(R2 y)24

Stefan said:
Lazy indeed. From the 36, a multiple of 4, you already know we'll need a multiple of 4 iterations overall. So do four iterations (this gets rid of cube rotations) and simply observe the edges: One 7-cycle and one 5-cycle. Thus you need the least common multiple of 36, 7 and 5.
Click to expand...
You alop know that the number has to be greater than 36 and so it matches up with 70, but you could also just go straight to 1260.
 
Last edited:
Noahaha said:
He's saying that it was possible that the edges wouldn't be solved until 1260 iterations.
Click to expand...

If that's what he meant, NSA should be interested in you and your deciphering skills.

Noahaha said:
Also I wasn't being lazy. When I got to 70, the edges weren't solved, so I guess I messed up.
Click to expand...

My point was that there's a really easy and effortless way to determine the 1260, and to tell (more him than you) that there are other ways than to look at all edges as a whole and do turns and count until all of them are solved again. Four moves and then cycle-counting is enough, and not doing that is lazy, especially for a BLD expert :p
 
Rocky0701 said:
First what is the NSA?
Click to expand...

Seriously?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA
https://www.google.com/#q=NSA&tbm=nws

They're climbin’ in your windows (and your linux etc), they're snatchin’ your datas up, tryin’ to analyze ‘em. So y’all need to hide your disks, hide your drive, and hide your stick cause they’re analyzin’ everybody out here.

Rocky0701 said:
Also it wasnt really deciphering
Click to expand...

That's very true. You were ciphering. Noah was the one who deciphered your gibberish. (Edit: Darn, I thought you had written "I wasnt really deciphering". Meh, close enough)

Rocky0701 said:
the LCM of 5 and 7 which is higher than 36 would stand out to be 70 which the LCM of 70 and 36 is 1260.
Click to expand...

Aaaand you're doing it again.
 
Last edited:
Rocky0701 said:
How was that gibberish?
Click to expand...

The first or the second time? (Or this third time, where you broke the quotation?)

I'll include my thoughts about the second time in bold:

"the LCM of 5 and 7 (that's 35, but go on) which is higher than 36 (no it's not, 35 is lower than 36) would stand out to be 70 (what does"stand out to be" mean? This might be my fault for not knowing that expression, but I do claim it's at least unusual) which the LCM of 70 and 36 is (70 is the LCM of 70 and 36???) 1260 (how does that dangling number fit into the sentence??)."

The (correct) lack of a comma before "which is higher than 36" could have given me a hint, but the overall lack of commas and sentence structure didn't make me think about that.

Admittedly this one was rather ok and after some thinking I'm able to understand what you meant (I still think it's not a proper sentence), but the first one I really couldn't.
 
Last edited:
Stefan said:
The first or the second time? (Or this third time, where you broke the quotation?)

I'll include my thoughts about the second time in bold:

"the LCM of 5 and 7 (that's 35, but go on) which is higher than 36 (no it's not, 35 is lower than 36) would stand out to be 70 (what does"stand out to be" mean? This might be my fault for not knowing that expression, but I do claim it's at least unusual) which the LCM of 70 and 36 is (70 is the LCM of 70 and 36???) 1260 (how does that dangling number fit into the sentence??)."

The (correct) lack of a comma before "which is higher than 36" could have given me a hint, but the overall lack of commas and sentence structure didn't make me think about that.

Admittedly this one was rather ok and after some thinking I'm able to understand what you meant (I still think it's not a proper sentence), but the first one I really couldn't.



Always trying to please. And I'm particularly happy I could use that Antoine Dodson meme again ("windows" is the same and "disks"/"drive" are so close to "kids"/"wife", it's uncanny how well it fits. And "husband" and "stick" are at least somewhat related, if you know what I mean).
Click to expand...

Yes, the sentence was very poorly written, and needed more commas. The lack of a comma before "which is higher than 36" was intentional. The reason for this was because, when going through the 36 iterations to get from a solved state to a corners-solved state, i would have noticed if the edges had become solved before this. I realize that the LCM of 7 and 5 is 35, but i knew that the number of iterations to get to an edges-solved state had to be the least common multiple of 7 and 5 which was greater than 36. By saying this would "stand out" i basically meant it would very easily appear that this number would be 70. The LCM of 36 and 70 is 1260. I know that this is definately not the most quick or eifficient way getting to the answer, and that there are many ways to do it, but this is was worked for me when i did it. I hope that how i said it this time was much more clear and i appologize for making less sense to begin with.
 
Rocky0701 said:
The reason for this was because, when going through the 36 iterations to get from a solved state to a corners-solved state, i would have noticed if the edges had become solved before this.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that helps understanding, as I also didn't see a reason for wanting it higher than 36. I still don't get why you want the least one above 36, though. I don't see any reason why the edges should be solved after 70 iterations, not just at 140. So that approach of using 36, 7 and 5 to get 70 (and then using 36 and 70 to get 1260) still seems flawed anyway. I maintain that the proper way to do it is the direct LCM(36,7,5).
 
Last edited:
Stefan said:
Yeah, that helps understanding, as I also didn't see a reason for wanting it higher than 36. I still don't get why you want the least one above 36, though. I don't see any reason why the edges should be solved after 70 iterations, not just at 140. So that approach of using 36, 7 and 5 to get 70 (and then using 36 and 70 to get 1260) still seems flawed anyway. I maintain that the proper way to do it is the direct LCM(36,7,5).
Click to expand...
Yes, i agree that the most quick and efficient way to do the equation is from the LCM of 36, 7, and 5, but this is just the way that i did it. I don't know why i did it this way, i just did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top