[Unofficial] Weird 3x3 PLL skip

[MistArts]

You're an idiot. If you flip a billion coins you have a higher chance of getting one heads then if you just flipped one. If you flip a billion coins though, your chance of getting a heads on the 37th coin is the same as if you flipped 37 coins. If you do the same OLL twice, only one of those times will result in the end of OLL. The chances of getting an OLL skip on that one are the same as if you did it 100000000000 times and had to stop on the last one.

Ok whatever you say. I will completely change my way of thinking just because of some person on the internet called me stupid. You are wrong. If I did one OLL, then there is a low chance of getting PLL skip. If I did a billion, I am pretty sure you will get at least one.

I'm wondering if you're trolling, because nobody can possibly be this stupid.

If you do the really beginners OLL then that has you doing sune at most 7 times iirc. Your chances of having every piece permuted at one point during these seven OLLs is much higher than if you just did sune once. That said though, your chances of having a solved PLL at the end of the LAST sune (meaning all pieces oriented) is still 1/72.

ok so now I am the dumbest person in the world. Again, statistics are statistics. They can be completely wrong. If I flip 4 coins, according to statistics, I will have 2 heads, 2 tails. Not always the case. You can have all 4 the same. I don't always have one out of 72. I get more, almost always. I don't count, but I do know that I have them more often than that. Calling me stupid makes you the one trolling.

Actually you are wrong. What if I flipped 3? How about a billion? You get a higher chance of getting one heads flipping more coins than just flipping one. I have not insulted one person. I do understand General Relativity, and I have proven it wrong by logic, but I am of course not right. I can not back it up by math. Which is why I didn't want to tell anyone how. Which is the same reason as why I haven't. I completely understand General Relativity. I looked at the opposite, and found out how to prove that right. I always look at different possibilities. I never said General Relativity was wrong. I just said I could logically prove it wrong. Not all things mathematically are right either. Helicopters and bumblebees can not physically fly, yet they do. You can easily look at it and LOGICALLY see how they do.

You still don't get it do you?

You can flip as many coins as you like, you still won't increase your chances of flipping heads. It is always going to be 1/2. That's the nature of the beast.

Mathematics is not some kind of 'idea-proving magic' that is separate from logic. I don't know how to get it across to you.

I was going to write more, but in fact, I can't be bothered. I would rather let you wallow in your own ego. I hope that when you grow up, you'll remember this and be embarrassed. Because I am for you.

Oh I get it completely. Again, If I flip a billion coins, according to this statistics, I will always have 500 million heads, 500 million tails. I bet you a billion dollars, that if you did this, that will not happen.

Statistics is not saying that if you do 72 solves, you get 1 PLL skip. Also, this has nothing to do with doing OLL 72 times and getting a PLL skip.

If you perform OLL's multiple times, it is more likely to skip permutation, but it is the orientation is not always solved. You would have to perform the correct orientation algorithm to solve the orientation and to be able to have a chance PLL skip, not a permutation skip. If you do OLL's multiple times, you have to solve orientation to move on to PLL, which will alway have a 1/72 chance of being skipped.

 

[blah]

I applaud everyone in this thread for their efforts in trying to convince imaghost. I really do. No sarcasm intended. It's amazing how this whole thing started off as a joke, then someone thought he was trolling, and finally everyone realizes that this guy really has no idea what he's talking about and is trying to help him understand

 

[Feanaro]

They are trying to prove me wrong, when I know I am wrong.

The sentence below is false.
The sentence above is true.

Logically, that is a paradox

 

[imaghost]

Stefan: You are right about the 2 look OLL. I oversimplified this on purpose though. Imaghost mentioned using 6 OLL's but never stated which ones he uses and he mentioned that by repeating them several times he could get PLL skip with 2 look OLL. I didn't want to overcomplicate this by explaining to him what 2 look OLL means AND that there are variations.

About Pascal's triangle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_triangle#Pascal.27s_triangle_and_Combinations I missed that and didn't realise the connection with statistics from the first paragraps. My math is mostly intuitive and doesn't come from schooling. I find it said for imaghost that he actually had this knowledge but still thinks "statistics gives 2 heads and 2 tails" while others (like me) that don't have this knowledge can actually draw the correct conclusion by using logic.

Imaghost: As you can see it is quite easy for me to change my mind. All that is needed is for someone to point out my mistake. I hope you will do the same

I have changed my mind on almost everything. Oh, Pascal's triangle, did I ever say that it was wrong? No, because I accepted the fact that I forgot completely about it, and was wrong. You pointed out my mistake, I changed my mind and now agree with the statistics of it. But again, simplifying the fraction, I was correct, but since that does not happen with probability, you are correct. So you made me change my mind. Who really cares? I mean seriously. If I am wrong, what is so important to you to make me right? Will I ever call you an idiot for being wrong? No, unless you say that something stupid to deserve being called an idiot. I, however, never did that. I simply asked a question, that if the statistics of getting a PLL skip is more often using 2 look than full OLL. I understand that it is not, but wanted a more in depth explanation of why. When I compared it to something, everybody started calling me stupid because I was wrong.

 

[Lord Voldemort]

"Will I ever call you an idiot for being wrong? No, unless you say that something stupid to deserve being called an idiot. I, however, never did that."

No one will call you stupid for just being wrong once. People will call you stupid if you are wrong and refuse to believe it. Not to mention trying to make yourself look smarter by disproving general relativity, when I doubt you had such a proof in the first place.

"I simply asked a question, that if the statistics of getting a PLL skip is more often using 2 look than full OLL."

If your goal was a PLL skip, logically, do 2 look OLL. Again, logically.

Clearly it's a question that you already had (incorrect) answer to.

You know you've been wrong the whole time, and now you're trying to prevent yourself from looking like an idiot. Well done.

 

[imaghost]

"Will I ever call you an idiot for being wrong? No, unless you say that something stupid to deserve being called an idiot. I, however, never did that."

No one will call you stupid for just being wrong once. People will call you stupid if you are wrong and refuse to believe it. Not to mention trying to make yourself look smarter by disproving general relativity, when I doubt you had such a proof in the first place.

"I simply asked a question, that if the statistics of getting a PLL skip is more often using 2 look than full OLL."

If your goal was a PLL skip, logically, do 2 look OLL. Again, logically.

Clearly it's a question that you already had (incorrect) answer to.

You know you've been wrong the whole time, and now you're trying to prevent yourself from looking like an idiot. Well done.

No ****. I have been saying that the whole time. I know I am wrong, but why. Not one person actually answered it, just kept saying that I was wrong, when I agree with them. Still, no answer on why I was incorrect, which is why I am saying it is correct. Since there is no proof, numbers don't mean anything when I ask a logical question. I don't have proof, I never disproved General Relativity, if you knew the logic behind it, you would see. Granted, it is not true, it was just to say that I think logically, not mathematically. People did call me stupid for asking why I was wrong, when knowing I was wrong, and nobody gave an answer.

 

[Lord Voldemort]

People did answer your question.
Posts #6 and 7 answered the question without demeaning you.
Stop pretending you were right all along, no one asks a question just to see if they will get an answer. If you have your "logical" proof, POST IT!
Dene claims to know what general relativity is, even if I don't.
I'm beginning to think that you have no idea what General Relativity is.

 

[AvGalen]

imaghost: You were doing better, but now you are rambling again. Lets stop this discussion and hope you will continue on a path where you are less stubbern and more open to other peoples recommendations.

 

[imaghost]

People did answer your question.
Posts #6 and 7 answered the question without demeaning you.
Stop pretending you were right all along, no one asks a question just to see if they will get an answer. If you have your "logical" proof, POST IT!
Dene claims to know what general relativity is, even if I don't.
I'm beginning to think that you have no idea what General Relativity is.

I don't claim that I was right all along. You are completely wrong. I claim that I was completely wrong all along, and everybody was arguing with that, when I agreed with them. I do know what relativity is, I still am not going to tell you. You believe what you want, you can think I am lying, but why would I lie? I think that is stupid. You don't have to believe that I can logically prove it wrong, but the logic can be proved wrong with everything that has been proved right. There is no way it is right, you will just call me an idiot for thinking about it. That is all any of you have done.
If you want me to say that you are right, then I will. If it makes you sleep better, You are right. I don't think so, but you do. You are right about absolutely everything you have ever done in your life. Saying this doesn't mean anything. I can say that you win, and it will still go on. I know you will say something to this, and it won't be, only because I said you won, but you know that isn't true.

"imaghost: You were doing better, but now you are rambling again. Lets stop this discussion and hope you will continue on a path where you are less stubbern and more open to other peoples recommendations."
You can stop the discussion at any time. You don't have to reply to anything I have said. I will defend my case, because in my mind, I am right, yours, I am wrong. Why would it matter if I am wrong? what are you losing? It isn't even important. I am done with this forum.

 

[StachuK1992]

"I do know what relativity is, I still am not going to tell you."
I love this kid.

 

[Lord Voldemort]

You claimed you were wrong AFTER arguing through 7 pages that you were right.
Notice how people don't call you an idiot for what you're saying, but for your complacency that you're always right, your glaring inconsistencies, and your stubbornness. (Funny how you edited your post after being "done" with this forum)

 

[imaghost]

Oh I edited the post? Actually, no I did not. You are the idiot. You did reply, you know that I am trying to end the argument, and like I said, you win, yet you still replied.

 

[Escher]

I know that numbers proved me wrong, but logically, which is the way I think, nobody has.

Still, no answer on why I was incorrect, which is why I am saying it is correct. Since there is no proof, numbers don't mean anything when I ask a logical question. ...... and nobody gave an answer.

Post #6 explains it to you pretty logically:

No, 2 look OLL doesn't give you a better chance of PLL skip.
Situation 1: use both looks; After your first OLL you might have a PLL skip, but then you would still need to orient corners
Situation 2: edge OLL skip; After you skipped your first OLL you are going to do a normal PLL with 1/72 chances of skipping it (unless you use COLL or another variation)
Situation 3: corner OLL skip; After you do your first OLL you are going to skip the second OLL and then do a normal PLL with 1/72 chances of skipping it

If you know 10 algs for orienting edges and 10 algs for orienting corners you DO have a > 1/72 chance of skipping PLL, but only if you think about which combination of these algs you should use.

(I edited both of your posts to be a bit more concise)

Personally speaking, I think Arnaud's post explains it perfectly well.

And numbers can mean everything when you post a logical question. Like I said before, logic and maths aren't completely separate entities. Both mathematics and logic are chains of reason, giving a conclusion. In logic, just like mathematics, if you have any faulty reasoning, your conclusion is meaningless, no matter what process you went about to prove or disprove such and such a thing.
Bertrand Russell popularised the use of mathematical representation in philosophy, to make arguments and reasoning more clear and lucid, and so you could see the faults in something more easily. Earlier, in Baruch Spinoza's books, he began them all with axioms, then derived conclusions from those axioms. Just like mathematics.

. Granted, it is not true, it was just to say that I think logically, not mathematically.

So no, you can't (or shouldn't) think of logic and maths as completely separate as you seem to here. You just haven't practiced mathematics enough.

And please don't call me stupid or an idiot again, it's not very nice.

 

[Stefan]

You don't have to believe that I can logically prove it wrong, but the logic can be proved wrong with everything that has been proved right.

LOL! What?!

Btw, anybody else see in him a new David Salvia with a bit Gaetan Guimond?

 

[blah]

Btw, anybody else see in him a new David Salvia with a bit Gaetan Guimond?

I believe I know about their respective methods, but what about them? :confused:

 

[BillB]

You don't have to believe that I can logically prove it wrong, but the logic can be proved wrong with everything that has been proved right.

LOL! What?!

Btw, anybody else see in him a new David Salvia with a bit Gaetan Guimond?

Yes. I was thinking the same thing.

 

[Stefan]

Btw, anybody else see in him a new David Salvia with a bit Gaetan Guimond?

I believe I know about their respective methods, but what about them? :confused:

Didn't mean their methods but what they've posted in forums and mailing lists. Gaetan never makes any sense whatsoever, and David likes to throw science terms around, makes very flawed statements about math/logic/science, and insists he's right and everyone else is wrong.

 

[Lord Voldemort]

Btw, anybody else see in him a new David Salvia with a bit Gaetan Guimond?

I believe I know about their respective methods, but what about them? :confused:

Didn't mean their methods but what they've posted in forums and mailing lists. Gaetan never makes any sense whatsoever, and David likes to throw science terms around, makes very flawed statements about math/logic/science, and insists he's right and everyone else is wrong.

That's strange, considering his amazing method
But yeah, I can see the Salvia quite clearly...

 

[Feanaro]

So is there any method that is more likely to get you a skip?

 

[Stefan]

Gaetan never makes any sense whatsoever

That's strange, considering his amazing method

Yeah, I think he might be a split personality. His method and tutorial of it are very nice and he has done other nice stuff as well so I'm sure he's capable of doing great stuff, but in the forums/lists he's sooo different.

So is there any method that is more likely to get you a skip?

Any method where you work for the skip, yes. For example ZBF2L+COLL gives you a 1/12 chance for PLL skip. Or if you know PLL-preserving OLLs in addition to normal OLLs, then you can exploit a PLL skip that occurs between F2L and OLL. But if you do PLL last and don't care about it at all until you get there, i.e., ignore the stickers around the last layer until then, then they'll be random and you have 1/72 for PLL skip.