cmhardw
Premium Member
So why on earth would we want redefine "reduction parity" to include things that violate the universally accepted notion of what parities are? It makes no sense to me. It would invite the term to be ridiculed, in my opinion. I certainly will not subscribe to such a definition.
Is there anything specifically in cubing that you want to be called a reduction parity that isn't consistent with the universally accepted notion of parity?
I've been following this thread with interest, but now I'm confused.
Are we no longer calling situations where one reduces a puzzle such that it can now be solved with a subset of the puzzle's possible turns, only to find that this subset of turns is incapable of solving the puzzle "reduction parity"?
This is how I interpret the discussion so far.
Should we be calling this situation a "reduction error" or some other such term?