From news@nntp-server.caltech.edu Fri Oct 20 14:20:26 1995 Return-Path: Received: from chamber.cco.caltech.edu by life.ai.mit.edu (4.1/AI-4.10) for /com/archive/cube-lovers id AA04695; Fri, 20 Oct 95 14:20:26 EDT Received: from gap.cco.caltech.edu by chamber.cco.caltech.edu with ESMTP (8.6.12/DEI:4.41) id LAA02500; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 11:20:25 -0700 Received: by gap.cco.caltech.edu (8.6.7/DEI:4.41) id LAA02106; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 11:20:12 -0700 To: mlist-cube-lovers@nntp-server.caltech.edu Path: whuang From: whuang@cco.caltech.edu (Wei-Hwa Huang) Newsgroups: mlist.cube-lovers Subject: Re: Old question about 2 adj edges Date: 20 Oct 1995 18:20:09 GMT Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Lines: 20 Message-Id: <468p8p$21m@gap.cco.caltech.edu> References: Nntp-Posting-Host: accord.cco.caltech.edu X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #12 (NOV) "Jerry Bryan" writes: >Finally, here is my question. On the 4x4x4, I get "bad parity" darn >near every time. Why isn't it 50-50 like the situation I have with >flips on the 3x3x3? My suspicion is that "bad" or "good" parity is determined by what your formulae are composed of. An even number of center-plane moves will preserve parity, and the opposite is true for odd center-plane moves. If there really is a reason you're getting bad parity moves, that could determine it. However, I ran into a straight of 5 "good parity" situations recently, and didn't really notice it until later, so perhaps it's a psychological phenomenon as well (we gloss over good happenings, and dwell on tragedies.) -- int m,u,e=0;float l,_,I;main() {for(;e<1863; putchar((++e>924&&952> e?60-m:u) ["\n ude.hcetlac.occ@gnauhw ]"])) for(u=_=l=0;(m=e%81) <80&&I*l+_*_ <6&&25>++u;_=2*l*_+e/81*.09-1,l=I)I=l*l-_*_-2+.035*m;}