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

TwistyPuzzles.com Forum
 It is currently Fri Jul 25, 2014 2:02 am

 All times are UTC - 5 hours

 Page 42 of 62 [ 3096 posts ] Go to page Previous  1 ... 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 ... 62  Next
 Print view Previous topic | Next topic
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 1:48 am

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:41 am
Location: The Blue Mountains, Australia
Brandon i take it that is 1.2.13? If so i think you're doing it the hard way as i just did it in 528 moves
Attachment:

1.2.13.jpg [ 138.76 KiB | Viewed 5775 times ]
and i don't think i was doing it very well, Michael could take a fair amount off that solve i think. I used block building right up until the last layer sort of thing. The big two colour edges along with the small 2 colour circle pieces are solved like 1.2.1 but as you go pair the 1 colour pieces with the one colour circle pieces and slide them into place. That got hard near the end but i had already found that the 1 colour circle pieces could be solved with a (1,1) and the other 1 colour pieces with a (3,1) pure (though i used the (4,1) version of it as that was easier). Oh damn i was going to do 1.1.17 as my 100th puzzle but it seems i got distracted hahaha oh well i'll do it next i suppose.

A while back Julian said
Julian wrote:
1.2.13

Apart from the single color circle pieces, solves like 1.2.2. The 2-color circle pieces show the location and orientation of the 1.2.2. corners. Then cycle the circle wedges (7,1) pure.
Which makes no sense because it doesn't have 1.2.2 corners it has 1.2.1 corners and solving the 1 colour circle pieces after the 1 colour other pieces seems silly.

I hope this doesn't dissuade you from competing for fewest moves. What was your method as i bet it was still good practice in cycling pieces two or three at a time.

Also gelatinbrain i'm not sure about this certificate situation, i submitted my solve normally but should i have sent the certificate as well or only do that if my solve isn't recorded? (i'm guessing the latter)
edit: oops yes Julian i did mean the other way around... fixed.

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

Last edited by Elwyn on Mon Oct 04, 2010 6:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 6:27 am

Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:52 am
Location: Brighton, UK
Elwyn wrote:
A while back Julian said
Julian wrote:
1.2.13

Apart from the single color circle pieces, solves like 1.2.2. The 2-color circle pieces show the location and orientation of the 1.2.2. corners. Then cycle the circle wedges (7,1) pure.
Which makes no sense because it doesn't have 1.2.2 corners it has 1.2.1 corners
That was a goof that I should have corrected. I later saw them as non-permutable, spinning 1.2.2 corners but I still never noticed that they move exactly like the single color pieces of 1.2.1. I never tried a solve, but my plan was to do it like 1.2.12 (= cornerless 1.2.2) apart from the single color circle pieces, blockbuilding most of the way while being careful to place those two-color circle pieces correctly as I went, then cycle all of the one-color circle pieces at the end. My initial observations are somewhat hit and miss when it comes to efficiency. For example, I threw out some possibilities on how the circle 1.1.x could be solved when they were very new, then as you and Brandon and I exchanged ideas and improved algos, I edited and re-edited my post.

Elwyn wrote:
and solving the 1 colour circle pieces before the 1 colour other pieces seems silly.
You must mean the other way around, and with hindsight, I agree with you. I played around with 1.2.13 again recently and I wrote down a (3,1) to finish the 1 colour normal pieces pure at the end, having realized it was easy to finish any stray 1 colour circle pieces (1,1) non pure. But I hadn't experimented with the pairing of those two types during the blockbuilding stage so I held off on trying a solve.

I think I'll save 1.2.13 for my 200th puzzle. Finishing all the tetrahedra and octahedra is my priority now which will take my total to 196, then it would be logical for me to do 3.4.10, 3.4.22 and 3.4.23 to leave myself a line of closely related 3.4.x puzzles to try later.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:47 am

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:54 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
Elwyn wrote:
Brandon i take it that is 1.2.13? If so i think you're doing it the hard way as i just did it in 528 moves
Ouch, that's way better. I'm glad you used a more efficient method or I'd feel worse!

I just cycled piece-by-piece as efficiently as I could. I didn't realize the edges and vertex orientations were the same as 1.2.1 but in hindsight, I solved it the same way. I was very careful at that stage but I didn't write down the final move-count. I think it was about 150 which would have been a good score for 1.2.1. I then cycled the 1.2.12 kites pure, placing 2 or 3 at a time with the fewest setup moves I could find. I finished this stage at 377 moves. It is difficult to compare this to a 1.2.12 solve because 1.2.12 doesn't have the corner orientations to worry about. Julian's 307 moves for 1.2.12 is almost certainly better even factoring in extra moves for the orientations.

I then solved the circle-bitten kite pieces (3,3) pure, 2 and 3 at a time.

Before I started the solve I considered pairing the kites with their circle counterparts but I was worried that would reduce the setup moves available to me. I didn't want to do the pairing work and then be unable to maintain the pairs efficiently. It wasn't until I got through to the circle pieces in my solve that I realized that while the kites are all in one orbit, the circle pieces are in 5 distinct orbits (possibly 10?). The setup moves are much cleaner and shorter for the circle pieces. I thought pairing had a chance of saving moves but I thought pairing might actually takes as many moves as just cycling individually. Based on you solve though, clearly it doesn't!

It seems by pairing during block-building, you ended up moving the kites into orbits that have easy setup moves. This saves setup moves when you solve them and solves the circle pieces at the same time. Plus, with just a few pieces in each orbit, it's easier to place 3 at a time.

Good job on your solve and thanks for sharing ideas!

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

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 2:49 pm

Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 7:13 pm
Location: Bruxelles, Belgium
Elwyn wrote:
Also gelatinbrain i'm not sure about this certificate situation, i submitted my solve normally but should i have sent the certificate as well or only do that if my solve isn't recorded? (i'm guessing the latter)

Yes, keep the certificate somewhere, and e-mail me if your score dosen't appear within 24 hours.
Thank you also for sending help links.

Still many help links are missing. Any help would be appreciated. PM me message numbers of solution for each puzzle.

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

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 3:38 pm

Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:15 pm
Location: Sandnes, Norway
Gelatinbrain, I see you've successfully added my solves that didn't appear: it is appreciated! Also, if you would like more help links, I guess I could write an outline on 5.2.5, as this puzzle doesn't have an awful lot of solvers.

5.2.5 solution outline
1.) Solve centers:
You really don't need any commutators for this. The majority of the moves I did this with were slice moves.

2.) Pair up edges:
The first thing you should do here if you want to save moves, is to locate edges that may already be partially or fully solved. Hint: slice move, regular, slice move, regular. There's one certain situation that can occur when doing this:
Attachment:

Skjermbilde 2010-10-08 kl. 21.30.29.png [ 77.19 KiB | Viewed 5425 times ]
Luckily, it's an easy fix.

My approach:

CB&2, AB, CB&2,
DB&2, AB, DB&2,
CB&2, AB, CB&2,

Julian's approach:

[CB&2,CD], [AC&2,CD]x2, [CB&2,CD]

Also, there's one more thing you need to pay attention to when pairing up the edges. Due to the fact that this puzzle is restricted to 180 degree turns, it's necessary to pair up the edges in their correct spots. For instants, this paired edge in the front (I need to learn how to make neat illustrations like the one Julian has ) is not correct:
Attachment:

Skjermbilde 2010-10-08 kl. 21.37.55.png [ 30.99 KiB | Viewed 5425 times ]
The edge that's supposed to be there is the blue-red one, which is determined by the centers.

3.) Place corners on the correct face, like on 5.2.1:
And whilst doing that make sure that the edges gets correctly oriented. Usually if you don't take that into account whilst doing the corners, you'll get two edges that are oriented wrong. Which you can also solve just like on 5.2.1. But doing this isn't necessary if you don't care about saving moves. But - that means you will have to add an extra step to do this.

4.) Solve the triangles underneath the corners:
This is the only "hard" part of the solve, but I found that you can solve these just as the corresponding pieces on the helicopter cube. I'll not share my commutator for it, as I suspect that most of you would like to find your own, but I'll post it if anyone wants.

I've edited step two of this post significantly thanks to a suggestion by Julian; thanks for the suggestion and for letting me use your illustration photo of the edge problem.

For some reason I find the 5.2.x puzzles easier than the 5.1.x puzzles. I have gotten the feeling that it's mostly the other way around I guess you automatically get better at the puzzles you enjoy the most.

I feel I should add that my first and only solve with this method gave me a move count of 64; which isn't too bad. So if I were to try, I would definitely be able to lower my move count using these steps.

Last edited by Katja on Fri Oct 08, 2010 2:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 3:53 pm

Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:52 am
Location: Brighton, UK
4.1.11 (Circle FTO) - a method

The edge-circle pieces show the location and orientation of 8 otherwise hidden centers. The corner-circle pieces come in pairs and are in two subgroups/orbitals of 6 pairs each. They can be thought of as "split" corners. If you look at a corner of a conventional face turning octahedron, you can call the stickers North, South, East and West, and turns of any of those 4 faces move the corner. But what if the corner moves if the North or South face moves, but not if the East or West face moves? If such corners existed, they would move like the two sets of corner-circle pieces of this puzzle.

Like 4.1.2 and 4.1.3, we can reduce 4.1.11 to the equivalent of a Pyraminx and then solve the Pyraminx.

Attachment:

GB 4-1-11 reduction plan.jpg [ 48.6 KiB | Viewed 5880 times ]

1- Solve the edge-circle pieces intuitively.

2 - Solve the edges while keeping the edge-circle pieces solved, using a mixture of intuitive (1,1) sequences and 4 move sequences such as:
URF&2,UBR,URF'&2,UFL'

3 - Solve the corner-circle piece pairs of 4 non-adjacent faces. This can be done with (3,1) commutators such as:
ULB,UFL&2,ULB',
DRB,
ULB,UFL'&2,ULB',
DRB'

4 - Solve the bitten pieces of the same non-adjacent faces with (3,1) commutators like:
URF&2,UBR,URF'&2,
DRB,
URF&2,UBR',URF'&2,
DRB'

5 - Pair the corners with the remaining corner-circle piece pairs. Algos from stage 3 can be shortened to 5 moves for this stage.

6 - Pair the corners with the remaining bitten pieces. We can't use the (3,1) commutators from stage 4 because the corners would be pulled from the pairings made in stage 5. I use (6,1) commutators like:
URF,UBR,UFL,UBR',UFL',URF',
DRB,
URF,UFL,UBR,UFL',UBR',URF',
DRB'

7 - Solve the reduced Pyraminx. Note that when setups for stages 3-6 consist entirely of twisting the completed faces, or they start off with such moves, those moves do not need to be undone, saving moves. It's just like letting the corners of the eventual Pyraminx spin around; it doesn't matter if they spin around during the solve because we can just twist them into place during stage 7.

Edit: I think this method should average around 200 moves with the occasional lucky sub-180 solve. I did a solve of 191 moves after improving stages 2 & 4. I welcome comment from Stefan and Michael as they may have more efficient and easier/faster methods. In particular I would be interested to see if anyone has a good algo for "flipping" two pairs of corner-circle pieces because the shortest one I have is 16 moves.

Last edited by Julian on Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:20 pm, edited 9 times in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 4:26 pm

Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:52 am
Location: Brighton, UK
Elwyn wrote:
1.1.42 reduction to kilominx
Great job! With quite a few puzzles I am looking forward to trying out your reduction methods, but 1.1.20 and 1.1.42 are exceptions, due to length and scariness respectively. With those I just doff my cap and say, "Nicely done, sir!" 1.1.17 is a borderline case but I will probably be tempted someday.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:04 am

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:41 am
Location: The Blue Mountains, Australia
Julian wrote:
but 1.1.20 and 1.1.42 are exceptions, due to length and scariness respectively. With those I just doff my cap and say, "Nicely done, sir!" 1.1.17 is a borderline case but I will probably be tempted someday.
I'm surprised 1.1.17 is borderline but 1.1.42 is considered scary when 1.1.17 contains all the hard parts of 1.1.42 plus the hard part of 1.1.8 (pairing 30 different megaminx edges) and makes it harder by making the edges you have to pair separated by a visually confusing gap. There's definitely a reason i did 1.1.42 first as practice, in comparison it's a nice short solve
bmenrigh wrote:
Before I started the solve I considered pairing the kites with their circle counterparts but I was worried that would reduce the setup moves available to me.
The fact that the circle pieces are in orbits limits the setup moves anyway. Also if you solve from the bottom up the fact that they are in orbits gives each piece a specific place and means once you pair it with a kite in the top of the puzzle they stay together nicely and you can think of it as just one piece in an orbit as you move it into place. I quite like that puzzle as it solves in a slightly different way to most, that said i'll only resolve it once the record is beaten. I'm also very glad i have a physical helicopter cube as that is the puzzle that i learnt about orbits on and the ability to move pieces out of an orbit helped me understand them for some reason.
gelatinbrain wrote:
Yes, keep the certificate somewhere, and e-mail me if your score dosen't appear within 24 hours.
Thank you also for sending help links.

I'll continue PM-ing you the post numbers for the help links for the solutions i post and maybe go back and look for more some time soon but i don't know when. I now have a problem with the windows exe, i just tried to download it today but once i unzip it and try to open the exe i just get this every time
Attachment:

error message.jpg [ 32.1 KiB | Viewed 5874 times ]
any ideas?

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

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 1:54 am

Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 7:13 pm
Location: Bruxelles, Belgium
Elwyn wrote:
I'll continue PM-ing you the post numbers for the help links for the solutions i post and maybe go back and look for more some time soon but i don't know when. I now have a problem with the windows exe, i just tried to download it today but once i unzip it and try to open the exe i just get this every time
Attachment:
error message.jpg
any ideas?

Tell me also the version of your windows(xp, I bet) and your cpu type(x86,x64,amd64,etc...).
Thanks!

P.S.
You cannot attach an image to a pm but you can embed a link
in img tag ,in case you don't know.
Like:

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

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 5:16 am

Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:52 am
Location: Brighton, UK
Elwyn wrote:
I'm surprised 1.1.17 is borderline but 1.1.42 is considered scary when 1.1.17 contains all the hard parts of 1.1.42 plus the hard part of 1.1.8 (pairing 30 different megaminx edges) and makes it harder by making the edges you have to pair separated by a visually confusing gap. There's definitely a reason i did 1.1.42 first as practice, in comparison it's a nice short solve
Logically of course you are right, 1.1.42 is less difficult than 1.1.17 and would probably make good practice, but I don't find it interesting enough to put in the necessary time and effort to solve it again. However I feel an attachment to 1.1.17 because it was one of the first Gelatinbrain puzzles I solved, over two years ago. I was new here and leading solver Doug said, "I think it will be a long time before anyone solves this one." Well, that meant I had to solve it, and I felt a great sense of accomplishment when I did. Revisiting my "Everest" and re-solving it again in an ingenious way will fascinate me and give me a lot of satisfaction, even if it does boggle my mind and take a very long time. Thanks to recent changes by Gelatinbrain, I can solve the Windows version and spread the solve over a few days without leaving my PC on in between, if I like. I probably have the time and energy for just one really tough reduction solve, so I choose 1.1.17 over 1.1.42. (And I am really looking forward to 1.1.19, 1.3.1, and 1.3.2 when I get back to the dodeca puzzles.)

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 6:19 am

Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 1:56 pm
I solved the 1.1.42. Elwyn, your solution is fine. It's really reduced to the most necessary. This is fun
Julian, I solved the 4.7.2 again, and I came really close to your move count record (one move more ).
And I solved 4.7.1 again, impressed by your shorter 4.7.2 algs. and got a new move count record (49 moves shorter than your previous record).
Yes, we are a good team. Yeah! Your algs. and outlines make my results better.
I will check Julians 4.1.11 outline as soon as possible.
Bye, Stefan.

Elwyns 1.1.42 solution
Julians 4.7.2 solution
early corner-orientation-parity-checker for the 1.1.42 and other puzzles

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:22 pm

Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:15 pm
Location: Sandnes, Norway
Elwyn, I realize no one has congratulated you on solving your 100th puzzle yet, so congrats!

Today I feel I've made an accomplishment:
Attachment:

Skjermbilde 2010-10-07 kl. 18.43.17.png [ 89.41 KiB | Viewed 5783 times ]
A 907 move Gigaminx solve! Actually, I think I would be able to get my move count down even more, so a sub-900 is my next attempt. I used Elwyn's Gigaminx method, slightly altered to fit my solving preferences.

Also, I need a little bit of help from you guys: I am not good at solving any kind of parity. I have always found a way to fix it, but in some cases I am not able to leave the rest of the puzzle untouched by my parity fix sequence. For instants on 1.1.20:
Attachment:

Prosjekt 1.1.20 problem.jpg [ 46.35 KiB | Viewed 5783 times ]
Does anyone have a parity fix for this that will leave the rest of the pieces untouched? Also, an explanation of how it was constructed would be lovely!

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 2:19 pm

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:54 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
Katten wrote:
Also, I need a little bit of help from you guys: I am not good at solving any kind of parity. I have always found a way to fix it, but in some cases I am not able to leave the rest of the puzzle untouched by my parity fix sequence. For instants on 1.1.20:
Attachment:
The attachment Prosjekt 1.1.20 problem.jpg is no longer available
Does anyone have a parity fix for this that will leave the rest of the pieces untouched? Also, an explanation of how it was constructed would be lovely!

Hi Katten, I'm glad your taking on 1.1.20. I liked that puzzle a lot. I like most of complex big Dodecahedra.

You can solve your parity issue with two 3-cycles. I don't know what your 3-cycles move but here is an annotated image of how I would set this up:
Attachment:

1.1.20_clean_half_gray_parity.png [ 25.13 KiB | Viewed 5872 times ]

My 3-cycle moves an edge-half on 3 adjacent faces. That is, without setup moves, it does A -> D -> T -> A. It also flips the orientation of 2 pieces. That can be ignored.

So step 1: use a slice setup to put B into T's spot. Then the 3-cycle does A -> D -> B -> A.

Then, step 2: use whatever setup moves necessary (I see a 2-move [slice, face] setup) so that you can do A -> D -> C -> A.

Depending on the 3-cycles you use, you'll most likely end up with the red pair and blue pair flipped in orientation. Treat this like the Pyraminx Crystal case.

On all face-turning puzzles, apparent even parity in the edges can always be fixed in this way. Try it on the 4x4x4 Rubik's cube:

[F'&4,L',B'],
[R&4,B',R,B,R'&4,B',R'],
[B'2,L,F&4],
[L'2&4,B'2],
[R&4,B',R,B,R'&4,B',R'],
[B',R'2&2]

Works like a charm!

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

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 3:01 pm

Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:15 pm
Location: Sandnes, Norway
Hi Brandon,

If you haven't noticed, I solved 1.1.20 a few months ago. Reading your method, I realize this is what I did, just without preserving the rest of the puzzle. My 3-cycle however, is not like yours:
Attachment:

Skjermbilde 2010-10-07 kl. 21.48.42.png [ 64.34 KiB | Viewed 5864 times ]
I believe this is something like a (1,(1,1)) commutator. Basically, it's a slice move first, then I do R L R' L'. But to make it look like in this photo, you'll have to add the inverse of the (1,1) commutator of course. The thing I'm struggling with, is to find the right set-up moves that allows me to do these swaps and not mess up anything along the way.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 3:23 pm

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:54 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
Katten wrote:
Hi Brandon,

If you haven't noticed, I solved 1.1.20 a few months ago. Reading your method, I realize this is what I did, just without preserving the rest of the puzzle. My 3-cycle however, is not like yours:
Attachment:
Skjermbilde 2010-10-07 kl. 21.48.42.png
I believe this is something like a (1,(1,1)) commutator. Basically, it's a slice move first, then I do R L R' L'. But to make it look like in this photo, you'll have to add the inverse of the (1,1) commutator of course. The thing I'm struggling with, is to find the right set-up moves that allows me to do these swaps and not mess up anything along the way.
I remember now that you solved it. I blame my poor memory and rush because I'm at work

It's easy to make a (1, (1,1)) pure. I'm not sure why yours isn't. For example:

F,[D&2,B&2,D'&2,B'&2],F',[B&2,D&2,B'&2,D'&2],

Which is only a setup move or two away from being the 3-cycle that I described. There is an easy way to shorted the (1,1) to just 3 moves and maintain a pure cycle too

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

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 3:36 pm

Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:15 pm
Location: Sandnes, Norway
bmenrigh wrote:
It's easy to make a (1, (1,1)) pure. I'm not sure why yours isn't.
It's not pure because I really don't need it to be. Pairing up the edges is my first step in the 1.1.20 solution I worked out, so I never bothered using a pure cycle.

I was able to use your parity fix steps to get to the final step. But then it just got way to messy for me to keep track of the set-ups etc. I really hate parity

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 4:31 pm

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:07 am
Location: Germany, Bavaria
My technical problems are back and the situation is worse than ever: I have now three different Windows computers in my house and Gelatinbrain applets do not run on one of them.
I have Windows 7 x64, Vista Home Premium 32 bit and XP SP3 32bit.
I had reported that after a complete new installation of Java, I could run Gelatinbrain applets on IE32 with Java 32.
A few days later, nothing works anymore.
Other JOGL applets run without problems.
I have given up!!!!

_________________

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 5:38 pm

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:54 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
konsassen wrote:
My technical problems are back and the situation is worse than ever: I have now three different Windows computers in my house and Gelatinbrain applets do not run on one of them.
I have Windows 7 x64, Vista Home Premium 32 bit and XP SP3 32bit.
I had reported that after a complete new installation of Java, I could run Gelatinbrain applets on IE32 with Java 32.
A few days later, nothing works anymore.
Other JOGL applets run without problems.
I have given up!!!!
Konsassen,

I just tried the applet on Windows XP SP2 32bit + Java 1.6.0.21 and you're right, it doesn't work. I also tried my test applet and it too doesn't work. This is what the Java console reports:

Oct 7, 2010 10:12:47 PM org.jdesktop.applet.util.JNLPAppletLauncher displayError

I took a packet trace and confirmed that everything is fine from that standpoint. Of course I cleared every darn cache there is and tried several times without it working.

I tracked the issue down to a Java security setting. Namely, no option works except:
Attachment:

java_sec.png [ 22.44 KiB | Viewed 6253 times ]
This was discussed before and Gelatinbrain rightly pointed out that this isn't really a good idea from a security standpoint. I agree. I tried the other 3 options (clearing the caches between tries) and no dialog or other warning popped up and the applet always failed to load. The console always reported "Class not found: jzzz.CMainApplet".

I find it strange that a security setting is not reporting a security violation in the console. Reporting that a class can't be found is really reporting the side-effect of a security setting rather than the cause of the issue.

I tried signing the polyhedra.jar file since Java treats signed jars as more trusted. That didn't make any difference either.

The default security settings must be different for the Linux JRE since I don't have to adjust any settings to get it to work.

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

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Fri Oct 08, 2010 2:39 am

Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 7:13 pm
Location: Bruxelles, Belgium
I don't know why my applet doesn't work in the sandbox. But until I find a solution, I recommend to do not use my applet, and never chose the "disable verification" option. It's dangerous because this policy is applied to all applets.

I guess "mixed code" means that JOGL is signed but my code is not. But I don't understand why that causes a security problem. My code is safe exactly because my applet is not signed, because JAVA blocks all security violating operations of an unsigned applet.
On the contrary, if my code is signed and once you accept my sign,
it's really dangerous for you. If I like I can do anything on your computer, reading and transfering your personal infos, writing on your disk, etc.

If my code is considered suspicous simply because it is not signd, The "securtiy" here shoud mean a totally different thing, for example an applet showing a fake "password please" window.
Oh no! There's no remedy for people that credulous...

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

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Fri Oct 08, 2010 5:51 am

Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:52 am
Location: Brighton, UK
Katten wrote:
5.2.5 solution outline
Thanks Katja, your solution worked out fine for me except for one thing I'd like to add... when pairing the edges, this can happen:

Attachment:

GB 5-2-5 edge problem.jpg [ 19.04 KiB | Viewed 6217 times ]
I use an 8 move fix [CB&2,CD], [AC&2,CD]x2, [CB&2,CD]. You were slightly lucky not to get this during your one solve, because it probably happens the majority of the time.

Katten wrote:
For some reason I find the 5.2.x puzzles easier than the 5.1.x puzzles. I have gotten the feeling that it's mostly the other way around
I see most of 5.1.x as octahedral puzzles in the form of tetrahedra. The way I think about them and the way I write down algos, I always think of the 4 corners and 4 faces as a collection of 8 "faces", and the puzzles feel as familiar as face turning octahedra. On the other hand, 5.2.x are equivalent to 180-degree-turns-only face turning cubes or vertex turning octahedra, which I found weird and difficult to get used to, especially with 5.2.4 and 5.2.5.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Fri Oct 08, 2010 10:40 am

Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:15 pm
Location: Sandnes, Norway
Hi Julian,

I'm glad you got something out of it. The case you are describing did not happen to me on my first solve. Just now I solved it 5 times in a row, and it happened 3/5 times. Thanks for adding that part, I will go back and edit my original post. Would it be OK if I use your illustration image for that?

To fix this situation I used this:

CB&2, AB, CB&2,
DB&2, AB,DB&2,
CB&2, AB, CB&2,

Which is one move longer than yours.

Also, I realize I left something else out as well: when pairing up the edges, make sure you do this at the edges correct place. For instants: don't pair up the green-yellow edge next to the blue-red centers. Because this puzzle is limited to 180 degree turns, the place where you put it is the place where it will stay. But I suppose that's quite obvious, but I'll still add it in case.
Julian wrote:
I see most of 5.1.x as octahedral puzzles in the form of tetrahedra. The way I think about them and the way I write down algos, I always think of the 4 corners and 4 faces as a collection of 8 "faces", and the puzzles feel as familiar as face turning octahedra. On the other hand, 5.2.x are equivalent to 180-degree-turns-only face turning cubes or vertex turning octahedra, which I found weird and difficult to get used to, especially with 5.2.4 and 5.2.5.
That's a clever way to look at it. I find the octahedra very hard, so this would definitely explain why I'm having a rough time with them.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Fri Oct 08, 2010 2:22 pm

Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:52 am
Location: Brighton, UK
5.2.5
Katten wrote:
Would it be OK if I use your illustration image for that?
Sure, no problem. I've been doing a run of tetrahedra today. 5.2.6-5.2.8 turned out to be easier than I expected. 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 are weirder and harder but I've got the hang of them now.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Fri Oct 08, 2010 6:03 pm

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:07 am
Location: Germany, Bavaria
gelatinbrain wrote:
I don't know why my applet doesn't work in the sandbox. But until I find a solution, I recommend to do not use my applet, and never chose the "disable verification" option. ...
I can confirm that it works with bmenrigh's security configuration. (Java 6.21 32 bit AND 64 bit on W7)
Very strange and I hope, gelatinbrain, that you'll find a solution.

Another question for you: How much work is it to create a "Compy Skewb" as designed by TomZ (with non-trivial tips)? Could you possibly provide it to us?

_________________

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Fri Oct 08, 2010 6:15 pm

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:54 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
konsassen wrote:
gelatinbrain wrote:
I don't know why my applet doesn't work in the sandbox. But until I find a solution, I recommend to do not use my applet, and never chose the "disable verification" option. ...
I can confirm that it works with bmenrigh's security configuration. (Java 6.21 32 bit AND 64 bit on W7)
Very strange and I hope, gelatinbrain, that you'll find a solution.
What I don't understand is that I signed a copy of the applet and it failed the same way. Signed applets are supposed to run with elevated privileges.

I also don't understand why the applet is failing considering it didn't in the past. Also, I'm surprised the Java console doesn't print a sandbox access violation or the Java equivalent. It just seems to fail silently and not load the main polyhedra.jar class.

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

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 3:18 pm

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:09 pm
Location: My House
GB was working for me before, but isn't working now, I just get the blank screen. I am on Firefox 3.6.10 and have Java 6.0.21.

Alex

_________________
If I had ÂŁ1,000,000 more, I'd be a Millionaire

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 2:13 am

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:41 am
Location: The Blue Mountains, Australia
I'm in the same boat, having to switch the security to the dangerous setting otherwise i get the "class not found" error.

Katten wrote:
A 907 move Gigaminx solve! Actually, I think I would be able to get my move count down even more, so a sub-900 is my next attempt. I used Elwyn's Gigaminx method, slightly altered to fit my solving preferences.
I just did my first FM gigaminx solve in a while and beat Michael's record with a 572 move solve only 23 moves off my last record but that means i beat his by 20 so i'm happy. I think the fact i got better at the megaminx step at the end might have been what helped.

I'd say i could beat the 1.1.11 record as well

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

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:14 pm

Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:06 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA, USA
I just found two new puzzles that GB had recently added: 3.11.1 and 3.11.1b. I wonder if they are inspired by any puzzle in the real world. I've never seen such things.

_________________
Check out some virtual puzzles I created at http://nan.ma

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:46 pm

Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:52 am
Location: Brighton, UK
schuma wrote:
I just found two new puzzles that GB had recently added: 3.11.1 and 3.11.1b. I wonder if they are inspired by any puzzle in the real world. I've never seen such things.
I noticed them an hour ago during my daily before-bed check for new puzzles. There is also a nice update to the File menu from the applet, now showing images of the puzzles along with their names. Thanks Gelatinbrain, for the new puzzles and the continual refinements.

I think I see how 3.11.1 works: when making a 90 degree turn, each ball is first pushed over 90 degrees "forwards" by the ball "behind" it, i.e. about to replace its position; then each ball is pushed over 90 degrees in the direction it is about to move to arrive at its new position. It's the first face turning cube I've seen where a 360 degree turn does not take us back to exactly the same situation: we have to do three full turns for that. I can see a (4,1) commutator that affects 3 adjacent balls while leaving the other 5 balls intact, and I think the puzzle should be solvable using that one algo (plus its inverse and/or mirror). It's going to be tricky though.

I think the same movements happen with 3.11.1b too, but I find it much more difficult to visualize.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:58 pm

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:54 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
schuma wrote:
I just found two new puzzles that GB had recently added: 3.11.1 and 3.11.1b. I wonder if they are inspired by any puzzle in the real world. I've never seen such things.
Really cool! Visually they remind me of electron orbitals. I tried solving 3.11.1 using intuition and I got down to just two balls/corners twisted. They were more inverted than twisted though which is a problem I've only ever seen on the 4-dimensional puzzles. I think 3.11.1 can be solved with a bit of luck and intuition. A fewest moves solve is going to require insight.

I love the image-based menu too! Thanks Gelatinbrain!

Edit: I have only seen this happen on the 3x3x3x3 cube (any N^4 tesseract actually):
Attachment:

damn_parity.png [ 44.24 KiB | Viewed 6059 times ]
I don't have any idea how to handle this case just yet...

Gelatinbrain, you're an evil genius

Edit 2: If you twist the top face in the above parity by 1 quarter turn and then re-solve the face it does change the parity. I'm certain the parity can eventually be fixed in this way. The number of quarter turns required is going to take some more analysis.

Edit 3: I have figured out how to fix the above parity with a strange X, Y, Xmirror Y' routine. This sequence shouldn't do anything but it does. On a regular 2x2x2 this Y routine is a no-operation. On this puzzle it is magical. Using this fix I solved it in 108 moves. With a better understanding of the puzzle I'm sure it can be solved in 40 or so since I was able to solve the first 4 spheres in 10 moves.

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

Last edited by Brandon Enright on Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 1:38 am

Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 7:13 pm
Location: Bruxelles, Belgium
schuma wrote:
I just found two new puzzles that GB had recently added: 3.11.1 and 3.11.1b. I wonder if they are inspired by any puzzle in the real world. I've never seen such things.

I'm sure you will beat them quite soon.
This puzzle is not inspired by any existing puzzle(except 2x2x2) but not purely conceptual either.
There are analogues in the nature. E.g. ,planets or electrons(as Brandon pointed) spinning on itself while rorating around a common axis.
How many possible patterns this puzzle have? I'm not very good at this kind of calculation. Each ball has 12x8 orientation, compared with 3x8 of a 2x2x2 corner. So far, that's what I know...

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

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 1:50 am

Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:16 pm
Location: Somewhere Else
Gelatinbrain, if you're going to make puzzles based on grids of spheres, do you think you could make a 3D analogue to the Cmetrick/Cmetrick Junior puzzle?

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:41 am

Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:52 am
Location: Brighton, UK
Single rotated sphere of 3.11.1
bmenrigh wrote:
I have only seen this happen on the 3x3x3x3 cube (any N^4 tesseract actually). I have figured out how to fix the above parity with a strange X, Y, Xmirror Y' routine. This sequence shouldn't do anything but it does. On a regular 2x2x2 this Y routine is a no-operation. On this puzzle it is magical.
A similar thing happens with the Trajber's Octahedron (4.2.1), where you can have the puzzle completely solved except for one corner. Because each move of 3.11.1 involves an even number of 90 degree rotations, and any reorientation of the whole puzzle is an even number of rotations, I'm fairly sure that whenever there is only one sphere left to solve, it must be an even number of 90 degree rotations from solved. So I don't think we would ever see a single sphere just 90 degrees away from solved.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:45 am

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:54 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
Julian wrote:
Single rotated sphere of 3.11.1
bmenrigh wrote:
I have only seen this happen on the 3x3x3x3 cube (any N^4 tesseract actually). I have figured out how to fix the above parity with a strange X, Y, Xmirror Y' routine. This sequence shouldn't do anything but it does. On a regular 2x2x2 this Y routine is a no-operation. On this puzzle it is magical.
A similar thing happens with the Trajber's Octahedron (4.2.1), where you can have the puzzle completely solved except for one corner. Because each move of 3.11.1 involves an even number of 90 degree rotations, and any reorientation of the whole puzzle is an even number of rotations, I'm fairly sure that whenever there is only one sphere left to solve, it must be an even number of 90 degree rotations from solved. So I don't think we would ever see a single sphere just 90 degrees away from solved.
Yeah I came to the same conclusion while solving them. The last sphere is restricted to just 180 degree rotation about one of the 3 axis. I'm trying to get my move count down on 3.11.1b right now. I'm starting to get a better intuition about these puzzles

Edit: it seems it can have the 180 degree parity in more than one axis based on the solve I just did. Maybe I'm too bleary-eyed tired to understand the puzzle right now...

Edit again: scratch that, it was 90 degrees in 2 different axes. My parity fix can only handle 180 degrees in one axis. I'll have to play with this some more tomorrow.

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

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 6:49 pm

Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:52 am
Location: Brighton, UK
3.11.1 - a tough puzzle! I finally did a first solve in 50 moves. I don't know how lucky I was and if there are significant gaps in my method, but here it is in outline:

1. Solve 4 adjacent spheres (around a face) using a mixture of intuition, observation, and trial and error.

2. Permute the remaining 4 spheres to valid positions, so that each sphere is an even number of 90 degree rotations from solved.

3. Using a slightly modified Rubik's last layer edge ('A') perm of 10 moves that does yz' and y'z to UFR and DFR, and another algo of 8 moves that I found using a Rubik's cube that does xz and xy, get the spheres so they are all either solved or 180 degrees from solved.

4. Using (1,1) commutators to do y2 to two spheres or z2 to one and x2 to another, complete the solve.

5. If you reach one unsolved sphere twisted 180 degrees, this can be fixed in 12 moves: y2 to two spheres in 4 moves, then 2 setup moves to push the twisted sphere to a different adjacent position, then the double y2 algo again (in the new, rotated position) and finally undo the 2 setup moves.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 8:55 pm

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:54 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
Julian wrote:
3.11.1 - a tough puzzle! I finally did a first solve in 50 moves.
I gave it another go and this time I got all the way to a single sphere with a 90 degree twist in two different axes in only 21 moves . Unfortunately I tried a few sequences to fix it. When they didn't work I undid and eventually I lost my spot. I was able to get back but it cost me moves. I finally solved it in 53 which is frustrating. I'm sure I can solve it in 35 moves with a bit more experimentation. I bet you could do 30 if you were careful.

Edit; just got a 41 move solve in 1:40 The solve didn't submit though so I have a certificate that I'll email to Gelatinbrain. With a bit of luck this puzzle can be done in under 30 moves. With a lot of luck it could be done in under 20.

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

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 1:22 am

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:54 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
I'm more comfortable with this puzzle now so I understand your solution outline well enough to comment.

Julian wrote:
3.11.1 - a tough puzzle! I finally did a first solve in 50 moves. I don't know how lucky I was and if there are significant gaps in my method, but here it is in outline:

1. Solve 4 adjacent spheres (around a face) using a mixture of intuition, observation, and trial and error.
I do the same. I can usually get 4 spheres solved in a face in less than 10 moves.

Julian wrote:
2. Permute the remaining 4 spheres to valid positions, so that each sphere is an even number of 90 degree rotations from solved.
I don't understand why this step is needed. Are you trying to reduce the number of times you have to apply step 3? I have been twisting this face until one of the remaining spheres is solved. If it isn't solved, usually I can twist it around until two adjacent spheres can both be solved is a single step sequence in step 3.

Julian wrote:
3. Using a slightly modified Rubik's last layer edge ('A') perm of 10 moves that does yz' and y'z to UFR and DFR, and another algo of 8 moves that I found using a Rubik's cube that does xz and xy, get the spheres so they are all either solved or 180 degrees from solved.
If you apply Sune you can do a y'z and y'x' in 8 moves. There is a ((1,1),1) sequence that will do y'z' in both spheres. The more sequences we have for this step the easier it is to shave off moves in the solve.

Julian wrote:
4. Using (1,1) commutators to do y2 to two spheres or z2 to one and x2 to another, complete the solve.
I combine step 3 and 4 into one step. I think we have the same sequences for this step. Very useful and only 4 moves!

Julian wrote:
5. If you reach one unsolved sphere twisted 180 degrees, this can be fixed in 12 moves: y2 to two spheres in 4 moves, then 2 setup moves to push the twisted sphere to a different adjacent position, then the double y2 algo again (in the new, rotated position) and finally undo the 2 setup moves.
I found this too but then I realized you only need 1 setup move. The whole sequence can be done in 10 moves. By changing the orientation on the puzzle before you start you can put the 180 degree twist into any axis.

Unfortunately you can wind up with a single sphere twisted 90 degrees in two different axes. I don't know how to solve this case cleanly. I have to go back to steps 3 and 4 to resolve it. I've played with different setup moves for the 180 degree twist to get 90 in two axes but I haven't had any luck. Earlier when I was going for fewest moves I just started over when I ended up with this situation.

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

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 1:47 am

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:54 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
gelatinbrain wrote:
How many possible patterns this puzzle have? I'm not very good at this kind of calculation. Each ball has 12x8 orientation, compared with 3x8 of a 2x2x2 corner. So far, that's what I know...
EDIT: These calculations are WRONG. There are only 12 possible orientations but more orientations are available when the permutation of the puzzle is odd. Calculating the possibilities seems quite hard.

For 1.11.1 Each sphere can be in 24 orientations, the orientation of the last sphere is restricted to only 12 orientations, and the overall orientation of the puzzle (24) doesn't matter.

That brings us to 24^6 * 12 = 2,293,235,712 total unique states.
That's more than 624 times the number of states in a normal 2x2x2 Rubik's cube.

For 1.11.1b there are 8 spheres to be arranged for 8! total permutations. The rest of the calculation is the same.

That comes to 8! * 24^6 * 12 = 92,463,263,907,840
That's more than 25,000 times the number of states in a normal 2x2x2 Rubik's cube.

I'm a bit shaky about this 1.11.1b calculation though because the freedom of twists available might be tied to the parity of permutation. The calculation might need to take into account a small factor of unreachable twists because each sphere is unique so it's obvious when they switch places.

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

Last edited by Brandon Enright on Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 1:17 pm

Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:52 am
Location: Brighton, UK
gelatinbrain wrote:
schuma wrote:
I just found two new puzzles that GB had recently added: 3.11.1 and 3.11.1b. I wonder if they are inspired by any puzzle in the real world. I've never seen such things.
I'm sure you will beat them quite soon.
This puzzle is not inspired by any existing puzzle(except 2x2x2) but not purely conceptual either.
There are analogues in the nature. E.g. ,planets or electrons(as Brandon pointed) spinning on itself while rorating around a common axis.
I like the "optical" nature of the color scheme too!

gelatinbrain wrote:
How many possible patterns this puzzle have? I'm not very good at this kind of calculation. Each ball has 12x8 orientation, compared with 3x8 of a 2x2x2 corner. So far, that's what I know...
That's the way I see them too. To make things simple, I first assume that each puzzle is in a fixed cage and that we only consider visually unique patterns from a fixed orientation/viewpoint. With 3.11.1b there are 12^8 orientations and 8! permutations because the spheres are unique and so their permutation does matter. If we want to count only unique patterns when viewing 3.11.1b from any one of the 12 even orientations, we can just divide by 12 to give 12^8 * 8! / 12 = 1,444,738,498,560. [Edit: Thanks to Brandon for pointing out an error in my original calculation.]

With 3.11.1 we have two problems making the calculation trickier:

1. The permutation does matter even though the spheres are identical in appearance. They come in two groups of 4 spheres each, like the orbitals of the corners of a Skewb. Each sphere can reach 12 orientations when it is in one orbital and the other 12 orientations when it is in the other orbital. So we need to consider the distinct ways in which "even" and "odd" spheres are distributed. I believe there are 8! / (4! * 4!) possible permutations of the two types of sphere.

2. Because the pieces are all identical, we cannot assume that we have counted every unique pattern 12 times too often, and if we simply divide by 12 we will be undercounting. So if a pattern is unique from every orientation we count it once, if it looks the same from 2 orientations we count it twice, and so on, and then we can take that total and divide by 12 to give the answer.

Ignoring the second factor gives us: (12^8 * 8!) / (4! * 4! * 12) = 2,508,226,560. As this is a slight undercount, I'll just say that I think there are approximately 2.5 billion possible patterns for 3.11.1.

Last edited by Julian on Thu Oct 14, 2010 4:01 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 1:52 pm

Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:52 am
Location: Brighton, UK
bmenrigh wrote:
Julian wrote:
2. Permute the remaining 4 spheres to valid positions, so that each sphere is an even number of 90 degree rotations from solved.
I don't understand why this step is needed.
Edit: I think the spheres can be considered as having "odd" and "even" positions. I'll illustrate in another post.

bmenrigh wrote:
If you apply Sune you can do a y'z and y'x' in 8 moves.
Good find!

bmenrigh wrote:
The more sequences we have for this step the easier it is to shave off moves in the solve.
Very true. I'll try and build up a decent collection over the next several days then I'll post it.

bmenrigh wrote:
Julian wrote:
5. If you reach one unsolved sphere twisted 180 degrees, this can be fixed in 12 moves: y2 to two spheres in 4 moves, then 2 setup moves to push the twisted sphere to a different adjacent position, then the double y2 algo again (in the new, rotated position) and finally undo the 2 setup moves.
I found this too but then I realized you only need 1 setup move. The whole sequence can be done in 10 moves. By changing the orientation on the puzzle before you start you can put the 180 degree twist into any axis.
I like! I didn't think about 360 degree moves as possible setups.

bmenrigh wrote:
Unfortunately you can wind up with a single sphere twisted 90 degrees in two different axes. I don't know how to solve this case cleanly. I have to go back to steps 3 and 4 to resolve it. I've played with different setup moves for the 180 degree twist to get 90 in two axes but I haven't had any luck. Earlier when I was going for fewest moves I just started over when I ended up with this situation.
True; it turned out that I was lucky with my first solve. I don't see any way of visualizing it in advance, due to the complexity of the puzzle. One minute you're puzzling, the next, you have a single sphere twisted in two axes. Maybe the solution will be a quick algo that affects 3 spheres, solving the one and leaving the other 2 in an easily solvable position? If I find anything I'll post it here.

Last edited by Julian on Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 1:55 pm

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:54 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
Julian wrote:
That's the way I see them too. To make things simple, I first assume that each puzzle is in a fixed cage and that we only consider visually unique patterns from a fixed orientation/viewpoint. With 3.11.1 there are 12^8 such patterns -- because each sphere is identical, the permutation is irrelevant, it only matters which one of the 12 even orientations each sphere is in. With 3.11.1b we need to multiply this by 7! because the spheres are unique and so their permutation does matter (not 8! because the position of the last sphere is determined by the other 7).

If we want to count only unique patterns when viewing 3.11.1b from any one of the 12 even orientations, we can just divide by 12 to give 12^8 * 7! / 12 = 180,592,231,230.
Hi Julian, please excuse me if I'm being dumb but I'm pretty sure each sphere except the last has 24 orientations available to it. See:
Attachment:

1.11.1_quarter_turn.png [ 62.29 KiB | Viewed 5752 times ]
If you can twist a sphere by only 90 degrees in only 1 axis while only affecting one other sphere doesn't that mean that all but the last sphere can be in 24 possible orientations? That's how I got (24^7 * 12) / 24.

Regarding your 1.11.1b calculation, I think you are accounting for the orientation of the puzzle twice. The 8th sphere that is uniquely defined by the previous 7 can be thought of uniquely defining part of the orientation of the puzzle. This is how Jaap does his 2x2x2 calculation.

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

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:06 pm

Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:52 am
Location: Brighton, UK
bmenrigh wrote:
If you can twist a sphere by only 90 degrees in only 1 axis while only affecting one other sphere doesn't that mean that all but the last sphere can be in 24 possible orientations?
I think it shows that the spheres must have swapped places -- I've remembered why my solution has a stage 2. If you don't swap those spheres back, you will never be able to solve them. One is 1 quarter turn from solved, the other is 3 quarter turns from solved. 1 or 3 turns = wrong position; 0 or 2 turns = right position. The corners of 3.1.11 come in the same orbitals as the two sets of corners of a Skewb. The spheres have to be in the orbital they started in to be solved, and wherever they are, they can only be in one of 12 orientations. But of course talking about this makes me realize that the permutation of the spheres of 3.1.11 does matter! Ach, these are complicated puzzles...
bmenrigh wrote:
Regarding your 1.11.1b calculation, I think you are accounting for the orientation of the puzzle twice. The 8th sphere that is uniquely defined by the previous 7 can be thought of uniquely defining part of the orientation of the puzzle. This is how Jaap does his 2x2x2 calculation.
Of course you're right. My total was 8 times too low. I think it's correct to divide by 12 instead of 24, because we won't get any new patterns with odd re-orientations. Similarly to the Skewb, if we do a 90 degree rotation we're merely looking at a position that could never be reached except with such a re-orientation, due to the orbitals the corners are in.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 6:00 pm

Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:15 pm
Location: Sandnes, Norway
1.4.2 - solved
Attachment:

Skjermbilde 2010-10-15 kl. 00.33.41.png [ 74.13 KiB | Viewed 5728 times ]
This was a real pain to solve, mostly because it took a lot more time than I originally thought. As for my method; I hardly think it's worth giving a detailed outline, but here's a summary:

1.) Solve centers - no commutators
2.) Solve edges - one commutator:

(BC, AC, AB, AC, BC, AC, AB, AC) x2

3.) Solve triangle pieces - one commutator:

HG, BH, HG, BH,
CD,
BH, HG, BH, HG,
CD,

I may re-solve this puzzle sometime, so I'll welcome any suggestions and pointers from those with better move counts (which is basically everyone )

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 6:39 pm

Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:52 am
Location: Brighton, UK
3.11.1 - Twisting a single corner in two axes. The following sequence twists the FUR sphere xz with a harmless side effect that it also swaps places with BDR, which does not change orientation:

U'3,R'3,F'3,R3,F3,U3,R'3, /* Rubik's edge flipping algo with 270 degree turns - twists 3 corners */

D,R,D',R,D,R'2,D',R'2, /* Sune to solve one corner and leave the other two twisted in one axis */

U'4, /* Setup move */
R'4,F4,R4,F'4, /* (1,1) for twisting two corners y2 y2 */
U4, /* Undo move */

21 moves is too long for my taste, but I submit it as an opening bid. Ideally I'm looking for a <10 move algo to twist 3 spheres, fixing the single corner and leaving a pair that solve easily.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 6:50 pm

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:41 am
Location: The Blue Mountains, Australia
Katten wrote:
I may re-solve this puzzle sometime, so I'll welcome any suggestions and pointers from those with better move counts (which is basically everyone )
Haven't solved it yet but i have a method. I would solve edges before centres with intuition and a (1,1) commutator then centres dirty (3,1) then thin triangles (3,1) CD, HG, CD, AB, DC, GH, DC, AB,

I looked at this puzzle a long time ago but never actually solved it but i'd say this method could beat the FM record by around 100 if enough effort was put in.

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

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 3:47 am

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:54 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
Julian wrote:
3.11.1 - Twisting a single corner in two axes. The following sequence twists the FUR sphere xz with a harmless side effect that it also swaps places with BDR, which does not change orientation:

U'3,R'3,F'3,R3,F3,U3,R'3, /* Rubik's edge flipping algo with 270 degree turns - twists 3 corners */

D,R,D',R,D,R'2,D',R'2, /* Sune to solve one corner and leave the other two twisted in one axis */

U'4, /* Setup move */
R'4,F4,R4,F'4, /* (1,1) for twisting two corners y2 y2 */
U4, /* Undo move */

21 moves is too long for my taste, but I submit it as an opening bid. Ideally I'm looking for a <10 move algo to twist 3 spheres, fixing the single corner and leaving a pair that solve easily.
This is complicated, thanks for breaking it down!

I made what I hope is a useful observation. If you twist the top face 180 degrees and then re-solve 3 of the spheres without allowing them to change places you end up with one sphere with twists in two axes. Using that trick, this sequence is a bit shorter:

R2, /* move the top */

B', /* setup */
[R',B',R],F'4,[R',B,R],F4, /* twist two adjacent spheres in two axes (solves one sphere) */
B, /* undo */

[R',U',R],D'4,[R',U,R],D4 /* twist the remaining two adjacent spheres in two axes (solves both) */

It's 19 moves which is still too long. Perhaps the R2 trick will help you?

Also, I'm in the process of building up a repertoire of sequences to handle various twist of two adjacent spheres. I'll post them this weekend.

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

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:50 pm

Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:52 am
Location: Brighton, UK
bmenrigh wrote:
I made what I hope is a useful observation. If you twist the top face 180 degrees and then re-solve 3 of the spheres without allowing them to change places you end up with one sphere with twists in two axes. Using that trick, this sequence is a bit shorter:

R2, /* move the top */

B', /* setup */
[R',B',R],F'4,[R',B,R],F4, /* twist two adjacent spheres in two axes (solves one sphere) */
B, /* undo */

[R',U',R],D'4,[R',U,R],D4 /* twist the remaining two adjacent spheres in two axes (solves both) */

It's 19 moves which is still too long. Perhaps the R2 trick will help you?
This occurred to me on the train ride to work this morning. I was thinking about the fact that it doesn't matter if we swap pairs of 3.11.1 spheres around a face provided they are diagonally apart from each other, then I thought, "Hey, what about making a 180 turn and proceeding from there?" Then I laughed because I realized there was a high probability that you had already thought about the same thing, found a shorter algo, and would post it before my lunchtime. And so it proved!

I just got lucky though; I tried something else on impulse and it worked. I tried the first part of a Rubik's commutator to twist two corners: R' D R F D F', and followed it with a D' twist to leave only two corners swapped with each other. Then I thought, "What would happen if I flipped the puzzle upside down around the FR edge and made the same 7 moves again?" The answer is exactly the fix we want, which does not permute any spheres so is useful for both 3.11.1 and 3.11.1b. Twisting the FUR sphere x'z' by itself:

F',U,F,R,U,R',U',
B',R,B,U,R,U',R'

14 moves
Attachment:

GB 3-11-1b single corner twist in two axes.jpg [ 75.17 KiB | Viewed 5633 times ]

Last edited by Julian on Fri Oct 15, 2010 3:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 3:03 pm

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:54 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
Julian wrote:
:D This occurred to me on the train ride to work this morning. I was thinking about the fact that it doesn't matter if we swap pairs of 3.11.1 spheres around a face provided they are diagonally apart from each other, then I thought, "Hey, what about making a 180 turn and proceeding from there?" Then I laughed because I realized there was a high probability that you had already thought about the same thing, found a shorter algo, and would post it before my lunchtime. And so it proved!

I just got lucky though; I tried something else on impulse and it worked. I tried the first part of a Rubik's commutator to twist two corners: R' D R F D F', and followed it with a D' twist to leave only two corners swapped with each other. Then I thought, "What would happen if I flipped the puzzle upside down around the FR edge and made the same 7 moves again?" The answer is exactly the fix we want, which does not permute any spheres so is useful for both 3.11.1 and 3.11.1b. Twisting the FUR sphere x'z' by itself:

F',U,F,R,U,R',U',
B',R,B,U,R,U',R'

14 moves
Great job, beautiful routine! It was bugging me this morning that both our proposed fixes wouldn't work on 1.11.1b which limits usefulness. It kills me that you started with R' D R F D F' because I tried dozens of variants of that commutator last night with no luck. Your sequence makes complete sense. I'm glad you spotted it . 14 is really short. I want to digest this some more and then see if I can come up with a shorter sequence that will work with this puzzle flipping idea -- if you don't beat me to it .

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

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 5:21 pm

Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:52 am
Location: Brighton, UK
1.4.2
Elwyn wrote:
Katten wrote:
I may re-solve this puzzle sometime, so I'll welcome any suggestions and pointers from those with better move counts (which is basically everyone )
Haven't solved it yet but i have a method. I would solve edges before centres with intuition and a (1,1) commutator then centres dirty (3,1) then thin triangles (3,1) CD, HG, CD, AB, DC, GH, DC, AB,

I looked at this puzzle a long time ago but never actually solved it but i'd say this method could beat the FM record by around 100 if enough effort was put in.
That's the way I solved it. I thought I did a good job until Michael solved it 110 moves faster, and it is humbling that you reckon you could beat even Michael's solve by a good margin! I found the setups tricky with this one.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 7:43 pm

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:41 am
Location: The Blue Mountains, Australia
Julian wrote:
That's the way I solved it. I thought I did a good job until Michael solved it 110 moves faster, and it is humbling that you reckon you could beat even Michael's solve by a good margin! I found the setups tricky with this one.
Oh, that makes me think perhaps i was being rather optimistic hahaha. I'll probably have to use a lot more moves as setup moves than i thought, i suppose i won't know till i solve it.

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

Top

 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion ThreadPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 7:49 pm

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:54 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
Elwyn wrote:
Julian wrote:
That's the way I solved it. I thought I did a good job until Michael solved it 110 moves faster, and it is humbling that you reckon you could beat even Michael's solve by a good margin! I found the setups tricky with this one.
Oh, that makes me think perhaps i was being rather optimistic hahaha. I'll probably have to use a lot more moves as setup moves than i thought, i suppose i won't know till i solve it.
I used very close to the same technique that you propose and Julian used. I was expecting the puzzle to take me an hour but the setups were brutal. I really struggled to use setups that would put the edges in place with the correct orientation. I'm sure you'll do great but I think the puzzle is deceptively hard.

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

Top

 Display posts from previous: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by AuthorPost timeSubject AscendingDescending
 Page 42 of 62 [ 3096 posts ] Go to page Previous  1 ... 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 ... 62  Next

 All times are UTC - 5 hours

#### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

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

Search for:
 Jump to:  Select a forum ------------------ Announcements General Puzzle Topics New Puzzles Puzzle Building and Modding Puzzle Collecting Solving Puzzles Marketplace Non-Twisty Puzzles Site Comments, Suggestions & Questions Content Moderators Off Topic