Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

Thread: Hamiltonian circuit for the entire 2x2x2 cube group

  1. #11
    Premium Member Carson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Somerset, Kentucky, United States
    WCA Profile
    2008PENT01
    YouTube
    carsonpenticuff
    Posts
    1,212

    Default

    So what you're saying is that when I'm solving a 2x2 and someone says something similar to "isn't there just a bunch of moves that will always solve it?" I can just hand them this?

  2. #12
    Premium Member theZcuber's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Central NY, US
    WCA Profile
    2012PRAT02
    Posts
    1,796

    Default

    Yes
    RPG (CFOP and Roux) - CubingStats
    WCA - CubingUSA - canadianCUBING - UKCA
    RPG and CubingStats can be useful, try them out!

  3. #13
    Member Gaétan Guimond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Canada Quebec Montreal
    YouTube
    rubiks99
    Posts
    139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cuBerBruce View Post
    Different people have different definitions of exactly what "Devil's Algorithm" means. Some say it can reach some positions multiple times before all positions are reached and some do not. Some may allow repeating the sequence multiple times, so it can be shorter in length than the number of positions. So whether or not something is a "Devil's algorithm" generally depends on what definition you accept. That's why I avoided using the term.


    http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/.../message/42742

  4. #14
    Member stannic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The country of riddles
    Posts
    124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carson View Post
    So what you're saying is that when I'm solving a 2x2 and someone says something similar to "isn't there just a bunch of moves that will always solve it?" I can just hand them this?
    Well, a Hamiltonian path on Rubik's cube is a path that visits each cube state(configuration) exactly once. Bruce found such sequence for 2x2x2 cube. 2x2x2 has 3,674,160 distinct states; so this Hamiltonian path has 3,674,159 moves and visits exactly 3,674,160 configurations of the cube.
    (Actually, he found a Hamiltonian cycle that returns to the starting configuration after 3,674,160th move).
    When there is no condition "that visits each state exactly once", there is a simple way to make "a bunch of moves" that will always solve cube at some point. The number of moves in this bunch will be at most d*(N-1) where d is diameter of the cube and N is the number of states.
    For example, with 2x2x2 and half turn allowed, it is possible to write sequence of at most 11*3,674,159 = 40,415,749 moves. To do this, you can enumerate all cube configurations (solved cube is #1, some other cube configuration is #2, some other is #3, and so on up to #3,674,160). Then, starting from configuration #1, you can reach configuration #2 in at most 11 moves because it is the diameter. Then, starting from #2, you can reach #3 in at most 11 moves, etc.
    In other words, when you are solving a 3x3 or even 4x4 and someone asks whether there is a sequence of moves that will always solve it (without the condition "to visit each vertex exactly once"), the answer is yes.
    BTW, how this upper bound can be improved? Of course Bruce already found shortest possible path for 2x2x2 cube (3,674,159 moves).
    With 3x3x3, simple upper bound is d*(N-1) = 20 * (43,252,003,274,489,856,000 - 1) = 865,040,065,489,797,119,980 moves.

  5. #15
    Member siva.shanmukh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Chennai, India
    WCA Profile
    2008SHAN01
    YouTube
    shanmukh1729
    Posts
    81

    Default

    It looks like it is going to be a pretty long move sequence or maneuver (as you call it). But I thought the diameter of 2x2 graph is about 8 (I am sure it is less than 20) right? So, the state that 'z' gives us could be simplified, to a sequence of length less than 8, right?
    Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom.

  6. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by siva.shanmukh View Post
    So, the state that 'z' gives us could be simplified, to a sequence of length less than 8, right?
    That wouldn't be a Hamiltonian-circuit (visiting every possible 2x2x2 state exactly once and also returning to the starting state).
    Last edited by Stefan; 12-29-2011 at 07:23 PM.

  7. #17
    Member qqwref's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    a <script> tag near you
    WCA Profile
    2006GOTT01
    YouTube
    qqwref2
    Posts
    6,341

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stannic View Post
    With 3x3x3, simple upper bound is d*(N-1) = 20 * (43,252,003,274,489,856,000 - 1) = 865,040,065,489,797,119,980 moves.
    Good point.

    And even better, if we allow multiple turns of the same face in a row (and I don't see why we shouldn't for a Hamiltonian path): Consider the set of 3x3 cosets created from the subgroup <U,D>, which has 16 members. It's clear that each coset has a Devil's Algorithm ((UUUD)3UUU), so all we have to do is go through all elements of one coset (15 moves), go to the next (<=20 moves), and repeat. There are 2703250204665616000 of these cosets, so our path contains at most 15 + (20+15)*(2703250204665616000-1) = 94613757162946559980 moves, which is only about 2.1875 times the length of our theoretical Hamiltonian path. You could get a similar and better result by starting with other subgroups: <R,U>, <R2,L2,U2,D2,F2,B2>, etc.

    EDIT: Hmm, doesn't a Hamiltonian path (not necessarily cycle) exist for any Cartesian product of two groups that each have a Hamiltonian path? Could we take G=<R,L,U2,D2,F2,B2>, and H be the group of 3x3 equivalency classes (in the sense that equivalent positions differ by a permutation in G), and then find a Hamiltonian path on G, and also a Hamiltonian path on H (using only U,D,F,B moves)? Would that give us a Hamiltonian path for the whole cube?
    Last edited by qqwref; 12-29-2011 at 07:33 PM.
    Computer cube PB averages of 12: [Clock: 5.72] [Pyraminx: 3.44] [Megaminx: 49.52]
    [2x2: 2.66] [3x3: 8.71] [4x4: 29.06] [5x5: 52.69] [6x6: 1:34.78] [7x7: 2:20.34]

  8. #18
    Member siva.shanmukh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Chennai, India
    WCA Profile
    2008SHAN01
    YouTube
    shanmukh1729
    Posts
    81

    Default

    Totally my bad. Misinterpretted this to be devil's algorithm (or whatever the algorithm when repeated gives a new state every time it is executed till it covers all the states before reaching the initial state.)

    So, if I correctly understand, this when executed on a solved 2x2, should give us the solved 2x2 again, right?

    And does this sequence give a new state for each quarter turn, is it?

    I guess the above comment answers my last question. It doesn't visit a new state for each quarter turn for sure if the Hamiltonian path is longer than the size of 2x2 space
    Last edited by Brest; 12-30-2011 at 01:00 AM. Reason: post merge
    Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom.

  9. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by siva.shanmukh View Post
    Misinterpretted this to be devil's algorithm
    It *is* one kind of devil's algorithm. See post #10.

    Quote Originally Posted by siva.shanmukh View Post
    So, if I correctly understand, this when executed on a solved 2x2, should give us the solved 2x2 again, right?
    Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by siva.shanmukh View Post
    And does this sequence give a new state for each quarter turn, is it?
    Yes, except for the last turn.

    Quote Originally Posted by siva.shanmukh View Post
    It doesn't visit a new state for each quarter turn for sure if the Hamiltonian path is longer than the size of 2x2 space
    It isn't longer. It can't be. Otherwise it wouldn't be Hamiltonian.
    Last edited by Stefan; 12-29-2011 at 07:41 PM.

  10. #20
    Member qqwref's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    a <script> tag near you
    WCA Profile
    2006GOTT01
    YouTube
    qqwref2
    Posts
    6,341

    Default

    The one that was given is just as long as the number of 2x2 states, so yeah, it does provide a new position every turn until all positions have been reached. But a longer one wouldn't necessarily do that; it would just give every position at some point during its execution.

    It's actually impossible to create an algorithm on the 2x2 or 3x3 that, when you repeat it, gives a new position every time it is executed until all positions have been reached. The reason is that no position has a high enough order (number of times it must be executed to return to the initial state) to cover all of the positions on the cube.
    Computer cube PB averages of 12: [Clock: 5.72] [Pyraminx: 3.44] [Megaminx: 49.52]
    [2x2: 2.66] [3x3: 8.71] [4x4: 29.06] [5x5: 52.69] [6x6: 1:34.78] [7x7: 2:20.34]

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •