[Help Thread] Colour Neutrality Discussion

[teller]

This is correct.

Then I'm finished here

Me too. Meaningless distinctions that lead to perverse conclusions touted as superior reasoning. What a waste of time.

 

[Kirjava]

This is correct.

Then I'm finished here

Me too. Meaningless distinctions that lead to perverse conclusions touted as superior reasoning. What a waste of time.

I think it's more juvinile for you to change from "You're wrong" to "Nobody cares that you're right".

It's actually a rather exciting conclusion, who knows what assumptions we have about our methods that are incorrect?

 

[Muesli]

who knows what assumptions we have about our methods that are incorrect?

Yeah. For all we know, Roux could be complete crap...

Joke, joke.

 

[jms_gears1]

who knows what assumptions we have about our methods that are incorrect?

Yeah. For all we know, Roux could be complete crap...

Joke, joke.

actually we could conclude that musli4brekkies is complete crap >: O
xP kidding

but @kirjava
any examples of assumptions that could be incorrect?

 

[Rikane]

Have we actually thought about this... I just came across the idea, but I've always been slow of mind.
Sure the cross may be faster, but what if the f2l (assuming CFOP) pairs were easier on the white side rather than the other crosses? It could mean that the moves saved by changing the colour of your cross would be gone because the easy f2l pairs that could have been set up could be lost due to the shift in the cubies?

I'd have to agree that it's impossible to prove which is better.

 

[miniGOINGS]

Have we actually thought about this... I just came across the idea, but I've always been slow of mind.
Sure the cross may be faster, but what if the f2l (assuming CFOP) pairs were easier on the white side rather than the other crosses? It could mean that the moves saved by changing the colour of your cross would be gone because the easy f2l pairs that could have been set up could be lost due to the shift in the cubies?

I'd have to agree that it's impossible to prove which is better.

Yea, I think I get what you're saying. A bad white cross could give you a LL skip, but if you were colour neutral you would have picked a different cross that didn't give you a LL skip.

 

[Arx]

You seem to be operating under the assumption that correlation implys causation.

Say I take a coin and flip it 10000 times. It lands on heads 4500 times and lands on tails 5500 times. Did I just prove that tails is the better choice? Of course not, I proved nothing.

There is no difference between a single stat and a bajillion stats in the land of absolute truth.

Yes, but if I bet you $1000 that your next 10000 flips would come up with more tails than heads, would you take it?

"The land of absolute truth" doesn't exist.

Lets look at it another way; there has never been a scramble that takes 21 moves to solve, it can always be solved in less. We have an extremely large sample size for this, too. This doesn't prove that all scrambles can be solved in under 21 moves. In fact, it has not yet been proven
.

No, but there's enough examples to just assume it's true, and act surprised if 1/4.33E19 happens to require 21.

Statistics mean nothing.

First of all, stop telling me that CN is "mathematically better as a fact". It has a lower movecount, I've accepted this. And I've already told you that movecount is a relativly minor factor in speedsolving. To prove it's overall better, you have to show it's better at things we cannot measure and things we don't even know about.

Secondly, stop showing me these dumb senarios that somehow 'prove' things. Your experiments mean absolutly nothing if you are trying to prove something. You do not understand the problem of induction

I think you're missing the point of the "Problem of induction". You can never know "absolute truth" about anything, so the "truth" we normally speak of actually just a theory where there's enough observed evidence that the probability of it being incorrect is near zero.

It's certainly not meant as either a rejection of statistical probability, or a way of feeling like you won an argument because you're "technically" correct.

You can't prove anything. That's clear, so unless you're just a troll or something, you wouldn't argue something so silly, when people are obviously not meaning "proof" in a literal, absolute,(impossible) sense.

Ignorant xenophobe.

I don't see how anything I said is either ignorant or xenophobic. I suppose I could have been clearer though, and said something like: "Those of you who reject the fact that colour neutrality is an advantage"

I clearly didn't mean "white cross guys" as a slur. :rolleyes:

Have we actually thought about this... I just came across the idea, but I've always been slow of mind.
Sure the cross may be faster, but what if the f2l (assuming CFOP) pairs were easier on the white side rather than the other crosses? It could mean that the moves saved by changing the colour of your cross would be gone because the easy f2l pairs that could have been set up could be lost due to the shift in the cubies?

I'd have to agree that it's impossible to prove which is better.

The problem with that logic though, is that you can show that it's probable that it's better.

For example, say the red cross is less moves on a particular scramble.
There is a chance that the f2l on the white cross may actually be better, and that overall white may be a better choice...
BUT there's an equal chance that the red f2l could be better, and that you would have both a faster cross and better f2l.

The way to analyze probabilities like these is to remove any equivalent probabilities from both sides of the equation.

Unless you can look ahead far enough, your chance of getting a good/bad f2l on any colour is equal, so you're safe to ignore it entirely.


Another interesting side note, is that a partially positioned cross actually slighly increases the odds of getting a partially solved f2l, since those properly positioned cross edges clearly aren't incorrectly paired with the first layer corners.

 

[Arx]

Have we actually thought about this... I just came across the idea, but I've always been slow of mind.
Sure the cross may be faster, but what if the f2l (assuming CFOP) pairs were easier on the white side rather than the other crosses? It could mean that the moves saved by changing the colour of your cross would be gone because the easy f2l pairs that could have been set up could be lost due to the shift in the cubies?

I'd have to agree that it's impossible to prove which is better.

Yea, I think I get what you're saying. A bad white cross could give you a LL skip, but if you were colour neutral you would have picked a different cross that didn't give you a LL skip.

Yeah, but it's just as likely that that bad white cross doesn't have an LL skip, and the different cross does have the LL skip.

You can see that the cross is definitely better, and the rest is still just chance.

If you are truly colour neutral, you're a fool not to take the advantages you can see.

If you're only kind of colour neutral (still better at some colours) than it's a tradeoff. Picking your non-favourite colour may slow you down more than the good cross speeds you up.

 

[Arx]

I think it's more juvinile for you to change from "You're wrong" to "Nobody cares that you're right".

He didn't realize at first that you were being ridiculously literal. From any normal perspective you were wrong.

It's actually a rather exciting conclusion, who knows what assumptions we have about our methods that are incorrect?

So lets just ignore logic. Maybe randomly twiddling the cube is the fastest method, and everyone has just been really unlucky so far.

Have you heard of this thing called science? You make theories based on observations, test them, and then decide whether to treat them as facts based on the results of the testing.

Sure, random guesses can occasionally have correct outcomes, but usually you're going to get a lot further with the scientific method.

 

[Kirjava]

You seem to be operating under the assumption that correlation implys causation.

Say I take a coin and flip it 10000 times. It lands on heads 4500 times and lands on tails 5500 times. Did I just prove that tails is the better choice? Of course not, I proved nothing.

There is no difference between a single stat and a bajillion stats in the land of absolute truth.

Yes, but if I bet you $1000 that your next 10000 flips would come up with more tails than heads, would you take it?

...no? I don't see how this is relevent.

"The land of absolute truth" doesn't exist.

I say "you can't prove X" you say "yes you can" I say "this is why you can't" you say "well of course you can't".

Lets look at it another way; there has never been a scramble that takes 21 moves to solve, it can always be solved in less. We have an extremely large sample size for this, too. This doesn't prove that all scrambles can be solved in under 21 moves. In fact, it has not yet been proven
.

No, but there's enough examples to just assume it's true, and act surprised if 1/4.33E19 happens to require 21.

This isn't a proof. We're talking about proof, not assumptions.

Statistics mean nothing.

First of all, stop telling me that CN is "mathematically better as a fact". It has a lower movecount, I've accepted this. And I've already told you that movecount is a relativly minor factor in speedsolving. To prove it's overall better, you have to show it's better at things we cannot measure and things we don't even know about.

Secondly, stop showing me these dumb senarios that somehow 'prove' things. Your experiments mean absolutly nothing if you are trying to prove something. You do not understand the problem of induction

I think you're missing the point of the "Problem of induction". You can never know "absolute truth" about anything,

I've been saying that you can't know either way for quite a while now.

so the "truth" we normally speak of actually just a theory where there's enough observed evidence that the probability of it being incorrect is near zero.

Near zero != 0. A proof is a proof, there's no room for leeway.

It's certainly not meant as either a rejection of statistical probability, or a way of feeling like you won an argument because you're "technically" correct.

You can't prove anything. That's clear, so unless you're just a troll or something, you wouldn't argue something so silly, when people are obviously not meaning "proof" in a literal, absolute,(impossible) sense.

Of course you can prove things, you idiot. When I ask for a proof, and you can't give me one, it's not enough to say my definition of proof is too strict. A proof is a proof, there's no room for leeway.

Ignorant xenophobe.

I don't see how anything I said is either ignorant

I don't make a cross.

or xenophobic.

The fact that we don't understand because we're "white cross guys" implies that white cross guys are dumb.

I think it's more juvinile for you to change from "You're wrong" to "Nobody cares that you're right".

He didn't realize at first that you were being ridiculously literal. From any normal perspective you were wrong.

Has the definition of proof changed recently? I've already asked you to look it up once, maybe you should do it again.

He didn't realise I was being literal? What the hell did he think I meant when i said prove? Take a good guess? A proof is a proof, there's no room for leeway.

Despite this, it's still juvinile.

It's actually a rather exciting conclusion, who knows what assumptions we have about our methods that are incorrect?

So lets just ignore logic. Maybe randomly twiddling the cube is the fastest method, and everyone has just been really unlucky so far.

I don't see how this is ignoring logic. (PROTIP; Logic is your friend, don't ignore it)

Have you heard of this thing called science? You make theories based on observations, test them, and then decide whether to treat them as facts based on the results of the testing.

I prefer Maths. This argument is more thoretical than practical.

Sure, random guesses can occasionally have correct outcomes, but usually you're going to get a lot further with the scientific method.

Not a clue what you're trying to say here.

 

[cincyaviation]

i'm starting to not like this thread

 

[jms_gears1]

i'm starting to not like this thread

Dont worry it wont last to much longer.
Either they will just stop, or it will go on for a couple more pages as people drop posts that they are unable to counter to until kir has the last say.

moral of the story dont argue with kirjava

trust me i know ;P

 

[Arx]

Of course you can prove things, you idiot

Only if you assume what you're proving them against is true. There is no absolute proof.

Maybe you don't understand "The problem of induction" :rolleyes:

Also, try and be nice.

When I ask for a proof, and you can't give me one, it's not enough to say my definition of proof is too strict. A proof is a proof, there's no room for leeway.

Your definition of proof is too variable. How about that?

I prefer Maths. This argument is more thoretical than practical.

You can figure less moves mathematically, and on average, CN is less moves. I don't see how, mathematically, you can say CN is not better.

Recognition and colour preference are practical matters. That is where the possible confounding factors arise, but fortunately, we can eliminate most of them, via the scientific method.


Maybe we should get back to the point. If a CN cuber does many solves, alternating between CN, and White cross (or other single preferred colour), and comes up with a significantly faster average on the CN solves, what would you attribute that to, other than an advantage caused by colour neutrality?

If I was being really rigorous I could see 2 potential flaws:
1. Preferred colour isn't best colour?

2. Cuber is biased, mental factors. If the cuber really strongly wants to prove CN is better, he may try less hard on the single colour solves.

With enough data, the first could be verified to a reasonable level of certainty by comparing the average of the preferred colour CN solves, to the non-preferred colour CN solves. If the preferred colour average on CN solves is significantly slower, the entire experiment should be repeated with the best average colour on CN solves used as the preferred coloujr.

The second issue is pretty hard to eliminate, though if many CN cubers tried this with similar results, one would hope they're not all trying to manipulate the test.

 

[Arx]

i'm starting to not like this thread

Dont worry it wont last to much longer.
Either they will just stop, or it will go on for a couple more pages as people drop posts that they are unable to counter to until kir has the last say.

moral of the story dont argue with kirjava

trust me i know ;P

Yeah.. Sorry about that. I actually got into this because I thought it was an interesting topic, not because I wanted to argue for 10 pages.

I'm just easily trolled by bad science.

 

[Kirjava]

i'm starting to not like this thread

Dont worry it wont last to much longer.
Either they will just stop, or it will go on for a couple more pages as people drop posts that they are unable to counter to until kir has the last say.

moral of the story dont argue with kirjava

trust me i know ;P

Yeah.. Sorry about that. I actually got into this because I thought it was an interesting topic, not because I wanted to argue for 10 pages.

I'm just easily trolled by bad science.

I'm not trolling. What I say is correct.

When I ask for a proof, and you can't give me one, it's not enough to say my definition of proof is too strict. A proof is a proof, there's no room for leeway.

Your definition of proof is too variable. How about that?

Too variable? I've only defined proof once. My definition of proof at that time was "a proof is a proof".

I prefer Maths. This argument is more thoretical than practical.

You can figure less moves mathematically, and on average, CN is less moves. I don't see how, mathematically, you can say CN is not better.

Recognition and colour preference are practical matters. That is where the possible confounding factors arise, but fortunately, we can eliminate most of them, via the scientific method.

I didn't say it was mathematical. I'm just saying I prefer maths to science because you asked if I'd heard of science. (Look! I can be a douchebag, too!)

Just because an argument is theoretical doesn't mean you have to ignore every factor that is non-mathematical.

Maybe we should get back to the point. If a CN cuber does many solves, alternating between CN, and White cross (or other single preferred colour), and comes up with a significantly faster average on the CN solves, what would you attribute that to, other than an advantage caused by colour neutrality?

If I was being really rigorous I could see 2 potential flaws:
1. Preferred colour isn't best colour?

2. Cuber is biased, mental factors. If the cuber really strongly wants to prove CN is better, he may try less hard on the single colour solves.

With enough data, the first could be verified to a reasonable level of certainty by comparing the average of the preferred colour CN solves, to the non-preferred colour CN solves. If the preferred colour average on CN solves is significantly slower, the entire experiment should be repeated with the best average colour on CN solves used as the preferred coloujr.

The second issue is pretty hard to eliminate, though if many CN cubers tried this with similar results, one would hope they're not all trying to manipulate the test.

o hay more statistics gathering experiment irrelevency I already covered like a million times.


Anyway, I asked for you to prove that CN gives an overall advantage over nonCN. You cannot do this, so stop trying to change the question I asked into "how can we make the best estimation".

 

[ukrcuber]

oh cmon guys, chill

 

[miniGOINGS]

i'm starting to not like this thread

Dont worry it wont last to much longer.
Either they will just stop, or it will go on for a couple more pages as people drop posts that they are unable to counter to until kir has the last say.

moral of the story dont argue with kirjava

trust me i know ;P

Happens all the time...

 

[Arx]

So, anyway.. Has anyone here that is colour neutral compared their times when solving single colour, vs. best choice?

The ave of 5 is interesting, but could easily be fluke.

I'm curious how much difference it makes. It would be nice to hear some averages of a larger set, or better yet if someone wants to do it now, averages of alternating solves in a large set.

I'm asking, because I'm also a relative beginner who could go either way at this point.
I'm not really looking for opinions, just numbers.

 

[BowDown2Gir]

When you want to.
Or you should just go partial (2 opposite sides only) and them progress. Have a dice or a 1x1x1 cube and just roll it before a solve. Then do that color side.

 

[ukrcuber]

lol
my friend does the exactly same thing as you just said