From cube-lovers-errors@curry.epilogue.com Thu Jun 6 23:31:12 1996
Return-Path: cube-lovers-errors@curry.epilogue.com
Received: from curry.epilogue.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by curry.epilogue.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA11078 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 23:31:10 -0400
Precedence: bulk
Errors-To: cube-lovers-errors@curry.epilogue.com
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 22:22:26 -0400
From: Jim Mahoney
Message-Id: <199606060222.WAA13586@ marlboro.edu>
To: hoey@aic.nrl.navy.mil
Cc: cube-lovers@ai.mit.edu
In-Reply-To: <9606052254.AA22046@sun34.aic.nrl.navy.mil> (hoey@AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil)
Subject: Re: A essay on the NxNxN Cube : counting positions and solving it
>>>>> "hoey" == hoey writes:
hoey> When we take account of the internal cubies I call it the
hoey> "Theoretical Invisible cube", described in my Invisible
hoey> Revenge article 9 August 1982. A solution method is given
hoey> in
hoey> Eidswick, J. A., "Cubelike Puzzles -- What Are They
hoey> and How Do You Solve Them?", 'American Mathematical
hoey> Monthly', Vol. 93, #3, March 1986, pp. 157-176.
Thanks for the references. I haven't seen Eidswick's paper yet,
but will check it out.
hoey> As for counting the positions, I haven't got around to
hoey> checking the numbers in "Groups of the larger cubes", 24 Jun
hoey> 1987. You might want to see how they compare to yours.
I just did, and for the specific case that I describe (which is "s:
Supergroup, i: theoretical invisible group") the formulas are exactly
the same. I didn't consider nearly the range of alternatives discussed
in that article, but its nevertheless nice to see a confirmation of
the results.
Regards,
Dr. Jim Mahoney mahoney@marlboro.edu
Physics & Astronomy
Marlboro College, Marlboro, VT 05344