Message #3636

From: Christopher Locke <>
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Re: Physical 4D puzzle achieved
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 16:09:36 -0800

Hello Melinda,

Congratulations! Looks very nice.

I noticed when looking at your puzzle, that the rough correspondence is
the following:

The problem here is that the outer +/-w stickers always stay on the 8
corners of the left and right 2x2x2 blocks. This means that you cannot
mix up w stickers with x, y, or z stickers yet, without doing some
inversion of the small 3D cubes.

In conclusion, without yet considering the "inversion" type moves, you
have all 90 degree twists of the w faces, and 180 degree twists of the
x, y, z faces. The trick is to find out how to legally mix the w
stickers up with x, y, z stickers. If you can do this, then the 90
degree flexibility of the w face twists should make it possible to reach
any permutation. I will think about this more on the weekend, using
some pen and paper instead of just thinking while walking to work (it is
hard to visualize the inversion moves in my head :D).

Best regards,

On 2017年02月09日 15:37, Melinda Green [4D_Cubing]
> Hello Liam,
> Yes, a new perspective can sometimes change everything. In this case,
> I wouldn’t guess that this version will be easier to solve or
> understand than a virtual version, but there is undoubtedly something
> satisfying about puzzles you can hold in your hands. One way it may be
> helpful is in showing the difference between stickers and pieces. The
> physical pieces are now obvious, though the stickers are no longer
> cubes, so that is a little misleading. It may make for a gateway
> puzzle that gets some people to look more deeply into the virtual
> puzzles. I’ll be curious to see how people in the general puzzle
> community react when I show it around.
> And yes, the magnet restrictions definitely seems like a kind of
> bandaging. Extending the Mathologer’s arrangement allows two main
> implementations that will support the basic moves. (Mathologer video
> for reference. <>) I chose
> the one that seems to allow for more unusual moves such as the
> restacking move, but the other version might allow for some other
> legal, breakthrough move. Maybe I’ll just need to prototype that one too.
> Thanks!
> -Melinda
> On 2/9/2017 8:38 AM, [4D_Cubing] wrote:
>> Congratulations!
>> If there’s anything I’ve learned exploring different puzzles, it’s
>> that a different perspective can totally change the difficulty of a
>> puzzle. It would definitely be interesting to see if this version of
>> a 2^4 makes it any easier or harder to solve/understand it.
>> When you split the cube down the middle, whether it produces a legal
>> permutation of the cube or not, I think it definitely has the
>> potential to create a slightly odd new puzzle. The way the magnets
>> limit rotation after the split could perhaps act in the same way that
>> a bandage does on a regular 3D puzzle?
>> -Liam