Python Cube Project

[Etotheipi]

I would just go through the code and print it until it turns into a tuple.

I am turning it into a tuple on purpose, except I only want one cube object inside a function to become tuplified. I found a solution, if I just manually input SOLVED into the creation of the object, then its fine. So I guess I'll just do that.

 

[xyzzy]

I gave every position a 'sticker' could go a number 1-54

Get used to zero indexing ASAP; it'll save you a lot of pain when using pretty much any mainstream programming language other than Lua.

Instead of: 1 to 54
Try: 0 to 53

 

[shadowslice e]

Get used to zero indexing ASAP; it'll save you a lot of pain when using pretty much any mainstream programming language other than Lua.

And fortran and matlab :/

 

[Etotheipi]

Get used to zero indexing ASAP; it'll save you a lot of pain when using pretty much any mainstream programming language other than Lua.

Instead of: 1 to 54
Try: 0 to 53

Ill try, It was really stupid of me to not do that.

 

[GenTheSnail]

Oh, this is cool!
Last semester for my python class I made a virtual cube in thonny->tkinter as my final project.
It looks like you already have enough more experienced people helping you out, but I can post my code if you want to look at it. It's kind of really long.

 

[I'm A Cuber]

Lol and I thought I was good at python

 

[Etotheipi]

Oh, this is cool!
Last semester for my python class I made a virtual cube in thonny->tkinter as my final project.
It looks like you already have enough more experienced people helping you out, but I can post my code if you want to look at it. It's kind of really long.

That would be cool, but I think I'm good for now, I think visuals are a bit beyond my pyhton knowledge.

 

[Etotheipi]

I think I might have solved the issue, I don't know yet but from my testing it seems to be fine.

 

[Etotheipi]

Do you guys think I should change my move format to a list of tuples instead of two lists? Then it might look a little cleaner, and making moves might be easier. Plus in the process I can switch to zero indexing. I think if I keep working at it and I don't hit any really nasty bugs then I should be able to start making AI and taking ideas fairly quickly. (Also @Cubinwitdapizza am I allowed to bump my own threads as a pizzabumper?)

 

[brododragon]

Do you guys think I should change my move format to a list of tuples instead of two lists? Then it might look a little cleaner, and making moves might be easier. Plus in the process I can switch to zero indexing. I think if I keep working at it and I don't hit any really nasty bugs then I should be able to start making AI and taking ideas fairly quickly. (Also @Cubinwitdapizza am I allowed to bump my own threads as a pizzabumper?)

Aren't tuples immutable?

 

[Etotheipi]

Aren't tuples immutable?

They can't be changed, but I don't need to change them. I'd just need them to make something like R=Move([list of tuples])
then R would be a constant.

 

[brododragon]

They can't be changed, but I don't need to change them. I'd just need them to make something like R=Move([list of tuples])
then R would be a constant.

Then wouldn't you have to make a new constant for every move in an alg?

 

[Etotheipi]

Then wouldn't you have to make a new constant for every move in an alg?

Nope. I'm planning to have it as a module, so then I can just do something like:

import EtotheipiCube as ec
R=ec.R
U=ec.U
sequence1=[R,U,R,U]
sequence2=[U,R,U]

And I only have to make 3 different moves manually, because you can make all moves with just x, y, and R.

 

[brododragon]

And I only have to make 3 different moves manually, because you can make all moves with just x, y, and R.

Won't it make it faster to just manually do all moves?

 

[Etotheipi]

Won't it make it faster to just manually do all moves?

No. Here's my R code, doing it 10 times over manually wouldn't be all that fun.

R = Move([3, 6, 9, 21, 24, 27, 12, 15, 18, 43, 40, 37, 28, 30, 36, 34, 29, 33, 35, 31],
         [43, 40, 37, 3, 6, 9, 21, 24, 27, 12, 15, 18, 30, 36, 34, 28, 33, 35, 31, 29])

But with a combination of moves, once I have x, y, and R, I can just say L is y2 R y2. Way easier.

 

[brododragon]

No. Here's my R code, doing it 10 times over manually wouldn't be all that fun.

R = Move([3, 6, 9, 21, 24, 27, 12, 15, 18, 43, 40, 37, 28, 30, 36, 34, 29, 33, 35, 31],
         [43, 40, 37, 3, 6, 9, 21, 24, 27, 12, 15, 18, 30, 36, 34, 28, 33, 35, 31, 29])

But with a combination of moves, once I have x, y, and R, I can just say L is y2 R y2. Way easier.

Sorry I meant it would run faster. Would be a nightmare to code, though

 

[Etotheipi]

Sorry I meant it would run faster. Would be a nightmare to code, though

Ok, I was wondering if you meant that. I don't think it will have that much impact, because I have a function that takes a list of moves, and turns it into a single move object, so I can just have that run on the module startup and it will be the same speed as the other manually coded moves.

 

[Etotheipi]

Update: I have now reprogrammed the move format so its a little bit nicer to manually code in moves, and its nicer to use in general. Basically I merged the pre indices and post indices lists into a single indices list. And while doing so i switched to zero indexing. Ima keep on working at it.

 

[brododragon]

Did you switch to tuples?

 

[Etotheipi]

Did you switch to tuples?

Yes. It makes it a bit easier to understand, heres my old code for R:

 R = Move([3, 6, 9, 21, 24, 27, 12, 15, 18, 43, 40, 37, 28, 30, 36, 34, 29, 33, 35, 31],[43, 40, 37, 3, 6, 9, 21, 24, 27, 12, 15, 18, 30, 36, 34, 28, 33, 35, 31, 29])

And heres my new:

R=Move([(8,36),(5,39),(2,42),(36,17),(39,14),(42,11),(17,26),(14,23),(11,20),(26,8),(23,5),(20,2),(27,29),(29,35),(35,33),(33,27),(28,32),(32,34),(34,30),(30,28)])