Commutator notation extension - [A,B,C]

Discussion in 'General Speedcubing Discussion' started by Kirjava, Mar 23, 2012.

Welcome to the Speedsolving.com. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community of over 30,000 people, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us and we'll help you get started. We look forward to seeing you on the forums!

Already a member? Login to stop seeing this message.
  1. Kirjava

    Kirjava Colourful

    6,129
    3
    Mar 26, 2006
    WCA:
    2006BARL01
    YouTube:
    snkenjoi
    While some extensions to the notation have been proposed in the past, this is a common group of algorithms and the notation is already somewhat being used.

    I propose that [A,B,C] = [A,B] [B,C].

    After expanding, a cancellation in the middle gives A B A' C B' C'.

    For example, [l', RUR'U', r] is a common 4x4x4 last layer algorithm.

    This notation can be extended further -

    [A,B,C,D] = [A,B] [B,C] [C,D] = A B A' C B' D C' D'

    but I am yet to find a use for it :)

    Finally, just as [A,B]' = [B,A], [A,B,C]' = [C,B,A].
     
  2. ben1996123

    ben1996123 Banned

    4,976
    1
    May 17, 2009
    Ponyville
    WCA:
    2009WHIT01
    YouTube:
    ben1996123
    Nice, this will make it easier to write some stuff (probably, I don't know much about commutators).

    It reminds me of the chain rule.
     
  3. riffz

    riffz Member

    2,068
    0
    Oct 3, 2008
    Toronto (Canada)
    WCA:
    2009HOLT01
    YouTube:
    riffz
    I like it. Probably wouldn't use it too often but being able to avoid typing out an entire cyclic shift is good enough for me :)

    [F R', U2, R' F]
     
  4. aronpm

    aronpm Member

    2,021
    0
    Sep 9, 2009
    Ooh, that is a good use for this. I never thought of it before. I've only used it for 2*3 cycles and 5 cycles
     
  5. Kirjava

    Kirjava Colourful

    6,129
    3
    Mar 26, 2006
    WCA:
    2006BARL01
    YouTube:
    snkenjoi
    btw

    [R, U, U2, R]
     
  6. Christopher Mowla

    Christopher Mowla Premium Member

    828
    2
    Sep 17, 2009
    New Orleans, LA
    YouTube:
    4EverTrying
    I haven't seen that many algorithms that contain a product of two (or more) non-conjugated (or non shifted) commutators. Moreover, I have seen that algorithms for 2 3-cycle cases are just as brief (or even briefer) if handled with one commutator instead of 2. I think it would be much more useful to establish a notation extension that illustrates cyclic shifts rather than a product of two commutators.
     
  7. MostEd

    MostEd Member

    423
    0
    May 21, 2011
    St. Petersburg Russia
    WCA:
    2012BETA01
    YouTube:
    MostED13
    I though it was super duper complex!
     
  8. Kirjava

    Kirjava Colourful

    6,129
    3
    Mar 26, 2006
    WCA:
    2006BARL01
    YouTube:
    snkenjoi
    Are you sure? K4 makes heavy use of them.

    Readability > conciseness.

    I mentioned this yesterday, but didn't see much use in it. Can you elaborate?

    Do you have anything in mind? I think a single delimiter to denote the location of the shift could be a solution.
     
  9. Christopher Mowla

    Christopher Mowla Premium Member

    828
    2
    Sep 17, 2009
    New Orleans, LA
    YouTube:
    4EverTrying
    Well, the only real use I would see is showing the decomposition of an algorithm more effectively (even permutation or odd permutation). (Sure there are most likely move cancellations with these, but is it not so with the product of commutators? If the two commutators affect only one piece type each and there are no move cancellations between them, then they should be seen as two different algorithms, not one. Of course, I'm not saying you ever said this, but just for sake of argument).

    I think a single delimiter is great too. No I don't have anything in mind to suggest, because honestly, I can't recall a single time when my suggestions were considered. I just like to post my opinion which usually gives people in the thread something to oppose...in doing so, "the people find direction." If you all do decide to do this (which I highly doubt, because the notations which are currently standard "shall not be modified" ), then I'm sure you all will agree on some symbol to use as a delimiter (I'm not going to waste my time...again).
     
  10. Kirjava

    Kirjava Colourful

    6,129
    3
    Mar 26, 2006
    WCA:
    2006BARL01
    YouTube:
    snkenjoi
    When you intend to use it, just write that "|" (or whatever) denotes a cyclic shift. Maybe it'll catch on.
     
  11. Christopher Mowla

    Christopher Mowla Premium Member

    828
    2
    Sep 17, 2009
    New Orleans, LA
    YouTube:
    4EverTrying
    Whatever happened with this?
     
  12. qqwref

    qqwref Member

    7,826
    12
    Dec 18, 2007
    a <script> tag near you
    WCA:
    2006GOTT01
    YouTube:
    qqwref2
    Nobody used it enough to make it become a standard, and it was confusing when people did use it.
     
  13. Kirjava

    Kirjava Colourful

    6,129
    3
    Mar 26, 2006
    WCA:
    2006BARL01
    YouTube:
    snkenjoi
    When did this happen?
     
  14. qqwref

    qqwref Member

    7,826
    12
    Dec 18, 2007
    a <script> tag near you
    WCA:
    2006GOTT01
    YouTube:
    qqwref2
    I think I saw it once or twice in a random cubing thread or something. Not sure.
     
  15. Kirjava

    Kirjava Colourful

    6,129
    3
    Mar 26, 2006
    WCA:
    2006BARL01
    YouTube:
    snkenjoi
    that was said with the least amount of conviction ever
     
  16. qqwref

    qqwref Member

    7,826
    12
    Dec 18, 2007
    a <script> tag near you
    WCA:
    2006GOTT01
    YouTube:
    qqwref2
    This topic was 9 months ago, and you expect me to remember details of where I saw an obscure notation on this forum? :p
     
  17. Kirjava

    Kirjava Colourful

    6,129
    3
    Mar 26, 2006
    WCA:
    2006BARL01
    YouTube:
    snkenjoi
    no, I think you added the part about confusion without really thinking to add weight to your statement, then when pressed for an example came up with "I think I saw it once or twice in a random cubing thread or something. Not sure."

    I didn't say that because it may not be true, but that mindset I had made your post humourous to read.
     
  18. qqwref

    qqwref Member

    7,826
    12
    Dec 18, 2007
    a <script> tag near you
    WCA:
    2006GOTT01
    YouTube:
    qqwref2
    Yeah, makes sense. My memory is fuzzy but I do remember seeing the notation once outside of this thread and being confused for a bit.
     
  19. theZcuber

    theZcuber Premium Member

    2,077
    0
    May 8, 2011
    Central NY, US
    WCA:
    2012PRAT02
    I believe Brest used it once in a reconstruction. If my memory serves me correct specifically it was on one of Maskow's blindfolded ones (and Maskow corrected him saying that he thought of the commutator differently)
     

Share This Page