Message #1174

From: Andrey <>
Subject: [MC4D] Re: 4^6 solved!
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 14:39:18 -0000

Matthew, Melinda, thank you!
I don’t think about huge puzzles solving in the next months. Somedays I’ll try 5^5 and may be 6^4 (but not before Ray solves the latter) - just to close all N+D=10 puzzles (N>2). Probably, I’ll give another try to {3}x{3},3 and some other douprisms. Yes, I tried to solve it two or three times, oriented all cubies, set some classes of them to their place, but then saw that I need to do some paperwork to find "operations" for next stages - and put it aside till next time.
Speedsolving of {3}x{3},3 with no macros? It will be terrible, but interesting ))) And there is one more 6-side puzzle - {3,3}x{}. I haven’t try it yet, just checked that I can twist its sides (with difficulty - there is no 120-deg rotation of prism, I need to turn it over twice for such twist). It may be also more difficult than 3^4.
And I have in mind at least 5 different projects to implement - two in 4D, one in 5/6D and two in slightly different space… Don’t know where to start )))

Good luck and happy hypercubing!


— In, Melinda Green <melinda@…> wrote:
> Congrats indeed! Pretty funny to because it was only back in July that
> Andrey said <>
> "I’m sure that I’ll not try to solve 3^6 in the nearest future. Even if
> it’ll take 5 days, it’s too much for me now." Well he kept his word by
> leapfrogging straight to the 4^6. I find it very odd that any puzzles
> are being solved out of order in either edge length or dimension since
> any shorter or lower puzzle should be practice for a larger version
> requiring only a fraction of the time.
> And let’s not forget to give congratulations to Nan for his success with
> the {3}x{3}-3. Wasn’t that the one that Andrey gave up on, or was that
> someone else or another puzzle altogether? I love his story of his
> patient and happy persistence as he repeatedly hit and then conquered
> one parity problem after another. This puzzle seems have a very high
> difficult-over-size quotient. I’ve long felt that the original 3^3 was
> the hardest puzzle for it’s size but now I’m thinking that this one tops
> it. Does anyone think that there are any puzzles that are harder for
> their size? I’d *love* to hold a speedsolving contest using this puzzle.
> As before, I’ll be happy to run that contest if 3 or more people compete
> and I’ll put up another custom t-shirt prize even if we only bet 4
> contestants.
> Most of all I just want to give the highest congratulations to both
> Andrey and Nan for their amazing firsts. Well done, guys!
> -Melinda
> On 9/26/2010 1:46 PM, Matthew wrote:
> > Nice work Andrey! 4032 pieces and 12288 stickers is what my formulae in Excel tell me, which is more pieces and stickers than the 3^7, even if it has one less dimension (which at this scale doesn’t even matter as much). I wonder how long it will be before someone conquers the 4^7 or even the 5^7, and I wish good luck to anyone attempting them, as it will require a lot of patience! What are your plans now Andrey? Any more huge puzzles to solve, or are you working on the speedsolving now? Speaking of which, it is amazing that you were working on this at the same time as getting some really good times on the 3^4! I can only wonder how you managed it all. Congrats again :)
> >
> > Matt
> >