[Unofficial] Weird 3x3 PLL skip

[MistArts]

I am not saying anybody is wrong, just logically, if you do something that has a random outcome, the more times you do the same thing, you have a higher chance of getting what you want. Yesterday, I had like 4-5 PLL skips, 2 being within like 5 solves. I probably solved it over 200 times yesterday. I timed about 100, and know I did a bunch more solves.

You have a higher chance overall in the session, but not within a solve/attempt.

 

[Ellis]

I am not saying anybody is wrong, just logically, if you do something that has a random outcome, the more times you do the same thing, you have a higher chance of getting what you want. Yesterday, I had like 4-5 PLL skips, 2 being within like 5 solves. I probably solved it over 200 times yesterday. I timed about 100, and know I did a bunch more solves.

You may not be saying anybody is wrong, but we are saying you are... and there are numbers to prove it. I'm still really struggling to even understand your argument of doing the same thing over and over. Take your marble analogy, it is not at all like a cube. If you have 10,000 marbles, one of which is red, and you pull one randomly out the chances are 1/10,000 that you pick red. But with a cube, you don't keep pulling one out, increasing your chances. You put the marble back in and try again, every time with a 1/10,000 chance. The marble thing wasn't even the same as me trying to argue the CO+PLL skip.

 

[imaghost]

I am not saying anybody is wrong, just logically, if you do something that has a random outcome, the more times you do the same thing, you have a higher chance of getting what you want. Yesterday, I had like 4-5 PLL skips, 2 being within like 5 solves. I probably solved it over 200 times yesterday. I timed about 100, and know I did a bunch more solves.

You may not be saying anybody is wrong, but we are saying you are... and there are numbers to prove it. I'm still really struggling to even understand your argument of doing the same thing over and over. Take your marble analogy, it is not at all like a cube. If you have 10,000 marbles, one of which is red, and you pull one randomly out the chances are 1/10,000 that you pick red. But with a cube, you don't keep pulling one out, increasing your chances. You put the marble back in and try again, every time with a 1/10,000 chance. The marble thing wasn't even the same as me trying to argue the CO+PLL skip.

I know that numbers proved me wrong, but logically, which is the way I think, nobody has. Using logic, I have proved General Relativity wrong. But I know that I was wrong, because the math behind it. If I do the same OLL over and over again, a PLL skip will come more often than doing 100 different ones at random. Same with doing 6. Numbers don't mean anything when I am speaking logically. I know that this is not true though.

 

[Ellis]

I know that numbers proved me wrong, but logically, which is the way I think, nobody has. Using logic, I have proved General Relativity wrong. But I know that I was wrong, because the math behind it. If I do the same OLL over and over again, a PLL skip will come more often than doing 100 different ones at random. Same with doing 6. Numbers don't mean anything when I am speaking logically. I know that this is not true though.

That's such a faulty way of thinking though, doesn't that bother you? The numbers are more logical to me than random unsupported assertions. Saying you've logically disproved relativity is like saying that you've proved that the sun doesn't continue to shine when night falls. And I still struggle to even see the reasoning behind your "do the same thing over and over" logic.

 

[imaghost]

I know that numbers proved me wrong, but logically, which is the way I think, nobody has. Using logic, I have proved General Relativity wrong. But I know that I was wrong, because the math behind it. If I do the same OLL over and over again, a PLL skip will come more often than doing 100 different ones at random. Same with doing 6. Numbers don't mean anything when I am speaking logically. I know that this is not true though.

That's such a faulty way of thinking though, doesn't that bother you? The numbers are more logical to me than random unsupported assertions. Saying you've logically disproved relativity is like saying that you've proved that the sun doesn't continue to shine when night falls. And I still struggle to even see the reasoning behind your "do the same thing over and over" logic.

I didn't just say relativity was wrong. I had reason behind it. With 2 look OLL you do the same 6 algorithms. You know you will continue to do those same algorithms, unless an OLL skip. Now you have 6 different ways to get PLL skips, not including the different ways in holding the cube of course, as opposed to the other OLL's, don't know how many. But the more OLL's, the more other ways the cube could be oriented, so that a skip does not happen.

 

[Escher]

I know that numbers proved me wrong, but logically, which is the way I think, nobody has. Using logic, I have proved General Relativity wrong. But I know that I was wrong, because the math behind it. If I do the same OLL over and over again, a PLL skip will come more often than doing 100 different ones at random. Same with doing 6. Numbers don't mean anything when I am speaking logically. I know that this is not true though.

hahahahaha, thats really funny.

You're joking right?

 

[Ellis]

With 2 look OLL you do the same 6 algorithms. You know you will continue to do those same algorithms, unless an OLL skip. Now you have 6 different ways to get PLL skips, not including the different ways in holding the cube of course, as opposed to the other OLL's, don't know how many. But the more OLL's, the more other ways the cube could be oriented, so that a skip does not happen.

Ohhh... that's what you meant. Yea that doesn't make sense, even logically. I don't see why you would think that way.

 

[imaghost]

With 2 look OLL you do the same 6 algorithms. You know you will continue to do those same algorithms, unless an OLL skip. Now you have 6 different ways to get PLL skips, not including the different ways in holding the cube of course, as opposed to the other OLL's, don't know how many. But the more OLL's, the more other ways the cube could be oriented, so that a skip does not happen.

Ohhh... that's what you meant. Yea that doesn't make sense, even logically. I don't see why you would think that way.

I only ever think logically. Just because you don't have math behind something, does not mean you are wrong. The way I think, I take something that is proved to be right, and try to see why it is wrong. It mostly deals with traveling the speed of light, and relativity, but mostly black holes. I went into great detail about black holes. Can light go faster than the speed of light? What if I shined a flash light at a black hole? Things like this. That is just the way I think.

 

[Lord Voldemort]

I didn't just say relativity was wrong. I had reason behind it. With 2 look OLL you do the same 6 algorithms. You know you will continue to do those same algorithms, unless an OLL skip. Now you have 6 different ways to get PLL skips, not including the different ways in holding the cube of course, as opposed to the other OLL's, don't know how many. But the more OLL's, the more other ways the cube could be oriented, so that a skip does not happen.

Please, just stop.
After the first look in the OLL, even if the permutation is solved, you'll still have to do another algorithm with will mess up the permutation (unless you use corner orientation algs with preserve permutation, which most people don't). What you don't seem to get is that with every OLL is a 1LLL alg for one specific case. The only way you'd be right is be saying that the cases for your algorithm come up more often than others.

"Now you have 6 different ways to get PLL skips, not including the different ways in holding the cube of course"

Why not?

 

[imaghost]

I didn't just say relativity was wrong. I had reason behind it. With 2 look OLL you do the same 6 algorithms. You know you will continue to do those same algorithms, unless an OLL skip. Now you have 6 different ways to get PLL skips, not including the different ways in holding the cube of course, as opposed to the other OLL's, don't know how many. But the more OLL's, the more other ways the cube could be oriented, so that a skip does not happen.

Please, just stop.
After the first look in the OLL, even if the permutation is solved, you'll still have to do another algorithm with will mess up the permutation (unless you use corner orientation algs with preserve permutation, which most people don't). What you don't seem to get is that with every OLL is a 1LLL alg for one specific case. The only way you'd be right is be saying that the cases for your algorithm come up more often than others.

"Now you have 6 different ways to get PLL skips, not including the different ways in holding the cube of course"

Why not?

because no matter what, you do the same algorithm, just it is rotated. It really is 6, any way you hold the cube.

 

[Lord Voldemort]

Sorry, I thought you were talking about the orientation and permutation separately. Any response to the first part of my post though, or have you conceded defeat?

 

[imaghost]

Well, the chances of that are whatever the chances are of a PLL skip is. Logically, it is more slim than just going to 2 look, then doing OLL, if you were going for a PLL skip. Of course, I would do the regular OLL, but I do not know it.

 

[AvGalen]

I know that numbers proved me wrong, but logically, which is the way I think, nobody has. Using logic, I have proved General Relativity wrong. But I know that I was wrong, because the math behind it. If I do the same OLL over and over again, a PLL skip will come more often than doing 100 different ones at random. Same with doing 6. Numbers don't mean anything when I am speaking logically. I know that this is not true though.

That's such a faulty way of thinking though, doesn't that bother you? The numbers are more logical to me than random unsupported assertions. Saying you've logically disproved relativity is like saying that you've proved that the sun doesn't continue to shine when night falls. And I still struggle to even see the reasoning behind your "do the same thing over and over" logic.

I didn't just say relativity was wrong. I had reason behind it. With 2 look OLL you do the same 6 algorithms. You know you will continue to do those same algorithms, unless an OLL skip. Now you have 6 different ways to get PLL skips, not including the different ways in holding the cube of course, as opposed to the other OLL's, don't know how many. But the more OLL's, the more other ways the cube could be oriented, so that a skip does not happen.

* If you know 6 OLL's you don't know 2 look OLL. For 2 look OLL you need 3 edge orienting OLL's and 7 corner orienting PLL's.
* If you repeat some of those algs over and over again untill you solve the OLL and get PLL skip it isn't 2 look OLL. 2 look means you only look+perform before edge-OLL and then look+perform corner-OLL.
* I would actually like to see proof that by repeating/mixing those 6 OLL's you know you can generate a PLL-skip for all Last Layer cases.
* Please realise that the chances of getting a PLL skip is 1/72, but it would only count if you actually solve the OLL as well. That means that you can't just do a random edge-OLL and hope to skip PLL. You would have to perform the edge-OLL that fixes your edge-case and that would only count as a PLL skip if that edge-OLL also solves the corner OLL (a similar logic is valid for corner-OLL. You can only do that if it also solves edge-OLL)

 

[Escher]

With 2 look OLL you do the same 6 algorithms. You know you will continue to do those same algorithms, unless an OLL skip. Now you have 6 different ways to get PLL skips, not including the different ways in holding the cube of course, as opposed to the other OLL's, don't know how many. But the more OLL's, the more other ways the cube could be oriented, so that a skip does not happen.

Ohhh... that's what you meant. Yea that doesn't make sense, even logically. I don't see why you would think that way.

I only ever think logically. Just because you don't have math behind something, does not mean you are wrong. The way I think, I take something that is proved to be right, and try to see why it is wrong. It mostly deals with traveling the speed of light, and relativity, but mostly black holes. I went into great detail about black holes. Can light go faster than the speed of light? What if I shined a flash light at a black hole? Things like this. That is just the way I think.

Your 'thinking' actually offends me.

 

[Lord Voldemort]

"Well, the chances of that are whatever the chances are of a PLL skip is"
What's 'that'?
"it is more slim than just going to 2 look, then doing OLL, if you were going for a PLL skip"
Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying.

To anyone: Can you calculate the probability of a certain LL by multiplying the probability if the orientation and the permutation and dividing by 4? I think I'll just calculate the average probability of my OLLs occurring as an LL case and my 2LOLLs occurring out of all the edges oriented cases.

" I take something that is proved to be right, and try to see why it is wrong. " - Wow, if it's proved to be right, then why try to disprove it with faulty logic?

 

[IamWEB]

I said J/K about it being fake at the end of my post, please relax.

 

[imaghost]

I know all of 2 look OLL, and full PLL.

something proved to be right, can still be proved wrong. Laws can be proved wrong, until then, it is right.

If your goal was a PLL skip, logically, do 2 look OLL. Again, logically. But, that is pretty much never your goal, you want to solve the cube, and you want a PLL skip.

 

[Lord Voldemort]

Ok, so lets see your logic disproving general relativity.
Which corner orientation algs do you use?

 

[imaghost]

Ok, so lets see your logic disproving general relativity.

Do you know what General Relativity is? Give me your explanation of it, so I won't confuse you. It will be a lot of typing.

 

[Escher]

I'm not going to attempt a character analysis of you imaghost, but I have a good picture in my head.

Please stop insulting people. You might think you aren't but going around telling everybody that through your own logic you have proven General Relativity wrong is rather insulting to the people that actually understand things like general relativity, unlike you.

You are just wrong about the PLL skip likelihood. 2 'opportunities' (or, one more opportunity than full OLL) to skip PLL does not mean you are more likely to skip PLL. Just because you flip 2 coins in a row doesn't mean that you are more likely to get heads than if you just flipped one.