Standard Lettering Scheme for Reference

[riffz]

Aron: Okay, I understand what you were saying now. It makes sense.

Chris: You said the order of faces would be UFRBLD, which is not the same as the scheme Spef and I proposed, although I like your's more personally. The reason we chose UFLBRD as the face order was because it preserved the idea that everything was clockwise, including how we worked our way around the side faces, although I think most people use the order you mentioned when labelling their centers (Spef actually uses the one I proposed.)

Also, it's the same for me, Chris. My actual lettering scheme is nothing like the one I proposed.

EDIT: I would have proposed that the first corner on the D face is DLB, since it's in a consistent position after an x2

EDIT2: Mike, I agree that the one on the right is better.

 

[Mike Hughey]

Actually, you could say the order UFRBLD is also clockwise. It just depends on which way you look at the cube - if you look at it from below, this is clockwise.

It reminds me of one of those things that drives me crazy - when someone says: "Go to the end of the hall, and turn clockwise." Which direction do I turn? Am I supposed to turn clockwise as figured from looking down on my head, or from looking up at my feet?

 

[cmhardw]

I think it's fine, too. (My lettering scheme is closer to the one on the first page, but honestly, Aron's seems more consistent.)

Agreed that aron's method is a great way to handle this as a standard scheme that does not really infringe on anyone's method. It's simple to define and re-derive on the spot, and that's all we need.

But Chris, you didn't answer the question about the purple ones. I prefer the one on the right because then every piece on any sized cube sort of fits in the same "quadrant".

I'd say the one on the right. Like Aron said let's just do everything clockwise for consistency.

Chris: You said the order of faces would be UFRBLD, which is not the same as the scheme Spef and I proposed, although I like your's more personally. The reason we chose UFLBRD as the face order was because it preserved the idea that everything was clockwise, including how we worked our way around the side faces, although I think most people use the order you mentioned when labelling their centers (Spef actually uses the one I proposed.)

Yes sorry, personal scheme is bleeding through. Agreed that your scheme is more consistent. Clockwise from the top makes more sense for a standard scheme than clockwise from the bottom in my opinion. If we're going to say "everything clockwise" then we need to stick with it and make everything go clockwise.

So face order is set at: UFLBRD?

------------------------------------------

It seems we have this pretty close to being wrapped up. Any last details we're missing? Any last objections?

 

[Mike Hughey]

I'm good with it.

 

[cmhardw]

EDIT: I would have proposed that the first corner on the D face is DLB, since it's in a consistent position after an x2

We need to decide this now. I don't care either way, but are we defining the D face after an x2 or after a z2 rotation? Any arguments on which one seems more standard?

 

[Mike Hughey]

EDIT: I would have proposed that the first corner on the D face is DLB, since it's in a consistent position after an x2

We need to decide this now. I don't care either way, but are we defining the D face after an x2 or after a z2 rotation? Any arguments on which one seems more standard?

I'm confused. I thought the first corner on the U face is going to be URB, right? So using an x2, doesn't that make the first letter on the D face DRF? And using a z2, doesn't that make it DLB?

The fact that I'm confused concerns me - it shouldn't be confusing. I would think x2 makes more sense intuitively, but I'm not sure I can give an argument for it. It seems easier to "see" the face this way than it does by doing a z2.

 

[cmhardw]

I'm confused. I thought the first corner on the U face is going to be URB, right? So using an x2, doesn't that make the first letter on the D face DRF? And using a z2, doesn't that make it DLB?

Haha ok now I'm confused. I was going by the 7x7x7 picture posted earlier in the thread, showing UBL as the first corner on U (and thus the upper left corner on all faces).

Which corner will define each face "upper left" or "upper right" ? I think "upper left" fits with reading in books. I know this is culture specific, and ignores a HUGE percentage of the earth's population, but this forum is posted in English. I think our English speaking forum can use upper left as the definition of each starting corner without offending very many people. This would make our starting corner UBL. Does this seem agreeable?

The fact that I'm confused concerns me - it shouldn't be confusing. I would think x2 makes more sense intuitively, but I'm not sure I can give an argument for it.

I also like the idea of an x2 because we generally prefer R turns and L turns over F turns and B turns. So x2 it is?

 

[riffz]

x is also before z in the alphabet

Mike: we were talking about the first corner being ULB.

Maybe this will clarify things:

(in Aron's image the F and R faces were visible)

 

[cmhardw]

x is also before z in the alphabet

Mike: we were talking about the first corner being ULB.

Maybe this will clarify things:
[awesome image is awesome]

Can we maybe get a 7x7x7 image fully labeled like this as well? Also, for the Wiki page about this, we should definitely show the D,B, and R faces as well.

--edit--
Wait, I just realized that this picture labels pieces counterclockwise to the corner - but piece groups move clockwise around the face. I thought we had agreed to keep everything clockwise for consistency? Can we redo it so that the labelling of each piece chunk goes clockwise as seen from the corner, but keep otherwise the same scheme? I think this would be more "standard" and easier to remember/re-derive.
--edit--

What does everyone think?

 

[riffz]

Chris: That was why I didn't like Aron's suggestion initially. I guess you just didn't realize what he was saying before.

His point was that this makes it consistent in the sense that ULB is the same letter as UL, although I still think this makes it harder to visualize, which was, IMO, more important.

 

[Tim Major]

I found it much easier for me when learning bld, to label the stickers like this,
UBL: A
LBU: B
BUL: C

UBR: D
BUR: E
RUB: F

And so on. This way, all I need to memorise at first, is that;
UBL: A
UBR: D
UFR: G
UFL: J
(ADGJMPSV)
Then same on the bottom face. One sticker on each piece, so I can work out the other 3. All labeling goes clockwise around the cube, and around the pieces.
With edges I do the same, starting at UR (UBL and UR are usually the Old Pochmann buffers). So on edges, all I need to know is where (ACEGIKMOQSUW) is, and I can work out the others. This standardized system doesn't seem as intuitive to me.
Just my view

Edit: All stickers to memo are on the U/D faces, going in a clockwise direction, and labeling around a piece is also done clockwise. Of course you'll eventually be able to look at any sticker, and know what letter it is, but this is very easy for starting.

 

[riffz]

Here's the original scheme that Spef and I proposed, which is what you just requested we revert to, I believe (lol!)

 

[Ville Seppänen]

Yeah, that's what I wanted in the first place

 

[Mike Hughey]

At first, I thought Aron's method made more sense, but now I see it really doesn't make any difference - Aron, this way, all the non-corner pieces are clockwise from the corner. So this also seems clockwise, every bit as much so as yours is.

Again, the problem is that you always have to ask clockwise with respect to what?

I like the original best, now that I realize they're really just the same. Now expand it to cover a 7x7x7 (which I think we've agreed how to do), and we'll be set.

Edit: Oh, but we still need to say how to letter the bottom face. I still think an x2 to look at the bottom face (which I now think gives the first letter U as DLF) makes the most sense. Am I wrong about that? It seems to contradict what riffz was saying.

 

[aronpm]

Again, the problem is that you always have to ask clockwise with respect to what?

The center piece. You're doing it with respect to the edge.

 

[riffz]

I don't think it contradicts. I like x2 making DLF the first D corner.

 

[aronpm]

You can change the starting corner to UBR and keep letters of the edges.

 

[cmhardw]

Here's the original scheme that Spef and I proposed, which is what you just requested we revert to, I believe (lol!)

Ok I misunderstood then. I thought we were describing the picture I am now quoting in this message (Ville and Riffz's original suggestion). I like their scheme because having everything clockwise with respect to viewing the cube from above is more consistent and more "standard" for the purposes we're striving for.

Also, I like having DLF be the starting corner for the D face (after an x2 rotation as well).

So do we have an official standardized scheme? Did we leave anything out, or is there anything that we still need to debate?

For those preferring to move counterclockwise from the corner for the piece chunks, but to label chunks clockwise around the face, do you have an argument about how this could be viewed as more standard? I'm not shooting down the method, but labeling the pieces counterclockwise from the corner seems to be an irregularity that is not matched anywhere else in the labeling scheme. If this is to be a standard approach, I feel there should be no irregularities, personally.

Any last discussion needed before we finalize this?

 

[riffz]

If we are finalizing this, then Spef and I would like to call it the Speffz Standard Lettering Scheme, mostly for comedic value.

 

[cmhardw]

This standardized system doesn't seem as intuitive to me.
Just my view

Hi Tim,

We're not really suggesting this as a method to actually be used when solving (though it certainly could be, there is nothing wrong with it). This standardized scheme is there for us to be able to write out piece cycles on the cube in a much simpler and nicer fashion when writing to each other on the forum, or talking in person at a competition. Keep in mind that we all use very different lettering schemes. This standardized method needs to be so simply defined that someone can re-derive it on the spot without have to try to memorize the scheme itself beforehand.

If you can show how your version would allow us to do this more easily than the current proposed version, I will certainly listen with an open mind to possibly change the standard scheme. So far though, this standard scheme is very easily defined, and easy to trace out without having to have it memorized.

If we are finalizing this, then Spef and I would like to call it the Speffz Standard Lettering Scheme, mostly for comedic value.

I have no objection