Sub1Hour
Member
ITS NOT DOUBLE PARITY PLEASE REFER TO IT AS ONE OF THESE EP CASESIf you do the M2 U2 M2 alg ( (1,0) / (-1,-1) / (0,1) ) then it will get rid of double parity
Adj
Opp
Ucw
Uccw
Z
H
W
O
ITS NOT DOUBLE PARITY PLEASE REFER TO IT AS ONE OF THESE EP CASESIf you do the M2 U2 M2 alg ( (1,0) / (-1,-1) / (0,1) ) then it will get rid of double parity
He referred to it as double parity, so I'm keeping the vocabulary consistent.ITS NOT DOUBLE PARITY PLEASE REFER TO IT AS ONE OF THESE EP CASES
Adj
Opp
Ucw
Uccw
Z
H
W
O
Double parity is not a thing that exists on a puzzle like square-1 where there is only 1 parity. If there is double parity on a puzzle with only 1 possible parity that means there is no parity.He referred to it as double parity, so I'm keeping the vocabulary consistent.
I said the same thing he did so it wouldn't be confusing.Double parity is not a thing that exists on a puzzle like square-1 where there is only 1 parity. If there is double parity on a puzzle with only 1 possible parity that means there is no parity.
That's opp/opp. I had no clue what that ones until you put it into 3x3 notation. It's much easier to refer to the ep cases in the format top/bottom instead of referring to it as something like "H perm but with and adj swap and parity on bottom". Instead of saying that you can just say W oppOk I'll say it again, I said the same thing he did so it wouldn't be confusing.
When I say double parity on squan everybody knows what I'm talking about.
I'm not exactly sure where I said anything about H perms or Adj swaps but when I say double parity I don't mean literally double parity. I mean you have cases impossible to get on a 3x3 on top and bottom (which is double parity to the squan newcomer).That's opp/opp. I had no clue what that ones until you put it into 3x3 notation. It's much easier to refer to the ep cases in the format top/bottom instead of referring to it as something like "H perm but with and adj swap and parity on bottom". Instead of saying that you can just say W opp
well the problem with that is there are different swaps you can to do fix parity. I know only 2 being adj and opp but before csp was invented it was not uncommon to know things like W/solved and O/solved. The most commonly known parity is the adj case and doing that twice will yield Z or ajd/adjI'm not exactly sure where I said anything about H perms or Adj swaps but when I say double parity I don't mean literally double parity. I mean you have cases impossible to get on a 3x3 on top and bottom.
All I'm saying is do M2 U2 M2 and you will no longer have double parity.well the problem with that is there are different swaps you can to do fix parity. I know only 2 being adj and opp but before csp was invented it was not uncommon to know things like W/solved and O/solved. The most commonly known parity is the adj case and doing that twice will yield Z or ajd/adj
I'm pretty sure it's Z perm.This alg is impossible in cubeshape, someone fill me in on this double parity (If its a z perm just say z perm)
You can do 1 U-perm (from Z3) to solve a piece, then just do finish like normal.I used Z3Cubing's tutorial for squan, and I know that double parity = no parity, but how would I solve that using the info in his tutorial? Or would I have to just learn an alg for that?
Rotations don't change the shape... Do you mean slice?Do a z2.
I challenge the relevancey of this case name. All I'm saying is use proper EP names. This is getting a bit drawn out but for the sake of making things clear while posting in this thread please use the EP names found here http://algdb.net/puzzle/sq1/epI challenge the relevancy of this argument, all I'm saying is do M2 U2 M2 and you will no longer have double parity
I said use M2 U2 M2 (Opp/Opp) to "fix" double parity, so that a person new to square-1 would understand what the alg would do instead of telling them a seemingly nonsense phrase like Opp/Opp and hoping they understand, this is a help thread not a "go look up the cubing lingo and do your own research which defeats the purpose of a help thread" thread.I challenge the relevancey of this case name. All I'm saying is use proper EP names. This is getting a bit drawn out but for the sake of making things clear while posting in this thread please use the EP names found here http://algdb.net/puzzle/sq1/ep
Here we go for the 4th time, I said double parity does not exist because it doesn't. A person new to square-1 should learn what a phrase like Opp/Opp means so they are able to efficiently communicate and understand what algorithms do what. This is a help thread and I linked the lingo in my last post if you could not tell. The page I linked shows you what each EP case I was referring too looks like and a simple click would give you the information you need to understand what I was talking about.Here we go for the third time, I said use M2 U2 M2 (Opp/Opp) to "fix" double parity, so that a person new to square-1 would understand what the alg would do instead of telling them a seemingly nonsense phrase like Opp/Opp and hoping they understand, this is a help thread not a "go look up the cubing lingo and do your own research which defeats the purpose of a help thread" thread.
He asked, I responded, and you made it overly complicated.Here we go for the 4th time, I said double parity does not exist because it doesn't. A person new to square-1 should learn what a phrase like Opp/Opp means so they are able to efficiently communicate and understand what algorithms do what. This is a help thread and I linked the lingo in my last post if you could not tell. The page I linked shows you what each EP case I was referring too looks like and a simple click would give you the information you need to understand what I was talking about.
Thank you. I simply made a simple correction with the correct terminology. I'm not here to start a flame war or piss anyone off. I'm just trying to give the best advice that I can and knowing the correct terminology can be very useful as a beginnerK guys, don't make this the 4th parents took cubes thread. @NevEr_QeyX made it understandable for beginners, and @Sub1Hour corrected it with the correct term.
Yeah it's 1 AM for me in America and since Americans are most of the membership the timezones will be slightly different, but pretty much all done part of night. Also explains the heat.Side note: I fell like all heated arguments happen when the majority of people are offline
It's better to put it in RD BD and slice it to RU and FU then parity 0,3 undo sliceWhat is the best way to solve Adj-Parity when it appears into the bottom layer?
What I do is: I put the edges in (FD)-(RD), and move to the top layer with: (1,0) / (2,0) [PARITY] (-2,3) /
FD -> Down layer, front side
RD -> Down layer, right side
When it appears in the up layer, I usually take around 6~7 seconds to solve the parity.
But when it is in down layer, I usually take 9~10 seconds.
This is very annoying...