From anandrao@hk.super.net Mon Dec 20 20:16:04 1993 Return-Path: Received: from hk.super.net by life.ai.mit.edu (4.1/AI-4.10) for /com/archive/cube-lovers id AA13155; Mon, 20 Dec 93 20:16:04 EST Received: by hk.super.net id AA23740 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for cube-lovers@ai.mit.edu); Tue, 21 Dec 1993 09:15:43 +0800 Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 09:13:38 +0800 (HKT) From: Mr Anand Rao Subject: Re: your mail To: Jan de Ruiter Cc: cube-lovers@ai.mit.edu In-Reply-To: <3876.9312200938@xirion.xirion.nl> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Your concept is theoretically extendable to the 10*10 tangle, but even with this optimisation the puzzle would take a long time to solve. How long do you take for the 5*5 Tangle on your computer? On Mon, 20 Dec 1993, Jan de Ruiter wrote: > To: cube-lovers@ai.mit.edu > Subject: Re: Search order of Tangle > > I saw the discussion of Dale and Don about the search order > (fillpattern) for rubiks tangle come by, and wondered why they both > missed an even better search order (the best?): > > Don: Dale: Jan: Equivalent to: > 1 3 5 7 9 1 2 6 10 15 1 2 5 10 17 17 16 15 14 13 > 2 4 6 8 10 3 4 7 11 16 3 4 6 11 18 18 5 4 3 12 > 11 12 13 14 15 5 8 12 17 20 7 8 9 12 19 19 6 1 2 11 > 16 17 18 19 20 9 13 18 21 23 13 14 15 16 20 20 7 8 9 10 > 21 22 23 24 25 14 19 22 24 25 21 22 23 24 25 21 22 23 24 25 > > The number of constraints is illustrative: > don: 0 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 > dale: 0 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 > jan: 0 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 > > I disliked the irregularity in both don and dales search orders, and > in search for a more regular order, I found this one, which is better. > It is readily extendible to the 10 by 10 tangle. > > - Jan D. de Ruiter