Random Cubing Discussion

[DavidWoner]

and for A B A B (I've yet to see a case for this) I guess [A|| B] could work.

Uhhh... (A B)*2? I feel like I'm missing something because of how incredibly obvious that is.

 

[JonnyWhoopes]

Uhhh... (A B)*2? I feel like I'm missing something because of how incredibly obvious that is.

No, the rest of us are just idiots.

 

[Athefre]

@Athefre: In my solve what happened was that after solving F2B, and then corners, before beginning LSE, I noticed that a lot of stuff was solved. I aligned the centers with an M layer turn, and noticed that I was down to a 3 cycle of edges. Since I am still very much a beginner with Roux (and dare I say it an expert with commutators) I solved the cube with: x' z' E R U' R' E' R U R' and done.

I figured that I could orient edges, place L/R edges, then permute the M layer edges. But, at this stage at least, my recognition and alg knowledge is so minimal for Roux that it would be much faster to just solve the cube directly in 8 turns

I do understand that for those at a much higher level in Roux solving, that the recognition could be much slower and also with any necessary cube rotations and such that this method could actually end up being slower. For now I will use commutators when I see them, but if I end up sticking with Roux long enough to get sub-30 at it, I may try to move away from this for a more "proper" Roux style ending.

Thanks, I've never noticed this. I guess I've been too busy solving the way I've always done it. It's cool but, similar to what you said, unless you can recognize and execute this in 3 seconds, it's best to stay with the regular way.

 

[oll+phase+sync]

A B A = (AB) *1.5

 

[Kirjava]

That only works when A and B are the same length.

I don't think ABA appears enough that we need to create special notation for it.

 

[StachuK1992]

That only works when A and B are the same length.

I don't think ABA appears enough that we need to create special notation for it.

Adding | to our notation isn't really a big enough deal to disallow such use.
I've found quite a few uses for such, personally.

 

[riffz]

I don't think ABA appears enough that we need to create special notation for it.

Sorry Stachu but I agree.

 

[oll+phase+sync]

That only works when A and B are the same length.

I don't think ABA appears enough that we need to create special notation for it.

For sure! length is defined by: Lenght(A) = 1 = Lenght(B)

Is there a commenly used notation for repeating a subset of moves? (exsample Sune5 = RUR'UR)

 

[Kirjava]

Adding | to our notation isn't really a big enough deal to disallow such use.
I've found quite a few uses for such, personally.

Sure, but who is going to use it? The reason why [A,B] and A: exist is because they're commonly used and it actually makes them easier to read and understand. There's nothing special about the form ABA.

 

[qqwref]

How about this: A B A => (A) B $1. (Or (A) (B) $1, it doesn't matter.)

 

[StachuK1992]

How about this: A B A => (A) B $1. (Or (A) (B) $1, it doesn't matter.)

I'd like to stick with the convention of [Asymbol B]
Right now, I'm going to just |, and if it picks up, then good. Otherwise, oh well.
I see this as something that could be potentially useful, and I don't see any reason to not use such.

 

[qqwref]

I can't see it picking up, because there really aren't a lot of algs in that form. There's no reason an alg should look like that (it seems like almost all nontrivial examples would just be coincedence), so unless you spent a lot of time learning algs that happened to be written that way, you'd end up just forgetting it.

Plus: the Asymbol B thing only works because the symbol is some kind of punctuation. Having a non-punctuation symbol in there (| % & * # @) doesn't look natural.

 

[DavidWoner]

Double parity in stachunotation because I was bored. [r2 F2| ((r|| U2)((F2| r)| r')))]

 

[StachuK1992]

Double parity in stachunotation because I was bored. [r2 F2| ((r|| U2)((F2| r)| r')))]

That's disgusting; I obviously wouldn't go /that/ crazy with it.

Also, more like
[r2 F2| [[r|| U2][[F2| r]| r']]]]

 

[irontwig]

R' F2 B2 L' R F' R' D L B L' R2 B2 D' L' R' U2 B2 L2 D U2 B2 U2 L U2

Guimond-Kociemba:

y' U' R' U2 R [CO]
z x U M' U R L U M' U [EOa]
x' U M U M U M2 U [EOb]
R U2 L2 U2 L' U2 R2 U2 R2 [Pseudo-F2L]
R U R B' D2 F L' F' D2 B2 R' B' U' L' [Pseudo and parity fix]

 

[cmhardw]

@Stachu and others following the discussion about the [A | B] notation:

[R L F2 B2 R' L' | U]

amidoinitrite?

 

[StachuK1992]

@Stachu and others following the discussion about the [A | B] notation:

[R L F2 B2 R' L' | U]

amidoinitrite?

Ha!
Some "real" examples that I've used:
U [R U' R'| U2] U' (F R' F' R)
[R U' R'| U2 (F' U' F) U]
[M' U M| U2] & mirror
etc

 

[DavidWoner]

Setup for an f2l I just got:

B' U B U2 L U L' U' D' R' U2 R D F U R' F' R

wat du?

R' F R U' F' or R' F U' R F' is an obvious start, but I can't figure out a really nice way to keyhole the last two edges.

I guess R' F U' R F' / L U' L' U' R' U' R d' R' U' R works, but I feel like there is something better.

 

[StachuK1992]

I found this for when the corners were oriented, but...
R' F R U' F' to start
then
y2 U' (R U2 R') U' [L' F'; U2]
too many moves, though

 

[MaeLSTRoM]

Does anyone else think that 2BLD would be a good easy event and a good intro to BLD for BLD newbies (like me.)