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

TwistyPuzzles.com Forum

It is currently Tue Jul 22, 2014 12:30 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3096 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 ... 62  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 5:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 1:56 pm
schuma wrote:
Stefan Schwalbe wrote:
Yes, you can derive the cubie-orientations-sum before you do any moves and then fix the puzzles global orientation. That works, I have done it 2 times with 3.9.5 today. With 3.9.5c it seems to be harder to detect cubie-orientations.


Let me learn how you did it on 3.9.5. On 3.9.5 there are two kinds of pieces: the pieces that should go to edges or others. I can think of two strategies.

One strategy is to use 3-cycles to get the pieces in the correct positions, and then count the orientation-sum, and then fix the global orientation, then solve the piece-wise orientation. It seems like you are not doing this.

Another strategy is to count the orientation-sum without doing any move. If a piece is in a correct position, you can assign {0,1,2} to it by looking at the position of the yellow sticker. If a piece is in a wrong position, how do you assign the number? One needs to first move it using a 3-cycle into the correct position and then rotate it. But during the 3-cycle, the orientation of three pieces are changing. Do you have to keep track of it?
No, I did'nt care for the (right or wrong) positions of the pieces. For instance a corner/face piece can be in the position of an edge and you can see the twist of it without correcting it's position. Only try to find the up or down color on a face of a cubie, than imagine how often the cubie was twisted (0,1 or 2 times) around one of the good corners of the cubie if it started on up/down. If you take a bad corner, you get 1 instead of 2 and 2 instead of 1 - that you should avoid. I hope I could make it clear, tomorow I plan to do a more detailed description with an example-picture of a scrambled 3.9.5 and the cubie-orientations that I have derived.

Thanks, Stefan


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 6:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:15 pm
Location: Sandnes, Norway
A solver by the name "haru" just beat Elwyn's 1.1.17 move count :shock: I really didn't see that one coming, it's even sub-700. I was so sure that record would be pretty much unbreakable.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 12:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 1:56 pm
Hi schuma,
My method contains surely an error. Two times it worked, but the last time it worked not. I found an error, but I have no replacement for it. The up/down colors are not enough for such an analysis. I cannot estimate the cubie-orientations of a scrambled 3.9.5 that way. So, you cannot use this method. Maybe your suggestion was right, to solve first the permutation i.e. the 14 corner/face-cubies to the 14 corner/face positions.

Sorry, Stefan :oops:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:52 am
Katja wrote:
A solver by the name "haru" just beat Elwyn's 1.1.17 move count :shock: I really didn't see that one coming, it's even sub-700. I was so sure that record would be pretty much unbreakable.


Surely he can't be a newbie? It must be someone who usually uses another tag. I consider it unlikely that someone with a lot of experience doesn't have any solves saved and I consider it equally unlikely that a newbie would chose just this puzzle to go for first and have such a talent to achieve this. But why do this?
Maybe he or she was trying to put in "huray" but got it wrong due to exitement. :lol:
Note that I am not joking about it because it was me, trust me. :P

_________________
Life is simple.
eat. sleep. train. repeat.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:06 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA, USA
I did a quick search for haru in the ranking page. He is doing great in several puzzles. He holds the move count record for 9 puzzles including teraminx.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 3:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:52 am
schuma wrote:
I did a quick search for haru in the ranking page. He is doing great in several puzzles. He holds the move count record for 9 puzzles including teraminx.

OOPs. Sorry. I just assumed he was new because Katja sounded like not having read his name before and she sure is into this a lot.
Btw, I just solved 1.1.15 in 551 moves. 72 more than Elwyn who is 1st and 90 moves less than Michael who is 3rd. I am kind of proud now.

_________________
Life is simple.
eat. sleep. train. repeat.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 5:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:15 pm
Location: Sandnes, Norway
alaskajoe wrote:
I just assumed he was new because Katja sounded like not having read his name before and she sure is into this a lot.
Yeah, I have seen him on the rankings before, but the record for 1.1.17 seemed to be a solid record that wouldn't get beaten anytime soon.
Also, thanks for referring to me as a "she" :D I have been mistakenly referred to as a "he" a few times now. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 5:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:15 pm
Location: Sandnes, Norway
Gelatinbrain: I did a few solves yesterday, but one of them wasn't recorded on to the rankings. I'd really rather not solve it again anytime soon, so I hope you won't mind adding it manually? It's 3.3.4. Thanks :)
Attachment:
3.3.4.png
3.3.4.png [ 64.02 KiB | Viewed 5010 times ]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 5:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:06 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA, USA
Stefan Schwalbe wrote:
Hi schuma,
My method contains surely an error. Two times it worked, but the last time it worked not. I found an error, but I have no replacement for it. The up/down colors are not enough for such an analysis. I cannot estimate the cubie-orientations of a scrambled 3.9.5 that way. So, you cannot use this method. Maybe your suggestion was right, to solve first the permutation i.e. the 14 corner/face-cubies to the 14 corner/face positions.

Sorry, Stefan :oops:


Are you sure Stefan? Is it possible that you made a mistake counting the numbers in the last time? I saw your post before you removed it and I think it should work. Here is my understanding of your method (for 3.9.5).

First we define ‚Äúorientation-index‚ÄĚ for each cubie by the following table, depending on whether it is currently (not eventually) in a corner/center or edge position. In the chart the yellow color represent the top or down color and gray color represent all other colors.

Attachment:
Screenshot001.png
Screenshot001.png [ 21.1 KiB | Viewed 5007 times ]


This definition of index should be consistent with your definition based on good/bad corner and rotation. But I think this definition is more explicit.

Then, the sum-index is defined as the summation of all the 26 indices for the 26 cubies.

Fact: The sum-index can be changed by a global rotation.
A CW rotation around UFR decrease the sum-index by 1; CCW increases it by 1.

More importantly, we have this claim:

Claim: The sum-index is invariant to any 2x2x1 turn.

Proof: By enumeration. We can verify the following facts.
(1) If we are turning on U or D by 90 deg, indices for all cubies are never changed.
(2) If we are turning on F or B by 90 deg, then
2a. the movement from a corner/center to an edge decreases the index by 1 modulo 3.
To see this, notice that a 90 deg turn on F makes:
(i) an index-0 corner/center into an index-2 edge,
(ii) also makes an index-1 corner/center into an index-0 edge,
(iii) also makes a index-2 corner/center into an index-1 edge.

2b. the movement from an edge to a corner/center increases the index by 1 modulo 3.

Eventually, two cubies are moving from a corner/center to an edge and two cubies go the opposite way, therefore the sum-index is not changed (+1+1-1-1=0.)

(3) If we are turning on L or R, then
3a. the movement from a corner/center to an edge increases the index by 1 modulo 3;
3b. the movement from an edge to a corner/center decreases the index by 1 modulo 3;
Eventually the sum-index is not changed. Proof is completed.

Summary: It's easy to see the index for each cubie. Add them up to get the sum-index. Sum-index cannot be changed by any regular turn but can be changed by global rotation. So rotate the cube globally to get the sum-index to 0, and then solve it using regular turns.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 6:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: Vancouver, Washington
schuma wrote:
So your method is like "try and then fix". With probability 2/3, one needs to solve the puzzle essentially twice.
lol, I've done that a lot too. Especially on some of the circle puzzles when a parity thing came up. I was too lazy to think about fixing it and I knew it would kill my move count. :lol:
Katja wrote:
A solver by the name "haru" just beat Elwyn's 1.1.17 move count :shock: I really didn't see that one coming, it's even sub-700. I was so sure that record would be pretty much unbreakable.
I wrote a script to watch the high scores and I've been noticing haru recently. He seemed to only do hard puzzles. He's up to 19 puzzles now. I hope we can see him on the forums soon.

_________________
Real name: Landon Kryger


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 10:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:52 am
Does anyone know how you can play with 1.1.81? It's the Pentultimate-corners-only dodecahedron.
It's not in the menu where you are in the applet already and chose face-turning-dodecahedra. I can only see it in the score rankings. But when I klick on it there the applet just opens some other puzzle.

_________________
Life is simple.
eat. sleep. train. repeat.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 12:42 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:54 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
alaskajoe wrote:
Does anyone know how you can play with 1.1.81? It's the Pentultimate-corners-only dodecahedron.
It's not in the menu where you are in the applet already and chose face-turning-dodecahedra. I can only see it in the score rankings. But when I klick on it there the applet just opens some other puzzle.

Looks like it got orphaned. I've noticed that sometimes Gelatinbrain adds a puzzle only to the new puzzles menu and then later moves it to it's right spot. Looks like 1.1.81 got lost in the move. I checked some string resources in the jar and 1.1.81 didn't fully disappear so I think it's just a matter of a 30 second bugfix.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 12:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 1:56 pm
Hi schuma,

You did an excelent and well finished description and proof of the method.
Your definition of index is indeed consistent with my good/bad corner system.
Attachment:
3.9.5.ori_sum_values.png
3.9.5.ori_sum_values.png [ 16.2 KiB | Viewed 4950 times ]

That is better written than what I could write, and it contains everything of it, and the fact and the proof of the claim makes one able to understand.

There is one problem left:
I have tried the following. I started with a solved 3.9.5 and I brought the UR edge to the URF corner, and than I solved it relative to the new URF corner. When I came to the last piece it had an index of 1. I didn't change the global rotation, and my moves couldn't also change the sum-index. But what I did was using edge-cubies for corners. Which means that I turned the puzzle 90 deg. around the U/D axis. Does that mean, that we also have to count pieces in the beginning of our solves? Obviously such 90 deg. turns change the real sum-index, but our analysis would give no change.
After the sum-index analysis and the fix through a global rotation, maybe you solve white to the up-face, but you also need to know the color for the right face, which is not a free decision, it can be blue/green or red/orange. Or you have to count pieces, and bring a corner/face cubie to the first corner-position that you solve. If we could find a method and a proof that it has to work, this would make it complete.

Thank you very much, Stefan.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 1:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:06 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA, USA
Stefan Schwalbe wrote:
There is one problem left:
I have tried the following. I started with a solved 3.9.5 and I brought the UR edge to the URF corner, and than I solved it relative to the new URF corner. When I came to the last piece it had an index of 1. I didn't change the global rotation, and my moves couldn't also change the sum-index. But what I did was using edge-cubies for corners. Which means that I turned the puzzle 90 deg. around the U/D axis. Does that mean, that we also have to count pieces in the beginning of our solves? Obviously such 90 deg. turns change the real sum-index, but our analysis would give no change.
After the sum-index analysis and the fix through a global rotation, maybe you solve white to the up-face, but you also need to know the color for the right face, which is not a free decision, it can be blue/green or red/orange. Or you have to count pieces, and bring a corner/face cubie to the first corner-position that you solve. If we could find a method and a proof that it has to work, this would make it complete.


Yeah I forgot about this issue when I wrote the post yesterday. So in 3.9.5 there are two separated issues.

One issue is 14 corners/centers v.s. 12 edges. This issue was there in 3.9.1b, where it was a 14/13 issue. We have to count the pieces to determine which are edges. After doing this, we eliminate the possible global orientations from 24 to 12.

Another issue is what we were talking about recently. It eliminates the possible global orientations from 12 to 4.

So I believe we have to do both checks to avoid both issues. This puzzle is so complicated. Much more than it looks.

Comparison with other puzzles: The 3.9.1b has the first issue but not the second. 3.9.5c has the second but not the first. (because on 3.9.5 it's obvious which are corners and which are edges)

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 8:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:41 am
Location: Spijkenisse, the Netherlands
Hey guys it's been a while since posting, but after a nice night of solving I felt the need to write something again.

The reasons for this solving spree were two things: Brandons youtube video of schuma (whose real name I now know) explaining commutators to a partly 'newbie' classroom. Really interesting lecture. After seeing this and Brandon's other recent videos I noticed you guys seem to understand puzzles much more than I do. Which is part of my second reason to pick it up again: Brandon passed me in number of puzzles solved :mrgreen: . A petty reason, I know, but the element of the race always gets me going. schuma isn't really a goal anymore, so now I have a realistic one again.

I didn't really solve any interesting puzzles, it was more of a clean-up spree, solving the easier ones I missed before. So no need to talk about that.

I also wanted to talk about the bug Brandon and alaskajoe pointed out a couple posts above, about the new puzzles being unable to find.

And the last one is a request to gelatinbrain:
You've probably noticed TomZ's Multidodecahedron. Would it be possible to create something like that? I looked and I didn't see any puzzle that has the same kinds of pieces.

And a thank-you to schuma and Brandon for the video and with that inspiration. Looking forward to the advanced class :D .

_________________
Olivér Nagy wrote:
43,252,003,274,489,856,000. Or the full number in Hungarian is:
Negyvenháromtrillió-kétszázötvenkétbilliárd-hárombillió-kétszázhetvennégymiliárd-négyszáznyolcvankilencmillió-nyolcszázötvenhatezer :wink: )


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 9:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:06 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA, USA
Sjoerd wrote:
And the last one is a request to gelatinbrain:
You've probably noticed TomZ's Multidodecahedron. Would it be possible to create something like that? I looked and I didn't see any puzzle that has the same kinds of pieces.


TomZ's multidodecahedron is basically 1.1.6, with windows revealing an inner megaminx.

I guess it can be drawn as a circle version of 1.1.6, where in each circle a center + 5 edges + 5 corners are drawn. The inner pieces should be properly bandaged with the outer layers. I don't know if GB's program is flexible enough to do it.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 12:26 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:54 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
schuma wrote:
TomZ's multidodecahedron is basically 1.1.6, with windows revealing an inner megaminx.

I guess it can be drawn as a circle version of 1.1.6, where in each circle a center + 5 edges + 5 corners are drawn. The inner pieces should be properly bandaged with the outer layers. I don't know if GB's program is flexible enough to do it.


I think it would have to be drawn similar to 3.3.35 but it still wouldn't be very natural. The motion of the regions inside the circle would mimick a megaminx but having only a portion of the pieces move on the adjacent faces would seem arbitrary and bandaged.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 12:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:06 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA, USA
bmenrigh wrote:
I think it would have to be drawn similar to 3.3.35 but it still wouldn't be very natural. The motion of the regions inside the circle would mimick a megaminx but having only a portion of the pieces move on the adjacent faces would seem arbitrary and bandaged.


Yeah, without explanation, that kind of bandaging seems arbitrary. Maybe 3.12.11 is more similar, because it really has a core in the middle and can be seen from outside.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 9:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:52 am
I just solved 1.1.8 for the first time. (Pentultimate Megaminx hybrid) I went for low movecount and got 860 about.
I did:
1st centers
2nd paring up edges
3rd paring corners
4th solve Minx.
5th get rid of an edge parity if there is one by using a 22 move clean cycle for the triangles.

I didn't check the parity before solving the entire minx and having paired all the corners because I felt that it would take more moves for me than just using one additional cycle in the very end.

Now I have a question.

Is it possible to get a void cube like parity error when you solve the minx? Since the centers aren't stationary I for an instance was worried during the minx solve because I hadn't thought about that earlier.
In that case you would have to recycle centers (better do it cleanly so edges and corners stay) and than resolve the minx, OR so some pentultimate corner twists and solve all the lost triangles again.

I didn't have that, so I don't know but just because I am interested, would like to.

Btw by pairing the edges I turned all centers around the yellow face by two increments and didn't notice. I had to use a 26 moves clean cycle three times after pairing everything to get rid of my mistake. That's also when I realised I could end up having the above mentioned problem anyway.

_________________
Life is simple.
eat. sleep. train. repeat.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 11:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:52 am
To my post above: I just realized that on a pentultimate there are 3 cycles for corners and as far as orientation goes, if one gets twisted clockwise another one gets twistet counter clockwise. For a Megaminx the same aplies. So that makes me think there is no possiblity for such a void cube parity.
Is there even one on the void Megaminx? I don't have one and never solved one.

I have a second question now: how do I make a 6.1 out of a 4.3 commutator. I think in his video about how to solve puzzles in general Brandon said it was always possible to do. I can't find the explenation in his video anymore. I am sure I just watched the whole thing but must have somehow missed it.
The reason is that I once again improved my Pentultimate corner routine. I found a 4.3 (last was an 8.1 or [[3.1].1] )
Now I want to make it a 6.1 and just can't do it.
Btw I found this after reading one of Julians posts somewhere in the old Multidodecahedron threats and he uses corners pure 6.1 cycle for the Master Pentultimate. My 8.1 isn't even pure on the Master Pentultimate so I wanted to find one really bad. :lol:

_________________
Life is simple.
eat. sleep. train. repeat.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 12:18 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:54 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
alaskajoe wrote:
To my post above: I just realized that on a pentultimate there are 3 cycles for corners and as far as orientation goes, if one gets twisted clockwise another one gets twistet counter clockwise. For a Megaminx the same aplies. So that makes me think there is no possiblity for such a void cube parity.
Is there even one on the void Megaminx? I don't have one and never solved one.
The centers do not restrict the permutation or orientation of the other pieces. There is no "void" parity on the face (or vertex) turning dodecahedrons. The edge parity you could get on 1.1.8 would come from paring the edges into an odd permutation for the groups. This can be done independently of the centers.

alaskajoe wrote:
I have a second question now: how do I make a 6.1 out of a 4.3 commutator. I think in his video about how to solve puzzles in general Brandon said it was always possible to do. I can't find the explenation in his video anymore. I am sure I just watched the whole thing but must have somehow missed it.
The reason is that I once again improved my Pentultimate corner routine. I found a 4.3 (last was an 8.1 or [[3.1].1] )
Now I want to make it a 6.1 and just can't do it.
Btw I found this after reading one of Julians posts somewhere in the old Multidodecahedron threats and he uses corners pure 6.1 cycle for the Master Pentultimate. My 8.1 isn't even pure on the Master Pentultimate so I wanted to find one really bad. :lol:


Well I don't have any proofs for this stuff yet :oops: I'm in the middle of 3 programming project that when tied together will get me a lot farther along.

For your [4,3], the 4 part must be a [1,1] and the 3 part must be a [1:1]. I have never found a counter example to this. I would like to prove that a counter example doesn't exist.

Because the 3 part is of the form A B A' the A move can be seen as a setup for the B move.

So the overall routine would be [X Y X' Y'] [A B A'] [Y X Y' X'] [A B' A]

You can take the A setup and put the A' at the start:

[A' X Y X' Y' A] [B] [A' Y X Y' X' A] [B']

I can't find a counter example to this and I don't think a counter example exists. But I have no proof...

Put more concretely, here is a [4,3] on the Pentultimate converted to a [6,1]:


[E, F, E', F'], [A', H', A], [F, E, F', E'], [A', H, A]

[A, E, F, E', F', A'], [H'], [A, F, E, F', E', A'], [H]

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 12:34 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:54 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
alaskajoe wrote:
I just solved 1.1.8 for the first time. (Pentultimate Megaminx hybrid) I went for low movecount and got 860 about.
I did:
1st centers
2nd paring up edges
3rd paring corners
4th solve Minx.
5th get rid of an edge parity if there is one by using a 22 move clean cycle for the triangles.
I think almost everyone has trouble with 1.1.8 the first time the try it. Good job.

For a reduction to Megaminx, if you are pairing up edges first then you don't need to worry about what happens to the wide-triangles. You can do edge triangles with a [[1:1],1] (8 moves): [[C2:B'],D'&2]

After pairing edges I would check for an edge parity by solving the megaminx to see if you have two swapped. If you do you can undo back to the pairing face. It only takes one more 3-cycle in the pairing phase but it takes two 3-cycles after the paring phase.

Also, you didn't say how long your wide triangle 3-cycle is but it can be done in 8 moves (pure).

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 1:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:52 am
I definetely didn't find a pure 8 moves for the wide triangles. But what I can say is that I always made sure I lined the corners up in the middle belt that by one slice move of the up face I placed 10 of them. Then I replaced the corners or reorientated them so that again by just ondoing that slice move to restore edges another 10 were placed. Only towards the end did I have to go for only a couple always. I did the same for edges. I found all edges that were paired correctly by chance right after solving the centers. there were 5. Than I just made sure to always get another 5 done with one slice move and replaced them. It was so exhausting to keep track. I have a sheet of paper full of letters telling me which pieces were done and about where they were stored. :lol:

Undoing all the face moves of the edges parity check is something I never thought of. I use the undo function when I get lost. I didn't consider using it so purposly. :lol: I will do that in the future. Really good idea.

Also I now understand how to do this setupmove stuff. It works now, thanks. I kind of always tried (A B XYXY) (A) and than undo the whole. The way you described it works so thanks a lot.

_________________
Life is simple.
eat. sleep. train. repeat.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 2:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 1:56 pm
Stefan Schwalbe wrote:
There is one problem left:
I have tried the following. I started with a solved 3.9.5 and I brought the UR edge to the URF corner, and than I solved it relative to the new URF corner. When I came to the last piece it had an index of 1.
...
Hi schuma,
I was able to solve the wrong permutated 3.9.5 (as described in the quote) with a single twisted face-piece in a few moves without starting new.
Attachment:
3.9.5.single_twisted_face_solvable.PNG
3.9.5.single_twisted_face_solvable.PNG [ 18.95 KiB | Viewed 4821 times ]

In the picture the letter C means corner/face-piece, the E means edge piece, the numbers are the orientation-indices.
I cicled the down->back->right-> face cubies to get both edge pieces into the middle slice face positions.
The four face-pieces r,f,l,b are the only cubies that can look solved without having an orientation-index of 0.
If you have the two edge pieces in the middle layer-face-positions, you can make them look solved.
I'm happy, seems there is no need to count pieces.

Thank you, Stefan.

Edit: Seems they have to be adjacent in the middle layer-face-positions.
Edit 2: When I turn the whole Cube around the URF corner the sum of the orientation-indices of the two edge-pieces changes.
Edit 3: The names C and E are a bit missleading, for C is the group with the 12 Elements and E the group with the 14 elements. I have confused this a bit - sorry.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:06 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA, USA
Stefan, your solution is fascinating.

So, at the beginning, if you correctly treat the 14 element group as C and the 12 element as E, you need to count the sum-index and fix it at the beginning. If a C piece is in the front face center and the front sticker is the front color, then its index has to be 0: there is no freedom to choose the index.

If you wrongly treat the 14 element group as E and the 12 element as C, you have more freedom for the indices of the centers and don't have to face the mod-3 "parity" issue.

Therefore, it's beneficial to be "wrong" intentionally. I've never seen this phenomenon before.

By the way yesterday I found that the orientation issue of 3.9.11 can be fixed easily by exploiting the center pieces. The method is similar to what you are doing here. But we have plenty of centers there so it is easy. One doesn't need to count anything at the beginning.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 7:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:52 am
I finally did 1.2.6 (Drew's Starminx III)
I did it in 754 moves. 3rd.
Hey Brandon since when have you done all those deeper cut corner turning dodecahedra and why is your move count so low on most of those? Did you find some magic trick? Or are these just your thing or anything? :mrgreen:

_________________
Life is simple.
eat. sleep. train. repeat.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 7:54 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:54 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
alaskajoe wrote:
I finally did 1.2.6 (Drew's Starminx III)
I did it in 754 moves. 3rd.
Hey Brandon since when have you done all those deeper cut corner turning dodecahedra and why is your move count so low on most of those? Did you find some magic trick? Or are these just your thing or anything? :mrgreen:

For 1.2.4 and 1.2.5 I just used a more efficient technique. I'm not sure why I got the move count record on 1.2.6, I certainly wasn't trying to but I got close enough to Daniel's move count that I suspect we used the same technique.

I have a much better technique for solving 1.2.7 and 1.2.8 so unless somebody goes and solves them soon, when I get around to them I'll destroy the record. That isn't to say Julian's records for 1.2.7 and 8 aren't impressive, ANY solve of these puzzles is impressive :-).

For 1.2.6 I solved all of the centers. Then I solved the Starminx points [[1:1],1] non-pure and then the wide-triangles [[1:1,1] pure. A sub-600 solve is well within reach. Also, if you use these 8-move routines the records for the color variations are free for the taking. I'll get around to them at some point.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 8:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:52 am
bmenrigh wrote:
For 1.2.6 I solved all of the centers. Then I solved the Starminx points [[1:1],1] non-pure and then the wide-triangles [[1:1,1] pure. A sub-600 solve is well within reach. Also, if you use these 8-move routines the records for the color variations are free for the taking. I'll get around to them at some point.


that is exactly what I did. Although I used a [[1,1],1] for the points. So 10 and not just 8 moves. However I cycled 3 pieces into their correct position whenever it was possible and even when it wasn't anymore I watched after cycles that would put two pieces and create a third one that leads to another perfect three-relationship elsewhere.
That's why it really took me over 3 hours. Still I am not really close to your movecount. I guess I need to practise setup moves. You're simply to good.

I will have to look into the more efficient and the much better technique now.

_________________
Life is simple.
eat. sleep. train. repeat.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 12:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:06 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA, USA
Gelatinbrain, thank you for adding the new puzzles.

For 1.4.16 and 2.3.3, can you add the middle layer turn like in 3.3.35? That'd be convenient. Thanks.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 5:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:52 am
Hey gelatinbrain, I solved a couple of puzzles and one is missing in the scores, it's 1.1.8

2928bc9a0537bb9e0a60a354e3ec7c5e
c4e7436d91dc237a85000bd826b34c79
86f90db046648cf916c32c4f983131e6
1acb34e619cd32a7584fb09d623bc4f3

Here is the ticket. If you could add that I would be happy thanks.

Wow those those circle big chops are certainly sick. :lol:

_________________
Life is simple.
eat. sleep. train. repeat.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 5:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:15 pm
Location: Sandnes, Norway
alaskajoe wrote:
Wow those those circle big chops are certainly sick.
Yeah, even the thought of solving one of those beasts is too much :shock: And I probably never will either :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 1:38 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:54 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
Gelatinbrain has given us 1.1.82:
Attachment:
1.1.82.png
1.1.82.png [ 14.62 KiB | Viewed 4565 times ]
It has a neat new type of corner from the Complex Dodecahedron. I really like all of the creativity that is going into these new dodecahedra. I'm looking forward to playing with more of these complex pieces. I have too many puzzles on my todo list! :D

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 1:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:06 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA, USA
Brandon, you know what, the new type of pieces in 1.1.82 is not new. They appear in 1.1.75 before. The pairs of pieces highlighted by the yellow color are equivalent. They are moved by the blue, brown and green faces.


Attachments:
Screenshot001.png
Screenshot001.png [ 27.24 KiB | Viewed 4562 times ]

_________________
Check out some virtual puzzles I created at http://nan.ma
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 2:07 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:54 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
I didn't know that. I'm behind on the dodecahedrons but I knew there were some new peices in them. From your screenshot it looks like they are much easier to understand on 1.1.82. I have to catch up!

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 7:28 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:54 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
alaskajoe wrote:
bmenrigh wrote:
For 1.2.6 I solved all of the centers. Then I solved the Starminx points [[1:1],1] non-pure and then the wide-triangles [[1:1,1] pure. A sub-600 solve is well within reach. Also, if you use these 8-move routines the records for the color variations are free for the taking. I'll get around to them at some point.


that is exactly what I did. Although I used a [[1,1],1] for the points. So 10 and not just 8 moves. However I cycled 3 pieces into their correct position whenever it was possible and even when it wasn't anymore I watched after cycles that would put two pieces and create a third one that leads to another perfect three-relationship elsewhere.
That's why it really took me over 3 hours. Still I am not really close to your movecount. I guess I need to practise setup moves. You're simply to good.

I will have to look into the more efficient and the much better technique now.


I think there are two things that cost you here. First, when there are 60 pieces I usually do 20-25 3-cycles to solve them all. Some start solved and sometimes I get lucky and get to place 3 rather than 2 in a single cycle. When you're spending an extra 2 moves per 3-cycle that will cost you about 45 moves for that piece type.

When I have tried to go head-to-head with Julian with same length sequence and solve order I have found that efficient setups are the key to a low move count. If I average 2 setups and you average 4 per 3-cycle, then you're doing 4 more moves per 3-cycle or about 90 extra moves to solve all of the pieces.

Borrowing an idea from Schuma, when I'm making my 3-cycles I try to find variants that spread the cycled pieces out as much as possible. Then I find an orientation on the puzzle that makes one of those pieces on the back face and the other two on the front face. In the case of the vertex-turners I find that having the mirror of the routine is also useful to reduce setups.

So here is a screen shot of my two 1.2.6 Starminx Point routines:
Attachment:
1.2.6_points_right_up.png
1.2.6_points_right_up.png [ 11.75 KiB | Viewed 4537 times ]

And:
Attachment:
1.2.6_points_left_up.png
1.2.6_points_left_up.png [ 11.68 KiB | Viewed 4537 times ]


Of course I have the inverse of each of these routines too. I use the mirror of a routine even on non-chiral pieces because it's easy to recognize a mirrored pattern and it provides more opportunities to not use many setup moves.

Then when I'm solving I look for a pattern on the front of the puzzle where one piece will move into the other pieces' spot. We'll call this piece A -> into piece B's spot will solve piece A. Then I have the entire back face of the puzzle to either 1) find a piece C where when piece B moves into C it will solve piece B or 2) find a piece C that when it moves into piece A's spot will solve piece C.

Sometimes I can get lucky and meet both conditions and solve all 3 at once.

The setup moves for vertex turners are very intuitive for me so I can usually use 0-1 setup moves on the front and 0-2 setup moves on the back to solve two pieces in one cycle.

The difference between most of my good solves and the puzzle record is that Julian and Elwyn and others spend a ton of time finding the optimal cycle with as few setup moves as possible. I don't bother. I'd prefer to compete to find the best technique rather than compete to get the best execution of a technique.

The other issue is that if I find a [4,1] for a move and then I spend 10 hours getting the best damn solve possible with that routine, I still won't be able to compete if Julian comes along with a [3,1] and spends 30 minutes.

3.2.13 is a good example of this. Julian and I were spending ~1 hour per solve going back and forth to get a few moves better than each other (about 100 moves total). Then I came up with a new technique and solved the puzzle in 68 moves in about 30 minutes.

Good luck!

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:52 am
bmenrigh wrote:
I think there are two things that cost you here. First, when there are 60 pieces I usually do 20-25 3-cycles to solve them all. Some start solved and sometimes I get lucky and get to place 3 rather than 2 in a single cycle. When you're spending an extra 2 moves per 3-cycle that will cost you about 45 moves for that piece type.
Good luck!


Yes, I just yesterday evening solved 1.2.2 a second time. For some reason my movecount was a ridiculous 3800 moves. That was at the very beginning of my getting into this applet. I found it visually apealing and it was one of the first puzzles. Still I don't know what the heck I did to achieve that. :lol: Anyway I first set down for the first time and estimated how many moves I would about need. Than I solved it and I needed many more. And I realised that doing 4 setupmoves for a 4-move sequence is a complete waste because all setupmoves have to be undone afterwards. Of course I have always been using the inverse of sequences but I admit I never cared about using the mirror too. especially on puzzles like 1.2.6 because they are so confusing in the beginning.
I really intuitively and flexibly (do I use that word correctly? :roll: ) solved the corners on 1.2.2 though. Always two corners with orientation no matter where they were. I did have the parity though. :| So 611 moves now. You think that's an improvement? :lol:

edit: 1.2.2 instead of 1.3.4 must have confused it by looking at the pictures. I changed in in the text already incase anyone read it and was wondering.

_________________
Life is simple.
eat. sleep. train. repeat.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:52 am
I just solved 1.3.9 in 460 or so moves.
It's not a hard nor an "important" puzzle.
With all the dodecahedra that have a schallow face cut I always pair the centers in a gigaminx style way. Even though there is a 1,1 (corner moves) for 3 cycling the narror edges pure. It's a little different from a gigaminx though due to the deeper cuts but it is more efficient.
I did the same with 1.1.15. unfortunately it didn't get updated and I hadn't saved the ticket.

_________________
Life is simple.
eat. sleep. train. repeat.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 8:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:52 am
I am just posting again because I won my first fewest-moves-1st-place. On 1.1.81 :lol: . It's a corners only pentultimate. schuma and mark did it in 700 and 600 + moves. I did it in 240. Now I guess I won't have that record for long. Someone is going to do it in under 100. I used only 28 moves less than on the Pentultimate. Even though I used my new 14 move corner cycle instead of the 18 move one I used earlier. It's just to friggin difficult to set up pieces without having centers or anything to follow.

_________________
Life is simple.
eat. sleep. train. repeat.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 2:34 pm
So I'm a bit new to this applet, but given my recent adventures into the face-turning dodecahedrons I have encountered a bt of a problem.
I am currently stuck on the Master pentultimate (I've been solving them in numerical order :lol: ).
I can solve the starminx equivalent pieces fine, but the pentultimate corners are giving me trouble, can anyone lend a hand?

Also, can anyone explain the dodecahedron Gelatin Brain notation please?

_________________
I am a fan of the Face turning Dodecahedrons :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:59 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:54 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
MaeLSTRoM wrote:
So I'm a bit new to this applet, but given my recent adventures into the face-turning dodecahedrons I have encountered a bt of a problem.
I am currently stuck on the Master pentultimate (I've been solving them in numerical order :lol: ).
I can solve the starminx equivalent pieces fine, but the pentultimate corners are giving me trouble, can anyone lend a hand?

Also, can anyone explain the dodecahedron Gelatin Brain notation please?

Welcome, it's great to have more solvers.

Pentultimate corners are quite a challenge. If you try turning at random there is a chance you'll isolate a corner. Sune for example. I rather dislike turning randomly to find a routine though, it feels much better to construct one logically.

The shortest commutators on the Pentultimate is [6,1] or more specifically [[1:[1,1]],1].

First you should probably find a likely candidate for the [1,1]. There are basically two base options. Either two faces next to each other or two faces separated by one face. Via symmetry this covers all combinations. Then you have two options, either [A,B] or [A,B']. That is, turn them both either the same direction and then both the opposite direction or mix the directions. By symmetry this again covers all of the combinations. That is, there are only 4 essentially different [1,1] commutators you could build off of.

You should be able to convince yourself rather quickly that using a [1,1] commutator there is no way to isolate a corner pure. Your goal then should be to look for the [1,1] that seems to give you the most working room on the puzzle. Try to find a setup move that will help you either move a corner to help you isolate it or find a corner that is already almost isolated and see if you can find a setup move to get the other junk in the way out of the way. For the Pentultimate there is a setup + [1,1] that will allow you to isolate a corner in 6 moves.

In general when I'm searching for short routines I first enumerate all of the [1,1] sequences looking for useful stuff. Then I enumerate all of the [1:1] sequences (same set as the [1,1]) and look for isolated pieces to make a [[1:1],1] == [3,1] sequences. For most puzzles it's usually possible to enumerate all [3,1] sequences rather quickly. When you have a lot of different types of slice and face and vertex, etc moves all on one puzzle in can be difficult to enumerate all [3,1] sequences but by using experience and intuition you can do pretty well.

After [3,1] your best bet is to look for [[1,1],1] == [4,1] sequences. This is usually as fast and easy as the [3,1] sequences. In many cases there is a large overlap in these and the [3,1]s you've already found.

After [4,1] you should look for [5,1] sequences of the form [[1:[1:1]],1]. It's usually hard to enumerate all of these and you'll have to fall back on experience and intuition. If you found a lot of near-misses in the [3,1] sequences then use those as a basis for your [5,1] search.

Most puzzles don't need [[1:[1,1]],1] sequences so if you find yourself searching for these you're probably doing a "hard" puzzle. Again, enumerating them all can be hard just like with [5.1] sequences.

I don't suggest looking for [7,1] sequences because they are usually a mess. Instead use your [3,1] sequences that are near-misses and try to turn them into [[[1:1],1],1] == [[3,1],1] == [8,1] sequences. These are "hard" sequences. The same goes with [10,1] sequences.


If fewest-moves isn't your thing, the easiest way to find sequences is usually to nest commutators. First find a [1,1] that move the pieces you want. Then turn it into a [[1,1],1] == [4,1] sequence. Then turn it into a [10,1] sequence and so on. Usually after a few levels of nesting you can isolate any piece on any puzzle. For example, I was able to find a pure [18,3] for the Little Chop pieces on 3.3.6 with little effort or time. I have a program to invert and mirror sequences for me though so nesting commutators is more of a copy-and-paste activity than any real thought.

The Pentulitmate corners are pretty hard. Good luck!

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:41 am
Location: Spijkenisse, the Netherlands
(was typing this simultaneously with Brandon, but it concerns the other question you asked :D )

Here's a piece GelatinBrain himself wrote about notation.

gelatinbrain wrote:
I added a function to input algorithms.
The syntaxes are based on conventional algorithm descriptions, but not completely compatible.
To support all kind of twisty puzzles, some conventional notations are not supported and my own new features are added.

Here is an example for 7x7x7 cube.
Too see, copy and paste the following text in the algorithm text-bar below the puzzle.

/*begin*/
U, // turns the 1st layer of the face 'U' 90¬ļ clockwise
D&2, // turns the 2nd layer of the face 'D' 90¬ļ clockwise
F&3, // turns the top two layers of the face 'F' 90¬ļ clockwise
F&5, // turns the 1st and 3rd layers of the face 'F' 90¬ļ clockwise
B2, // turns the 1st layer of the face 'B' 180¬ļ
L', // turns the 1st layer of the face 'L' 90¬ļcounter-clockwise
R'&3, // turns the top two layers of the face 'R' 90¬ļ counter-clockwise
[U,D&2,F&3]x2, // repeat twice the sequence between '[' and ']'.
[B,[U,D&2,F&3]x2,U]x3, // block nesting
/*end*/

Notations for cubes
Image
Image
Notations for Dodecahedra.
Image
Inversed
Image

·The cases are ignored('F' and 'f' indicate the same face)
·Vertices and edges are identified by combinations of face identifiers.
The order doesn't matter("URF","RUF","RFU","UFR","FUR" and "FRU" all indicate the same vertex).
·Spaces, tabs, line-feeds and comments(between '/*' and '*/' or between '//' and the end of line) are ignored.
·Operations are separated by commas(,).
·The notations for octahedrons and icosahedrons correspond those of cubes and dodecahedrons respectively
but faces and vertices interchanged.

Any questions?


On a side note: this topic now has 57 pages, which is more than the Accomplishments thread. Can anyone think of a topic arount here with more posts? I can't.

Yesterday I realized I missed a whole lot of vertex turning cubes. 3.2. 15,16,17,19,20 were all Master Skewbs with the centers and sometimes some other pieces missing.

I find myself just cleaning up these days, since any challenging puzzle would take up quite some time that I don't have.

_________________
Olivér Nagy wrote:
43,252,003,274,489,856,000. Or the full number in Hungarian is:
Negyvenháromtrillió-kétszázötvenkétbilliárd-hárombillió-kétszázhetvennégymiliárd-négyszáznyolcvankilencmillió-nyolcszázötvenhatezer :wink: )


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 6:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:52 am
MaeLSTRoM wrote:
So I'm a bit new to this applet, but given my recent adventures into the face-turning dodecahedrons I have encountered a bt of a problem.
I am currently stuck on the Master pentultimate (I've been solving them in numerical order :lol: ).
I can solve the starminx equivalent pieces fine, but the pentultimate corners are giving me trouble, can anyone lend a hand?

Also, can anyone explain the dodecahedron Gelatin Brain notation please?


Hi. I also welcome you to the challenges of the applet! :)
Brandon basically said it all. Just in general listen to him. I have something to add to the procedure though.
Looking for 4,1 commutators is usually what I do first. Than I try to shrink them down to 3,1. Sometimes that might not be the best way since I have to look for a similar 3,1 since it doesn't work with the 4,1 by just leaving two moves out. So looking for 3,1 first is probably better. Just see what you like.
My biggest concern is to the 5,1 and 6,1 though. I suggest you acutally go for 4,3. There is a discussion about this a couple of posts up where I asked Brandon how to get a 4,3 into a 6,1. He made that clear with letters and words in a way you will easily understand what is going on.
But usually when I approach the problem at first I just do 1,1 (4 moves) and than see if I can isolate a piece by another 3 moves from there. That is turning some amount of pieces (one face for Pentultimate) and than see if I can isolate a piece that I exchange and than undoing the face turn before. Just after that I sometimes convert it into 5,1. I can keep track better in the beginning by doing it this way.
Although this explanation is basically implied by
Quote:
[[1:[1:1]],1]
this.

This way I found a 14 move 4,3 cycle for corners on the pentultimate that can also be made into a 6,1.

My first was a [[1,1],1],1] :roll: I did that when I first found the solution of the pentultimate. The Pentultimate was my first puzzle of the applet that I solved with logically constructed solution and I remember being kind of proud. I can agree with Brandon that it's much more fun than just klicking around in patterns until something happened that you can use. So the old sequence stated above involves a simple 1,1 , than a center isolation to cycle centers and from that center 3-cycle I was able to isolate a corner and undo all. Therefore it cost me 22 moves.
For starters it's ok to go for it like that and it will always work. Just cycle one part of piece and from there isolate the next and uncycle all. It takes up many moves but it does get you into this and enables you to brake down most puzzles to the last little piece.
I just recently found 18 and eventually the 14 move sequence for the corners.

So at this point I wish you good luck too, I hope you stay and with the Pentultimate there is much to find so have fun. :lol:

_________________
Life is simple.
eat. sleep. train. repeat.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 7:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:52 am
Hey gelatinbrain, I just looked and there are 3 puzzles where my solution was lost:

1.3.9

70e876c855e66acd59253947da9d0d3b
a177682ed09b6437c86a613cc27689ec
1355a1b5437491d0235285d80bdf26b1
4c7986f20db946738ce916d32c6798ce

1.3.6
75e375ce53a72b4fdbab033fae97072f
b58e6435c89e613dc28289ed135ea1bc
436591d5236085f90bed26a24c2386f3
0db946738ce916d32c6798ce31e51acb


2.1.13
cde47ad24d66ebce5a267bc35ee676cd
57c5584db09d623bc463682ed09b6437
c8956134c26c89fb135ba18543d791de
237a85f40bd926b34c7986f20db94673

please add these, thank you so much.

I have another slight problem with the applet recently. At least I think it hasn't always been like that: When I hold shift plus right klick a menue pops up. Just the normal menue that appears when right klicking on some page. I can never do clockwise slice turns without having to klick to the side because this menue is on the applet suddenly. Is that normal? :? Maybe I just never realised it.

And Brandon: HA, you stole my 1st place on the corners only pentultimate! Thought that was easy prey for you when I had posted didn't you? :lol: I might be back any time soon. :twisted:

_________________
Life is simple.
eat. sleep. train. repeat.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 7:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:15 pm
Location: Sandnes, Norway
alaskajoe wrote:
I just looked and there are 3 puzzles where my solution was lost
This has been happening to me too lately. I had a solve that didn't appear a few days ago and another one today.
alaskajoe wrote:
Is that normal?
This has not been a problem for me though. Sounds weird.
MaeLSTRoM wrote:
So I'm a bit new to this applet
I'd answer your questions and give you some advice, but it seems there is not much more I could add at this point :lol: But I would also like to welcome you and I hope you decide to regularly join in on discussions here. We're not a big group and new solvers are always great! :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:48 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:54 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
Katja wrote:
alaskajoe wrote:
I just looked and there are 3 puzzles where my solution was lost
This has been happening to me too lately. I had a solve that didn't appear a few days ago and another one today.
alaskajoe wrote:
Is that normal?
This has not been a problem for me though. Sounds weird.

It wasn't normal in the past. I don't think I lost a single solve out of about 250. About 10 days ago I lost my 3.4.12 solve. It wasn't a record solve though though so I was somewhat happy that I had to go back and re-solve it because I came up with a much better method and solved it for the move count record last night.

I have been saving the certificate for all of the solves I don't want to do again. If I recall correctly, you can email those certificates for Gelatinbrain and they will be automatically processed.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:02 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:54 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
alaskajoe wrote:
I have another slight problem with the applet recently. At least I think it hasn't always been like that: When I hold shift plus right klick a menue pops up. Just the normal menue that appears when right klicking on some page. I can never do clockwise slice turns without having to klick to the side because this menue is on the applet suddenly. Is that normal? :? Maybe I just never realised it.
This is probably a browser + JVM interaction bug. I highly recommend you run a local copy of the program rather than the applet. It has none of the problems the applet has. See this thread for how to get it working. If you run into a problem either post in that thread or PM me.

alaskajoe wrote:
And Brandon: HA, you stole my 1st place on the corners only pentultimate! Thought that was easy prey for you when I had posted didn't you? :lol: I might be back any time soon. :twisted:
I gave 1.1.80 and 81 a solve last night. I was also going to solve 1.1.51 but it would have required more thinking that I was up for last night. I have a very long "todo" list of puzzles I already have the routines for. Your post was only minor motivation to cross it off the list :) .

Speaking of solves, can you outline your 1.3.7 solving strategy? I have no idea how Elwyn user only 356 moves on that one. I have been looking for reduction strategies on it without much luck. Since you have the second place I'd be really interested in hearing how you did it.

In other news, I started 1.4.15 last night but after 30 minutes the setup moves for the narrow triangles were so awful that I'll have to tackle it another time. I'm terrible at edge-turning puzzles because of the setup moves :oops: .

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


Last edited by Brandon Enright on Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:52 am
bmenrigh wrote:
Speaking of solves, can you outline your 1.3.7 solving strategy? I have no idea how Elwyn user only 356 moves on that one. I have been looking for reduction strategies on it without much luck. Since you have the second place I'd be really interested in hearing how you did it.


I do this trick I mentioned earlier where I treat the centers like those on a gigaminx or 5x5x5, than solve edges with easy [1,1]. If the centers are deeper cut, you just need to put all the cernterpieces in the right spots in the very beginning and than you do the gigaminx method. The point is to treat the part that turns (which has the centercap as well as a whole lot of pieces) like the part that stays on a gigaminx and the 3 pieces that are left as the ones you actually turned away. You just gotta get used to it a bit at first and kind of and "think the other way round" or so.
Also what I did not to have to think that much is this:
always line up a little triangle with one wide triangle. If the first pair you put in has the wide triangle on the left of the little one, do that with another 3 pairs so you have 4 total. Just for the last pair put the wide triangle on the other side and you won't ever have problems solving the centers. Just for the last center it might happen that one wide or one small triangle is exchanged with that of another side. If it's small do a clean 3 cycle, if it's wide do the normal center-corner algo you also have on 5x5x5 and gigaminx. But remember thinking other way round. :P

For 1.3.7 specificly, I can't seem to find a clean 3 cycle for the points right now, so I suggest just finishing centers the gigaminx method, even if one point is left in the end. It's not much more difficult.

Quote:
I gave 1.1.80 and 81 a solve last night. I was also going to solve 1.1.51 a solve but it would have required more thinking that I was up for last night. I have a very long "todo" list of puzzles I already have the routines for. Your post was only minor motivation to cross it off the list :) .


Yes and I changed my mind in trying 1.1.81 again any time soon. I just solved the pentultimate again and got 216 moves. I used 31 total for the centers. If you subtract those you end up having 185 which is exactly your move count. I really made sure not to waste moves in any state this time and that's just as good as I can get so I won't be able to beat 185 unless I go for lucky cases, which is not what I plan on Pentultimate corners.

_________________
Life is simple.
eat. sleep. train. repeat.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:13 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:54 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
alaskajoe wrote:
Yes and I changed my mind in trying 1.1.81 again any time soon. I just solved the pentultimate again and got 216 moves. I used 31 total for the centers. If you subtract those you end up having 185 which is exactly your move count. I really made sure not to waste moves in any state this time and that's just as good as I can get so I won't be able to beat 185 unless I go for lucky cases, which is not what I plan on Pentultimate corners.
Were you using your 14-move commutator? I was using one of my 10-move sequences. If you haven't seen this post, take a look: The Shortest Pentultimate Corners Routines.

I have recently come to realize/accept that anti-moves are a valid moves and some sequences I know that aren't traditional commutators are commutators when you look at the re-orientation in them as part of an anti-move. I plan on re-visiting the Pentultimate commutator sequences allowing for anti-moves too to see if there is any commutator shorter than [6,1]. My hunch is yes.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:52 am
bmenrigh wrote:
alaskajoe wrote:
Yes and I changed my mind in trying 1.1.81 again any time soon. I just solved the pentultimate again and got 216 moves. I used 31 total for the centers. If you subtract those you end up having 185 which is exactly your move count. I really made sure not to waste moves in any state this time and that's just as good as I can get so I won't be able to beat 185 unless I go for lucky cases, which is not what I plan on Pentultimate corners.
Were you using your 14-move commutator? I was using one of my 10-move sequences. If you haven't seen this post, take a look: The Shortest Pentultimate Corners Routines.

I have recently come to realize/accept that anti-moves are a valid moves and some sequences I know that aren't traditional commutators are commutators when you look at the re-orientation in them as part of an anti-move. I plan on re-visiting the Pentultimate commutator sequences allowing for anti-moves too to see if there is any commutator shorter than [6,1]. My hunch is yes.


Oh yes, I remember. I even answered on it. Yes, that was impressive. But I haven't used any of your algos. I try to find my own sequence for corners that's shorter than 14 moves but couldn't so far.

_________________
Life is simple.
eat. sleep. train. repeat.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gelatin Brain's Applet Solutions Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:52 am
Hey gelatinbrain, I think 2.2.21 is missing just like 1.1.81 used to. It's on the scoreboard but only 1.1.1 opens upon klicking on it and it doesn't apear in the file menu.

I just solved 2.1.4 in 3.5 hrs with a couple of breaks and in 2100+ moves. I can't say I enjoyed it. I just got it done. And I wasted about as many moves by pasting 3.1 commutators for the small as well as the wide triangles in as possible but still got it in less moves than Agamemnon which really surprised me. I spend time finding commutators until I had:

1. centers
2. tips with [3.1] (I needed to orientate a lot after placing because I know I wouldn't want to care for movecount)
3. edges [1.1]
4. small triangles which appear in 2 orbits [3.1]
5. wide triangles [3.1] pure

Than I didn't spend time caring about efficiency (besides the algos themselves). :roll:

Btw Brandon, you lost one of your 1st in moves highscores and it's your own fault since it has to do with page 52 of this topic. :wink: *Someone* kind of betrayed you :lol:
I might even say you dug your own grave but that sounds too final, like you couldn't strike back. :P
The solve hasn't been updated but I have the certificate on my bro's laptop so I will send it to gelatinbrain later.

_________________
Life is simple.
eat. sleep. train. repeat.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3096 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 ... 62  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 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