Ratio of Memorization:Solving

It's really interesting to me how my solving gets faster and my memorization gets slower as I get to larger cubes, at least to 5x5x5.

I think that's quite normal. If your memo is good and you don't have any recall delays, you can solve in almost linear time, but you definitely can't memo in linear time.

Meaning you're quite abnormal? :) Seriously - why are you so slow at 5x5x5 execution? You're a way faster cuber than me (even at 5x5x5) - I can't imagine why you'd be so slow at 5x5x5 execution.

Way faster? Not really, i average about 2:20 on the 5x5x5. And actually i've got no idea why i'm that slow.
 
Way faster? Not really, i average about 2:20 on the 5x5x5. And actually i've got no idea why i'm that slow.

All right, I guess, on 5x5x5, although I've worked REALLY hard at 5x5x5 (it's my primary focus in speedsolving), and yet I'm still about 2:45 average. My best ever is right around 2:20. So you're still a lot faster than me. And let's not even mention 3x3x3.

But do you have a lot of pauses while solving 5x5x5 BLD? It seems like you would have to, if you're that slow. And I can't imagine that's due to memory recall, based on your multi speed. I guess it could just be lack of experience - it sounds like you try 5x5x5 BLD very infrequently.
 
Way faster? Not really, i average about 2:20 on the 5x5x5. And actually i've got no idea why i'm that slow.

All right, I guess, on 5x5x5, although I've worked REALLY hard at 5x5x5 (it's my primary focus in speedsolving), and yet I'm still about 2:45 average. My best ever is right around 2:20. So you're still a lot faster than me. And let's not even mention 3x3x3.

But do you have a lot of pauses while solving 5x5x5 BLD? It seems like you would have to, if you're that slow. And I can't imagine that's due to memory recall, based on your multi speed. I guess it could just be lack of experience - it sounds like you try 5x5x5 BLD very infrequently.

Mhh, i've done about 30 5x5x5 bld attempts until now. I wouldn't call that lack of experience ;). And usually i don't have any huge recall delays. I'll film myself the next time i try a 5x5x5 bld to see where i'm losing so much time.
 
Last edited:
Mhh, i've done about 30 5x5x5 bld attempts until now. I wouldn't call that lack of experience ;).
Yeah, neither would most people (other than me). :)

And usually i don't have any huge recall delays. I'll film myself the next time i try a 5x5x5 bld to see where i'm losing so much time.
For me, I know I was losing a lot of time for a while on + centers. That was just due to the fact that I suddenly got relaxed and slowed down for no particularly good reason on + centers. I just made it a point to try to speed up on them and boom - a sudden 3 or 4 minute time improvement, just through willpower.

So filming yourself might really help - you might find some easy-to-correct thing like I did with the + centers. And I agree with Kai - it would be nice because of the side-benefit of getting to see another YouTube video from you. :)
 
I think that's quite normal. If your memo is good and you don't have any recall delays, you can solve in almost linear time, but you definitely can't memo in linear time.
Solving should always happen in quadratic time. The number of pieces scale as n^2 after all. I guess it's fair to assume that memorization is quadratic in terms of number of elements memorized, so quartic in this case, but this is probably harder to check.
 
I think that's quite normal. If your memo is good and you don't have any recall delays, you can solve in almost linear time, but you definitely can't memo in linear time.
Solving should always happen in quadratic time. The number of pieces scale as n^2 after all. I guess it's fair to assume that memorization is quadratic in terms of number of elements memorized, so quartic in this case, but this is probably harder to check.

4 cubes in 4:30 minutes
12 cubes in 20 minutes

12 = 3 * 4, so the memorization time for 12 cubes should be 9*4:30 minutes = 40:30 minutes. I don't think memorization is quadratic.
 
Solving should always happen in quadratic time. The number of pieces scale as n^2 after all. I guess it's fair to assume that memorization is quadratic in terms of number of elements memorized, so quartic in this case, but this is probably harder to check.

This is interesting. For pieces you can say that there are

6n^2 - 12n + 8 pieces to the n x n x n cube. Of those we expect the following number of pieces to be solved from the start (law of probabilities).

Of the edges or wings there are: floor[(n-2)/2] wing orbits. Each wing orbit is expected to have 1 piece solved after the scramble, and I mean mathematical expectation here.

Each center orbit is expected to have 4 pieces solved (this is using mathematical expectation, but using an approximate method that Daniel Beyer and I worked out when studying BH probabilities).

There are floor[(n-2)^2/4] center orbits, so this gives 4*floor[(n-2)^2/4] solved centers.

If you have an odd cube then you can expect one of the centralmost edges to be solved half the time (the mathematical expectation of pieces being in the solved location is 1, but it is flipped half the time). This gives 0.5 expected solved central edges. There are 1/3 solved corners expected by the same reasoning.

Let's assume n is even first to get rid of the cumbersome notation.

I am examining the following equation:

[Number of pieces] - [expected number of solved pieces] = [number of pieces to be solved during a solve]

6n^2 -12n + 8 - [(n-2)/2 + 4*[(n-2)^2/4] + 1/3] = (30n^2 - 51n +28)/6 if n is even

--edit--
Just realized that this approach is wrong on the even case, since you can rotate the cube to maximize solved pieces. Ignore the even case, the odd case is really the one to go by. I'm a bit lost as to how to approach the even case now.
--edit--

If n is odd you get

[Number of pieces] - [expected number of solved pieces] = [number of pieces to be solved during a solve]

6n^2 -12n + 8 - [(n-3)/2 + 4*[((n-2)^2-1)/4] + 1/3 + 1/2] = (30n^2 - 51n +34)/6 if n is odd

Again this formula is approximate only because I don't know how to exactly calculate the number of expected solved centers. I only estimate it to be that 1/6 of each orbit is solved (every piece has an approximately 1/6 chance to land in a "solved" location if placed randomly on the cube).

These formulas count the mathematically expected number of unsolved pieces on the cube. These pieces must be memorized and solved. I was simply interested in knowing more precisely how increasing the size of the cube increases the amount of memorization and solving that must be done.

Chris
 
Last edited:
mine is 120 secs memo and 80 secs execution so its like 1 : 1.5
my execution sucks because im using old poch for corners. i know 3 cycle corners but i don't want to orient corners because that will slow down my memo.
 
Back
Top