Talk:N-dimensional sequential move puzzles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A fact from N-dimensional sequential move puzzles appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 28 May 2008.
Wikipedia


[edit] Rubik's example

Either the number of pieces should be 27 rather than 26 or the number of pieces with 0 stickers should be 0 not 1. It doesn't add up.

Also why is the number of cells 1? The rubik's cube doesn't have higher dimensions meeting, so this seems an anomaly here. -- SGBailey (talk) 08:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the 0-sticker pieces are not being counted in the total is stated quite clearly at the top of the article under definitions. However, the count of 0-sticker pieces is still given, so of course if you add the numbers up it will come to something different. In fact it will come to sn (Rubik 33) rather than the total given. The difference is because solvers are only interested in (and hence naturally only count) pieces with stickers. Mathematicians, on the other hand, will count them all because the integer sequences only work properly if they are.
The number of cells is 1 for the Rubik cube because the whole cube is a cell. It does not meet any other cells or higher dimension polytopes because there are not any. The definition does say for objects of dimension greater than four which excludes Rubiks cube. SpinningSpark 14:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I know that is what it says. That doesn't stop it being confusing. IMO either P should be redefined or revalued. Having the equation on one line that differs from the value in the table is awful. -- SGBailey (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
How about calling the total "Number of coloured pieces"? SpinningSpark 23:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds OK -- SGBailey (talk) 06:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing

Are those really reliable sources? --NE2 09:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are looking for sources published in peer reviewed journals, might be hard to come by on this subject. This is the best I could find, and they do seem to be mathematically competent. Open to suggestions though.
Or were you referring to the sources for the unsolved puzzles? In those cases the sites referred are keeping the records so they are correct almost by definition, however unreliable you might consider them in general. SpinningSpark 23:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)