God's algorithm discovered for OLL parity edge flip (theory)

Watch -
Edit: I cannot take credit for this video, check out Christopher Mowla's youtube account, www.youtube.com/user/4evertrying ... he's got alot of great material there..

If it really is God's algorithm for oll, let's call it the "dacube's god algorithm".

y3k9 said:

If it really is God's algorithm for oll, let's call it the "cmowla's god algorithm".

Click to expand...

Fixed.

I don't get it.

seconded....i also don't understand this....could somebody provide an explanation?

I stopped watching when I saw the bible quote and 8 minute+ length.

For those having trouble understanding how awesome this algorithms is, here's the video description that comes along with the video:

This is a pure edge flip algorithm which is unlike any other seen before in cubing history. In fact, it is the shortest of its kind (according to my findings).

According to my (Christopher Mowla's) theory and experience, this algorithm is in fact God's Algorithm (the briefest algorithm path) for the pure edge flip as far as quarter turn move count is concerned. In addition, this algorithm has the lowest average of half turn and quarter turn moves as well.

In fact, copy the line below:
floor(n/2)/(2-2^floor(n/2))+19.5
and paste it in the search bar at the following mathematics website, Wolfram Alpha:
http://www57.wolframalpha.com/

To calculate the average for a cube of any size (as long as the size is not too large for Wolfram Alpha to Compute), just delete the two n's and replace them with the same integer 4 or greater to represent a big cube size.

I hate to criticize wording, but I don't believe this algorithm has been proven to be optimal. I think it's a bit presumptuous to call it "God's Algorithm" if we haven't proven it to be.

Yeah, mathematically speaking, my algorithm is the shortest path that currently exists. Even in plane quarter turns (qtm), it is less than other algorithms for some cases.

The Holy Grail" is 24 qtm for cases like:

, where consecutive edge pieces from the corners to the middle need to be swapped. (It is 26 qtm for the rest of the cases).

As a comparison, a famous speedsolving algorithm is "Lucasparity". Even if the maximum number of turns are made wide, this algorithm is still 30 qtm for all cases:
Rw U2 Rw U2 r' U2 r U2 l' U2 l x U2 r' U2 x' Rw' U2 Rw'
and so is the "Standard Algorithm"
Rw2 B2 U2 l U2 r' U2 r U2 F2 r F2 l' B2 Rw2

And my other algorithm,
x' Rw2 U2 (LwM)' U2 r U2 Rw U2 x' U r U' F2 U r' U Rw2 x
is 26 qtm for all cases. But that algorithm has the lowest plane half turns (ftm) than any other algorithm, having 19. Its average between slice half turns and quarter turns is 19.5, which is pretty good. However, as I mentioned at the end of the video, the "Holy Grail" is slightly less than 19.5, even as the cube gets large.


And for those who don't know why the video is 8+ minutes long, realize that I had a brief introduction, followed by illustrating how to apply the algorithm to different size cubes and different cases on those cubes (if they are larger than the 5x5x5) because this algorithm isn't your everyday algorithm which is trivial to apply to a given case, followed by giving the formula for the average.

Also, the Bible quote was a principal that I believed in and followed: I was not trying to push Christianity on anyone. You don't have to believe in God to realize that "keep seeking, and you will find" is a good principal to live by.


EDIT

blade740 said:

I hate to criticize wording, but I don't believe this algorithm has been proven to be optimal. I think it's a bit presumptuous to call it "God's Algorithm" if we haven't proven it to be.

Click to expand...

I never said it was God's Algorithm. I said, "According to my theory" it is. I have many reasons to believe that it is, but I cannot expect those who did not research this particular case to take my word for it.

cmowla said:

I never said it was God's Algorithm. I said, "According to my theory" it is. I have many reasons to believe that it is, but I cannot expect those who did not research this particular case to take my word for it.

Click to expand...

I was referring more to the title of this topic than anything you said. I do like the question mark in your signature.

exciting!

Is it a big surprise if I tell you that the algs are not pure ? (At least the 4^3 alg, I stopped watching after that. For those who want to know, it does two 2-cycles on centers.)

Why do you persist?! Because the 4x4x4 is THE ONLY big cube which can actually have a center-preserving odd permutation algorithm, I don't think you should even consider these algorithms to be pure in the sense of center-preservation. It is their nature to force centers out of place. The way you use the term pure should only apply to even permutation algorithms. One exception (the 4x4x4) to an infinite number of big cubes does not justify that a common term to describe an odd permutation algorithm should change to your definition of pure.

Do we discard an outlier or do we allow an outlier to dominate the general trend?

So the word pure should have different meanings when applied to even and odd permutations ? Yeah, sure it makes a lot of sense, not confusing at all.

Obviously you know of a much less confusing term to refer to this type of algorithm, or you wouldn't insist I am confusing everyone. I know all kinds of odd permutation algorithms, so be sure to pick a good term (and not a confusing one). Enlighten me. Should we call it a "2-cycle of wings within the same composite edge and 2(n-2) center swapper)?

"Hey everyone, I have made a 2-cycle of wings within the same composite edge and a 2(n-2) center piece swapper, you wanna see?" I bet everyone (this includes those who don't know what a super cube is, those that don't blindsolve, those who have not seen my derivation videos, those who just learned how do solve a big cube, etc.) will immediately assume I mean "the pure edge flip". Oh, that's a lot less confusing to me.

Surely we cannot call it non-pure because this, this, this, and this are all non-pure algorithms to me. Categorizing this in the same category as the others is not only confusing to beginners, but also unpractical.

Even better. Show a beginner this:
"Hey, did you know that this is pure, but this is not"? Without explanation (for example, having a supercube to demonstrate), that person would look at you like you were stupid. So in all honesty, is it really that confusing? No. You only want to win an argument on technicality. That's just about it.

Lastly, let's take a look at the definition of confusing, according to thefreedictionary.com.
"To cause to be unable to think with clarity or act with intelligence or understanding; throw off."

By debating on whether or not an odd permutation algorithm is pure for one and only one cube size, when it has no meaning at all for all other big cube sizes (except for when an even cube is treated like a 4x4x4), you are throwing everyone off of the big picture. That's confusion to me.

Differentiating the visual effect of this from the 4+ or more other types of odd parity algorithms by calling it pure is not in any way confusing. In addition, it is a straight-forward compact expression which everyone understands.

Well, "semi-pure", apparently pure", "visually pure" all sound better to me than just "pure".
And beginners are not idiots you know. Everybody with half a brain is able to understand that an alg can have hidden effects on centers of the same colour. And I don't even need a supercube to show them, trying to apply the alg to a cube a Fw (or something similar) away from solved is convincing enough.

TMOY said:

Well, "semi-pure", apparently pure", "visually pure" all sound better to me than just "pure".

Click to expand...

Sounds wrong\( \ne \)confusing. It sounds wrong to you because YOU have experimented with algorithms. YOU have seen algorithms on supercubes. Those who have not thought about this don't know about it. One cannot know what one did not learn. It has nothing to do with brain capacity, only with information introduced to the brain. I have seen several cubers over the years think that the center commutator swaps two pieces (instead of 3). These people can solve a nxnxn cube, but they don't have a brain? I have never heard of anyone who solves big cubes say that they solved one of the _ of _ solved positions of the big cube. They say, "I have solved this _x_x_ cube in _ amount of time". (Applause please...)

*Even if they know that they have solved one of the _ visually solved states of whatever big cube they solved, they don't tell others that. They say they solved the big cube. Why? Because they do not want to confuse people. If someone is interested in knowing the theory behind what they are doing, they can ask.

In short, to be clear to everyone and not just to those who are familiar with the exact effects of algorithms (especially that I put this video on Youtube and anyone can watch it), I will continue to use the terminology I use unless there is a need to explain more. I only have gone on talking this long because you commented on my video. For me, a pure algorithm for just one cube size is worthless to me and to most other people. An algorithm which does not affect anything else visually is all the majority of people need.

I agree with TMOY. Redefining "pure" is a bad idea. And people that will understand this topic will SURELY have encountered "pure" in the meaning of NOT influencing centers (supercube safe)

The alg doesn't look very practical for speedsolving but the theory behind it is interesting and that it works on different sized cubes is cool.

freshcuber said:

The alg doesn't look very practical for speedsolving

Click to expand...

And thus probbly won't be used by all those lovely beginners who don't need algs to be pure. How sad it is that they don't need them to be optimal either.