From news@cco.caltech.edu Thu Jul 9 19:28:24 1992 Return-Path: Received: from gap.cco.caltech.edu by life.ai.mit.edu (4.1/AI-4.10) id AA03141; Thu, 9 Jul 92 19:28:24 EDT Received: by gap.cco.caltech.edu (4.1/1.34.1) id AA17055; Thu, 9 Jul 92 13:17:25 PDT Newsgroups: mlist.cube-lovers Path: nntp-server.caltech.edu!ph From: ph@vortex.ama.caltech.edu (Paul Hardy) Subject: Re: Name query. In-Reply-To: ACW@riverside.scrc.symbolics.com's message of Thu, 1 Jan 1970 00: 00:00 GMT Message-Id: Sender: news@cco.caltech.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: ama.caltech.edu Organization: California Institute of Technology References: <9206112052.AA18593@strident.think.com> <19920611213942.5.ACW@PALLANDO.SCRC.Symbolics.COM> Distribution: mlist Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1992 21:11:57 GMT Apparently-To: mlist-cube-lovers@nntp-server.caltech.edu In article <19920611213942.5.ACW@PALLANDO.SCRC.Symbolics.COM> ACW@riverside.scrc.symbolics.com (Allan C. Wechsler) writes: > While I'm reminiscing, I should confess that my standard corner operator > is still the same as it was then: (FUR)^5, which exchanges two corners, > leaves the rest of the corners alone, and fucks the edges completely. > (Prudes, do not hassle me. This has been a technical term in cubing > around MIT since The Beginning.) Because of this property of "furry > five", I have to home and orient all the corners first, before I touch > the edges. It's the kind of quirky algorithm you don't see among > younger cubers, because everybody these days learns how to solve the > thing from a book. In the Beginning, there were no books, and I proudly > state that I solved the cube from scratch, by brainpower. Later I > discovered that there were easier ways to do things than (FR)^105! I > had pages and pages covered with little cube diagrams with arrows > showing how the stickers were permuted by a particular sequence. > > I'm interested in hearing other reminiscences from people who actually > solved the cube -- you're disqualified if you learned how to solve it > from somebody else, or from a book. I also solved the cube alone at first. I solved the top and middle first, then spent some time pondering the final face. I realized that manipulating the corners was trickier than the edges because there were three faces rather than two, so I solved the bottom corners and then got the bottom edges in place. I eventually got Singmaster's book, and found that my method of solving two layers was faster than his. I don't quite remember now, but I think it was because I had found a quick method for flipping a piece on the middle edge around if necessary (i.e., if it was in the correct position but flipped the wrong way) without disturbing anything else on the top or middle of the cube. Still, Singmaster's book had many patterns that were fun to go through and see evolve. I've long since lost my copy of Singmaster's book (one move too many); is it still available? --Paul -- This is my address: ph@ama.caltech.edu This is UUCP: ...!{decwrl,uunet}! This is my address on UUCP: ...!{decwrl,uunet}!caltech.edu!ama!ph Any questions? "Does Emacs have the Buddha nature?" --Paul Hardy "Yow!" --Zippy