[next] [prev] [up] Date: Thu, 09 Jul 92 21:11:57 +0000 (GMT)
~~~ ~~~ [up] From: Paul Hardy <ph@vortex.ama.caltech.edu >
~~~ [prev] [up] Subject: Re: Name query.

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

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?

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

[next] [prev] [up] [top] [help]