Message #403
From: Mark Oram <markoram109@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Further musings
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 19:17:18 +0100
I can readily believe that possible interfaces for 6
(and upward) dimensional simulations would be
workable, based on the 4-D paradigm along with the
ability to selectively hide different layers/faces
etc. Also, I think there is plenty of fun to be had
with a step by step algorithm; with (in the case of
the cubes at least) enough intermediate milestones
such as one face complete, two faces complete etc etc,
to provide sufficient motivation (and satisfaction!)
to keep moving forward.
My main fear would be that this step by step
‘orthogonal’ approach (I don’t know how else to
describe it) misses a lot of the subtleties and
‘richness’ that the extra dimensions provide. Nor does
it, I firmly believe, give any real insight into how
God’s algorithm for each cube might look. Perhaps this
is where software designed to solve the higher
dimensional cubes will have a clear advantage over
human visualisation and imagination, in that it is not
constrained by the 3 dimensions we are familiar with.
— Melinda Green <melinda@superliminal.com> wrote:
> I think the practical skills required to solve these
> puzzles without
> help are the same needed to solve any complex
> problem. That is the
> ability to systematically break a large problem down
> into a series of
> smaller ones.
>
> Maybe someone will solve a 6D cube before too long.
> I suspect that is
> probably inevitable. My real question is whether
> that will be very fun.
> Maybe what we really need is a breakthrough in UI
> design that will allow
> sufficiently patient humans to solve cubes of any
> number of dimensions.
> I have difficulty imagining what might look like but
> I would not be
> surprised if the general design of such an interface
> might also be
> usefully applied to other very practical searching
> and optimizing
> problems. I would doubt that it would look like the
> MC4D interface but
> then I would not have guessed that a workable 5D
> version could be based
> on our design but clearly I was wrong. Perhaps with
> enough controls to
> show and hide carefully selected parts of the
> puzzles, a true
> n-dimensional UI really could be based on our
> design. I just don’t know.
>
> -Melinda
>
> Mark Oram wrote:
> > Melinda,
> >
> > I too had the peaks in mind metaphorically. After
> all,
> > if one likens the 3^5 to Everest, one needs other
> > names to invoke for the 4^5 and 5^5, or n^6 etc.
> > Perhaps humans will walk on the REAL Olympus Mons
> > before a 3^6 solution exists??
> >
> > I have no doubt that you, or anyone else reading
> this,
> > could solve the 3^5, or other variants, if you
> wanted
> > to. Maybe the question then becomes (in the
> interests
> > of starting a possible discussion) to what
> practical
> > use if any could these accomplishments be put?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > — Melinda Green <melinda@superliminal.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Mark,
> >>
> >> When I spoke about still-higher peaks I was still
> >> talking about the
> >> metaphoric types. Most specifically, there are
> still
> >> the 5^4 and the
> >> seductively symmetric 5^5 still waiting to be
> >> climbed. Judging from your
> >> description of the difficulty of solving the 3^5
> I
> >> still stand by my
> >> prediction that we’re likely to see exactly one
> >> solution to the 5^5. It
> >> sounds like it could take most of a year to
> >> accomplish that and it’s
> >> hard to imagine more than one person finishing it
> >> unless perhaps we end
> >> up with a race. Either way it sounds awful but
> >> remember, any first
> >> solution will only happen once! ;-)
> >>
> >> Thank you for your description of the process. It
> >> made it possible for
> >> me to get an idea of how one might actually solve
> a
> >> 5D cube which until
> >> now just seemed like a miracle.
> >>
> >> -Melinda
> >>
> >> markoram109 wrote:
> >>
> >>> Melinda,
> >>>
> >>> Thank-you very much for your kind words of
> >>>
> >> support: these really
> >>
> >>> make all the difference for me in these crazy
> >>>
> >> undertakings :)
> >>
> >>> Certainly there are many higher peaks out there:
> >>>
> >> Olympus Mons, on
> >>
> >>> the planet Mars, is 3x higher than Everest for a
> >>>
> >> start, and I think
> >>
> >>> there are cliffs on Miranda (a moon of Uranus)
> >>>
> >> even higher. So as
> >>
> >>> you say there are always new peaks to aim for.
> >>>
> >> Still, I’m not sure
> >>
> >>> I’ll be emabrking on any of these new challenges
> >>>
> >> just yet….
> >>
> >>> What I will be doing soon is expanding just a
> >>>
> >> little on how this
> >>
> >>> solution worked out for me, with the hope that
> it
> >>>
> >> will be useful
> >>
> >>> (and inspiring?!) for anyone else attempting to
> >>>
> >> solve any of the 5-D
> >>
> >>> versions.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Mark.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> — In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, Melinda Green
> >>>
> >> <melinda@…> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Hey, congratulations! That’s beyond amazing to
> >>>>
> >> have solved a 5D cube. I haven’t even solved the
> 4D
> >> version!
> >>
> >>>> You did right by sending your log file to Roice
> >>>>
> >> and I see that he’s added you to the
> >> hall-of-insanity though I don’t see your log file
>
> >>
> >>>> listed there. BTW, even though you have clearly
> >>>>
> >> conquered Everest, there are still higher peaks
> >> waiting for the first person to conquer them too!
>
> >> ;-)
> >>
> >>>> -Melinda
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
___________________________________________________________
> > Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there
> knows the answer. Try it
> > now.
> > http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
___________________________________________________________<br> Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it<br> now.<br> http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/