From cube-lovers-errors@mc.lcs.mit.edu Wed Jul 29 11:39:38 1998
Return-Path:
Received: from sun28.aic.nrl.navy.mil by mc.lcs.mit.edu (8.8.8/mc) with SMTP
id LAA21758; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 11:39:38 -0400 (EDT)
Precedence: bulk
Errors-To: cube-lovers-errors@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Mail-from: From cube-lovers-request@life.ai.mit.edu Tue Jul 28 09:05:00 1998
Message-Id: <35BDCC35.97F9BD3@nadn.navy.mil>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 09:03:49 -0400
From: David Joyner
Reply-To: wdj@nadn.navy.mil
Organization: Math Dept, USNA
To: Cube Mailing List
Cc: Rainer.adS.BERA_GmbH@t-online.de
Subject: Re: 4*4*4 patterns
References: <35BB827C.10B7C9A7@t-online.de>
Rainer aus dem Spring wrote:
> Dear cube lovers,
>
> as promised the other day here comes my collection of 4*4*4 patterns.
> My favorites are the single twisted rings. I still find it surprising
> to see that there is no second ring on the "other" side.
>
> The maneuvers use all sorts of slice moves which are probably not
> accepted as moves by most cubeologists. I am too lazy to rewrite them.
>
> Does anybody have any idea which format I should post for people
> without a TeX system?
I have sent Rainier an html conversion of his file. With his permission
and approval I'll post on my web page
http://www.nadn.navy.mil/MathDept/wdj/rubik.html
> ... Does anybody know of a 4*4*4 emulator or even solver? Anything
> like a (sub)optimal solver is probably beyond the current PC powers.
Yes. MAPLEV5 (Mathematica's main competitor) released a 4x4 Rubik's
cube emulator (as well as a masterball emulator and a 3x3 Rubik's cube
emulator) in their "share package" included with the software. The
share package is actually free but MAPLEV5 is not! Incidently, the
emulators work on some older versions of MAPLE as well. The pictured
linked to on the bottom of the above-mentioned web page were obtained
using this emulator. - David Joyner
> Rainer
>
> PS
> I am NOT a LaTeX expert :) hints are welcome !
>
> [Moderator's note: ... I wonder if there could be some
> simplification with the [X,Y] = X Y X^{-1} Y^{-1} commutator notation
> or the X^Y = Y^{-1} X Y conjugate notation, or if this would make the
> processes too hard to follow. --Dan]
It would be theoretically interesting, IMHO, to have the expressions
rewritten using commutators but more confusing in practice to follow.
>
(Latex file deleted)
--
David Joyner, Assoc Prof of Math
US Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD 21402
(410)293-6738
wdj@nadn.navy.mil
http://web.usna.navy.mil/~wdj/homepage.html
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"A Mathematician is a machine for turning
coffee into theorems." Alfred Renyi