Agriculture
Microbes at the Gas Pump
Keeping Bugs Away from Food
Cleaning Up Fish Farms
Amphibians
Frogs and Toads
Bullfrogs
Salamanders and Newts
Animals
Baboons Listen for Who's Tops
Insect Stowaways
A Seabird's Endless Summer
Behavior
The Other Side of the Zoo Fence
Nice Chimps
Pondering the puzzling platypus
Birds
Ducks
Cranes
Swans
Chemistry and Materials
The hottest soup in New York
Big Machine Reveals Small Worlds
Boosting Fuel Cells
Computers
Hubble trouble doubled
The Book of Life
Galaxies on the go
Dinosaurs and Fossils
Meet the new dinos
The bug that may have killed a dinosaur
Early Birds Ready to Rumble
E Learning Jamaica
E Learning in Jamaica WIN PRIZES and try our Fun Animated Games
2014 GSAT Results for Jamaican Kids
Results of GSAT are in schools this week
Earth
Earth's Lowly Rumble
Groundwater and the Water Cycle
A Dire Shortage of Water
Environment
To Catch a Dragonfly
A Change in Climate
Indoor ozone stopper
Finding the Past
Stonehenge Settlement
Big Woman of the Distant Past
Chicken of the Sea
Fish
Manta Rays
Hammerhead Sharks
Megamouth Sharks
Food and Nutrition
Symbols from the Stone Age
The Color of Health
Healing Honey
GSAT English Rules
Who vs. That vs. Which
Adjectives and Adverbs
Problems with Prepositions
GSAT Exam Preparation Jamaica
2014 GSAT Results for Jamaican Kids
Results of GSAT are in schools this week
Mastering The GSAT Exam
GSAT Exams Jamaica Scholarships
Access denied - Disabled boy aces GSAT
GSAT Scholarship
GSAT Practice Papers | GSAT Mathematics | Maths
GSAT Mathematics
E Learning in Jamaica WIN PRIZES and try our Fun Animated Games
It's a Math World for Animals
Monkeys Count
Human Body
Workouts: Does Stretching Help?
Electricity's Spark of Life
Flu Patrol
Invertebrates
Crustaceans
Dust Mites
Corals
Mammals
Golden Retrievers
Chihuahuas
Wolves
Parents
Raise a Lifelong Reader by Reading Aloud
Children and Media
Expert report highlights the importance to parents of reading to children!
Physics
Einstein's Skateboard
Black Hole Journey
Road Bumps
Plants
White fuzzy mold not as friendly as it looks
Fastest Plant on Earth
Seeds of the Future
Reptiles
Alligators
Box Turtles
Komodo Dragons
Space and Astronomy
A Whole Lot of Nothing
Planet Hunters Nab Three More
Mercury's magnetic twisters
Technology and Engineering
Machine Copy
Shape Shifting
Toy Challenge
The Parts of Speech
Problems with Prepositions
Countable and Uncountable Nouns
Adjectives and Adverbs
Transportation
Ready, unplug, drive
Revving Up Green Machines
Troubles with Hubble
Weather
A Dire Shortage of Water
Recipe for a Hurricane
Earth's Poles in Peril
Add your Article

Play for Science

Daniel Kunkle spent most of his time in graduate school playing with a colorful puzzle called a Rubik's Cube. And for 20 years, Jonathan Schaeffer worked on winning at checkers. The two researchers weren't goofing off. With clever computer programming, Kunkle figured out that any Rubik's Cube can be solved in 26 moves or fewer. The previous record was 27. And Schaeffer proved that if both opponents in a checkers game play flawlessly, the game will always end in a tie. Studying puzzles and games may sound like fun, but the work might also eventually help scientists solve real-world problems. Cracking the cube Each side of a Rubik's Cube is divided into nine squares, like a tic-tac-toe board. When the puzzle is solved, all nine squares (called facelets) on each side are the same color as one another. So, there's a red side, a green side, and so on. Hinges allow rows of facelets to rotate. A series of random rotations mixes up the colors. To solve the puzzle, you have to make the right series of twists to group the colors. The facelets of a Rubik's Cube can be arranged in about 43 quintillion (that's 43 with 18 zeros after it) possible ways. By hand, it can take a long time to find a solution. A computer can try every possible move and compare solutions to solve the problem much more quickly. But with so many potential arrangements (also called configurations), even the world's fastest computer would need a ridiculously long time to solve the problem. To save time, Kunkle and computer scientist Gene Cooperman of Northeastern University in Boston, Mass., looked for strategies to break the problem into smaller pieces. First, they calculated how many steps would be required to solve the puzzle using only half-turns, which send a facelet to the opposite side of the cube. They excluded quarter-turns, in which a facelet ends up on the side of the cube right next to where it began. Their study showed that only 600,000 possible configurations can be solved this way. Using a desktop computer, Kunkle discovered that all these arrangements could be solved in 13 moves or less. Puzzle pieces Next, the researchers wanted to calculate how many steps would be necessary to turn any other configuration into one of the special 600,000 presolved arrangements. That required a time-consuming search through 1.4 trillion configurations. To speed the process, Kunkle and Cooperman wrote a program for an extremely fast computer, called a supercomputer. It took the supercomputer 63 hours to do the calculations. Results showed that any configuration could be turned into one of the presolved, half-turn configurations in 16 moves or fewer. Remember that it took a maximum of 13 steps to solve one of these special configurations. In sum, the researchers concluded, any configuration could be solved in a maximum of 29 steps. That result fell shy of the record 27 steps established a year ago by another researcher. Kunkle and Cooperman noticed, however, that only about 80 million configurations (far less than 1 percent of all possibilities) actually needed more than 26 steps to reach a solution. So, the pair focused on those few, hardest arrangements. This time, instead of searching for ways to turn each tricky configuration into a special configuration, they searched through every possible way of solving each one. The effort paid off: They set a new record of 26 steps. Researchers think the absolute minimum is just 20 moves, but they have yet to find a way to prove it. The strategies that Kunkle and Cooperman used to solve the cube can be applied to other complicated problems, especially ones that require searching through lots of possibilities. Scheduling airplane flights to carry millions of people to a variety of destinations as quickly as possible is one example. Checkerboard solutions Solving the Rubik's Cube was a major feat, but Jonathan Schaeffer of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, faced an even bigger challenge: winning at checkers. On a traditional 8-square by 8-square checkerboard, each player starts with 12 pieces in his or her own back three rows. All moves are diagonal. During each turn, you slide one of your pieces a distance of one square toward your opponent's side. You can capture an enemy piece by jumping over it with one of yours into an open square. When one of your pieces reaches your opponent's side, it earns the ability to move backward too. If you can remove all enemy pieces, you win. No one had ever attempted to write a program to simulate all moves on a checkerboard. That might be because the pieces on a checkerboard can be arranged in more than 500 quintillion ways (that's a 5 with 20 zeroes after it). Compared to a Rubik's Cube, a checkerboard has 10 times as many possible configurations. Like the Rubik's researchers, Schaeffer and colleagues started with a smaller problem. They imagined two pieces left on the board at the end of a game. For every position that those two pieces could occupy, a computer program simulated every possible outcome. The program went through the same process for 3 pieces, then 4, and so on, up to 10 pieces. At that point, there were 39 trillion possibilities for where the pieces might be. Checkmate Whenever Schaeffer added a piece to the board, the time needed for calculations was 10 times as long as the time needed for the previous step. The computer was not powerful enough to continue the process. So Schaeffer started over from the beginning of a game. His program considered all possible moves and countermoves until only 10 pieces remained the board. Since he had already figured out every way the game could end once there were 10 or fewer pieces left, he was able to combine the two programs to simulate an entire game. In spite of Schaeffer's efforts to cut down time, the computers took 18 years to finish the problem. "I'm quite amazed that I had enough patience to stick with this," Schaeffer says. Like the methods Kunkle developed for the Rubik's Cube, Schaeffer's strategies can be applied to practical problems in scheduling and even in human biology. The work might also some day help a computer play a perfect game of chess, which is far more complicated than checkers. Take it from Kunkle and Schaeffer: Playing games can lead to serious science.

Play for Science
Play for Science








Designed and Powered by HBJamaica.com™