From cube-lovers-errors@mc.lcs.mit.edu  Tue Dec  8 19:08:13 1998
Return-Path: <cube-lovers-errors@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: from sun28.aic.nrl.navy.mil (sun28.aic.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.84.38])
	by mc.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1-mod) with SMTP id TAA22642
	for <cube-lovers-outbound@mc.lcs.mit.edu>; Tue, 8 Dec 1998 19:08:13 -0500 (EST)
Precedence: bulk
Errors-To: cube-lovers-errors@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Date: 	Tue, 8 Dec 1998 18:37:02 -0500 (EST)
From: Alchemist Matt <monroem@email.unc.edu>
Reply-To: Alchemist Matt <monroem@email.unc.edu>
To: Herbert Kociemba <kociemba@hrz1.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de>
Cc: cube-lovers@ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Optimal Cube Solver
In-Reply-To: <366C1ED9.C11@hrz1.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de>
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.95L.981208183158.13948B-100000@sunny.isis.unc.edu>

This question is directed to both Herbert and Mike Reid in case he's
reading this list:  With all this discussion of the "Professor Cube"
lately, how hard would it be to extend either Optimal cube solving program
to handle 4x4x4 and 5x5x5 cubes in addition to the traditional 3x3x3?
Considering reasonable table files (50 - 100 mb), how much longer would
the computation time be extended by.  If either of you would find the time
to implement this modification, I would be very interested in trying out
the program.

		Matt

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Monroe				Monroem@UNC.Edu
Analytical Chemistry      		http://www.unc.edu/~monroem/
UNC - Chapel Hill, NC                   This tagline is umop apisdn
-----------------------------------------------------------------------