JohnnyReggae
Member
Again, it's adding just to complicate things. Seriously, the current notation is hardly confusing.this is not a shift. it's an add-on. it's like talking about a new method. its is optional.
Again, it's adding just to complicate things. Seriously, the current notation is hardly confusing.this is not a shift. it's an add-on. it's like talking about a new method. its is optional.
Using the same letter to represent something different is not what I consider a new word. You're making an existing word an antonym to itself. (M = M', E = E'.)Its more like: here is a new word i just coined, use it if you wish.
I'm sure it has been. I didn't say it's pointless. Just more trouble that it was worth (for the 4x4x4 and 5x5x5).SiGN has been greatly useful for big cube algs and reconstructions.
I think part of what turns people off to big cube algs is how long they look in non-SiGN notations. Literally just compare the visual width of these different ways of writing the exact same alg (!!):
r U2 x r U2 r U2 r' U2 l U2 r' U2 r U2 r' U2 r'
(SiGN)
Rw U2 x Rw U2 Rw U2 Rw' U2 Lw U2 Rw' U2 Rw U2 Rw' U2 Rw'
(WCA)
2R U2 x 2R U2 2R U2 2R' U2 2L U2 2R' U2 2R U2 2R' U2 2R'
(old WCA (*))
Rr U2 x Rr U2 Rr U2 Rr' U2 Ll U2 Rr' U2 Rr U2 Rr' U2 Rr'
(Singmaster)
A more sophisticated script will be required if you don't write spaces between moves, but this should work if you do.
I don't think having NAS as an additional thing to know is exactly complex, it's conceptually no more complicated than MES and would take maybe a few seconds to explain to someone unfamiliar. Most people aren't going to use it, but I wouldn't call it complicated to learn at least how to read NAS.Again, it's adding just to complicate things. Seriously, the current notation is hardly confusing.
If someone were to go the ME swapping route, maybe they should also have the script also add/remove the {FN} tag at the beginning of the alg(sheet) just to keep track for themselves.This is my second double post in this thread (and I rarely ever double post!), but I just thought of something that I should have mentioned much earlier.
For those who like to write algorithms with M in the direction of R and E in the direction of U, you can do that on your own alg sheets. You can privately share those alg sheets with others who also write algorithms in that way. But when you want to share with the public (internet), run (write) a script to do some replacements. That way, if the notation is slowing you down personally, you don't have to suffer. And you don't really have to think that much when wishing to share your algorithm sheets with others.
For example, one way to handle it programmatically is to do the following replacements in this exact order. (Note that the _ represents a single white space.)
(And do the same for E' and E.)
- Replace all M'_ with N_.
- Replace a M_ with M'_
- Replace all N_ with M_.
A more sophisticated script will be required if you don't write spaces between moves, but this should work if you do.
Ah, but then we get into my bit of loathing towards the letter W itself. Not only is it the only English letter that isn't one syllable, it's three. Why? It could've just been pronounced "dub" or something.I have a worse idea: instead of a nearby letter, just flip it around!
M -> W
E -> Ǝ (may not show up on your device depending on unicode support) or Э (for the Russian cubers) E is pretty rare anyway
Thus my Ua perm becomes W2 U W U2' W' U W2 (looks weird, but not any more than using N)
Yeah, and that should be left alone now; all I'm really looking for is to be able to use NAS on cubedb.net or alg.cubing.net and see where it goes from there.As a Roux solver, I am very used to the way M and M' are, and it is not confusing in any way at all. Of course, in the beginning, it was weird, but it was still easy to get used to. The notation we use now is not hard to learn, and I personally would not want to learn new notation just to have two ways of expressing the exact same move to try to reduce confusion. In fact, all this would do is increase confusion, because most people who use M and E moves in their solves already know which way M and E go. And I can't remember a single time when I saw someone using an E move in a 3x3 speed solve using one of the main 3x3 methods, so having new notation for E especially is most certainly not a good idea.
Mehta has some E moves and 3-style does too obviously. As for the original post, I don't think it's a good idea to change the notation. If anything, we definitely shouldn't just reverse the direction of the existing moves. H and V seem reasonable, but ultimately I think no change should be made.And I can't remember a single time when I saw someone using an E move in a 3x3 speed solve using one of the main 3x3 methods, so having new notation for E especially is most certainly not a good idea.