From dik@cwi.nl Thu Aug 5 20:01:34 1993 Return-Path: Received: from charon.cwi.nl by life.ai.mit.edu (4.1/AI-4.10) for /com/archive/cube-lovers id AA23600; Thu, 5 Aug 93 20:01:34 EDT Received: from boring.cwi.nl by charon.cwi.nl with SMTP id AA05147 (5.65b/3.9/CWI-Amsterdam); Fri, 6 Aug 1993 02:01:27 +0200 Received: by boring.cwi.nl id AA05312 (4.1/2.10/CWI-Amsterdam); Fri, 6 Aug 93 02:01:26 +0200 Date: Fri, 6 Aug 93 02:01:26 +0200 From: Dik.Winter@cwi.nl Message-Id: <9308060001.AA05312.dik@boring.cwi.nl> To: ronnie@cisco.com Subject: Re: Diameter of cube group? Cc: cube-lovers@life.ai.mit.edu The last remark first: > This gives me the feeling that Monte Carlo is fairly valid. (How's > that for rigor?) Not very ;-). > It couldn't be very pointy. From the most distant configuration, > there are 6 positions immediately before it. There are 6^2 two steps > away, 6^3 three steps, etc. (well, 6^2 - 1 and 6^3 - ?) actually. This still can create a pointy tail; just as pointy as the front. My experience is that the tail is much more blunt than the front. That there are already more than a single configuration at maximum distance makes that reasonable.