Kirjava
Colourful
Poor troll. 1/10
2x2x2 Lucky Scrambles
- Thread starter reThinking the Cube
- Start date
ben1996123
Banned
Does anyone know the scrambles for my 2.61 and 2.27 solves?
reThinking the Cube
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2009
- Messages
- 294
False. I just want the scrambles. The riling up seems to be coming from those that don't.
reThinking the Cube
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2009
- Messages
- 294
If luck is subjective, then what is wrong with me refering to a SCRAMBLE as being "lucky"? You have been nullified.
Olivér Perge
Veteran
Dan Harris does.
RyanO
Veteran
If luck is subjective, then what is wrong with me refering to a SCRAMBLE as being "lucky"? You have been nullified.
A scramble is not subjective. You lose.
nlCuber22
Veteran
reThinking The Cube said:
EVERY1 ELSE BUT ME RONG BECAUSE THEY DUMB IGNORATHATS AND I NO EVERYTING!1111
RMEBR IM TROL
reThinking the Cube
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2009
- Messages
- 294
I just want the scrambles. Just because I am smarter than qqwref, doesn't make me a troll.
But it is time to get off this worthless semantic argument.Post on-topic by providing (2x2x2 Lucky Scrambles) please.
No you're not.
dannyz0r
Veteran
Hilarious.
reThinking the Cube
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2009
- Messages
- 294
If luck is subjective, then what is wrong with me refering to a SCRAMBLE as being "lucky"? You have been nullified.
A scramble is not subjective. You lose.
True - generation of scramble is not subjective because it is random. Roll of-the-dice is random too. Can a roll of dice be considered "lucky"? Sorry - I win again.
Just stop arguing with me, it is off-topic, and you are out of your league. You should PostScrambles or SubjectiveTFU.Escher
Babby
I haven't even read beyond the first few posts and I'm already lol'ing.
Kirjava
Colourful
If luck is subjective, then what is wrong with me refering to a SCRAMBLE as being "lucky"? You have been nullified.
The problem with refering to a scramble as lucky is that luck is subjective.
joey
Member
Escher
Babby
Ok.
I know every conceivable 2x2 method and can see the optimal solution maybe 9/10 times.
Therefore, 90% of scrambles I have are lucky.
Therefore, 90% of scrambles are lucky.
I know every conceivable 2x2 method and can see the optimal solution maybe 9/10 times.
Therefore, 90% of scrambles I have are lucky.
Therefore, 90% of scrambles are lucky.
RyanO
Veteran
If luck is subjective, then what is wrong with me refering to a SCRAMBLE as being "lucky"? You have been nullified.
A scramble is not subjective. You lose.
True - generation of scramble is not subjective because it is random. Roll of-the-dice is random too. Can a roll of dice be considered "lucky"? Sorry - I win again.
You don't solve a die. Your points are completely irrelevant.
reThinking the Cube
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2009
- Messages
- 294
You have given an incorrect answer to an equation even before knowing what half the variables were. BTW - this thread is about scrambles - Do you know any of them?
Muesli
Premium Member
Were working out the "variables" as you're replying and so far, qqwref is in the lead.
reThinking the Cube
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2009
- Messages
- 294
Ahh. Thank you for spotting the proper distinction. It should be phrased "Can the OUTCOME of a roll of dice be considered "lucky"?. I will edit.
Kyle Barry
Regular
I'm going to try and explain this to you one more time before you embarrass yourself further.
Why are you claiming that all of these scrambles are lucky, when you are trying to find out what the scrambles are? You must be assuming that any sub-2 solve is lucky, because it's something you are not capable of, in all likelihood. Is the SCRAMBLE lucky, if Rowe gets a situation that happens just as often as any other situation, and just executes well. By your logic, every single scramble is lucky, and that clearly makes no sense. Using different methods, CLL, EG, Guimond, SS, Ortega, you can potentially get sub-2 solves on any scramble.
So, is every scramble lucky, therefore rendering the term "lucky," meaningless, or are you assuming these are lucky, without knowing the scrambles?
Why are you claiming that all of these scrambles are lucky, when you are trying to find out what the scrambles are? You must be assuming that any sub-2 solve is lucky, because it's something you are not capable of, in all likelihood. Is the SCRAMBLE lucky, if Rowe gets a situation that happens just as often as any other situation, and just executes well. By your logic, every single scramble is lucky, and that clearly makes no sense. Using different methods, CLL, EG, Guimond, SS, Ortega, you can potentially get sub-2 solves on any scramble.
So, is every scramble lucky, therefore rendering the term "lucky," meaningless, or are you assuming these are lucky, without knowing the scrambles?
