Date: 19 May 1982 0107-edt From: Ronald B. Harvey Subject: 4^3 Cube To: cube-lovers @ mit-mc In response to Richard Pavelle's message, there are about 7.4*10^45 color combinations. See "mc:alan;cube 4x4x4" for more details on the subject (especially the derivations) by Dan Hoey. I bought a solution book from my favorite bookstore today. The title is "The Winning Solution to Rubik's Revenge". It is a sequel to "A Winning Solution to Rubik's Cube" by the same author (Minh Thai), who is billed as the U.S. National Champion of the Rubik's Cube-A-Thon. I assume the Revenge book is not REALLY a winning solution... at least not yet. His method is to put all corners together, go for two opposite centers, then the edges of said centers. Next he goes for the remaining edges (numbering eight), and then the last four centers. He also goes into many patterns, and has developed a notation which I have not found immediately obvious. I haven't looked at the book more than to scan it yet, however. He does list a few pretty-patterns, none of which are checkerboards of any sort. On a different subject, Paul Schauble accidentally found out how to take apart the 4^3 today - twist an outer layer about 30 degrees so that an edge of the twisted face is directly over the edge cube that now forms a corner on the rest of the cube. Pop out the cube from the outer layer, twist the face again so that the popped cube's partner is in a similar position for popping, and then pop it. The corners now come out fairly easily. Unlike Plummer's design, the insides of this beastie is a sphere with grooves running along it to make a kind of universal joint. The center cubies ride in these grooves and hold all of the other pieces in. We only took out about a half-dozen cubies because the cube was NOT in an initialized state, but closer to a pretty pattern. I was definitely not interested in getting it ALL apart in order to get it back together correctly. (we did it correctly the first try!). Unlike the 3^3 cube, the 4^3 does not seem to come apart easily after the first few are out. I seem to have gone on for a bit longer than I intended. I will study the pamphlet (published by Dell/Banbury by the way) and report in more detail on notation later. I just noticed that in the section on Cubology, the author lists the number of "arrangements is something in excess of 3.7*10^45". Since Hoey's number is larger, I guess the statement is correct. - Ron