Message #647

From: David Vanderschel <>
Subject: Re: [MC4D] a short diversion into sticker and cubie counts
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 20:25:14 -0600

On Wednesday, February 04, "rev_16_4" <> wrote:
>I think we are generalizing by saying n-puzzle, when
>it would be just as easy to say n-cube, which is the
>ultimate shape of these puzzles (MC4D & MC5D).

The problem with that is that we do need to be able to
talk about a simple n-cube also when we are talking
about an n-puzzle (not necessarily the same n’s).

>The frequency with which the generalized terminology
>is required makes this point trivial. You can safely
>pull the meaning of n-puzzle out of the context from
>which it’s taken.

Indeed. And for me the context is Rubik analogues, in
which context I do not include non-cubical puzzles.

>Finally, while during a discussion of each class of
>n-puzzle, we may not generalize between classes too
>frequently, if ever. However this discussion itself
>shows the need for a terminology for the general n-

The problem is hard enough for the Rubik analogues
alone. Indeed, I agree about the need for some
agreement on terminology. Furthermore, I have a
proposal for some aspects of the terminology and
notation issues for Rubik analogues. You might want
to consider the extent to which something of the sort
could be extended to other puzzle types.

I am going to start a new thread for my notation and
terminology proposal as it is really a new subject and
not directly related to the current thread. However,
it is responsive to concerns expressed by both Levi
and Roice about the need to get together on language
and notation.

David V.