Message #19

From: David Vanderschel <DvdS@Austin.RR.com>
Subject: Fwd: Re: [MC4D] Done again !!!
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 20:03:05 -0000

Date: Mon Feb 10, 2003 5:43 pm

— In MC4D@yahoogroups.com, Melinda Green <melinda@s…> wrote:
dear eric,

congratulations on capturing the last of the significant "firsts"
with a solution to the 5^4!!! and
without using macros even, or "bare-handed" as you so prosaically
call it. i’ve updated the hall-of-fame
page to include your accomplishment.

would one of you please run the twist-counting script on the
published log file? i’ve not been able to use
it successfully on this machine, so i just entered the total number
of operations which is of course too
high. still, eric’s solution certainly required several thousand
twists, and as he says, should be quite
possible to beat. feel up to it roice? you’re certainly our resident
expert on efficient cube solving.

thanks also for spotting my typos in your permutations page though i
don’t know if i’d call it a "little"
mistake since the difference between 10^220 and 10^700 is rather
significant! i can’t even imagine a way
to think about a number that large. can any of you think of a good
real world comparison? perhaps the
total number of possible human genomes? i guess that would be 4
choose 3x10^9 but i’ve not found a big
number calculator on the web yet.

well, congratulations again eric. i am forever in awe of you guys.
-melinda

p’tit bonhomme wrote:

> Hye everybody,
>
> Here are some news again,
>
> thanks you, melinda, to fix my english,
> it’s sounds really better, as you wrote it,
>
> I did this quickly last time,I should have talked
> about rotations instead of positions on a place
> if you want I can try to improve my explanations,
> I’ll let you know.
> May be, we just not talk about permutations, but
> about visibly different positions of the MC4D, because
> there is some others permutations, that I didn’t count that
> doesn’t visibly change the 4x4x4x4 and the 5x5x5x5
>
> I just notice a little mistake in the exposant of 10,
> in the approximations, you gave.
> you forgot that you were counting packs of 3 figures,
> it shoud be:
>
> 1.7 x 10^120 ; 1.3 x 10^344 ; 8.2 x 10^700
>
> But all this isn’t the only reason, I send you this mail,
> You can find in attach, a beautifull little, bare-hand made, 5x5x5x5
> log file.
>
> By bare-hand, I mean no macro.
>
> I know that some of you guys, wanted to be first on it,
> sorry for that, by I know my solutions to be really long,
> I realise I could have done so many shortcuts, so it would
> be easy to do a shorter solutions.
>
> Thankq again, melinda
>
> :) Eric
— End forwarded message —