Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: ctegories

Expand Messages
  • James Potter <theboywholived81@yahoo.co.
    ... solve ... but ... I also think that there should be a category for doing it with your feet, but that s just an idea. I think the picture cube idea would be
    Message 1 of 14 , Jan 5, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com, "Hana M. Bizek
      <hanabizek@e...>" <hanabizek@e...> wrote:
      > I think we should stick to the categories as stated in
      > http://www.rubikswc2003.com Blindfolded speedcubing is still
      > speedcubing; it should be,at best, a subcategory of the speedcubing
      > category.
      >
      > Another kind of speedcubing not mentioned here is an attempt to
      solve
      > a picture cube as fast as possible. Mark Longridge and others have
      > some nice picture cubes. I myself have a picture cube of six unique
      > designs and will bring it to Toronto. Such cubes have extra
      > complications resulting from the fact that centers are not still,
      but
      > rotate about their axles. For isotropic cubes, that is, cubes used
      > in conventional speedcubing, this is not a problem.
      >
      > How about it, Dan?
      >
      > Hana a kostky

      I also think that there should be a category for doing it with your
      feet, but that's just an idea.
      I think the picture cube idea would be good, but I don't know any
      algs for rotating a centerpiece.
    • Hana M. Bizek <hanabizek@earthlink.net>
      ... speedcubing ... have ... unique ... used ... My pointexactly! You speedcubing fellows completely neglect the centers. You try to solve larger and larger
      Message 2 of 14 , Jan 6, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com, "James Potter
        <theboywholived81@y...>" <theboywholived81@y...> wrote:
        > --- In speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com, "Hana M. Bizek
        > <hanabizek@e...>" <hanabizek@e...> wrote:
        > > I think we should stick to the categories as stated in
        > > http://www.rubikswc2003.com Blindfolded speedcubing is still
        > > speedcubing; it should be,at best, a subcategory of the
        speedcubing
        > > category.
        > >
        > > Another kind of speedcubing not mentioned here is an attempt to
        > solve
        > > a picture cube as fast as possible. Mark Longridge and others
        have
        > > some nice picture cubes. I myself have a picture cube of six
        unique
        > > designs and will bring it to Toronto. Such cubes have extra
        > > complications resulting from the fact that centers are not still,
        > but
        > > rotate about their axles. For isotropic cubes, that is, cubes
        used
        > > in conventional speedcubing, this is not a problem.
        > >
        > > How about it, Dan?
        > >
        > > Hana a kostky
        >
        > I also think that there should be a category for doing it with your
        > feet, but that's just an idea.
        > I think the picture cube idea would be good, but I don't know any
        > algs for rotating a centerpiece.

        My pointexactly! You speedcubing fellows completely neglect the
        centers. You try to solve larger and larger cubes. Mind you, I don't
        object! That is great and highly respected skill. However, why don't
        you try to develop an algorithm for the centers a d solve a picture
        cube? That too, should be done at Toeonto. The rask of a cube artist
        would be to develop a picture cube that is as challenging as possibe.
        The task of the speedcubist would be to solve it.
        Hana a kostky
      • cmhardw
        I know next to nothing about programming but I think it would be awesome if someone made a 20x20x20 or 8x8x8 or something where the position of the centers
        Message 3 of 14 , Jan 6, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          I know next to nothing about programming but I think it would be
          awesome if someone made a 20x20x20 or 8x8x8 or something where the
          position of the centers mattered. I would love to try a larger cube
          where the center position was very important. Maybe one day I'll get
          off my lazy butt and learn a programming language, but until then I
          think it would be a cool idea.

          Chris

          --- In speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com, "Hana M. Bizek
          <hanabizek@e...>" <hanabizek@e...> wrote:
          > --- In speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com, "James Potter
          > <theboywholived81@y...>" <theboywholived81@y...> wrote:
          > > --- In speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com, "Hana M. Bizek
          > > <hanabizek@e...>" <hanabizek@e...> wrote:
          > > > I think we should stick to the categories as stated in
          > > > http://www.rubikswc2003.com Blindfolded speedcubing is still
          > > > speedcubing; it should be,at best, a subcategory of the
          > speedcubing
          > > > category.
          > > >
          > > > Another kind of speedcubing not mentioned here is an attempt to
          > > solve
          > > > a picture cube as fast as possible. Mark Longridge and others
          > have
          > > > some nice picture cubes. I myself have a picture cube of six
          > unique
          > > > designs and will bring it to Toronto. Such cubes have extra
          > > > complications resulting from the fact that centers are not
          still,
          > > but
          > > > rotate about their axles. For isotropic cubes, that is, cubes
          > used
          > > > in conventional speedcubing, this is not a problem.
          > > >
          > > > How about it, Dan?
          > > >
          > > > Hana a kostky
          > >
          > > I also think that there should be a category for doing it with
          your
          > > feet, but that's just an idea.
          > > I think the picture cube idea would be good, but I don't know any
          > > algs for rotating a centerpiece.
          >
          > My pointexactly! You speedcubing fellows completely neglect the
          > centers. You try to solve larger and larger cubes. Mind you, I
          don't
          > object! That is great and highly respected skill. However, why
          don't
          > you try to develop an algorithm for the centers a d solve a
          picture
          > cube? That too, should be done at Toeonto. The rask of a cube
          artist
          > would be to develop a picture cube that is as challenging as
          possibe.
          > The task of the speedcubist would be to solve it.
          > Hana a kostky
        • Jessica Fridrich <jess340@hotmail.com>
          ... They are, in fact, quite simple because they can be done using commutators. For example, to turn the U center clockwise and the L center counterclockwise,
          Message 4 of 14 , Jan 6, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            > I think the picture cube idea would be good, but I don't know any
            > algs for rotating a centerpiece.

            They are, in fact, quite simple because they can be done using
            commutators. For example, to turn the U center clockwise and the L
            center counterclockwise, do:

            U X L' X', where X = R L' F' B U' D.

            Jessica

            P.S.: I am not sure if it is a good idea to have too many categories
            for the championship. I myself, would presonaly like to see fewer
            rather than more. Remember that you will need enough competitors
            signing in for the disciplines. I am not sure how many people would
            sign up for feet-solving :) But, on the other hand, it is interesting
            that someone can actually do it and it would be a good idea to have a
            non-competition exhibition, very much like in figure skating, when
            people would try to do all kinds of silly but interesting things.
          • Lars Petrus
            Just to be clear, in a larger cube, all the non edge pieces are affected by having a picture instead of a uniform color. That should make the 5x5x5 and up
            Message 5 of 14 , Jan 6, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Just to be clear, in a larger cube, all the non edge pieces are
              affected by having a "picture" instead of a uniform color. That
              should make the 5x5x5 and up *much* more complicated.

              Of course, my problem with the bigger cubes is that they're boring
              and repetitive to solve, so this wouldn't help me at all...

              /Lars

              At 15:15 +0000 1/6/03, cmhardw wrote:
              >I know next to nothing about programming but I think it would be
              >awesome if someone made a 20x20x20 or 8x8x8 or something where the
              >position of the centers mattered. I would love to try a larger cube
              >where the center position was very important.

              --
              "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of
              himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?"
              --- Thomas Jefferson

              Lars Petrus, San Francisco - lars@... http://lar5.com
            • GameOfDeath2
              ... any ... It s not clear that this is a commutator - did you mean conjugate? (Well U* a conjugate anyway.) ... categories ... would ... interesting ... have
              Message 6 of 14 , Jan 6, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com, "Jessica Fridrich
                <jess340@h...>" <jess340@h...> wrote:
                > > I think the picture cube idea would be good, but I don't know
                any
                > > algs for rotating a centerpiece.
                >
                > They are, in fact, quite simple because they can be done using
                > commutators. For example, to turn the U center clockwise and the L
                > center counterclockwise, do:
                >
                > U X L' X', where X = R L' F' B U' D.
                >

                It's not clear that this is a commutator - did you mean conjugate?
                (Well U* a conjugate anyway.)

                > Jessica
                >
                > P.S.: I am not sure if it is a good idea to have too many
                categories
                > for the championship. I myself, would presonaly like to see fewer
                > rather than more. Remember that you will need enough competitors
                > signing in for the disciplines. I am not sure how many people
                would
                > sign up for feet-solving :) But, on the other hand, it is
                interesting
                > that someone can actually do it and it would be a good idea to
                have a
                > non-competition exhibition, very much like in figure skating, when
                > people would try to do all kinds of silly but interesting things.
              • GameOfDeath2
                ... Not really - you just solve the centres last instead, using 3 cycles. It would take more time but wouldn t be any more complicated, except that you d have
                Message 7 of 14 , Jan 6, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com, Lars Petrus
                  <lars@l...> wrote:
                  > Just to be clear, in a larger cube, all the non edge pieces are
                  > affected by having a "picture" instead of a uniform color. That
                  > should make the 5x5x5 and up *much* more complicated.

                  Not really - you just solve the centres last instead, using 3
                  cycles. It would take more time but wouldn't be any more
                  complicated, except that you'd have to make sure of the centre piece
                  in odd-size cubes, but you could do that before starting on the rest
                  of the centres.

                  >
                  > Of course, my problem with the bigger cubes is that they're boring
                  > and repetitive to solve, so this wouldn't help me at all...
                  >
                  > /Lars
                  >
                  > At 15:15 +0000 1/6/03, cmhardw wrote:
                  > >I know next to nothing about programming but I think it would be
                  > >awesome if someone made a 20x20x20 or 8x8x8 or something where the
                  > >position of the centers mattered. I would love to try a larger
                  cube
                  > >where the center position was very important.
                  >
                  > --
                  > "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the
                  government of
                  > himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of
                  others?"
                  > --- Thomas Jefferson
                  >
                  > Lars Petrus, San Francisco - lars@l... http://lar5.com
                • GameOfDeath2
                  ... L ... Although it is in the commutator subgroup, even if it itself isn t a commutator, but since this has index 2 in the cube group that s probably not
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jan 6, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com, GameOfDeath2
                    <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                    > --- In speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com, "Jessica Fridrich
                    > <jess340@h...>" <jess340@h...> wrote:
                    > > > I think the picture cube idea would be good, but I don't know
                    > any
                    > > > algs for rotating a centerpiece.
                    > >
                    > > They are, in fact, quite simple because they can be done using
                    > > commutators. For example, to turn the U center clockwise and the
                    L
                    > > center counterclockwise, do:
                    > >
                    > > U X L' X', where X = R L' F' B U' D.
                    > >
                    >
                    > It's not clear that this is a commutator - did you mean conjugate?
                    > (Well U* a conjugate anyway.)

                    Although it is in the commutator subgroup, even if it itself isn't a
                    commutator, but since this has index 2 in the cube group that's
                    probably not what you meant either.

                    >
                    > > Jessica
                    > >
                    > > P.S.: I am not sure if it is a good idea to have too many
                    > categories
                    > > for the championship. I myself, would presonaly like to see
                    fewer
                    > > rather than more. Remember that you will need enough competitors
                    > > signing in for the disciplines. I am not sure how many people
                    > would
                    > > sign up for feet-solving :) But, on the other hand, it is
                    > interesting
                    > > that someone can actually do it and it would be a good idea to
                    > have a
                    > > non-competition exhibition, very much like in figure skating,
                    when
                    > > people would try to do all kinds of silly but interesting things.
                  • Jessica Fridrich <jess340@hotmail.com>
                    You are such a hairsplitter, Richard ... :) Ok, it is not a commutator, you are right, but the algorithm is quite obvious because it can be obtained using
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jan 6, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      You are such a hairsplitter, Richard ... :) Ok, it is not a
                      commutator, you are right, but the algorithm is quite obvious because
                      it can be obtained using similar type of thinking as when one designs
                      a commutator: do something (i.e., turn the center), move what you
                      messed up on a different face (move the U layer to L side), turn it
                      back (counterclockwise), and put it back where it belongs (X').

                      Jessica

                      P.S.: You have really done the 5x5x5 cube blindfolded?????

                      > > > They are, in fact, quite simple because they can be done using
                      > > > commutators. For example, to turn the U center clockwise and
                      the
                      > L
                      > > > center counterclockwise, do:
                      > > >
                      > > > U X L' X', where X = R L' F' B U' D.
                      > > >
                      > >
                      > > It's not clear that this is a commutator - did you mean
                      conjugate?
                      > > (Well U* a conjugate anyway.)
                      >
                      > Although it is in the commutator subgroup, even if it itself isn't
                      a
                      > commutator, but since this has index 2 in the cube group that's
                      > probably not what you meant either.
                    • heretocube <rolerknight1977@comcast.net>
                      ... cube ... i know i m not a pro or anything but i don t see it possible to be able to make an even numbered cube where the center would matter cuz there
                      Message 10 of 14 , Jan 6, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > >I know next to nothing about programming but I think it would be
                        > >awesome if someone made a 20x20x20 or 8x8x8 or something where the
                        > >position of the centers mattered. I would love to try a larger
                        cube
                        > >where the center position was very important.


                        i know i'm not a pro or anything but i don't see it possible to be
                        able to make an even numbered cube where the center would matter cuz
                        there would be no real center to work around
                      • heretocube <rolerknight1977@comcast.net>
                        ... piece ... rest ... odd numbered cubes aren t that hard to solve once you have one face and all centers/edges solved you really only need like 4 algs to
                        Message 11 of 14 , Jan 6, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com, GameOfDeath2
                          <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                          > --- In speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com, Lars Petrus
                          > <lars@l...> wrote:
                          > > Just to be clear, in a larger cube, all the non edge pieces are
                          > > affected by having a "picture" instead of a uniform color. That
                          > > should make the 5x5x5 and up *much* more complicated.
                          >
                          > Not really - you just solve the centres last instead, using 3
                          > cycles. It would take more time but wouldn't be any more
                          > complicated, except that you'd have to make sure of the centre
                          piece
                          > in odd-size cubes, but you could do that before starting on the
                          rest
                          > of the centres.
                          >


                          odd numbered cubes aren't that hard to solve once you have one face
                          and all centers/edges solved you really only need like 4 algs to
                          solve the centers
                        • GameOfDeath2
                          ... face ... What are the other 3?
                          Message 12 of 14 , Jan 7, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com, "heretocube
                            <rolerknight1977@c...>" <rolerknight1977@c...> wrote:
                            > --- In speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com, GameOfDeath2
                            > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                            > > --- In speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com, Lars Petrus
                            > > <lars@l...> wrote:
                            > > > Just to be clear, in a larger cube, all the non edge pieces are
                            > > > affected by having a "picture" instead of a uniform color. That
                            > > > should make the 5x5x5 and up *much* more complicated.
                            > >
                            > > Not really - you just solve the centres last instead, using 3
                            > > cycles. It would take more time but wouldn't be any more
                            > > complicated, except that you'd have to make sure of the centre
                            > piece
                            > > in odd-size cubes, but you could do that before starting on the
                            > rest
                            > > of the centres.
                            > >
                            >
                            >
                            > odd numbered cubes aren't that hard to solve once you have one
                            face
                            > and all centers/edges solved you really only need like 4 algs to
                            > solve the centers

                            What are the other 3?
                          • GameOfDeath2
                            ... because ... designs ... it ... Fair enough, but a lot of it has to do with conjugate theory too because permutations have nice properties under
                            Message 13 of 14 , Jan 7, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com, "Jessica Fridrich
                              <jess340@h...>" <jess340@h...> wrote:
                              > You are such a hairsplitter, Richard ... :) Ok, it is not a
                              > commutator, you are right, but the algorithm is quite obvious
                              because
                              > it can be obtained using similar type of thinking as when one
                              designs
                              > a commutator: do something (i.e., turn the center), move what you
                              > messed up on a different face (move the U layer to L side), turn
                              it
                              > back (counterclockwise), and put it back where it belongs (X').
                              >
                              > Jessica

                              Fair enough, but a lot of it has to do with conjugate theory too
                              because permutations have nice properties under conjugation.

                              >
                              > P.S.: You have really done the 5x5x5 cube blindfolded?????

                              Yes. I should have done it earlier too but I passed through the
                              solved state due to an alphabetical error on my part. (So, I'd
                              solved it but didn't realize it and did one more thing - but since
                              then I have indeed done it 30th Dec.-31st Dec. (starting memorizing
                              some time after 10.30 pm - whatever was on TV finished at 10.30 pm
                              and then I saw a bit of LA Confidential and then I started, and
                              finishing solving at 1.05 am so it was under 2 hours 35 minutes but
                              I don't have an exact time.)
                              I messed up twice near the start too but I realized and corrected
                              it - in fact the second mistake was incorrectly correcting the first
                              one!
                              My strategy was to orient the corners and the centre edges and to
                              permute as much of the corners as possible (i.e. get 6 or 8 right).
                              I can't remember if I oriented centre edges before or after
                              permuting corners but it was here that I messed up and corrected.
                              Then I did the centres - thought I may have messed up a couple of
                              times here but I went on just in case - I was getting distracted by
                              thinking of ways I could improve next time too and that didn't help.
                              Then I joined the edges to the centres. After that it's very much
                              like solving the end of the revenge blindfolded (in that you can
                              have one bad edge, although you don't have to flip two edges).
                              Anyway, I have much harder blindfold attempts in mind but I may not
                              be able to do those!
                              Not sure what the status is on the tape of my solving the cube
                              blindfolded. I chased it up a little while back - I'll try again. My
                              friend is going to make two copies so I can send one to you as I was
                              not able to visit last time I was in NY (but hopefully I will be in
                              NY again within the next 4-5 months).

                              >
                              > > > > They are, in fact, quite simple because they can be done
                              using
                              > > > > commutators. For example, to turn the U center clockwise and
                              > the
                              > > L
                              > > > > center counterclockwise, do:
                              > > > >
                              > > > > U X L' X', where X = R L' F' B U' D.
                              > > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > It's not clear that this is a commutator - did you mean
                              > conjugate?
                              > > > (Well U* a conjugate anyway.)
                              > >
                              > > Although it is in the commutator subgroup, even if it itself
                              isn't
                              > a
                              > > commutator, but since this has index 2 in the cube group that's
                              > > probably not what you meant either.
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.