From @mitvma.mit.edu,@WVNVM.WVNET.EDU:BRYAN@WVNVM.WVNET.EDU Thu Jan 6 13:52:03 1994 Return-Path: <@mitvma.mit.edu,@WVNVM.WVNET.EDU:BRYAN@WVNVM.WVNET.EDU> Received: from mitvma.mit.edu by life.ai.mit.edu (4.1/AI-4.10) for /com/archive/cube-lovers id AA24385; Thu, 6 Jan 94 13:52:03 EST Message-Id: <9401061852.AA24385@life.ai.mit.edu> Received: from MITVMA.MIT.EDU by mitvma.mit.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6454; Thu, 06 Jan 94 13:21:25 EST Received: from WVNVM.WVNET.EDU (NJE origin MAILER@WVNVM) by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 5918; Thu, 6 Jan 1994 13:21:24 -0500 Received: from WVNVM.WVNET.EDU (NJE origin BRYAN@WVNVM) by WVNVM.WVNET.EDU (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 6741; Thu, 6 Jan 1994 13:18:51 -0500 X-Acknowledge-To: Date: Thu, 6 Jan 1994 13:18:50 EST From: "Jerry Bryan" To: "Cube Lovers List" Subject: An Alternate Analysis of B Here is a definition. If X is any cube, then the function B is defined as B(X) = min (C[i] R[j] X R[j] C[k]) for i in {1 to 24}, j in {1 to 2}, and k in {1 to 24}, and where C is the set of rotations of the cube and R is the set of reflections of the cube. Then, two cubes X and Y are said to be B-equivalent if B(X)=B(Y). Note that the B function calculates the "canonical form" or the "representative element" of an equivalence class under M-conjugation and rotation of the cube in space. Dan Hoey already gave a thorough analysis of this situation. I would like to provide an alternative analysis which I hope to be equivalent to Dan's. My analysis will be fairly informal as compared to Dan's. Here are a couple of preliminaries. First, multiplication of permutations is generally not commutative. For example, if X is any cube, then it is generally not the case that m'Xm=mXm', where m is in M, the set of all cube rotations composed with reflections. However, we can calculate all M-conjugates of X as B[n]=m[n]' X m[n] for n in {1 to 48}, or we can calculate all M-conjugates of X as B[n]=m[n] X m[n]'. Either way, B will be the same set of cubes. It will be in a different order, but it will be the same set. The reason is that the set of all m[n] is the same as the set of all m[n]', namely just M, but m[n] is in a different order than m[n]'. This means that as long as we are calculating all M-conjugates as opposed to a specific M-conjugate, we can sort of "violate" the normal rules about multiplication commutivity. Second, if X is any cube, consider the set of all rotations of X, namely B[i] = X c[i] for i in {1 to 24}, and where c[i] is in C, the set of all cube rotations. Having generated the set of all rotations of X, we can rotate as many times as we wish, for example B[j] = X c[i] c[j] for i in {1 to 24} and j in {1 to 24}, or even B[k] = X c[i] c[j] c[k] for i in {1 to 24}, j in {1 to 24}, and k in {1 to 24}. No matter how many times we multiply, B will be the same set, it will just be in a different order. Conversely, if we have any number of adjacent rotations in the multiplication, we can eliminate all but one rotation, and B will be the same set, and again will just be in a different order. With the preliminaries out of the way, we note that the set of all M-conjugates of X is generated as B[i]=m[i]' X m[i] for i in {1 to 48}. But we can also generate the same set in a different order as B[i]=m[i] X m[i]' for i in {1 to 48}. We can decompose M and calculate all M-conjugates as B[i,j]=c[i] r[j] X r[j]' c[i]' for i in {1 to 24} and j in {1 to 2}. But r[1]'=r[1] (r[1] is the identity) and r[2]'=r[2] (the reflection is its own complement). So we have B[i,j]=c[i] r[j] X r[j] c[i]' for i in {1 to 24} and j in {1 to 2}. The set of all c[i] is the same as the set of all c[i]' (just in a different order), so we define i' as the index for which c[i']=c[i]'. Hence the calculation of an M-conjugate can be written as B[i,j]=c[i] r[j] X r[j] c[i'] for i in {1 to 24} and j in {1 to 2}. Finally, we wish to multiply the M-conjugate by the set of all rotations, so we have B[i,j,k]=c[i] r[j] X r[j] c[i'] c[k] for i in {1 to 24}, j in {1 to 2}, and k in {1 to 24}. But as we noted in our second preliminary note, we can collapse multiple rotations into one, and we have B[i,j,k]=c[i] r[j] X r[j] c[k], and B will be the set of all M-conjugates of X multiplied by all rotations. I guess I am overusing the letter "B" a bit, because the "B" function is simply the minimum of the "B" matrix. But in any case, we have shown that the "B" loop in my program is simply calculating the set of all M-conjugates multiplied by all rotations. This is the exact result already proven by Dan Hoey, but I found the above derivation a little easier to follow. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Robert G. Bryan (Jerry Bryan) (304) 293-5192 Associate Director, WVNET (304) 293-5540 fax 837 Chestnut Ridge Road BRYAN@WVNVM Morgantown, WV 26505 BRYAN@WVNVM.WVNET.EDU If you don't have time to do it right today, what makes you think you are going to have time to do it over again tomorrow?