the face that never turns.

The problem with "Reverse", though, is that it doesn't really say what it's a reverse of (and there are many things), and then there's the fact that it's not exactly a reverse of 0... the center sits still when there's a circle, and it behaves like a 0face when there isn't (which are fairly minor details... it's certainly the closest of these eight... a proper way would require further abstraction, with the ability to have the outer collar bandaged to the core directly, instead of the indirect collar->center->core that this center centric system uses). T for "Turntable" might be a better description, because it's kind of like an record spinning on a turntable. Or maybe we can just say the R is for "Record player".

EDIT: Just watched the video. That Rface looks like it works quite well... it definitely gets around the center problem and works much closer to the opposite of a 0face than I was hoping for. It should definitely be fun to play with.

_________________
-- Brent Ross


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Crazy2face CrazyB4cube Nomenclature discussion thread
PostPosted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 3:17 am
Location: Australia
Something new to add:

CRface:
Attachment:
CRface.jpg
CRface.jpg [ 807.22 KiB | Viewed 1291 times ]

Demonstration: http://youtu.be/e_J8XNYPc-s

It was a tough centre to hand mod, very fiddly, but it functions perfectly.

I've read some of your post bwross, the part about `what is the Rface a reverse of: I was refering back to the original circle cube made by Aleh.. it's a reverse or inverse of `that`.. seen in that traditional context, it's more obvious :) .

_________________
1st 3x3 solve Oct 2010 (Even though I lived through the 80s).
PB 3x3 55sec Jan 2011 (When I was a kid 1:30 was speedcubing so I'm stoked).
1st 3x3 Earth (nemesis) solve Jan 2011 My You Tube (Now has ALLCrazy 3X3 Planets with Reduction)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Crazy2face CrazyB4cube Nomenclature discussion thread
PostPosted: Fri Nov 01, 2013 4:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:04 pm
Burgo wrote:
Something new to add:

CRface:
Attachment:
CRface.jpg

Demonstration: http://youtu.be/e_J8XNYPc-s

It was a tough centre to hand mod, very fiddly, but it functions perfectly.

I've read some of your post bwross, the part about `what is the Rface a reverse of: I was refering back to the original circle cube made by Aleh.. it's a reverse or inverse of `that`.. seen in that traditional context, it's more obvious :) .


Oh, I know what it's a reverse of (I'm not really sure reverse is even a good word for the property, both reverse and inverse are loaded terms)... it's just that there's a lot of faces to be a reverse of and many ways things can be seen as a reverse, so it's more confusing than it has to be. "Reverse" also sounds like should be a modifier for other faces like "Constrained", but it doesn't work that way at all (in both senses). Certainly, when looking at circle cubes there's a pattern: all X gives a 1x1x1, all 1 gives a regular cube, all 5 gives a cross cube, all 0 gives a circle cube, and all R could be called a "reverse" of that. So I guess it's good enough (even if there's also some conflict between R used for "regular", because it's not the regular face at all), it's not like all of the other names make sense... people are going to wonder where the 4face is. And it would be so much easier to remember 2 from 3 if they used the format in newer faces with a letter to represent the face (but they can't be R or C... those sure do seem to be popular letters) combined with the 0 or 1 for the center.

I really do like the new constrained centers, they should really make things interesting.

_________________
-- Brent Ross


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Crazy2face CrazyB4cube Nomenclature discussion thread
PostPosted: Fri Nov 01, 2013 4:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 3:17 am
Location: Australia
Hi Brent,

I haven't added the names to the 1st post in the solving thread yet (which is my up to date nomenclature), I haven't done it for a reason: I'm not committed yet.. They're just shorthand notes for myself as yet. Funny how mud sticks though.. who knows.

I have a few responses to your thoughts, somewhat to explain my reasoning for everyone, as well. I'll give your posts some time on the weekend. For now, I've just been doing a little bit of R&R solving :) .

Cheers,
Burgo.

_________________
1st 3x3 solve Oct 2010 (Even though I lived through the 80s).
PB 3x3 55sec Jan 2011 (When I was a kid 1:30 was speedcubing so I'm stoked).
1st 3x3 Earth (nemesis) solve Jan 2011 My You Tube (Now has ALLCrazy 3X3 Planets with Reduction)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Crazy2face CrazyB4cube Nomenclature discussion thread
PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2013 2:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 3:17 am
Location: Australia
First up, I want to say that I hope people still feel like they can use this thread to ask questions about clarifying something they don't understand. And that, I hope it's not getting so heavy, that they feel like they'd be interrupting. That would still be the primary goal of the thread :) .

bwross wrote:
The thing is that the way it evolved and the naming traditions from it ended up creating some "warts" (to use jargon) that might actually be confusing to people approaching the system for the first time with no background.
I’m not so worried about that, the people who want to do this sort of thing are generally pretty bright, they’ll catch on. That’s what this thread is for.. to ask questions and clarify if people want to know where things come from. The thing that would really be confusing would be if there was all this `old` (2 years ago) information that needed interpreting, or became inaccessible.

bwross wrote:
It's sometimes better to do some orthogonalization once the fuller picture becomes visible, but leave the old nomenclature around for reference to older documents, but deprecated for newer. The goal being not to fully overhaul, but ideally smooth things out.
If there were really large subsets I’d agree, but in this case we’re actually talking about quite a limited scope, limited enough to stretch the old nomenclature for consistency. I mean, there are 10 face types at the moment, including constraining, and we are already reaching the physical limits. I don’t think we need to go to a binary system yet.

bwross wrote:
By "warts" here, I'm talking about things that seem similar but are handled differently. Like having puzzles with one 2face handled separately from multiple 2faces. Or the fact that 3faces, which aren't really that different than 2faces, don't have a parallel notation. Of course, then there's when you have say a pattern of non-circles that overlaps both 0 and 1 centers, and should things be generalized to ultimately treat that the same... but that's where things start getting to being a radical overhaul
Puzzles with one 2face aren’t handled differently to puzzles with more than one 2face, other than it isn’t necessary to notate a `1` in the 2L> nomenclature. In maths this is the same as saying y = 1y, there’s nothing unusual in that. The other difference is only to declare a single valid colour format, so that we can talk freely about particular coloured faces. This only serves to remove all duplicates and mirrors in a smaller, Iconic part of the series.

The 3face puzzle type is a redundant type. It has been removed in the new notation. There is only C2f and CB4.

I think it’s very handy from a solver’s perspective to keep the C2f and the CB4 as separate puzzles. Knowing when the type of puzzle is going to radically differ in it’s format is very handy. I want to see that distinction stay. CB4 has really become a way to say.. anything goes now, we need to map these puzzle types with diagrams. I’m starting to see CB4 as almost, a type of nomenclature, as well.. a way to map other puzzles like 335 variants, which presently only have `nicknames`.

I can’t make out what you’re saying about `a pattern of non-circles that overlaps both 0 and 1 centers`. I think you might be talking about calling things `Planets names`, even though there are more faces than 0 and 1 now?

To understand this you need to understand that Crazy puzzles are about the `Inner Circle parts`. The outer puzzle on a Crazy333planet can always be solved as an RC. The inner parts only ever have 2 possibilities: They can either be broken from the Circle Cube relationship, or not (respectively: they either twist around, or not). This relationship isn’t lost, no matter how we subtly change the function of the face. The planet names make sense, the solving similarity to the Crazy333planets is quite nice to see reflected through the series, and they tell us a lot about the puzzle.

You seem to be vying for a highly binary form of puzzle name, that tells us very minimal things about what the puzzle’s character will be like to solve, but clearly identifies it efficiently in a mathematical way. The difference here is, that isn’t my primary goal. My primary goal is to describe recognisable attributes of the puzzle for solvers.

bwross wrote:
I think that "C2f Uranus-2L (WO)", works much better. The "C2f" can be dropped when understood, with the 2L still around. And it moves Uranus up, where it's identifiable in the first 6 characters. And that's more about what I'm talking about here... no so much radical change, but keeping traditional stuff around and reworking the order.
C2f and CB4 tell us a lot about what needs to be displayed later in the nomenclature. If I see C2f I know that I don’t need a diagram and the nomenclature will be relatively simple. If I see CB4 I know I need more extensive mapping to describe the puzzle. The nomenclature is necessarily more extensive and descriptive. It’s a huge difference, and shouldn’t be left off past the Standard C2f Iconic series. It’s 3 taps of the keyboard and it tells a world of information. Most importantly, it allows us to `leave off` that type of detailed information and mapping in the simpler nomenclature for the C2f series. It uncomplicates things.

It also depends on how much importance you place on 2L> vs Planet names. Maybe it’s subjective, but when I’m building a puzzle 2L> is much more important to me.. It’s the first thing I consider. It tells me how many 2faces I need to build. I think people will be inclined to stay within a 2L> class temporarily, and alter the other attributes, because it’s physically easier. It tells me how many 2faces will be in the mix blocking things up, and to assess how that amount of 2faces will compare to the Planet configuration: Some Planets can't exist under certain 2L> configurations. A lot of solving information can be gleaned from the combination of those things.. The 2L> class, IMO is more important. The planet name has it’s own relative suffix, that determines the colour scheme.

I’m actually pretty happy with that part of the nomenclature, I was hoping to be able to work on other areas, like reducing the amounts of duplicates and mirrors without getting too much of a binary, characterless nomenclature..

Or to allow easier progression through practical puzzle making elements, prohibited by aspects of the nomenclature.

For example:

The introduction of (unorthodox) puzzles.

The Nomenclature was never intended to be a burden, it was always intended to allow practical non-laborious progression. For this very reason it is not completely exempt from mirrors and duplicates, rather, the intention is to minimise them.

But the nomenclature precludes an easy progression, when 2faces can’t be replaced by 3faces or C2constraining faces (Due to colour scheme restrictions, major changes to the physical puzzle must take place in some of these cases, to meet the nomenclature). This is a practical consideration and not a nomenclature hole. So I’m thinking about making it acceptable practice to break from the standard Nomenclature under certain conditions. Particularly, where the standard `Patterns of 2faces` preclude a simple exchange of a 2face centre, to make a 3face or a C2constraining face, or the like.

When you do this it may alter the acceptable `Patterns of 2faces` and under these circumstances it’s accepted to break from the standard colour scheme. We alter the suffix to include the word `unorthodox`. For example: CB4(2L) Jupiter(O-unorthodox) This shows that we have done this and the reason why (because you have made the puzzle from an existing puzzle to save time).

Cheers,
Burgo.

_________________
1st 3x3 solve Oct 2010 (Even though I lived through the 80s).
PB 3x3 55sec Jan 2011 (When I was a kid 1:30 was speedcubing so I'm stoked).
1st 3x3 Earth (nemesis) solve Jan 2011 My You Tube (Now has ALLCrazy 3X3 Planets with Reduction)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Crazy2face CrazyB4cube Nomenclature discussion thread
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 10:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 7:42 am
I'm not sure how to name a puzzle I've been thinking about. What I want to do is take Crazy2Face Mercury and change the single 2-face to a 3-face. By the 0/1 notation for centers, this would effectively make all centers 0-type. All 0-types is just a standard circle cube and the planet concept drops out completely. So how should I name the puzzle? From the list of "Puzzle Types" in Burgo's original post, I can see it falling into one of these, but I honestly have no idea which:

2. CrazyB4cube(000): Standard Circle Cube with B4 elements
4. CrazyB4cube(33p) (Mercury>): Crazy333planet with B4elements
5. Crazy2face (Mercury>): The Iconic series of Crazy2face puzzles with 1x 2face
7. CrazyB4cube(2L>) (Mercury>): Crazy2face puzzles with B4elements, (1-5x 2faces)

_________________
Call me Seth :)

Crazy2Face & Crazy3Face Puzzle Spreadsheet
Named 3x3x3 Bandaging Patterns


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Crazy2face CrazyB4cube Nomenclature discussion thread
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 6:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 3:17 am
Location: Australia
Hi Seth,

You are confusing the `progression` of the nomenclature by thinking that you are going backwards from a Crazy2face. There are no 2faces on the puzzle. Actually, you need to think about the underlying puzzle, and then `adding attributes`.

This has been a bit confused lately due to the `working backwards` to fill in `missing planets` in the Crazy2face series (by adding 3faces). I'm still open to thinking about the best nomenclature for that. Probably Crazy2face with a 3f suffix. Maybe Crazy3face with a 3f suffix, because that was it's original name? If you look above your post^^, under the heading `Introduction to Unorthodox Puzzles`, you can see how I've tried to resolve a similar problem that I forsaw.

So back to the question..
The underlying puzzle is a `Circle cube` (all faces are 0)
The Circle Cube has B4elements added (a 3face).

It is: CrazyB4cube(000) 3f-Y

I think when you solve it, it will act like a `Bandaged Circle Cube`. This is how the nomenclature was intended.. to reveal information about the solving.. not just be a random mathematical name. :)

I think the confusion comes from the way that a 3face `looks like` a 2face. In actuality, from a solving perspective.. it's a 0face that is `bandaged all the way around`. That's why the 1/2 moon feature is a 0face `with Coloured B4bandaging`.

If you added a face type that made it into a planet (but not a 2face yet), then it would be classified as a CrazyB4cube(33p).

Cheers,
Burgo.

_________________
1st 3x3 solve Oct 2010 (Even though I lived through the 80s).
PB 3x3 55sec Jan 2011 (When I was a kid 1:30 was speedcubing so I'm stoked).
1st 3x3 Earth (nemesis) solve Jan 2011 My You Tube (Now has ALLCrazy 3X3 Planets with Reduction)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Crazy2face CrazyB4cube Nomenclature discussion thread
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 7:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 7:42 am
Ahhhh. Ok. That makes much more sense. I am in a process of listing out all the puzzles with 0/1/2/3 faces [in the search for the "lost planets"]. I was working "backwards' like you said and found it very difficult to conceptualize. The way you explain it as adding elements instead makes it much simpler! Thanks!

_________________
Call me Seth :)

Crazy2Face & Crazy3Face Puzzle Spreadsheet
Named 3x3x3 Bandaging Patterns


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 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