From cube-lovers-errors@mc.lcs.mit.edu Wed Jul 29 11:39:38 1998 Return-Path: Received: from sun28.aic.nrl.navy.mil by mc.lcs.mit.edu (8.8.8/mc) with SMTP id LAA21758; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 11:39:38 -0400 (EDT) Precedence: bulk Errors-To: cube-lovers-errors@mc.lcs.mit.edu Mail-from: From cube-lovers-request@life.ai.mit.edu Tue Jul 28 09:05:00 1998 Message-Id: <35BDCC35.97F9BD3@nadn.navy.mil> Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 09:03:49 -0400 From: David Joyner Reply-To: wdj@nadn.navy.mil Organization: Math Dept, USNA To: Cube Mailing List Cc: Rainer.adS.BERA_GmbH@t-online.de Subject: Re: 4*4*4 patterns References: <35BB827C.10B7C9A7@t-online.de> Rainer aus dem Spring wrote: > Dear cube lovers, > > as promised the other day here comes my collection of 4*4*4 patterns. > My favorites are the single twisted rings. I still find it surprising > to see that there is no second ring on the "other" side. > > The maneuvers use all sorts of slice moves which are probably not > accepted as moves by most cubeologists. I am too lazy to rewrite them. > > Does anybody have any idea which format I should post for people > without a TeX system? I have sent Rainier an html conversion of his file. With his permission and approval I'll post on my web page http://www.nadn.navy.mil/MathDept/wdj/rubik.html > ... Does anybody know of a 4*4*4 emulator or even solver? Anything > like a (sub)optimal solver is probably beyond the current PC powers. Yes. MAPLEV5 (Mathematica's main competitor) released a 4x4 Rubik's cube emulator (as well as a masterball emulator and a 3x3 Rubik's cube emulator) in their "share package" included with the software. The share package is actually free but MAPLEV5 is not! Incidently, the emulators work on some older versions of MAPLE as well. The pictured linked to on the bottom of the above-mentioned web page were obtained using this emulator. - David Joyner > Rainer > > PS > I am NOT a LaTeX expert :) hints are welcome ! > > [Moderator's note: ... I wonder if there could be some > simplification with the [X,Y] = X Y X^{-1} Y^{-1} commutator notation > or the X^Y = Y^{-1} X Y conjugate notation, or if this would make the > processes too hard to follow. --Dan] It would be theoretically interesting, IMHO, to have the expressions rewritten using commutators but more confusing in practice to follow. > (Latex file deleted) -- David Joyner, Assoc Prof of Math US Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD 21402 (410)293-6738 wdj@nadn.navy.mil http://web.usna.navy.mil/~wdj/homepage.html ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "A Mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems." Alfred Renyi