Last edited by Stefan; 06-17-2012 at 02:23 PM.
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.
"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.
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!
Last edited by Stefan; 06-17-2012 at 03:42 PM.
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.