2 Look PLL is knowing all the edge and corner only permutations.
No.
(Also, it's not knowing them, but using them for two looks.)
In particular, J + T + U + H + Z works, and the first two are not CP-only or EP-only
You can solve the last layer with that.
Yeah, if you get an OLL skip every time or use weird conjugates.
If you're just going to learn 1 look PLL, then you might not be able to solve the PLL for a while,
No.
Would you have lost the skill?
You can still
solve PLL the same way you did before, it just won't be one-look.
because there is a 1/21 chance you're going to find an algorithm that you just learned.
No:
1) Considering what you meant, most often you have "just learned" more than one alg.
2) GET YOUR PROBABILITIES RIGHT!
So I suggest you learn 2 Look PLL JUST TO GET YOUR STARTED for learning all the rest of the PLLs. Then you can actually solve the cube WHILE learning them.
Uh, he can already solve the cube?
But yeah, I suggest learning enough algs for two-look.
On most PLL algorithms, number 1-7 (I think 7) are the 4 Look PLL algorithms.
On most PLL
algorithms? Don't leave out words like "lists" and assume we know it should be there.
Number 1-7 makes no sense. I don't even think I've seen many numbered lists, and the numbers are mostly arbitrary.
4-look PLL? 2 algs are enough for that, even...
(Yes, I know you're talking about Bob's page, but please don't start spewing false, semi-incoherent suggestions.)
So I would suggest you start from 1. Also, I THINK the algorithms are ordered by how basic they are (the 4 Look algorithms), and then how common they appear.
You think? That's good.
Did you think to check what you're typing, or to preview and notice that you meant 2-look?
Basic, maybe.
Again, GET THE PROBABILITIES RIGHT! If you're thinking, then think sensibly, or use your brain power to think up the right probabilities, instead of trying to deal subjectively with something objective.
I offer
my PLL page for correct probabilities.
I THINK some cases appear more often than others, so you should learn them by numerical order.
Uh, good thinking?
Your syllogistic recommendation seems to have a lit of trouble around the comma, for the reason noted above.
Now, numerical order may not be bad, but why should he learn them in that order just because you think that some cases appear more often than others?