Do we mind AUFs in PLL time attack?

[Julian]

@Godmil In your example, you removed the F from the popular Y-perm, claiming that it's an AFF, and thus not part of the alg. This does not work in your case because the pieces being affected are on the U-layer. This is why you can ignore U moves before and after the alg, but not any other type of move.

 

[Sa967St]

I did have links for the wiki and Fridrich's site, but I didn't think I needed them, alternatively we could both make a list of every site we can find that describes the PLL's. I'll include ones that show diagrams swapping two corners and two edges, and you show ones that describe them by the colour patters around the outer edge. Then we could see what the popular consensus is in the cubing community. I'd love for someone like Kirjava to jump in now and agree with me, but I fear my tone has been too arrogant/sarcy in these posts so I'm probably on my own now Also I'd be curious to see what Breandan does since he's kinda the king of PLL attacks.

Well, you're saying that this is a Jb perm:

,
but

aren't, when they're clearly doing the same pattern to the LL.

 

[Dene]

@Godmil In your example, you removed the F from the popular Y-perm, claiming that it's an AFF, and thus not part of the alg. This does not work in your case because the pieces being affected are on the U-layer. This is why you can ignore U moves before and after the alg, but not any other type of move.

Who said that the PLL has to be done on the U layer? If you're going to join the argument don't say something stupid.

 

[Godmil]

What I'm saying is the Alg everyone lists as a J perm is the J perm alg. Not the J perm + AUF, as people are suggesting. Why else do we write those Us in the algs when we don't write AUFs for all the other cases.

 

[Rpotts]

I'd love for someone like Kirjava to jump in now and agree with me, but I fear my tone has been too arrogant/sarcy in these posts so I'm probably on my own now Also I'd be curious to see what Breandan does since he's kinda the king of PLL attacks.

Lol, unlikely.

Well, you're saying that this is a Jb perm

aren't, when they're clearly doing the same pattern to the LL.

I personally think of that when I think of J perm, as it is the one with no AUF. Same with Rb perm : Since that's the no AUF angle.

To reiterate riffz and others, AUF doesn't matter in PLL time attacks.

 

[Julian]

Who said that the PLL has to be done on the U layer? If you're going to join the argument don't say something stupid.

...because the pieces being affected are on a different layer than the move being ignored.

 

[aronpm]

Who said that the PLL has to be done on the U layer? If you're going to join the argument don't say something stupid.

Lol dumb argument

 

[Stefan]

the very name comes from the image of the layer with those pieces affected

Good thing we're not talking about AAEFGGGGHJJNNRRTUUVYZ-attack.

I'd love for someone like Kirjava to jump in now and agree with me, but I fear my tone has been too arrogant/sarcy

Didn't notice anything with your tone, you're just wrong and I'd be extremely surprised if Thom agreed with you there.

 

[kajitatsu]

...because the pieces being affected are on a different layer than the move being ignored.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WScZIbVlDw Sarah does a J Perm on the D layer, omgcakes.

 

[Sa967St]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WScZIbVlDw Sarah does a J Perm on the D layer, omgcakes.

What, no.
The yellow side has the J perm, I just end with it on the bottom because of the wide turns in the alg.

 

[Godmil]

you're just wrong

Damn, you were me second hope. Anyway, so you're agreeing that people have mistakenly filled the Alg database with unneeded AUF's. If I was you I'd go through the wiki deleting those extra Us.

 

[Sa967St]

Anyway, so you're agreeing that people have mistakenly filled the Alg database with unneeded AUF's. If I was you I'd go through the wiki deleting those extra Us.

They're right with or without the AUFs (;

 

[Godmil]

They're right with or without the AUFs (;

But if the 'AUF' is redundant then the HTM/QTM's are all wrong.

 

[Stefan]

so you're agreeing that people have mistakenly filled the Alg database with unneeded AUF's

No, they do serve a purpose there.

But if the 'AUF' is redundant then the HTM/QTM's are all wrong.

I don't see any wrong ones.

 

[Jaycee]

@ Godmil :

Just imagine that the First Two Layers don't exist at all when doing the alg. This way, it doesn't matter whether or not you AUF. When you do that alg, the last layer will be solved, just not aligned with where it needs to go. Sarah's diagrams are a perfect example of this.

 

[qqwref]

For my own PLL attacks, I've always thought that if I needed to do an AUF in an actual solve then it was basically part of the alg and I should use it in the attack, whereas if I would usually set it up without the AUF then it wasn't part of the alg and I didn't need to include it.

More realistically/standardizedly, I'd say to ignore AUFs, although you should remember not to cancel or combine moves between the end of one alg and the start of another. For instance if you're doing the R'UR'D2RU'R'D2R2 alg and then the inverse, you do actually have to do two R2s in a row - no RR' or whatever.

 

[Julian]

You should remember not to cancel or combine moves between the end of one alg and the start of another.

Would you say that combining R' R' into R2' is okay?

 

[Forte]

But if the 'AUF' is redundant then the HTM/QTM's are all wrong.

Honestly, I think that the ones that include AUF are wrong (or misleading at least). T perm should by 10HTM, for example.

Back to your other point about J Perm = 2 edge swap and 2 corner swap, in an actual solve no one thinks of a J perm as that. People recognize it based on the blocks, and people recognize AUF for the standard alg for that case by looking at the block on F (which stays in place).
For example, when I see in a solve, I don't think of it as "J perm without AUF". I think of it as "J perm + U' for AUF".

 

[Escher]

Lolthread.

EDIT: Owait I'm meant to contribute -

The names for PLLs are arbitrary descriptions for patterns we see that can each be described in 2-4(?) numbers of ways, if you talk about pieces being swapped in relation to the centres.

So long as you execute something that fits into one of the multiple swap definitions for a 'PLL', and do 21 of them, then you've done a 'PLL' time attack. Do AUFs if you like - I guess they'll boost your TPS and allow you to regrip occasionally - but you really don't have to.

And yes, the algs you perform should only visibly affect the 8 cubies that make up a layer.

 

[Stefan]

While we're at it, I'd like to point out something about the usual PLL arrow diagrams that I find inconsistent. Most cases minimize arrows, but not the G-perms. They could be done so that two corners are solved and two need to be swapped. Then we'd have five instead of six arrows (one would be bidirectional) and we'd have only one arrow-crossing instead of two.