Solving 4x4 on your own

Ok Chris, I've turned the inner layers like you said, and after some thinkin' and some time, I realised I paired up all the edges!
I then started to solve all the centers and corners. With my adrenilan pumping, before I knew it, all centers, edges and corners were solved!....

Well, that's what I first thought, until I rotated the cube.
I now have another parity, 2 ADJACENT corners now need to be SWAPPED!!!!!!!!!
This is driving me INZANE!
 
no, you have what is known as "PLL parity". It actually is just 2 2-cycles of edges. You can solve it by solving everything but 2 edges, and then use intuitive commutators to place the edges correctly (while obviously breaking something else up).
 
To be honest there is not often discussion on an intuitive way to solve this case. I figured out an algorithm intuitively when I first started solving the 4x4x4 that I think is a good one for this case to understand what you are doing. I won't give you the algorithm itself, but rather the first step of the thought process I had. If you want to find this algorithm online, it is quite easy to do so, but if you want the puzzle challenge then read below.

Cubing observation:
On a 3x3x3 doing the algorithm R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 achieves an interesting effect by swapping two pairs of edges.

r2 U2 r2 U2 r2 U2 (turn inner slices only on the lower case r turns) has a somewhat nice effect on a 4x4x4 that seems to fix this "PLL parity" or PLL error, but it messes up centers.

Also try R2 Uw2 R2 Uw2 R2 Uw2 (Uw2 means to turn the double layer, or both the outer and inner U layers) which is even a bit better than the algorithm above. This swaps the two edge pairs, but again messes up some centers.

I leave it to you to either restore centers, or find a way to change the application of the R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 concept such that it does not destroy centers. Either of those options would result in an intuitive way to fix this case.

Chris
 
This is off topic, but can anyone tell me how to post a new thread?


At the very top left, hit Home. On the left (also very top left, where Home was that you clicked, that changes to "Forum" too), hit "Forum". Pick the appropriate forum and click into it. Then top left click New Thread.
 
Blast! I tried the first alg but while fixing up the centers in the 2nd layer it swapped the last layer edges.
I disturb the last layer edges when:
- I solve the d layer centers
- I solve the u layer edges.

Thanks very much anyway, what centers does the other algorithm disturb?
 
Proof for why this does not work on any other cube size:
When turning an inner layer slice by one quarter turn on a cube larger than 4x4x4 there are now two types of center pieces. There are the "x" centers, and the "oblique centers" as I call them (you can rename them how you like, but I define my terms in the next sentence). Each inner slice contains exactly 8 "x-centers" from the same orbit, and only from one orbit of "x-centers". Each inner slice contains exactly 4, and no more, "oblique centers" from the same orbit, for 1 or more different orbits. I could provide you with the formula for how many orbits exactly, but I just want you to get the basic idea.

Here's how this affects the pieces when doing a single quarter turn of an inner layer. When turning the inner layer the wing edges are 4-cycled (toggling the parity). The "x-center" orbit that is affected has had two 4-cycles of pieces created which is a net even permutation. Parity of this orbit is not affected. Now, all the remaining center pieces on this slice are "oblique" centers, and each orbit contained on this slice has only 4 of its pieces on that slice. By doing the inner slice quarter turn you create a 4-cycle of pieces in every single one of these orbits, thus toggling the parity of the permutation in every single one of those orbits.

Is this what you mean when relating the parity of centre pieces and edge pieces?

Oll_parity.png


So once the centres are solved on an odd-dimensional cube, we can guarantee that the edges must be in an even parity state, because the centres must be. If the centres are in an odd parity state then they cannot be solved. On an even-dimensional cube, inner-slice turns do not affect the parity state of the centre pieces, while the parity state of the edges flips from odd to even for every inner-slice quarter turn. This means there is a 50% chance that the edges are in an odd parity state after solving the centres. After edge pairing, the odd parity state will manifest its self as a single pair of swapped edges (which appears as a single flipped edge pair after reduction).

So I hope thats about right for OLL parity, but I'm still not certain about PLL parity. As Dan pointed out, its 2x edge 2-cycles. If this is the case, is PLL parity fixed at the end of edge pairing? Ie, would it be possible to go back to the edge pairing phase to fix PLL parity? Again, PLL parity doesn't happen on odd-dimensional cubes. Is this because the permutation of the centre edge pieces determines the overall permutation of the edges after reduction (ie, its not possible to swap only two centre-slice edges)?
 
Is this what you mean when relating the parity of centre pieces and edge pieces?

Oll_parity.png

The parts about the centers are not correct for the 2nd and 3rd pictures, and only partially correct for the 1st picture.

You have to consider what kinds of centers are cycled, meaning from which orbits. Remember that from a theory standpoint there are two kinds of centers on a supercube (and yes Maarten is right that any conclusion we're drawing here is really only valid on a supercube). When you turn an inner slice on a 4x4x4 cube you have done two 4-cycles of pieces, but you have to consider which center orbit those 4 cycles occur in.

On the 5x5x5 picture you are correct that you have done three center 4-cycles, but without determining how many cycles happen in each kind of center orbit, we can't make any conclusion about how parity of those orbits are affected. Same thing for the 6x6x6 picture.

So once the centres are solved on an odd-dimensional cube, we can guarantee that the edges must be in an even parity state, because the centres must be.

If we're considering regular cubes (and not supercubes), then no - and I'll give you a counterexample as to why not. Say your scrambling algorithm on a 5x5x5 uses an odd number of inner slice quarter turns, and you completely solve the centers using an even number of inner slice quarter turns. The centers are now solved, but what is the parity of the wing edge orbit?

If you're considering supercubes, and you solve all centers to an even parity state, then yes all wing edge orbits must be in an even permutation.

If the centres are in an odd parity state then they cannot be solved.

Sure they can. Keep in mind you are talking supercube centers right now. The way to toggle parity in a supercube "oblique" center orbit is by either turning an inner slice that contains this orbit, or by turning an outer face of the cube. To toggle the parity of a supercube "x-center" orbit you can only turn an outer face of the cube.

You have to look at all the center orbits to see which ones are odd parity and which are even parity. From this you can deduce which combination of inner slices quarter turns and/or outer face turns you must use to reduce all center orbits to even parity. Or, you can simply figure out which inner edge orbits are in an odd parity state, and the parity of the corners, and do the same thing. If all wing edge orbits are in an even permutation, and if corners are also in an even permutation, then every center orbit must be in an even permutation (on a supercube). This is a fundamental property of supercube centers.

Remember that supercubes are a little bit different from regular cubes, especially when it concerns centers.

On an even-dimensional cube, inner-slice turns do not affect the parity state of the centre pieces, while the parity state of the edges flips from odd to even for every inner-slice quarter turn. This means there is a 50% chance that the edges are in an odd parity state after solving the centres. After edge pairing, the odd parity state will manifest its self as a single pair of swapped edges (which appears as a single flipped edge pair after reduction).

Inner slices certainly change the parity of center orbits on even cubes, just not on the 4x4x4 supercube ;) That was the whole point of my proof above. Remember, you have to consider not how many 4-cycles occur because of an inner slice quarter turn, but how many 4-cycles from which center orbits occur because of an inner slice quarter turn.

So I hope thats about right for OLL parity, but I'm still not certain about PLL parity. As Dan pointed out, its 2x edge 2-cycles. If this is the case, is PLL parity fixed at the end of edge pairing? Ie, would it be possible to go back to the edge pairing phase to fix PLL parity? Again, PLL parity doesn't happen on odd-dimensional cubes. Is this because the permutation of the centre edge pieces determines the overall permutation of the edges after reduction (ie, its not possible to swap only two centre-slice edges)?

PLL parity happens during edge pairing. When pairing the edges into groups you are also creating an edge cycle out of those groups. You have some control over where these edge groups end up, but we never think about this we just think about simply pairing them up. A good example of one case that is easy to see on 4x4. You have to pair the red-white edge group and the red-yellow edge group. Those pieces are in FR and FL on the cube. You can choose to pair them up using d R F' U R' F d' or u' R F' U R' F u. These two different algorithms will switch which pair ends up on which side of the cube (either FR or FL). During a speedsolve you have not figured out the parity of the corner orbit, or the resulting parity of the edge orbit based on where you can place the last two edge groups. However, if you were doing 4x4x4 FMC you could do this and figure out which alg to use such that the edge permutation you create after making those edge groups will match the corner permutation parity. This will avoid the PLL error or the PLL parity error.

Chris
 
Last edited:
Wow! OK, This goes a bit deeper than I thought. I had a wee look here, and I think I now understand the terminology.

So when we're looking at supercubes and referring to parities of the centres, we need to look at each orbit individually? If I've understood correctly, a 4x4 supercube only has x-centres, which are all within the same orbit since they can all be permuted with each other. An inner slice turn creates 2x 4-cycles of centres all within the same orbit (thus maintaining even parity). When doing a 2r inner-slice move an a 6x6x6 supercube, the same applies to the inner-most centre pieces (also x centres), but the 8 oblique centres affected belong to two separate orbits, creating 2x odd permutations. As a result, the parity of a 6x6x6 centre pieces and edge pieces are related.

So why does this not apply to regular cubes? Is it because the lack of distinction between centre pieces in the same face means that odd and even parity are impossible to distinguish?
 
Yes. 2 centers can be swapped without anybody noticing. (Simply said :))

Technically this is not true. We can appear to swap two centers of different colors, but this is actually a 3-cycle of physical pieces on the cube. On any sized supercube if you really truly do swap only two centers in the same orbit, you have changed the parity of the centers in that orbit. This must require a toggling of the parity on either the corners of the cube, or the wing edges on the same slice, depending on if you swapped two x-centers or two oblique centers (and even a bit on your approach to how you swapped them if they were oblique centers).

Even on a regular cube, if you truly did pick two centers of the same color to "swap" then this must still be the case. To swap those two centers, assuming they are in the same orbit and can be swapped, is effectively toggling the parity of that orbit in the supercube sense, so there would be some other effect on the other pieces of the cube.

If someone wants me to write up a very detailed explanation of how the parities of center orbits relate not only to eachother, but also to the rest of the cube, I can easily do so. I came up with a very simple way to do this using matrices when I came up with my explicit formula for finding the number of possible states on the super-supercube on this page.

Chris
 
Last edited:
If someone wants me to write up a very detailed explanation of how the parities of center orbits relate not only to eachother, but also to the rest of the cube, I can easily do so.
If you can spare the time that would be excellent, thanks :)
 
After reading Your posts Chris i came up with an Idea :
count w's in the scramble = a (either do not count w2's or count them as 2 :) )
count w's while solving centers = b
if (a + b) is divisible by 2 then go with pairing
else do parity and go on with with pairing

imposible on official competition but great if you can solve while counting as fast as without counting :P always no parity can give you some sub x0s avgs

( by w's I mean quater turn of a inner slice (see WCA Scrambler))
 
Last edited:
Back
Top