1 look 2 algs (Compound OLL) vs. 2 look 2 algs (2LOLL)

[jms_gears1]

If one orients edges of the last layer and dont need another look at the CO is it still considered 2 look OLL or 1 Look 2 alg.

LaChance is saying that because its still two distinct steps its 2LOLL

I am saying that because you only have one look its 1 look 2 alg, or what Lucas refers to as Compound OLL.

Where do you sit on this issue?

EDIT:
Another question, if one were to memorize every possible combination of OLL cases, such that you did one of the sexy orientations, and knew what the CO was going to be afterwards and as such did not need another look to determine CO. Would that be one look or two look?

 

[FatBoyXPC]

I think a better way to ask this:

Is 2 Look OLL defined as performing Edge Orientation followed by Corner Orientation; or is it define by looking once to perform any given algorithm, then looking again to perform another algorithm?

I do mean physically looking at (and recognizing) the case that you have.

 

[incessantcheese]

i would go so far as to say i consider this to be 1 look 1 alg. this is most clear in some cases where a good OLL alg to use consists of two other OLL algs blended together, such as with T alg, U, T alg or even double-sune algs. if there is no delay or lookahead between performing the two algorithms, it's just one long "algorithm" in my mind.

(sort of) similarly, if you do intuitive f2l, almost all your "algs" consist of breaking a more complex situation into one of two blocks that takes 3 moves to insert. this is very clearly still 1 alg, there's absolutely no delay in the middle of the algorithm once you're used to doing it.

 

[qqwref]

2-look is defined by having to look twice - you do an alg, look at the position that you get, and then do another. If you only have to look once, but you do two algs each time, you're actually using 1-look OLL (just with inefficient algs). You can call it compound OLL if you want, to distinguish it from a system where you know a completely different alg for each case, but it is definitely a 1-look system.

 

[The Bloody Talon]

1 pll algo + 1 oll algo = 1LL algo...
and 2 pll + 1 oll = still 1LL algo
so 2pll = 1pll?
hmm.. i dont know..
i'm confused!

 

[maggot]

before i learn a specific OLL, i usually know what 2 alg i compound to make the OLL. for example. the H OLL. i know how to do it now, but before i knew it was EO U' headlights. i didnt even have to look. many many OLL i know what is the CO after the EO. i would consider this 2LOLL because there still use of EO and a 2LOLL case. the full OLL alg for many OLL does not break between the EO and CO, it typically finds an efficient way not breaking these 2 steps (for most OLL alg, some of them are still EO+CO but those are efficient)

 

[FatBoyXPC]

Bloody Talon, that's exactly where I was going with that. Some cubers can predict PLL off their OLL case, does that mean they don't do separate steps, but just do one LL alg instead?

 

[jms_gears1]

before i learn a specific OLL, i usually know what 2 alg i compound to make the OLL. for example. the H OLL. i know how to do it now, but before i knew it was EO U' headlights. i didnt even have to look. many many OLL i know what is the CO after the EO. i would consider this 2LOLL because there still use of EO and a 2LOLL case. the full OLL alg for many OLL does not break between the EO and CO, it typically finds an efficient way not breaking these 2 steps (for most OLL alg, some of them are still EO+CO but those are efficient)

If you are talking about a '2LOLL' case as making it 2 look then would PLL with edges preoriented be 1Look or 2Look. Im not sure i follow this logic.

1 pll algo + 1 oll algo = 1LL algo...
and 2 pll + 1 oll = still 1LL algo
so 2pll = 1pll?
hmm.. i dont know..
i'm confused!

PLL + OLL is a two look LL
2PLL/2OLL + OLL/PLL is a three look LL

however we are only talking about 2 look/ 1 look 2 alg OLL.

What i was asking was, do you consider it to be 2Look because you have two separate steps, or two separate recognizing steps.

 

[Tyjet66]

There are a few OLL cases that I know where I can do the 2LOLL algs with only 1 look. So I'm assuming that is one of your COLL cases. Technically it's not 2 LOOK OLL but I am still using the algorithms for it since I don't know full OLL.

 

[oprah62]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWhOp4DdbSw

 

[The Bloody Talon]

.

What i was asking was, do you consider it to be 2Look because you have two separate steps, or two separate recognizing steps.

An algorithm, according to The Random House Dictionary, is "A set of rules for solving a problem in a finite number of steps, as for finding the greatest common divisor."

i think, if you combined two algorithms to create a certain purpose, you create one algorithm..
so there is no such thing as 2look/ 1 look 2algorithm OLL
although i know what do u mean by "2look / 1 look"

 

[Lucas Garron]

An algorithm, according to The Random House Dictionary, is "A set of rules for solving a problem in a finite number of steps, as for finding the greatest common divisor."

i think, if you combined two algorithms to create a certain purpose, you create one algorithm..
so there is no such thing as 2look/ 1 look 2algorithm OLL
although i know what do u mean by "2look / 1 look"

But that's the generic definition. In cubing, "algorithm" means "move sequence," and "method" roughly stands for "algorithm."

According to your stance, every last layer solved using OLL+PLL is solved using one algorithm. In fact, each full solve uses only one algorithm.
In cubing, this is an incorrect use of the word "algorithm."

I think I understand your purpose, but it doesn't really help to muddle the meanings.

 

[FatBoyXPC]

Lucas: Using that logic, doesn't it seem more apparent that if you EO/CO then you used 2Look, regardless if you physically looked at the cube once or twice? Going back to the point he made earlier (that I agreed upon): If I only look at OLL once and I know the OLL and PLL case, I'm no longer doing OLLL + PLL, now I'm flat out doing LL.

I think my point is that when people refer to 2LOLL they are strictly referring to the F/f SM F/f and the OCLL algorithm sets. I think that most people already know what OCLL they will end up with before they do the EO algorithm. I know I was able to predict it, anyway, and I'm not that great at cubing by any means.

 

[qqwref]

You're using 2 algorithms, yes, but I stand by my previous view: "2 look" means you have to look at the cube twice, so if you are only looking once, you're using a one-look system.

 

[FatBoyXPC]

So then those that predict PLL from OLL are using a 1 look last layer?

 

[JonnyWhoopes]

So then those that predict PLL from OLL are using a 1 look last layer?

I would believe so. At that point, I think that 1LL is simply an ill-coined phrase. Or as earlier mentioned in the thread, perhaps it isn't ill-coined and they are performing the general use of 1LL, just with rather inefficient algorithms.

 

[Stefan]

then you used 2Look, regardless if you physically looked at the cube once or twice?

Go back to preschool, or wherever kids are supposed to learn what the word "look" means.

 

[FatBoyXPC]

I love how you insult people Stefan. Of all things to insult me about, you'd like to pick that? I've clearly described why I asked the question. I'm hoping you can understand that I'm asking due to the fact of how terms are perceived.

I'll go ahead and repeat my logic (though I expected you'd be able to read all of this). If we refer to recognizing which two algorithms to use for OLL so we don't have to physically look at the cube to know the corner orientation case, why is it we still call it OLL/PLL for those that know PLL from their OLL case?

More importantly, if you are told somebody is using 2LOLL, what exactly do you perceive that as? Edge Orientation followed by Corner Orientation, or something different? If that same person is able to predict their corner orientation, would you correct them that they are only doing one look?

Since you're such a stickler on the rules of the forum, can you tell me how your post contributed to this thread?

 

[jms_gears1]

I'll go ahead and repeat my logic (though I expected you'd be able to read all of this). If we refer to recognizing which two algorithms to use for OLL so we don't have to physically look at the cube to know the corner orientation case, why is it we still call it OLL/PLL for those that know PLL from their OLL case?

OLL and PLL are two distinct steps just as OLL can be done in two distinct steps. However just because its done in two steps doesn't mean you looked at the cube twice. 2Look means that you look at the cube twice not that you are doing two separate steps.

More importantly, if you are told somebody is using 2LOLL, what exactly do you perceive that as? Edge Orientation followed by Corner Orientation, or something different? If that same person is able to predict their corner orientation, would you correct them that they are only doing one look?

yes. Because they didnt need to look for CO.

Since you're such a stickler on the rules of the forum, can you tell me how your post contributed to this thread?

His post was directly related to the topic of this thread.

 

[FatBoyXPC]

OLL and PLL are two distinct steps, yet it can be done in only one look. I fail to see the difference here.

I was asking Stefan specifically about the predicting the corner orientation. I didn't feel like sifting through the comments on badmephisto's youtube, but did anybody correct him in saying that it's named 2LOLL because you physically look twice, instead of performing two steps? It can be interpreted on the wiki (as well as from badmephisto's video) as it being two steps, not because you physically have to look twice. Just like 2LPLL can very easily be one look, I did that all the time when I used 2LPLL (since corners were permuted first, seeing the edge cycle was quite easy long before performing the CPLL).

Regarding the rules: I'm pretty sure his post falls under "No Worthless Replying."