The cubing argument thread

[CubeRed]

Well, all I'm saying is, we'd better enjoy it while we can. Once maglev tech becomes cheap enough, they may stop manufacturing spring-based cubes entirely (except the good ol' Rubik's brand, but nobody cares about that).

Imagine if springed cubes become like a "collectors item". I don't think that will happen in the near future though. I don't mind spring noise as you can't really hear it unless your turning very slowly. Wear down can be prevented if you lube your core.

 

[7ombie]

You can always add springs to a maglev cube, if you really miss that little ting ta ting crang sound.

The weird thing is, I could probably handle it, if every face made the same noise, but it's always just (the blue) one.

 

[ruffleduck]

Conversely, you can always add maglev to a springed cube. I say cube companies should stick to springs because it's cheaper and lighter

 

[7ombie]

You don't add stuff because it's cheaper and lighter though, else you'd not add magnets to the pieces either. You do what you need to do to sell more cubes, so the community will decide. The companies will make more of what sells.

 

[EngiNerdBrian]

You don't add stuff because it's cheaper and lighter though, else you'd not add magnets to the pieces either. You do what you need to do to sell more cubes, so the community will decide. The companies will make more of what sells.

What if cheaper and lighter is what sells?!?

Regarding the magnet comment: Not exactly, There was quite a bit of conversation in the community years ago about minimizing magnet weight when they were first introduced; it’s a major reason why separation instead of just SIZE has become a way of controlling strength. Adding them was obviously stilled considered beneficial given the weight increase.

 

[7ombie]

> What if cheaper and lighter is what sells?!? -- @EngiNerdBrian

Then they make more of that. But not because it's cheaper or lighter, just because companies generally make what wholesalers buy, and wholesalers order what retailers buy, and retailers try hard to only buy what they can sell, which is ultimately just whatever the community add to their carts.

> Conversely, you can always add maglev to a springed cube. -- @zzoomer

Is this universally true? I'm not being pedantic. It's a valid point either way. I'm genuinely asking if any tensioning systems would prevent the mod somehow, as there are not many cubes that ship with maglev currently, so it'd be nice to have more options (though I do really like both of the MoYo options). I'm especially interested in the GAN 356 RS as a high quality cube that is cheap (£11.59 (~$15.50) from China), that I can magnetize from scratch. The springs looked too small in the pictures to swap in maglev though. Has anyone tried this?

 

[EngiNerdBrian]

> What if cheaper and lighter is what sells?!? -- @EngiNerdBrian

Then they make more of that. But not because it's cheaper or lighter, just because companies generally make what wholesalers buy, and wholesalers order what retailers buy, and retailers try hard to only buy what they can sell, which is ultimately just whatever the community add to their carts.

I see what you’re trying yo say but you are talking in circles my friend.

 

[SH03L4C3]

what if in the future, you can do more with maglev compared to springs, and something revolutionary comes up. Its just this transition period where people are doubtful, but I would love to see the future direction of maglev

 

[ruffleduck]

I am getting getting tired of people who accept Mehta as an entirely new and novel method, and reject the reality where Mehta is just rebranded Petrus

<rant>
There are steps, and there are states. The two frequently get confused. A step is a means as to how to reach a state. This does mean that every method could technically be considered as a single step. However, among humans (and computers, for that matter) it is infeasible to solve most scrambles in a single step. So for this reason, we break solving methods into sub-steps, frequently called steps. Each sub-step reduces down to states with less cases, until there are 0 cases and the cube is solved. Ultimately all methods have and always have been classified by their states, not steps. CFOP is cross, F2L, OLL, PLL (hence the name). The "steps" of a method are depicted by the end state of the sub-step, not by the means as to how the state is reached. The reason we don't describe sub-steps by the means the goal state is reached is because there are multiple ways to each the goal state, and the way the solver finishes the step depends on the specific case encountered. Now, you could say that with this argument that all methods are the same because they are just different ways to reach the goal state; that is, solved. However, we should not compare the small scale of ways to approach sub-steps--with so many microscopic differences and variations--to entire methods that are fundamentally different. Two methods that are absolutely not fundamentally different are Petrus and Mehta. Mehta is simply Petrus with a different approach to the 223 sub-step, and doing it pseudo. Both doing the FB+2edge approach and solving pseudo can be done in Petrus. They are simply variations of the same sub-step, and as I said earlier it is silly to contrast methods the same way as subtle differences in sub-steps. pseudo-223, belt edges, and all the funny variations of Mehta can be applied in Petrus. They are just changes in the sub-steps. Mehta is just Petrus.
</rant>

 

[Cuber2s]

they are almost as good, but the WRM 2020 is still better than the RS3M (I don't care about the 11m pro)


honestly I would mail mine to you for free once I get my MGC if you paid shipping.
mine just pops like crud, doesn't turn fast, and the magnets are super weak.
EDIT: Double post

Pretty similar imo

I am getting getting tired of people who accept Mehta as an entirely new and novel method, and reject the reality where Mehta is just rebranded Petrus

<rant>
There are steps, and there are states. The two frequently get confused. A step is a means as to how to reach a state. This does mean that every method could technically be considered as a single step. However, among humans (and computers, for that matter) it is infeasible to solve most scrambles in a single step. So for this reason, we break solving methods into sub-steps, frequently called steps. Each sub-step reduces down to states with less cases, until there are 0 cases and the cube is solved. Ultimately all methods have and always have been classified by their states, not steps. CFOP is cross, F2L, OLL, PLL (hence the name). The "steps" of a method are depicted by the end state of the sub-step, not by the means as to how the state is reached. The reason we don't describe sub-steps by the means the goal state is reached is because there are multiple ways to each the goal state, and the way the solver finishes the step depends on the specific case encountered. Now, you could say that with this argument that all methods are the same because they are just different ways to reach the goal state; that is, solved. However, we should not compare the small scale of ways to approach sub-steps--with so many microscopic differences and variations--to entire methods that are fundamentally different. Two methods that are absolutely not fundamentally different are Petrus and Mehta. Mehta is simply Petrus with a different approach to the 223 sub-step, and doing it pseudo. Both doing the FB+2edge approach and solving pseudo can be done in Petrus. They are simply variations of the same sub-step, and as I said earlier it is silly to contrast methods the same way as subtle differences in sub-steps. pseudo-223, belt edges, and all the funny variations of Mehta can be applied in Petrus. They are just changes in the sub-steps. Mehta is just Petrus.
</rant>

And its bad ,lol

what if in the future, you can do more with maglev compared to springs, and something revolutionary comes up. Its just this transition period where people are doubtful, but I would love to see the future direction of maglev

Maglev rs3m sucks

 

[ruffleduck]

I would like to kindly ask those with negative reactions to my above post what points they object to. To those who merely post a "reaction" without actually understanding the argument, this will result in a domino effect and cause other people to automatically dismiss the argument for the sole reason that it already has negative reactions. @TheCubingCuber347 @BenChristman1

 

[BenChristman1]

I am getting getting tired of people who accept Mehta as an entirely new and novel method, and reject the reality where Mehta is just rebranded Petrus

<rant>
There are steps, and there are states. The two frequently get confused. A step is a means as to how to reach a state. This does mean that every method could technically be considered as a single step. However, among humans (and computers, for that matter) it is infeasible to solve most scrambles in a single step. So for this reason, we break solving methods into sub-steps, frequently called steps. Each sub-step reduces down to states with less cases, until there are 0 cases and the cube is solved. Ultimately all methods have and always have been classified by their states, not steps. CFOP is cross, F2L, OLL, PLL (hence the name). The "steps" of a method are depicted by the end state of the sub-step, not by the means as to how the state is reached. The reason we don't describe sub-steps by the means the goal state is reached is because there are multiple ways to each the goal state, and the way the solver finishes the step depends on the specific case encountered. Now, you could say that with this argument that all methods are the same because they are just different ways to reach the goal state; that is, solved. However, we should not compare the small scale of ways to approach sub-steps--with so many microscopic differences and variations--to entire methods that are fundamentally different. Two methods that are absolutely not fundamentally different are Petrus and Mehta. Mehta is simply Petrus with a different approach to the 223 sub-step, and doing it pseudo. Both doing the FB+2edge approach and solving pseudo can be done in Petrus. They are simply variations of the same sub-step, and as I said earlier it is silly to contrast methods the same way as subtle differences in sub-steps. pseudo-223, belt edges, and all the funny variations of Mehta can be applied in Petrus. They are just changes in the sub-steps. Mehta is just Petrus.
</rant>

This could be a poor argument on my part, but that’s kind of like arguing that CFOP and ZZ are the same. Let’s assume you know full ZB, so for CFOP, you do cross, F2L, ZBLS, ZBLL, and for ZZ, you do EO cross, F2L, then ZBLL. In both of these methods, you finish with ZBLL, because you end up with F2L and EO solved, but I’m sure that you and almost everybody else would agree that CFOP and ZZ are very different from each other.

In your post, you say that you do steps to get to a desired state, but you don’t seem to connect that with your argument that Mehta and Petrus are the same thing, unless I’m understanding you wrong.

And its bad ,lol

Mehta is bad? May I ask why you think so? If you’re going to make a bold claim like this, please provide evidence to back it up. I would just like to say that in the very short amount of time since Mehta has been created, people have achieved very, very fast times with it. Mehta has 2 sub-6 singles within a year of it’s creation, but it took CFOP 3 decades to get to that point. While the hardware was very poor back then, it still did take a very long time for CFOP to get as good as it has become now. Because of this, Mehta actually may have more potential than CFOP, and who knows, maybe Mehta will be the method of the future?

 

[EngiNerdBrian]

In your post, you say that you do steps to get to a desired state, but you don’t seem to connect that with your argument that Mehta and Petrus are the same thing, unless I’m understanding you wrong.

I concur. The setup to the argument was well founded and thorough but the punch line was a bit weak on how states vs steps directly applies to the Petrus vs Mehta argument.

Ultimately all methods have and always have been classified by their states, not steps. CFOP is cross, F2L, OLL, PLL (hence the name).

Interesting. So with this logic the classic beginner method is not actually a method but just “rebranded CFOP”? The beginner method has different steps to achieve the same states as full CFOP so it must be CFOP?!?

I’m not completely convinced that the states alone define a method-I think the steps taken to achieve the states can and do differentiate between methods.

I do agree though that rebranding petrus isn’t “entirely new and novel.”

 

[ruffleduck]

This could be a poor argument on my part, but that’s kind of like arguing that CFOP and ZZ are the same.

Although I do consider ZZ as a subset of CFOP to some extent the fundamental difference between the two that sets them apart as different methods are the EOcross step. The ending state of CFOP cross is S(A@D), the ending state of EOcross is Oz(A) & S(A@D). (Using SRS notation.) This is a crucial difference because it affects the entire rest of the solve.

Let’s assume you know full ZB, so for CFOP, you do cross, F2L, ZBLS, ZBLL, and for ZZ, you do EO cross, F2L, then ZBLL. In both of these methods, you finish with ZBLL, because you end up with F2L and EO solved, but I’m sure that you and almost everybody else would agree that CFOP and ZZ are very different from each other.

CFOP ZB which is S(A@D) > S(d - dFR) > O(z) + S(d) > S(A) is a complete reordering of ZZ which is Oz(A) & S(A@D) > S(d) > S(A)

In your post, you say that you do steps to get to a desired state, but you don’t seem to connect that with your argument that Mehta and Petrus are the same thing, unless I’m understanding you wrong.

Perhaps you did not understand. In summary, Mehta = Petrus because the goal states of the steps are the same, just slightly different approaches. (Read the rant for more detail)

 

[ruffleduck]

Sorry for double post.

I concur. The setup to the argument was well founded and thorough but the punch line was a bit weak on how states vs steps directly applies to the Petrus vs Mehta argument.

My point was that the states of Mehta are the same as in Petrus. (See rant for more detail)

Interesting. So with this logic the classic beginner method is not actually a method but just “rebranded CFOP”?

This is true. Beginner's method is a stepping stone towards CFOP. It can be thought of as CFOP with easier-to-learn F2L.

 

[Cuber2s]

Mehta is bad? May I ask why you think so? If you’re going to make a bold claim like this, please provide evidence to back it up. I would just like to say that in the very short amount of time since Mehta has been created, people have achieved very, very fast times with it. Mehta has 2 sub-6 singles within a year of it’s creation, but it took CFOP 3 decades to get to that point. While the hardware was very poor back then, it still did take a very long time for CFOP to get as good as it has become now. Because of this, Mehta actually may have more potential than CFOP, and who knows, maybe Mehta will be the method of the future?

I have one word. Hardware was horrible back then, and max park didn't cube. When dayan started making cubes, about 1 year later there was a 5.66

 

[BenChristman1]

I have one word. Hardware was horrible back then, and max park didn't cube. When dayan started making cubes, about 1 year later there was a 5.66

Firstly, that was precisely 23 words.

Secondly, I would argue that Feliks was the reason for the sub-6, not the hardware.

Thirdly, in case you haven’t noticed, neither the first sub-6 CFOP solve nor the first sub-6 Mehta solve was by Max Park.

 

[Cuber2s]

Firstly, that was precisely 23 words.

Secondly, I would argue that Feliks was the reason for the sub-6, not the hardware.

Thirdly, in case you haven’t noticed, neither the first sub-6 CFOP solve nor the first sub-6 Mehta solve was by Max Park.

yeah, but max is so fast and he would have gotten a sub 6 fast. Also, feliks would not have gotten a sub 6 on a rubik's brand. Also, r/woooosh

 

[Sub1Hour]

yeah, but max is so fast and he would have gotten a sub 6 fast. Also, feliks would not have gotten a sub 6 on a rubik's brand. Also, r/woooosh

Dude you sound like your 5 years old. "oH buT thE hArDwaRe". I guarantee that people could still get sub 6 AVERAGES on an original Guhong or Zhanchi. Those cubes arent really that much worse than what we have today. Also, the Max Park thing. Don't be an idiot. Sure, Max is a generational talent, but you could send literally anyone ranked in the top 100 for 3x3 average back in time and they could easily get the first sub-6 single with whichever method they use, probably within a day.

 

[Cuber2s]

Dude you sound like your 5 years old. "oH buT thE hArDwaRe". I guarantee that people could still get sub 6 AVERAGES on an original Guhong or Zhanchi. Those cubes arent really that much worse than what we have today. Also, the Max Park thing. Don't be an idiot. Sure, Max is a generational talent, but you could send literally anyone ranked in the top 100 for 3x3 average back in time and they could easily get the first sub-6 single with whichever method they use, probably within a day.

talking about rubik's brands. And about max park,I mean any fast person. Stop talking like people can get sub 6s on old Rubik's brands.