# Length of 2x2 Scrambles

Discussion in 'Cubing Help & Questions' started by theZcuber, Feb 19, 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!

May 8, 2011
Central NY, US
WCA:
2012PRAT02
Mods: I have no clue if this should be in a thread, or in a different section. Just move this to where it belongs Thanks in advance

I was just wondering if someone could modify the Mark2/WCA 2x2 scrambler to make a count of how long the scrambles are. I am doing a project for college, and part of my choice was the length of proper scrambles. This would allow me to generate a large number of scrambles (10,000 probably) and have the length with the number of scrambles at that length next to it.

In case you don't see what I'm saying, I basically want the normal scrambler, but with a count at the bottom that shows (Length: # with length / 0: # / 1: # / 2: # / etc.)

If anybody could do this, it would be great. I tried to do this and failed

2. ### StefanMember

May 7, 2006
WCA:
2003POCH01
StefanPochmann
3. ### qqwrefMember

7,831
13
Dec 18, 2007
a <script> tag near you
WCA:
2006GOTT01
qqwref2
Yeah, I wasn't really sure what the difference was between this question and that table...

May 8, 2011
Central NY, US
WCA:
2012PRAT02
Are the scrambles optimal? I thought they were near optimal. Regardless, if at all possible, I would like this done, as I am doing this project on what actually occurs, not just the theory (theory being the table, reality being the 10,000+ scrambles)

5. ### Lucas GarronSuper-Duper ModeratorStaff Member

1,000,000 runs of Mark 2 (which still uses the WCA 2x2x2 scrambler):

Code:
[0,4,14,79,539,2733,13832,62536,237605,513059,169008,591]
That's 0 at depth 0, 4 at depth 1, etc.

Simple hack of the benchmark code. It's not very robust, else I would make it a more general tool.
(Hopefully, this will all be very easy some day.)

(Ooh, matrix plot.)

Last edited: Feb 20, 2012

May 8, 2011
Central NY, US
WCA:
2012PRAT02
So basically the conclusion from this and the reality results are that it tends to lean away from longer scrambles, correct?

7. ### Lucas GarronSuper-Duper ModeratorStaff Member

Huh? The distribution matches perfectly.
(Did you note that my sample has a million runs, not 3672160?)