# ACube4x4 question



## cmhardw (Apr 4, 2008)

Hi everyone,

I keep getting a memory heap error on ACube4x4, and I am not much of a computer person. I tried inputting the command line that the readme file says to use to increase the peak memory to 400MB and I get an error saying something about how that argument or command is unknown. I then used the following command:
java -Xms<initial heap size> -Xmx<maximum heap size>

but I didn't know my initial heap size so I ended up using the website's suggested default and used:
java -Xms32 -Xmx400

and all I got was a screen of commands, sort of like a help screen, telling me what a list of various commands do.

The particular line I am entering into ACube4x4 to get the memory heap error is:
603000 ! UB ! ! ! UF !! !! !!

as I am trying to let ACube help me search for nice parity algs for 4x4 BLD.

Thanks for any help in trying to get to where Acube will run this line, or at least I will figure out if it can't be run on my computer. I hope I have detailed at least what I have tried to do so far, from the standpoint of a non-computer savvy person.

Chris


----------



## Lucas Garron (Apr 4, 2008)

ACube4x4? I was getting ready to start drooling, but I think you mean using ACube for 4x4x4. 

I have done it before, but with unsatisfactory results. I wanted to code ksolve to find a better r2 parity (which I suppose is equivalent to what you're trying to find).

Weren't you the person who found the now-standard OLL parity? 
I've tried using the Domino idea to find more algs.

I have two issues in setting up ksolve for this (and some other projects), and hopefully Mitchell reads this and explains it to us...
-Defining indistinguishable parts
-Solving only certain parts

As for your problem, I'll try to run your input when I get home (although I have an extra GB of RAM in my laptop  ).


----------



## cmhardw (Apr 4, 2008)

> ACube4x4? I was getting ready to start drooling, but I think you mean using ACube for 4x4x4.



No I actually mean ACube 4x4 :-D If you want a copy it should be on Josef's site, that's where I remember downloading it. If it's not there let me know and I'll send you a copy.



> Weren't you the person who found the now-standard OLL parity?
> I've tried using the Domino idea to find more algs.



Found in the sense that after a lengthy search off yahoo.com (I don't think google was really mainstream then) I found it on a list of parity algs and it just happened to be the shortest alg.

Chris


----------



## Lucas Garron (Apr 5, 2008)

I can find ACube 4x4 here, nor have i ever even heard of it or can find it with Google (but I HAVE dreamed of it). So, can you send it to me?

For now:
r' U2 r2 U2 r U2 r U2 l r2 U2 r' U2 r U2 l' U2 

I suggest doing r2 l by grabbing the right three layers on F and B, moving r'-ish, then doing r' with only the right two layers, then R2-ing back.

Even number of U2 turns, too.


----------



## Jason Baum (Apr 5, 2008)

Chris, could you send me a copy of ACube4x4 as well? [email protected]


----------



## qqwref (Apr 5, 2008)

Wow, I want this thing too. I have a computer here which could totally handle it...


----------



## Lucas Garron (Apr 5, 2008)

Since I care so much for it, and dbeyer might appreciate it:
http://garron.us/archive/data/r2_parity.txt
They come in inverse pairs.

Shortest:
r' U2 r2 U2 r U2 r U2 r2 l U2 r' U2 r U2 l' U2 (27q, 17s)
U2 l U2 r' U2 r U2 r2 l' U2 r' U2 r' U2 r2 U2 r (27q, 17s)

The first can move-cancel with r2 for parity.

Okayish ones that can cancel:
r2 U2 r U2 l' U2 l U2 l U2 (r' l) U2 r U2 l' U2 r (27q, 18s)
r' U2 l U2 r' U2 r l' U2 l' U2 l' U2 l U2 r' U2 r2 (27q, 18s)
r' U2 l' U2 r U2 r l2 U2 r' U2 l U2 r2 l' U2 l2 U2 (29q, 18s)

r' U2 r2 U2 r U2 r U2 r2 l U2 r' U2 r U2 l' U2 is looking like _the_ pure alg for this.
U2 r U2 l' U2 l U2 l U2 (r' l) U2 r U2 l' U2 r is a move less than r U2 r2 U2 r U2 r U2 r2 l U2 r' U2 r U2 l' U2, though... :confused:

Okay, we can now get onto ACube 4x4 when I get my copy.


----------



## cmhardw (Apr 5, 2008)

Wow I'm really surprised that you can't find ACube4x4 anymore. I'm almost certain I remember just downloading it from Josef's site, unless I am mistaken. If anyone else wants a copy just PM on this forum with your e-mail address and I'll send you a copy.

Chris


----------



## Lucas Garron (Apr 6, 2008)

Hmm, no matter what I try to input, the "Generating States..." runs out of memory around 112799/200000
The "13779>" varies.

It pauses there for your input, and around there for my input ("442000 UB UB ! ! UF UF !! !! ??"). Making the centers ?? or !! seems to make no difference for this.
Then I noticed that I only had 111MB left on my hard disk, cleared 300MB extra, and that did nothing. And I have 707MB of RAM available for the program...

How did he find his example sequence at all?


EDIT:
Even worse, "400000 UB UB UL UL UF UF UR UR !! UBL UFL UFR URB !! ??" gives:
 Generating states...
cut: 213/10800000
Searching duplicities...
cut: 213/10800000
Linking states...
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NullPointerException
at TurnList4.fill(TurnList4.java:198)
at TurnList4.<init>(TurnList4.java:27)
at CubeReader4.solve(CubeReader4.java:48)
at AQb4.main(AQb4.java:29)

No wonder Josef took it off his site.


----------



## cmhardw (Apr 6, 2008)

Lucas Garron said:


> Hmm, no matter what I try to input, the "Generating States..." runs out of memory around 112799/200000
> The "13779>" varies.



If you search with turn mask 777777, or without inputting any numbers, you usually can get the program to run, but the downside is that the maximum search depth is then only around 12 moves (probably not enough for finding a parity alg).

Chris


----------



## Lucas Garron (Apr 6, 2008)

cmhardw said:


> If you search with turn mask 777777, or without inputting any numbers, you usually can get the program to run...


Really? I can't get it to work at all. Could you give me some input that worked for you?


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Jan 2, 2010)

Anybody know what happened with Acube 4x4x4?

reThinker


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 2, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> Anybody know what happened with Acube 4x4x4?
> 
> reThinker


Have you read the thread? Nothing happened.
It sorta didn't really work, and still doesn't.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Jan 2, 2010)

Lucas Garron said:


> reThinking the Cube said:
> 
> 
> > Anybody know what happened with Acube 4x4x4?
> ...




Yeh, I read the thread, and that is why I asked. No need to get testy. I was just checking to see if the status on that had changed.

reThinker


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 2, 2010)

Okay, since I now have access to Stanford servers with dozens of gigabytes of RAM (something like 32GB "total" per machine according to `free`), I decided to try this again.

A pure dedge flip with no turn restrictions bottomed out at depth 10. If I leave it going for a while, I can probably get to 11 or 12, but finding an actual alg is probably out of reach.



Spoiler





```
What should corn10 do in ~/cube/ACube/ACube4? java -cp AQb4.jar AQb4 0,9:53:50pm
AQb4 0.2
 by Josef Jelinek 2004

Enter a cube configuration:
UF UF UR UR UB UB UL UL DF DF DR DR DB DB DL DL FR FR FL FL BR BR BL BL  UFR URB UBL ULF DRF DFL DLB  U U U U D D D D F F F F B B B B L L L L R R R R
FU FU !! !!

FU FU !! !!
Error: Insufficient number of edges.
Error: Insufficient number of edges.
Enter a cube configuration:
UF UF UR UR UB UB UL UL DF DF DR DR DB DB DL DL FR FR FL FL BR BR BL BL  UFR URB UBL ULF DRF DFL DLB  U U U U D D D D F F F F B B B B L L L L R R R R
FU FU !! !! !!
Edge:
  1  0  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #
Corner:
  0  1  2  3  4  5  6
  0  1  2  3  4  5  6
  #  #  #  #  #  #  #
  0  0  0  0  0  0  0
  #  #  #  #  #  #  #
Center:
  0  0  0  0  1  1  1  1  2  2  2  2  3  3  3  3  4  4  4  4  5  5  5  5
  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #

FU FU !! !! !!
Allowed turns: Ux Fx Lx ux dx fx bx lx rx Uux Ffx Llx udx fbx lrx UUx FFx LLx
Turn list table: File reading error!
 Generating...
Full transformation tables...
 corner twist: 729 items per turn.
 corner permutation: 5040 items per turn.
 U center location: 10626 items per turn.
 D center location: 10626 items per turn.
 F center location: 10626 items per turn.
 B center location: 10626 items per turn.
 L center location: 10626 items per turn.
 R center location: 10626 items per turn.
 UF edge position: 552 items per turn.
 UR edge position: 552 items per turn.
 UB edge position: 552 items per turn.
 UL edge position: 552 items per turn.
 DF edge position: 552 items per turn.
 DR edge position: 552 items per turn.
 DB edge position: 552 items per turn.
 DL edge position: 552 items per turn.
 FR edge position: 552 items per turn.
 FL edge position: 552 items per turn.
 BR edge position: 552 items per turn.
 BL edge position: 552 items per turn.
  Generating states...
   cut: 84193/10800000                  
  Searching duplicities...
   cut: 1585521/10800000                        
  Linking states...
   cut: 3205502/10800000                        
 Optimizing...
  equal states: 193735, active states: 6265
  equal states: 4851, active states: 1414
  equal states: 85, active states: 1329
  equal states: 0, active states: 1329
  active states: 1329/200000
  cut: 25358/71766
 Reducing...
 Writing to 'tl200000x777777.tab'...
Transformation tables...
 corner twist: 729 items per turn.
 corner permutation: 5040 items per turn.
 U center location: 10626 items per turn.
 D center location: 10626 items per turn.
 F center location: 10626 items per turn.
 B center location: 10626 items per turn.
 L center location: 10626 items per turn.
 R center location: 10626 items per turn.
 UF edge position: 552 items per turn.
 UR edge position: 552 items per turn.
 UB edge position: 552 items per turn.
 UL edge position: 552 items per turn.
 DF edge position: 552 items per turn.
 DR edge position: 552 items per turn.
 DB edge position: 552 items per turn.
 DL edge position: 552 items per turn.
 FR edge position: 552 items per turn.
 FL edge position: 552 items per turn.
 BR edge position: 552 items per turn.
 BL edge position: 552 items per turn.
 adjacent corner permutation: 840 items per turn.
 opposite corner permutation: 840 items per turn.
Pruning tables...
 corner twist - corner permutation: 1x1=1 -> 3674160 / 11
 corner twist - U center location: 1x1=1 -> 7746354 / 8
 corner twist - D center location: 1x1=1 -> 7746354 / 8
 corner twist - F center location: 1x1=1 -> 7746354 / 8
 corner twist - B center location: 1x1=1 -> 7746354 / 8
 corner twist - L center location: 1x1=1 -> 7746354 / 8
 corner twist - R center location: 1x1=1 -> 7746354 / 8
 UF edge - DB edge position: 1x1=1 -> 255024 / 7
 UR edge - DL edge position: 1x1=1 -> 255024 / 7
 UB edge - DF edge position: 1x1=1 -> 255024 / 7
 UL edge - DR edge position: 1x1=1 -> 255024 / 7
 FR edge - BL edge position: 1x1=1 -> 255024 / 7
 FL edge - BR edge position: 1x1=1 -> 255024 / 7
 adjacent corner - UF edge position: 1x1=1 -> 463680 / 7
 adjacent corner - UF edge position: 1x1=1 -> 463680 / 7
 adjacent corner - UR edge position: 1x1=1 -> 463680 / 7
 adjacent corner - UR edge position: 1x1=1 -> 463680 / 7
 adjacent corner - UB edge position: 1x1=1 -> 463680 / 7
 adjacent corner - UB edge position: 1x1=1 -> 463680 / 7
 adjacent corner - UL edge position: 1x1=1 -> 463680 / 7
 adjacent corner - UL edge position: 1x1=1 -> 463680 / 7
 adjacent corner - DF edge position: 1x1=1 -> 463680 / 7
 adjacent corner - DF edge position: 1x1=1 -> 463680 / 7
 adjacent corner - DR edge position: 1x1=1 -> 463680 / 7
 adjacent corner - DR edge position: 1x1=1 -> 463680 / 8
 adjacent corner - DB edge position: 1x1=1 -> 463680 / 7
 adjacent corner - DB edge position: 1x1=1 -> 463680 / 8
 adjacent corner - DL edge position: 1x1=1 -> 463680 / 7
 adjacent corner - DL edge position: 1x1=1 -> 463680 / 7
 adjacent corner - FR edge position: 1x1=1 -> 463680 / 7
 adjacent corner - FR edge position: 1x1=1 -> 463680 / 7
 adjacent corner - FL edge position: 1x1=1 -> 463680 / 7
 adjacent corner - FL edge position: 1x1=1 -> 463680 / 7
 adjacent corner - BR edge position: 1x1=1 -> 463680 / 7
 adjacent corner - BR edge position: 1x1=1 -> 463680 / 8
 adjacent corner - BL edge position: 1x1=1 -> 463680 / 7
 adjacent corner - BL edge position: 1x1=1 -> 463680 / 7
depth 4...
depth 5...
depth 6...
depth 7...
depth 8...
depth 9...
depth 10...
```




<2R, U> SiGN / <r, U> WCA - Mitchell Stern was the first to find algs for this, when I once asked him on twistypuzzles.com.


Spoiler





```
What should corn20 do in ~/cube/ACube/ACube4? ./j.bash             1,11:42:04pm
AQb4 0.2
 by Josef Jelinek 2004

Enter a cube configuration:
UF UF UR UR UB UB UL UL DF DF DR DR DB DB DL DL FR FR FL FL BR BR BL BL  UFR URB UBL ULF DRF DFL DLB  U U U U D D D D F F F F B B B B L L L L R R R R
401000 FU FU !! !! !!
Edge:
  1  0  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #
Corner:
  0  1  2  3  4  5  6
  0  1  2  3  4  5  6
  #  #  #  #  #  #  #
  0  0  0  0  0  0  0
  #  #  #  #  #  #  #
Center:
  0  0  0  0  1  1  1  1  2  2  2  2  3  3  3  3  4  4  4  4  5  5  5  5
  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #

401000 FU FU !! !! !!
Allowed turns: Ux rx
Turn list table: File reading error!
 Generating...
Full transformation tables...
 corner twist: 729 items per turn.
 corner permutation: 5040 items per turn.
 U center location: 10626 items per turn.
 D center location: 10626 items per turn.
 F center location: 10626 items per turn.
 B center location: 10626 items per turn.
 L center location: 10626 items per turn.
 R center location: 10626 items per turn.
 UF edge position: 552 items per turn.
 UR edge position: 552 items per turn.
 UB edge position: 552 items per turn.
 UL edge position: 552 items per turn.
 DF edge position: 552 items per turn.
 DR edge position: 552 items per turn.
 DB edge position: 552 items per turn.
 DL edge position: 552 items per turn.
 FR edge position: 552 items per turn.
 FL edge position: 552 items per turn.
 BR edge position: 552 items per turn.
 BL edge position: 552 items per turn.
  Generating states...
   cut: 3412927/10800000                        
  Searching duplicities...
   cut: 10201535/10800000                       
  Linking states...
   cut: 10202234/10800000                       
 Optimizing...
  equal states: 133250, active states: 66750
  equal states: 44360, active states: 22390
  equal states: 14803, active states: 7587
  equal states: 4897, active states: 2690
  equal states: 1589, active states: 1101
  equal states: 485, active states: 616
  equal states: 125, active states: 491
  equal states: 23, active states: 468
  equal states: 2, active states: 466
  equal states: 0, active states: 466
  active states: 466/200000
  cut: 23808/25164
 Reducing...
 Writing to 'tl200000x401.tab'...
Transformation tables...
 corner twist: 729 items per turn.
 corner permutation: 5040 items per turn.
 U center location: 10626 items per turn.
 D center location: 10626 items per turn.
 F center location: 10626 items per turn.
 B center location: 10626 items per turn.
 L center location: 10626 items per turn.
 R center location: 10626 items per turn.
 UF edge position: 552 items per turn.
 UR edge position: 552 items per turn.
 UB edge position: 552 items per turn.
 UL edge position: 552 items per turn.
 DF edge position: 552 items per turn.
 DR edge position: 552 items per turn.
 DB edge position: 552 items per turn.
 DL edge position: 552 items per turn.
 FR edge position: 552 items per turn.
 FL edge position: 552 items per turn.
 BR edge position: 552 items per turn.
 BL edge position: 552 items per turn.
 adjacent corner permutation: 840 items per turn.
 opposite corner permutation: 840 items per turn.
Pruning tables...
 corner twist - corner permutation: 1x1=1 -> 4 / 1
 corner twist - U center location: 1x1=1 -> 210 / 8
 corner twist - D center location: 1x1=1 -> 45 / 5
 corner twist - F center location: 1x1=1 -> 45 / 5
 corner twist - B center location: 1x1=1 -> 45 / 5
 corner twist - L center location: 1x1=1 -> 1 / 0
 corner twist - R center location: 1x1=1 -> 1 / 0
 UF edge - DB edge position: 1x1=1 -> 720 / 8
 UR edge - DL edge position: 1x1=1 -> 90 / 7
 UB edge - DF edge position: 1x1=1 -> 720 / 8
 UL edge - DR edge position: 1x1=1 -> 90 / 7
 FR edge - BL edge position: 1x1=1 -> 1 / 0
 FL edge - BR edge position: 1x1=1 -> 1 / 0
 adjacent corner - UF edge position: 1x1=1 -> 360 / 8
 adjacent corner - UF edge position: 1x1=1 -> 360 / 8
 adjacent corner - UR edge position: 1x1=1 -> 360 / 9
 adjacent corner - UR edge position: 1x1=1 -> 360 / 9
 adjacent corner - UB edge position: 1x1=1 -> 360 / 8
 adjacent corner - UB edge position: 1x1=1 -> 360 / 8
 adjacent corner - UL edge position: 1x1=1 -> 360 / 9
 adjacent corner - UL edge position: 1x1=1 -> 360 / 9
 adjacent corner - DF edge position: 1x1=1 -> 40 / 3
 adjacent corner - DF edge position: 1x1=1 -> 40 / 3
 adjacent corner - DR edge position: 1x1=1 -> 4 / 1
 adjacent corner - DR edge position: 1x1=1 -> 4 / 1
 adjacent corner - DB edge position: 1x1=1 -> 40 / 3
 adjacent corner - DB edge position: 1x1=1 -> 40 / 3
 adjacent corner - DL edge position: 1x1=1 -> 4 / 1
 adjacent corner - DL edge position: 1x1=1 -> 4 / 1
 adjacent corner - FR edge position: 1x1=1 -> 4 / 1
 adjacent corner - FR edge position: 1x1=1 -> 4 / 1
 adjacent corner - FL edge position: 1x1=1 -> 4 / 1
 adjacent corner - FL edge position: 1x1=1 -> 4 / 1
 adjacent corner - BR edge position: 1x1=1 -> 4 / 1
 adjacent corner - BR edge position: 1x1=1 -> 4 / 1
 adjacent corner - BL edge position: 1x1=1 -> 4 / 1
 adjacent corner - BL edge position: 1x1=1 -> 4 / 1
depth 5...
depth 6...
depth 7...
depth 8...
depth 9...
depth 10...
depth 11...
depth 12...
depth 13...
depth 14...
depth 15...
depth 16...
depth 17...
depth 18...
depth 19...
depth 20...
depth 21...
depth 22...
U2 r2 U r U' r' U2 r' U2 r2 U2 r' U' r' U' r' U2 r' U2 r U2 r' (22)
U2 r2 U' r U r' U2 r' U2 r2 U2 r' U r' U r' U2 r' U2 r U2 r' (22)
U2 r' U2 r U2 r' U2 r' U r' U r' U2 r2 U2 r' U2 r' U r U' r2 (22)
U2 r' U2 r U2 r' U2 r' U' r' U' r' U2 r2 U2 r' U2 r' U' r U r2 (22)
r U2 r' U2 r U2 r U r U r U2 r2 U2 r U2 r U r' U' r2 U2 (22)
r U2 r' U2 r U2 r U' r U' r U2 r2 U2 r U2 r U' r' U r2 U2 (22)
r2 U r' U' r U2 r U2 r2 U2 r U' r U' r U2 r U2 r' U2 r U2 (22)
r2 U' r' U r U2 r U2 r2 U2 r U r U r U2 r U2 r' U2 r U2 (22)
Done. (8 solutions found)
 (66% save - 144800263 of 217694485 entries)
```


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Jan 2, 2010)

Lucas Garron said:


> Okay, since I now have access to Stanford servers with dozens of gigabytes of RAM (something like 32GB "total" per machine according to `free`), I decided to try this again.



YES! Just being able to compare this with the domino based methods is going to be awesome.



> Allowed turns: Ux Fx Lx ux dx fx bx lx rx Uux Ffx Llx udx fbx lrx UUx FFx LLx
> Allowed turns: Ux rx



Your probably already in the process of doing it, but something in between for allowed turns would be very interesting. How about setting it up to not do "pure" OLL parity? Acube should be able to find a solution quicker that way, even with more allowable moves. I would love to get an elegant OLL dedge flip for the case - LL unsolved, last F2L slot unsolved (5 dedges &5 corners yet to be solved). 

reThinker


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 2, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> Your probably already in the process of doing it, but something in between for allowed turns would be very interesting. How about setting it up to not do "pure" OLL parity? Acube should be able to find a solution quicker that way, even with more allowable moves. I would love to get an elegant OLL dedge flip for the case - LL unsolved, last F2L slot unsolved (5 dedges &5 corners yet to be solved).
> 
> reThinker


<U, 2L, L> is currently at depth 22 and not getting any algs. ksolve could probably handle it, though.

Anyhow, keeping together dedges while ignoring their position can't be done by any solvers that I know of.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Jan 2, 2010)

Lucas Garron said:


> reThinking the Cube said:
> 
> 
> > Your probably already in the process of doing it, but something in between for allowed turns would be very interesting. How about setting it up to not do "pure" OLL parity? Acube should be able to find a solution quicker that way, even with more allowable moves. I would love to get an elegant OLL dedge flip for the case - LL unsolved, last F2L slot unsolved (5 dedges &5 corners yet to be solved).
> ...


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 2, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> Yeh, maybe allowing some B turns (=x'), and a few others would help shorten the solution, and still get something nice.


Okay, please be more specific and non-contradictory.

Anyhow, the <U, 2L, L> search returned algs not using L:
U2 l U2 l' U2 l U2 l U l U l U2 l2 U2 l U2 l U l' U' l2 (22)
U2 l U2 l' U2 l U2 l U' l U' l U2 l2 U2 l U2 l U' l' U l2 (22)
U2 l2 U l' U' l U2 l U2 l2 U2 l U' l U' l U2 l U2 l' U2 l (22)
U2 l2 U' l' U l U2 l U2 l2 U2 l U l U l U2 l U2 l' U2 l (22)

I'm not going to try brute-forcing a lot of cases. Unless maybe I can run things remote without staying logged in.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Jan 2, 2010)

cmowla;299267
[QUOTE said:


> Sooner or later, reThinker, you're going to have to accept my claim. Lucas may have found a 19q, but not with your desire (LL and F2L slot as degrees of freedom).




What am I supposed to be disputing here?

Are you claiming that the pure OLL parity is the shortest possible way to change edge parity?

Are you also claiming that conjugations based on this pure parity alg are going to result in the shortest possible algs for these cases?




> If you didn't yet notice on my "Odd parity algorithms (specifically single edge flip)" thread, I now found a 22q pure. (Thus, 21 or less is your restrictions now...and I am not going to post next week that I found a 21q...because I definitely cannot lower it anymore. Thus, 21q should be the upper-bound for the algorithm you wish to find).




Congrats. I would care less about the upper-bound. What I really want, is to find a better alg to change edge parity. It is not any better if it requires setup moves (conjugates) that are combined with an existing "even if it is the best of a worst case 22q" OLL pure parity alg!!! 



> In my proof on your thread, reThinker, I made the claim that no alg exists that meets your description that is less moves than the briefiest pure alg. Sure you can consider the double parity 4-cycle, but, as for soley OLL parity fix, it's not going to happen (that's really all I was trying to say in my "proof")


.

The 4-cycle dbl parity fixes OLL parity - and THAT is what I was asking for in the thread "WANTED: A New Dedge Flip". I specifically requested algs based on something OTHER than pure parity OLL, so your "proof" was totally off-topic then, and it is totally off-topic now.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 2, 2010)

Lucas, does this program allow counting in qtm?

I suggest searching:
- Rw, Lw, U
- r, l, U
- r, l, U, F


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Jan 2, 2010)

Lucas Garron said:


> reThinking the Cube said:
> 
> 
> > Yeh, maybe allowing some B turns (=x'), and a few others would help shorten the solution, and still get something nice.
> ...


----------



## masterofthebass (Jan 2, 2010)

Lucas Garron said:


> I'm not going to try brute-forcing a lot of cases. Unless maybe I can run things remote without staying logged in.



lrn2screen. You can run things forever w/o staying connected.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 2, 2010)

cmowla said:


> reThinking the Cube said:
> 
> 
> > Are you claiming that the pure OLL parity is the shortest possible way to change edge parity?
> ...


cmowla, I have no doubt you have some mental abilities, but I don't think anyone here believes your proofs and statements, because a lot of them have been uneducated, false, contradictory, or falsely substantiated.
At this point, anything you say that you can't have concrete evidence for is like the boy who cried wolf. I believe you can count enough to know you have a 22q alg, but that's about it.

Would you mind restating your "proof" for this?

I seem to recall you saying it always had to be a setup of some sort, but I don't even understand what you meant. You called some alg by Stefan "different" when it really wasn't. What about an alg like l' U2 r' D2 r' B2 r D2 r' D2 r F2 r' D2 r F2 r?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 2, 2010)

cmowla said:


> Well, the way it looks to me, Stefan's alg *itself:*
> x' (Uu)' R2' (Uu)' (l2r2R2) (Uu)' L2 (Uu) (l2r2R2)' (Uu)' (l2r2R2) (Uu) L2' (Uu)' L2 (Uu) L2' (Uu) z
> 
> looks very different than:
> ...


Let me lend you some glasses: 

Stefan's Alg: x' (Rr)' D2 (Rr)' U2 (Ll)' U2 (Ll) U2 (Rr)' U2 (Ll) U2 (Ll)' U2 (Ll) U2 (Ll)



cmowla said:


> And I didn't know there was a "school" that I could go to be "educated" enough to make "educated" comments. 99% of all I know has been self-learned and *not* from outside sources either (the cube solver program I mentioned in reThinker's thread too).


Everyone here is self-educated. Sure, we learned more from other sources than figuring out ourselves, but that doesn't matter. We just don't make claims about the nature of cubes unless we actually know what we're talking about. Intuition and hunches are fine, as long as they're qualified. Everyone even makes mistakes, it's just about the encouraging, progressive, collaborative attitude.


----------



## rachmaninovian (Jan 3, 2010)

would clement gallet's solver be as powerful as ACube, less, or the same?


----------



## deadalnix (Jan 3, 2010)

To answer that, I need to know where to find ACube.

Clement solver is very powerful, but require IT competenties. I know he recently made a new version, but havn't tested it yet.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Jan 5, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Lucas, does this program allow counting in qtm?
> 
> I suggest searching:
> - Rw, Lw, U
> ...




<R*,r*,U*,u*,F*,f*> would be my 1st choice, to just be able to find "something" a.s.a.p. Afterwards, searching for easy-turning optimizing algs, with qqwref's turn suggestions is a BIG+1 for me.

Also - don't specify any corner placement for the 5 corners: UFR ULF UBL URB DRF. Those turns <R*,U*,F*> will get the maximum benefit if you set it up that way.

After that:

The 4-cycle dbl parity (UFl->UBl->UFr->UBr) should also be looked at (rather than just limiting this to the 2-cycle transposition UFr<->UFl), but there are others that could produce even better OLL parity algs. Edge placement (for all 5 remaining dedges) can be even-cycle commutes to change parity, but as was previously pointed out (by Lucas), there is a problem with not being able to force software solvers to keep the dedges paired up, into their permuted locations. Reduction redux. Maybe you could use another program that parsed the Acube 4x4x4algs, and then tested the positions generated to see if the dedges are all still paired up. Worry about that later.

Lucas, I'm STOKED! Maybe some results will be coming soon?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gq_5QZDpY1Y


----------



## qqwref (Jan 5, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> <R*,r*,U*,u*,F*,f*> would be my 1st choice, to just be able to find "something" a.s.a.p. Afterwards, searching for easy-turning optimizing algs, with qqwref's turn suggestions is a BIG+1 for me.



You don't seem to understand anything at all about solving programs - try playing around with one sometime. The more moves you allow, the longer it takes to get up to a certain movecount (since it has to check more possibilities). Allowing six moves (and since your notation makes no sense I can't even tell what moves you intended) is probably too much to get any solution reasonably quickly. The setups I suggested were attempts to minimize the moves used while having a high probability of finding short solutions.


----------



## sz35 (Jan 5, 2010)

Send me one copy please: 
[email protected]


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Jan 6, 2010)

qqwref said:


> reThinking the Cube said:
> 
> 
> > <R*,r*,U*,u*,F*,f*> would be my 1st choice, to just be able to find "something" a.s.a.p. Afterwards, searching for easy-turning optimizing algs, with qqwref's turn suggestions is a BIG+1 for me.
> ...


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 6, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> What I wanted to emphasize though, is that this case has a whole bunch of pieces that are not solved yet, and Acube should be able to take advantage of that.


And Stanford should be able to set up networks that don't run out of IPs in dorms, ever. But saying that somebody should be able to implement something doesn't magically make it happen.

_Ignore_ means _ignore_. For most solvers, including all decent ones I've ever heard of, this means you can't use constraints like "ignore the position of this piece, and let it split up from its partner, _but_ make sure they come together at the end." (ksolve does bandaging, though.)
Most solvers use prune tables based on permutation, and I'm not sure those stay nearly as efficient for that purpose.



reThinking the Cube said:


> My turn notation is standard enclosed in angle brackets like I think it should be. "*" means any, and that shouldn't have been too hard to decipher.


No, it's not. The standard is from group theory, where * means something else entirely. If that's what you meant, just leave out the stars, and you're fine.



reThinking the Cube said:


> No need to try all the turns from that set at the same time, but I think this set of turns will better take advantage of the unsolved corners that were specified, so what I am suggesting is - let's try 3, then 4,5,..... and more from that set first. All of this seems very reasonable to me.


With "let's" do you mean "someone else should interpret my vague request and do it for me"? 



qq: ACube 4x4x4 works by leaving DBR fixed. Allowed moves:
U F L / u d f / b l r / Uu Ff Ll / ud' fb' lr' / Uud' Ffb' Llr'

- Rw, Lw, U
Impossible.

- r, l, U


Spoiler



l' U2 l r2 U2 r' U2 r U2 l' U2 r U2 r' U2 r U2 l (18)
l' U2 l2 r U2 l' U2 l U2 r' U2 l U2 l' U2 l U2 l (18)
l' U2 l' U2 l U2 l' U2 r U2 l' U2 l U2 l2 r' U2 l (18)
l' U2 r' U2 r U2 r' U2 l U2 r' U2 r U2 l' r2 U2 l (18)
r U2 l U2 l' U2 l U2 r' U2 l U2 l' U2 l2 r U2 r' (18)
r U2 l2 r' U2 l U2 l' U2 r U2 l' U2 l U2 l' U2 r' (18)
r U2 l' r2 U2 r U2 r' U2 l U2 r' U2 r U2 r' U2 r' (18)
r U2 r U2 r' U2 r U2 l' U2 r U2 r' U2 l r2 U2 r' (18)
Done. (8 solutions found)


- r, l, U, F


Spoiler



U2 l2 U2 F2 l F2 l' F2 l2 U2 r U2 r' F2 l (15)
U2 l2 U2 F2 r U2 l' U2 r2 F2 r F2 l' F2 l (15)
U2 r2 U2 F2 l' U2 r U2 l2 F2 l' F2 r F2 r' (15)
U2 r2 U2 F2 r' F2 r F2 r2 U2 l' U2 l F2 r' (15)
F2 l2 F2 U2 l' U2 l U2 l2 F2 r' F2 r U2 l' (15)
F2 l2 F2 U2 r' F2 l F2 r2 U2 r' U2 l U2 l' (15)
F2 r2 F2 U2 l F2 r' F2 l2 U2 l U2 r' U2 r (15)
F2 r2 F2 U2 r U2 r' U2 r2 F2 l F2 l' U2 r (15)
l U2 l' U2 r U2 r2 F2 l' F2 r U2 F2 l2 F2 (15)
l U2 r' F2 r F2 l2 U2 l' U2 l U2 F2 l2 F2 (15)
l' F2 l F2 r' F2 r2 U2 l U2 r' F2 U2 l2 U2 (15)
l' F2 r U2 r' U2 l2 F2 l F2 l' F2 U2 l2 U2 (15)
r F2 l' U2 l U2 r2 F2 r' F2 r F2 U2 r2 U2 (15)
r F2 r' F2 l F2 l2 U2 r' U2 l F2 U2 r2 U2 (15)
r' U2 l F2 l' F2 r2 U2 r U2 r' U2 F2 r2 F2 (15)
r' U2 r U2 l' U2 l2 F2 r F2 l' U2 F2 r2 F2 (15)
Done. (16 solutions found)



Disappointing. Time for ksolve.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Jan 6, 2010)

Lucas Garron said:


> _Ignore_ means _ignore_. For most solvers, including all decent ones I've ever heard of, this means you can't use constraints like "ignore the position of this piece, and let it split up from its partner, _but_ make sure they come together at the end." (ksolve does bandaging, though.)
> Most solvers use prune tables based on permutation, and I'm not sure those stay nearly as efficient for that purpose.




I agree that this is a challenge, but I have already suggested some possible workarounds. Just because it is a challenge, doesn't make it impossible.



reThinking the Cube said:


> My turn notation is standard enclosed in angle brackets like I think it should be. "*" means any, and that shouldn't have been too hard to decipher.





Lucas Garron said:


> No, it's not. The standard is from group theory, where * means something else entirely. If that's what you meant, just leave out the stars, and you're fine.




Come on Lucas. Are you serious! <---- Flagrant, improper, confusing, and vague use of the factorial symbol. BTW - I can site more than a few examples where you use <r,Rw,Rr> all to mean the same thing. Even though the dissertation from M.G. claims otherwise.



qqwref said:


> Lucas usually uses the SiGN notation, which is not in any way ambiguous or confusing (although you do have to know it is being used to follow it, since it's not the same as the other notation). Unlike the notation you're familiar with, it is actually consistent with the 3x3 notation, in that r is a double-layer turn.



No it's not. It is the abbreviation for "rat".  

I _CAN _do it this way too, but prefer to post respectfully, OK. 

So from now on, IMO - ONLY Stefan Pochman should be allowed to make posters look less than adequate using his patented Pochman™ postpicky methods. 



Lucas Garron said:


> reThinking the Cube said:
> 
> 
> > No need to try all the turns from that set at the same time, but I think this set of turns will better take advantage of the unsolved corners that were specified, so what I am suggesting is - let's try 3, then 4,5,..... and more from that set first. All of this seems very reasonable to me.
> ...


----------



## aronpm (Jan 6, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> Lucas Garron said:
> 
> 
> > No, it's not. The standard is from group theory, where * means something else entirely. If that's what you meant, just leave out the stars, and you're fine.
> ...


The symbol '!' has been in use since, I believe, the 15th century. The notation 'n!' for factorials, has been in use since 1808. I fail to see how that compares. Also, _cite_.

4 > 12 ' 16, and you better know my notation is standard.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Jan 6, 2010)

aronpm said:


> The symbol '!' has been in use since, I believe, the 15th century. The notation 'n!' for factorials, has been in use since 1808. I fail to see how that compares.



So you failed to see the point of my wity sarcasm, got a little brain KRAMP that took you back to 1808, and felt compelled to post anyway. What where you going to teach me about math? You even failed to notice in your rush to show your stuff, that I didn't even use the term "n!", but rather the seriously factorial term: "serious!". So tell me, since when, has "serious!" been in use? Will you also fail to see how that factorial compares? 

I will let you in on a little secret aron, shhhh...i...will...whisper..it...so nobody will hear.....shh............"you have failed to see many things, but you just don't know it yet". 

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showpost.php?p=291558&postcount=33 



aronpm said:


> There is no need for a parity algorithm to be used before the last slot. It is pointless.



So if you think that it is pointless, why are you posting what amounts to insults, in this thread?

How about bringing some _positive_ contribution next time, *instead of trying to make yourself look smart - by just being a SMART*S*?*


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Jan 6, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> <R*,r*,U*,u*,F*,f*>



What the, Kleene star? I think you just mean:

<R, r, U, u, F, f>


----------



## rubixfreak (Jan 6, 2010)

could you upload the programm on rapidshare please?
or copy and paste the source code so that we can compile it ourselves?


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Jan 7, 2010)

Swordsman Kirby said:


> reThinking the Cube said:
> 
> 
> > <R*,r*,U*,u*,F*,f*>
> ...



http://www.robertnowlan.com/pdfs/Kleene,%20Stephen%20Cole.pdf

excerpts:

In the 1960s I was privileged to attend a course in metamathematics taught by Stephen Kleene, although at the time, I wasn’t certain it was a pleasure. In an eight-week summer session, he took us for a brisk romp through his Introduction to Metamathematics. The material is on three levels, mathematics, logic, and metamathematics. We had to keep track of a great number of symbols. To distinguish them Kleene used three different pieces of colored chalk, one for each of the levels. Even so, on one occasion he said, “We will denote … by a star.” Someone pointed out that he had already used a star to represent something else. Without a moment’s hesitation, he said, “OK, we’ll represent …by a huge star.”  On several occasions Kleene would explain some theorem or share an insight, and muse to himself, “Who first thought of this?” Then brightly say, “Oh, yes, I did.”

In the first chapter of Mathematical Logic, Kleene gives students a fair warning: “It will be very important as we proceed to keep in mind this distinction between the logic we are studying (the object logic) and our use of logic in studying it (the observer’s logic). To any student who is not ready to do so, we suggest that he close the book now, and pick some other subject instead, such as acrostics or beekeeping.”

*Quotation of the Day: “Metamathematics must study the formal system as as system of symbols, which are considered wholly objective. This means simply that those symbols are themselves the ultimate objects, and are not being used to refer to something other than themselves. The metamathematician looks at them, not through and beyond them; thus they are objects without
interpretation or meaning.” – Stephen Cole Kleene.*


----------



## rachmaninovian (Jan 7, 2010)

gah, just use the notation that everyone uses.
<R, r, U, u, F, f> is perfectly understandable and needs no Kleene star. moreover, the cube wasn't born in the 1960s...


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Jan 7, 2010)

rachmaninovian said:


> gah, just use the notation that everyone uses.
> <R, r, U, u, F, f> is perfectly understandable and needs no Kleene star. moreover, the cube wasn't born in the 1960s...



Yeh, I agree. I wasn't trying to change notation with "*", just trying to convey a clearer meaning, and for that reason, I will refrain from using it. What get's my goat, is this syntax nitpicking, that is being used to degrade and demean what would otherwise be a good/great post. If it is done in jest, that is fine, but what I see here mostly are trivial syntax and terminology definitions, being used as cheap putdowns directed at the poster. An Ape like me can only take so much. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMag1h8Rc88

Yeh, I agree. I would much rather post about a new software breakthrough that has yielded better parity algorithms.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 7, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> I wasn't trying to change notation with "*", just trying to convey a clearer meaning, and for that reason, I will refrain from using it..


Well, okay.

The first thing I thought of when I saw your turn restrictions was Dan Brown's stupid notation. Then I realized you might have meant the Kleene star, or something else altogether. And it was rather ambiguous.

Anyhow, <R, r, U, u, F, f> is enough because they enable moves like r' (=r3), and we're counting in a metric that considers this


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Jan 7, 2010)

Lucas Garron said:


> reThinking the Cube said:
> 
> 
> > I wasn't trying to change notation with "*", just trying to convey a clearer meaning, and for that reason, I will refrain from using it..
> ...




OK, fair enough.  It's time to move on...

I noticed that you have been using "ksolve" to tackle some solutions. I had seen a reference to this awhile ago, but ended up opting out of the download. At the time, I wasn't even sure if it could do anything really useful. I am now reconsidering.

Here is the link that was given:

http://www.svekub.se/files/ksolve.zip

I was going to ask if there were any other links to this program, but after searching, it looks like that might be the only one.

I am in the process of trying to get this to work on my computer right now.

Any tips/pointers on how to get the most out of this program would be sweet.

EDIT: Some .def file examples to look at for 4x4x4 that had some setups like you did for MGLS method?
Do you know approx. how much memory will be required for those pruning tables?


----------

