I think neither this thread's definition nor the page you linked to are concerned about it being a circuit, Hamiltonian or not. And I'd say it's good that way - that page's definitions are very natural and simple (except it should ask for a move sequence rather than a move set, but it's clear what's meant).Originally Posted by cuBerBruce
Last edited by Stefan; 06-17-2012 at 02:23 PM.
You are argumentative, and wrong. I did read that site, and it is annoying. The first definition is terrible, and the formatting is ugly. Do you have emotional attachment to this site?
Also, notice the part of Bruce's post that I quoted, I wasn't interested in the rest all I was talking about was whether it had to solve after some number of iterations or during the last.
Except for the set/sequence issue, I find it really good. What do you find bad about it? Just calling it "annoying" and "terrible" doesn't tell me much. And what's your better definition?
"and the formatting is ugly"
Spoiled much? And I take good content over good style any time (not that I agree about this being ugly).
"Do you have emotional attachment to this site?"
Since I like good stuff, I guess I'll have to say yes. Didn't before today, though, if that's what you mean.
"all I was talking about was whether it had to solve after some number of iterations or during the last."
And that's not what Bruce was talking about. He was talking about completing the Hamiltonian circuit, not about solving.
"notice the part of Bruce's post that I quoted, I wasn't interested in the rest"
I did notice. But the rest of Bruce's post discussed exactly that same thing.
Last edited by Stefan; 06-17-2012 at 03:06 PM. Reason: Yes, I'm done editing now, sorry about that.
A Devil's algorithm is a sequence of moves such that, when iterated on a cube in an arbitrary state, this cube will reach the solved state during some iteration.
I would too, but this site isn't great in either aspect in my opinion...
What I was trying to get at was the fact that you were a bit sensitive to a bit of criticism about that site.
But it was what he was talking about! he wanted to know whether it had to reach solved after a full iteration of a sequence, or whether it could reach it during the last. I Answered his question!
That's pretty much the same, except your "during" sounds like it might not count if the solved state is reached *after* an iteration. How is yours supposed to be better?
No it wasn't. Check my updated explanation (sorry for the edits).
Well you can't disinclude the last move from a sequence lol. The last move is as much during an iteration of a sequence as any.
After a move isn't during the move, and after a sequence isn't during the sequence. And states are reached *after* moves. But again, ignoring that, your definition is pretty much the same as the page's. So I guess you find yours terrible as well?
Last edited by Stefan; 06-17-2012 at 03:42 PM.
start, perform sequence, end. all moves are during the execution of a sequence. Mine is clearly better.
Anyway, there are only some small number of cases, around 2000 or less I think, the states that are in the group generated by the sequence, where the cube would be solved straight after an iteration. So if you count the during thing as a flaw, it only means that there are 2000ish or less trivial cases that do not fit with the definition. The definition on the site has the opposite effect: taken literally, the definition only works for these special cases.
Moves yes. States no.
Nope, clearly worse.
And that's 2000 too many.
Nope, it works for *all cases*, during or after iterations, because it doesn't differentiate between those at all. You're reading something into it that's simply not there.
what's not there is clarity
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks