Blindsolving Failure Thread

[MatsBergsten]

And again, with English not my native tongue, please explain "Mathematical ownage".

Matematiskt ägande

Ownage är ett ord som man använder mycket i spel och sådant nu för tiden


^^ Swedish

Sorry, but that does not help me.

Is the meaning it was something Chris invented himself and is not really true or well founded?? Does it have a negative meaning? Or what does it express?

 

[SimonWestlund]

Definition: the state of owning something; ownership

In this case it's not used in that way though.. it's more like calling something/someone awesome in this case..

At least that's what I got out of it..

 

[Mike Hughey]

It was a rather vague joke, Mats. For the generic meaning of "ownage", try this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owned

The idea was that Chris demonstrated his superiority (implicitly over me) by taking my silly offhand question and answering it mathematically definitively. Chris wanted to make sure I didn't take it that way, but it's okay - Chris truly pwns (see article again) me on all things mathematical and BLD anyway.

By the way, the streak FINALLY ended this morning. After 10 DNFs in a row, I finally got a pathetic 19:39.88 solve (10:11 memo - I guess it wasn't too bad, because I did it right after I got up this morning, and I'm usually slow at memo very early in the morning). I'm relieved that I actually can still do this after all.

 

[cmhardw]

I interpret the slang term "owning" or "to own" someone as to soundly defeat, humiliate, or otherwise belittle them in a very public way. That is why I posted again saying it was not my intention at all to "own" Mike with my post. I meant only to post the probabilities he rhetorically asked for (as a math nerd would do haha). I was not trying to humiliate, defeat, or belittle him in any way whatsoever.

Chris

 

[Mike Hughey]

I interpret the slang term "owning" or "to own" someone as to soundly defeat, humiliate, or otherwise belittle them in a very public way. That is why I posted again saying it was not my intention at all to "own" Mike with my post. I meant only to post the probabilities he rhetorically asked for (as a math nerd would do haha). I was not trying to humiliate, defeat, or belittle him in any way whatsoever.

Chris

You're very right about the meaning, Chris, but you must keep in mind that for true extreme ownage, you must act like you would never try to humiliate the person you've owned. (It proves you're above that sort of thing; therefore total ownage!)

By the way, I think you're going to be an awesome actuary.

 

[SimonWestlund]

By the way, the streak FINALLY ended this morning. After 10 DNFs in a row, I finally got a pathetic 19:39.88 solve (10:11 memo - I guess it wasn't too bad, because I did it right after I got up this morning, and I'm usually slow at memo very early in the morning). I'm relieved that I actually can still do this after all.

Awesome! Congrats What is your record on that?

 

[Mike Hughey]

By the way, the streak FINALLY ended this morning. After 10 DNFs in a row, I finally got a pathetic 19:39.88 solve (10:11 memo - I guess it wasn't too bad, because I did it right after I got up this morning, and I'm usually slow at memo very early in the morning). I'm relieved that I actually can still do this after all.

Awesome! Congrats What is your record on that?

On what? DNF streaks? This is my worst 5x5x5 DNF streak ever. Prior to this, I think my worst was 7 in a row.

 

[SimonWestlund]

By the way, the streak FINALLY ended this morning. After 10 DNFs in a row, I finally got a pathetic 19:39.88 solve (10:11 memo - I guess it wasn't too bad, because I did it right after I got up this morning, and I'm usually slow at memo very early in the morning). I'm relieved that I actually can still do this after all.

Awesome! Congrats What is your record on that?

On what? DNF streaks? This is my worst 5x5x5 DNF streak ever. Prior to this, I think my worst was 7 in a row.

I meant time. I wanted to know if 19:39 was really that bad

 

[Mike Hughey]

By the way, the streak FINALLY ended this morning. After 10 DNFs in a row, I finally got a pathetic 19:39.88 solve (10:11 memo - I guess it wasn't too bad, because I did it right after I got up this morning, and I'm usually slow at memo very early in the morning). I'm relieved that I actually can still do this after all.

Awesome! Congrats What is your record on that?

On what? DNF streaks? This is my worst 5x5x5 DNF streak ever. Prior to this, I think my worst was 7 in a row.

I meant time. I wanted to know if 19:39 was really that bad

Oh. I was averaging around 17:00 prior to this bad streak. My best non-lucky is 14:53.64, and my best lucky one (last week) is 13:59.37; it was just 19 pieces solved, so almost non-lucky.

 

[SimonWestlund]

By the way, the streak FINALLY ended this morning. After 10 DNFs in a row, I finally got a pathetic 19:39.88 solve (10:11 memo - I guess it wasn't too bad, because I did it right after I got up this morning, and I'm usually slow at memo very early in the morning). I'm relieved that I actually can still do this after all.

Awesome! Congrats What is your record on that?

On what? DNF streaks? This is my worst 5x5x5 DNF streak ever. Prior to this, I think my worst was 7 in a row.

I meant time. I wanted to know if 19:39 was really that bad

Oh. I was averaging around 17:00 prior to this bad streak. My best non-lucky is 14:53.64, and my best lucky one (last week) is 13:59.37; it was just 19 pieces solved, so almost non-lucky.

19 minutes isn't horrible then, considering it was so early.. How many pieces needs to be solved for you to count it lucky?

 

[Mike Hughey]

19 minutes isn't horrible then, considering it was so early.. How many pieces needs to be solved for you to count it lucky?

19. There are 92 pieces to be solved on a 5x5x5; 20% of 92 is 18.4. So 18 pieces solved is less than 20% solved; 19 is more than 20% solved. And that's my criterion.

 

[SimonWestlund]

19 minutes isn't horrible then, considering it was so early.. How many pieces needs to be solved for you to count it lucky?

19. There are 92 pieces to be solved on a 5x5x5; 20% of 92 is 18.4. So 18 pieces solved is less than 20% solved; 19 is more than 20% solved. And that's my criterion.

Okay. But then it's a really non-lucky lucky record (lol ). It's not very common to get more than 20%, right?

 

[Mike Hughey]

19 minutes isn't horrible then, considering it was so early.. How many pieces needs to be solved for you to count it lucky?

19. There are 92 pieces to be solved on a 5x5x5; 20% of 92 is 18.4. So 18 pieces solved is less than 20% solved; 19 is more than 20% solved. And that's my criterion.

Okay. But then it's a really non-lucky lucky record (lol ). It's not very common to get more than 20%, right?

Right. Especially on 5x5x5. (On 4x4x4 it's a bit more common, since you can orient the cube to help.)

 

[MatsBergsten]

I meant time. I wanted to know if 19:39 was really that bad

It's all about reference frames. All cubers in the world but four persons would faint if they got 19 minutes on 5x5BLD. I would anyway

 

[Mike Hughey]

I meant time. I wanted to know if 19:39 was really that bad

It's all about reference frames. All cubers in the world but four persons would faint if they got 19 minutes on 5x5BLD. I would anyway

Actually, the number is significantly larger than 4. Unfortunately, a number of the others have never gotten a solve in competition, so you're probably not aware of it.

People I know of who have no problem beating 20 minutes on a 5x5x5 BLD solve:
Ville
Rafal
Chris
Me
Daniel Beyer
Rowe
Mondo
Alex Cook (I wish he were still actively cubing - he is amazingly talented!)

People who I'm also convinced are QUITE capable of a sub-20 solve on a good easy solve (some of them may have already gotten one, but I'm not sure):
Tim Habermaas
Tim Sun
István (I don't think he's ever done it, but he is getting really close - a really easy good solve would do it for him, I'm sure)
Dan Cohen
Lucas Garron

I apologize to anyone I may have left out. And anyone who has done a 4x4x4 in under 20 minutes probably isn't all that far away from getting a sub-20 5x5x5. And of course there's also Mátyás.

So the club is nowhere near as exclusive as you make it out to be. And at your current rate, Mats, you'll be there in another 8 or 9 months, I think.

 

[Pedro]

I only tried the 5x5 once (or was it twice?)

as far as I remember, got all edges correct, and 10 wrong centers in total

I suck at 4x4, so I don't think I'll "practice" 5x5 for some time...maybe when I finally get a 4x4 in comp (which I hope will be in 3 months and a couple weeks)

 

[McWizzle94]

I interpret the slang term "owning" or "to own" someone as to soundly defeat, humiliate, or otherwise belittle them in a very public way. That is why I posted again saying it was not my intention at all to "own" Mike with my post. I meant only to post the probabilities he rhetorically asked for (as a math nerd would do haha). I was not trying to humiliate, defeat, or belittle him in any way whatsoever.

Chris

Sorry for all of the confusion and stuff from my "ownage" post, I just meant it as a small joke. I didn't mean to humiliate anybody in any way.

 

[qqwref]

This means the expected number of solves for you to get a success is 2.25 solves. The standard deviation is sqrt[(5/9) / (4/9)^2] = 3sqrt(5)/4 = 1.68 solves.
...
As for your next success I predict you will get one in the next 2.25 +- 1.68 solves

Typically in statistics you don't want to use an interval of one standard deviation, because that will only encompass about 68% of the possibilities. A 90% confidence interval (that is, the random variable you are studying has a 90% chance of being in that interval) would be more relevant. Since the SD is so high and Mike can't get a success before his first attempt, the appropriate 90% confidence interval value would be an interval from 1 to 2.25 + 1.28 * SD, or from 1 to 4.4. So we can expect, with 90% confidence, that Mike will get a success at least in his next 4.4 tries.

 

[Mike Hughey]

This means the expected number of solves for you to get a success is 2.25 solves. The standard deviation is sqrt[(5/9) / (4/9)^2] = 3sqrt(5)/4 = 1.68 solves.
...
As for your next success I predict you will get one in the next 2.25 +- 1.68 solves

Typically in statistics you don't want to use an interval of one standard deviation, because that will only encompass about 68% of the possibilities. A 90% confidence interval (that is, the random variable you are studying has a 90% chance of being in that interval) would be more relevant. Since the SD is so high and Mike can't get a success before his first attempt, the appropriate 90% confidence interval value would be an interval from 1 to 2.25 + 1.28 * SD, or from 1 to 4.4. So we can expect, with 90% confidence, that Mike will get a success at least in his next 4.4 tries.

And to give one nice insignificant little data point, I fell rather nicely in that interval - my success came on the third try.

 

[Gparker]

Eh.

Statistics for 04-02-2009 20:46:35

Cubes Solved: 1/5
Number of Pops: 0
Average: 4:45.98
Standard Deviation: 0.00
Best Time: 4:45.98
Worst Time: 4:45.98
Individual Times:
1. DNF D2 U' L2 R2 U' R' U B2 D' U B L2 R B F2 R2 B F R2 B2 D2 U' B2 F' R
2. DNF D' U B F2 D2 U L' F' L U2 F2 R2 F2 R2 F2 U R2 D2 U2 B' D L' R B2 F
3. DNF L' R2 B F2 R' D2 F L2 R' D' U2 F R' U L2 F2 U' L D' F D R D U2 B
4. 4:45.98 B2 D U R2 U2 L' U' B' D' B U B2 R2 D2 U' F' R F2 D U' R2 F' R' D' L
5. DNF L B2 F' R F2 D' U L R F' D' L' R F2 D2 U' R' D F' D' B' R D R F



All times under 5 minutes though!, sub 4 looks very likely to me in the near future