He claims to have some never before seen universal supermethod to solve any cube with low movecount yet he doesnt give a proper description or examples about how it works. Of course that's pretty suspicious...
I guess that does sound too good to be true, especially since I never said that this method has a low move count (although it could be possible that it can be made to have low move count solutions, it's current incarnation does not). Search the thread. You will not find
me saying that anywhere. I said in the very first post it's probably more efficient as the cube size gets large, and I made clear any misconceptions of the thread's title in the following post.
FMC isn't about being optimal. It's about having as few moves as possible, and that's what this method is for, right? If you could get 30 moves or less easily, it's great for FMC.
I don't want to give the wrong idea here. I never said that this was even close to being move optimal, much less having as few moves as possible. I mentioned that this method is most likely more efficient for the nxnxn in general than it is when being applied to a small cube size like a 3x3x3. Again, perhaps this method can eventually be evolved to be more efficient than its current existence, but I can't make any promises on that.
This method is more of a revolution in the
style of solving rather than in the
efficiency of solving.
Here's an analogy I came up with recently to describe the difference between the structure of solutions from my
solving approach and those from all previous existing methods from the
one and only currently known solving approach for "non-cubers" that I am emailing.
Let the percentage of unsolved pieces on the nxnxn Rubik's cube and minx^n correspond to the distance f(x) and g(x) are from the x-axis. Assume that the solving begins at x=0 and ends at x=logBase10(7)+9.4.
Then, the form of the solution from the 1980s to the present is similar to f(x), and my solving approach is similar to g(x).
If he has this method he claims he has he needs to clearly show that it works and then people start to believe in it and it can be developed further.
Pretend that no one figured out how to solve the cube even to this point in time except for completing a single face (which obviously is quite easy to do in comparison to finishing the entire puzzle). Then, I
show you how to complete the rest of the puzzle. As I said earlier in this thread:
My primary purpose of creating this method was to solve a cube in a different way than has been done before. That is, I classify all previously existing solving methods as the same general approach when I compare them to my method.
This is not just "another method". It's an entirely different outlook on how to solve the puzzle, and makes you use the same mental skills that you use in the following activities:
- solving Sudoku puzzles
- balancing chemical equations
- decoding ciphers
- simplifying algebraic expressions
- solving math problems which have long solutions
- optimizing the efficiency of software
In addition, cubing, while a relatively new sport, does have a few thousand people, some of which are some incredibly clever people and no one has even thought of a method which sounds remotely similar to this in terms of going about the solve.
I can tell that you read this thread. For others who haven't and profess that I claimed that this method produces low move count solutions for the nxnxn cube,
don't point fingers at me when what I show (in the future) is exactly how I described the solving approach.
Now, as tseitsei said, this method probably can be developed further (because, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, I'm just the "pioneer"), but again, this is an entirely different way to solve the cube (and the nxnxn cube). Right now, I'm looking on how to "show the world how to solve the cube" for the "first time".
Am I after all getting all of the credit? You better believe it. If someone cannot understand that basic "justice of merit", then I have nothing else to say because I believe people should be rewarded for their work, especially if it's original and groundbreaking. Getting a pat on the back from a community who some of its members have already accused me of being a liar about this very discovery is "not an honor" to me. Sorry.
It's not that I distrust (most) of the community. This is after all a public world wide web, and thus anyone can see it and "steal" my ideas. I wish we lived in a world where this wouldn't happen, but there are just simply too many stories of this happening for me to not take heed. If you disagree, then I assume that you are too young to understand what kind of world we live in.
Am I trying to aggravate or tease the community? NO. I did not post this in just any forum. I posted this in a "help" forum asking for "help" to
prevent what has happened in this thread to happen. I made this
very clear in my first post, even separating everything into different sections. There isn't a day that goes by that I am not tempted to just share what I have and explain what I have found (because it's possible I can die tomorrow and then my research and discovery dies with me). After all, my book has already been written and Mathematica code complete.
I am hoping that I
can accomplish my goal without that happening. I'm still sending out emails when I have time (which is much less lately due to my job), but
I AM TRYING to make my goal happen ASAP.
Again, I apologize to all of those who are upset, and it looks like it would have been better for me to not start this thread at all (because I haven't gotten meaningful help, and I have told the community about something that I cannot show them), but I am not going to request it to be closed for hope that someone will find me a contact who is willing to work with me publicizing this method in a
meaningful way that I desire.
Let's just be real man.
