how do you read minx scrambles?

[Gurplex]

i opened up calcube and i wanted to do a scramble on megaminx...
it was just like "1b2 f3 C32 b231 5B1 d4 w1 2f7 C4 n0 b2"
whatever. shut up. thats what it looked like to me, but anyway what the heck does it mean?

 

[elcarc]

here

or better yet, use the search function

 

[Escher]

i opened up calcube and i wanted to do a scramble on megaminx...
it was just like "1b2 f3 C32 b231 5B1 d4 w1 2f7 C4 n0 b2"
whatever. shut up. thats what it looked like to me, but anyway what the heck does it mean?

That way is stupid. Go down one on the list and select 'pochmann megaminx'.

http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/scrambles/scramble_megaminx2008.htm

There is an explanation there.

 

[qqwref]

You were looking at the old minx scrambler, I guess... it labeled the faces abcdefABCDEF (lowercase and uppercase were opposites of each other) and then just generated random moves.

The newer scrambler is far easier to read and use (it is essentially <Rw, Dw, U>) but I don't like it because it only generates a tiny fraction of the possible megaminx positions, and thus might be generating positions that are on average easier than a random position.

 

[Gurplex]

here

or better yet, use the search function

if i wanted to use the search function, it would be done. dont say that on any more of my threads jackass

 

[elcarc]

here

or better yet, use the search function

if i wanted to use the search function, it would be done. dont say that on any more of my threads jackass

im a jackass for telling you where you can find the answer to your question without making a new thread?

 

[Gurplex]

here

or better yet, use the search function

if i wanted to use the search function, it would be done. dont say that on any more of my threads jackass

im a jackass for telling you where you can find the answer to your question without making a new thread?

YES YOU ARE. i looked and didnt see it, go away. i dont want to talk to you

 

[qqwref]

Nobody wants to talk to elcarc. He's an idiot.

 

[mcciff2112]

here

or better yet, use the search function

if i wanted to use the search function, it would be done. dont say that on any more of my threads jackass

im a jackass for telling you where you can find the answer to your question without making a new thread?

YES YOU ARE. i looked and didnt see it, go away. i dont want to talk to you

You do have the power to stop replying to his posts. I suggest you do that if you don't want to talk to him. It's amazing how some people act.

How is he a jackass for providing an answer that you were too lazy to look up for yourself?

EDIT: lol both were banned. I guess this arguement is over

 

[mark3]

Maybe I'm being ignorant, but what did elcarc do that was so terrible.

 

[AvGalen]

You were looking at the old minx scrambler, I guess... it labeled the faces abcdefABCDEF (lowercase and uppercase were opposites of each other) and then just generated random moves.

The newer scrambler is far easier to read and use (it is essentially <Rw, Dw, U>) but I don't like it because it only generates a tiny fraction of the possible megaminx positions, and thus might be generating positions that are on average easier than a random position.

I do agree that only a fraction (I wouldn't say tiny) of all possible positions can be reached. I have never seen evidence that the reachable positions are "easier" though. I think the current way of scrambling is a nice mixture between "time needed for scrambling" and "quality of scrambles".

 

[qqwref]

I do agree that only a fraction (I wouldn't say tiny) of all possible positions can be reached. I have never seen evidence that the reachable positions are "easier" though. I think the current way of scrambling is a nice mixture between "time needed for scrambling" and "quality of scrambles".

Well, it is tiny in the "what percent of positions can be generated" sense. There are 10^68 positions on the megaminx but the scrambler only has 2^77 possibilities (2^77 is about 1.5 * 10^23). That is, it can only generate one out of every 6.7 * 10^44 positions! I think that is definitely tiny. One out of 6.87 * 10^44 is smaller than the probability of randomly mixing up two 3x3s and having them both come out solved.

 

[Muesli]

Maybe I'm being ignorant, but what did elcarc do that was so terrible.

See...

Nobody wants to talk to elcarc. He's an idiot.

 

[AvGalen]

I do agree that only a fraction (I wouldn't say tiny) of all possible positions can be reached. I have never seen evidence that the reachable positions are "easier" though. I think the current way of scrambling is a nice mixture between "time needed for scrambling" and "quality of scrambles".

Well, it is tiny in the "what percent of positions can be generated" sense. There are 10^68 positions on the megaminx but the scrambler only has 2^77 possibilities (2^77 is about 1.5 * 10^23). That is, it can only generate one out of every 6.7 * 10^44 positions! I think that is definitely tiny. One out of 6.87 * 10^44 is smaller than the probability of randomly mixing up two 3x3s and having them both come out solved.

Good to see those numbers. I didn't realise it was that tiny. The comparison with the "mixing up two 3x3x3's" was very smart.

But this is still a theoretical discussion until it can be "proven" that this generates easier scrambles.

I do remember that Stefan said that just ++ and -- moves actually gave better scrambles than including + and - moves. Apparently 4^77 (or 2^154 if my math isn't seriously lacking) includes more easier scrambles than the 2^77.

 

[brunson]

Maybe I'm being ignorant, but what did elcarc do that was so terrible.

Being generally annoying for an extended period of time. His is a temporary ban, he can come back in a week.

There's one off my short list...