Difference between revisions of "Imaginary Piece"

From Twistypedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "The set of pieces defined by Matt Galla's analysis of twistability that exist outside the set of real physical pieces. This is discussed in this thread but Matt...")
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
The set of pieces defined by Matt Galla's analysis of twistability that exist outside the set of [[Real Piece|real physical pieces]]. This is discussed in this thread but Matt uses a totally different analysis. He makes no assumption of a holding point and instead looks at all possible way a piece CAN move. For example he looks at pieces that move with BOTH the L and R layers on a 3x3x3. Such pieces doesn't exist in Andreas's method. But Matt goes on to prove such pieces "MUST exist mathematically". While not immediately obvious it turns out the Imaginary Pieces are a superset of the Virtial Pieces. Andreas now prefers the term NHP for Non-Holding Point over Imaginary.
The set of pieces defined by Matt Galla's analysis of twistability that exist outside the set of [[Real Piece|real physical pieces]]. This is discussed in [http://twistypuzzles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15667 this thread] but Matt who uses a totally different analysis then Andreas. He makes no assumption of a [[Holding Point|holding point]] and instead looks at all possible way a piece CAN move. For example he looks at pieces that move with BOTH the L and R layers on a 3x3x3. Such pieces doesn't exist in Andreas's method. But Matt goes on to prove such pieces "MUST exist mathematically". While not immediately obvious it turns out the Imaginary Pieces are a superset of the [[Virtual Piece|Virtial Pieces]]. Andreas now prefers the term [[NHP|NHP]] for Non-Holding Point over Imaginary.

Latest revision as of 07:16, 18 August 2013

The set of pieces defined by Matt Galla's analysis of twistability that exist outside the set of real physical pieces. This is discussed in this thread but Matt who uses a totally different analysis then Andreas. He makes no assumption of a holding point and instead looks at all possible way a piece CAN move. For example he looks at pieces that move with BOTH the L and R layers on a 3x3x3. Such pieces doesn't exist in Andreas's method. But Matt goes on to prove such pieces "MUST exist mathematically". While not immediately obvious it turns out the Imaginary Pieces are a superset of the Virtial Pieces. Andreas now prefers the term NHP for Non-Holding Point over Imaginary.