shadowslice e
Member
Fact checkingSince there exists a single obvious path after CP-line
If there's only one method, why have I come up with 3 different approaches (2 of which are explicitly in my sig)?
Fact checkingSince there exists a single obvious path after CP-line
B2 (which I came up with as Yroux since again it’s kinda obvious) is viable when you can inspect CPFB, else it’s far too inefficient; which is also why I said in the previous post the following:Fact checking
If there's only one method, why have I come up with 3 different approaches (2 of which are explicitly in my sig)?
Not sure what third method you’re talking of, but if you’re speaking of “42”, (while almost certainly isn’t speed optimal this point can be refuted based on subjectivity) it is a more complicated way of doing B2.If there comes a day some person can do CPFB in inspection, then this may change to there being 2 clear speed optimal ways, but the point still holds.
Why would it be less efficient than 2x2x3eo? And as for your claims that CPFB can't be done in inspection, there have been people who have been able to do it consistently (such as John li, the devisor of 2gr).B2 (which I came up with as Yroux since again it’s kinda obvious) is viable when you can inspect CPFB, else it’s far too inefficient; which is also why I said in the previous post the following:
It's a combination with M-CELL. CPFB, 2x2x2 in DR, CELL.Not sure what third method you’re talking of,
Have you actually read what 42 does? It's not like B2 beyond they both finish MU-gen (though 42 is transformed). Also, I average the same with beginner's roux and beginner's 42 (both 2-look variants) with far less practise in the latter.but if you’re speaking of “42”, (while almost certainly isn’t speed optimal this point can be refuted based on subjectivity) it is a more complicated way of doing B2.
Not sure what this is, will have to give it a look; though this is something you probably can tag your name on since it doesn’t look an obvious path. Continuing as LEOR or Roux doesn’t grant you this privilege, the only thing you can claim in such a case is the way you do CP.It's a combination with M-CELL. CPFB, 2x2x2 in DR, CELL.
So is a method only "obvious" if you think of it? With regards to the Leor comment, that was developed *from* my post not vice versa. B2 additionally does influencing beyond what is done in roux. Does that make it a non-obvious continuation?Not sure what this is, will have to give it a look; though this is something you probably can tag your name on since it doesn’t look an obvious path. Continuing as LEOR or Roux doesn’t grant you this privilege, the only thing you can claim in such a case is the way you do CP.
As a man wisely said, attack the message not the messenger.So is a method only "obvious" if you think of it? With regards to the Leor comment, that was developed *from* my post not vice versa. B2 additionally does influencing beyond what is done in roux. Does that make it a non-obvious continuation?
Do we though? What makes Leor and roux obvious and m-cell non-obvious?As a man wisely said, attack the message not the messenger.
I said LEOR just for the sake of brevity; plus I’m sure we know full well what counts as an obvious continuation and what doesn’t.
Let’s exhaustively explore what is obvious. Why do CP at all? One reason. To reduce moveset from requiring 5 types of moves to 4 types of moves to solve a cube (because going through all that pain just to reduce the scramble set by a factor of 6 for any other reason cannot be worth it).Do we though? What makes Leor and roux obvious and m-cell non-obvious?
Except most of the reason I use it in B2 is to reduce the case count so I can do fancier things like BLS. Just using it for 2-gen cmll isn't really worth it.Let’s exhaustively explore what is obvious. Why do CP at all? One reason. To reduce moveset from requiring 5 types of moves to 4 types of moves to solve a cube (because going through all that pain just to reduce the scramble set by a factor of 6 for any other reason cannot be worth it).
This is trueHow to do better? Reduce from 4 to 3. Thus extend to FB.
This does also have merit. However, I must point out that 2-gen is barely any better than 3-gen. As I said above, B2 does this to reduce to a state which is more easily influencible. Really, all 3 methods are mostly exploring the blocks which reduce the scramble set to a more manageable size while preserving the pseudo-2-geniness.How to do better? Reduce from 3 to 2. Thus, either SB+CMLL or EO+BF.
As I said above, in both the M-CELL and B2 continuation, 2-gen reduction is used just as much for reducing the alg count as getting a certain moveset. Breaking this down further,Why I said the third method you described could “possibly” be non-obvious is:
Simply continuing as MCELL is asymmetrical, movecount wise inefficient, moveset wise inefficient, higher algorithm count, look-ahead wise more difficult, etc. compared to the first two approaches. However, due to the asymmetries introduced by solving the DBR cube, you could categorise it as “not an obvious continuation”.
What do you mean by this? M-CELL is demonstrably efficient with or without CP. The movecount is at least comparable to the other 2-gen reduction methods.movecount wise inefficient
What does this really mean? If you mean you use more "types" of moves, that isn't really true. The moveset for cp M-CELL is generated by {R U* R', r U* r', M' U* M, U} which is just as nice to fingertrick as it requires few regrips because it induces few (if any) overrotations and sends the hands back to the home grip more often than not.moveset wise inefficient
Why? You eliminate the blind spots which could make lookahead more difficult the others. For that matter, the 2-alg 1lll is designed to reduce pauses as you can recog one 5-cycle while performing the other.look-ahead wise more difficult
It might be more move efficient, but I have always strived to keep alg counts reasonable by requiring no more algs than is necessary (which is a large part of my opposition to methods like LMCF). This is not only the reason M-CELL uses 2-alg, 1lll but also a big reason for why 2-gen could be used. Extending this to a 1-alg method (which is what your extension appears to do) is very in line with the case reduction that is the reasoning for cp-first B2 and M-CELLBy the way, if you scroll up, I mentioned a 500-alg method alg, which basically is a more efficient version of CP-first MCELL.
You are just ignoring Briggs and calling it what you called it before that’s not compromising a true comprimise would be to call all of these 2GR as they all reduce to 2 gen but I disagree with that because afaik that’s quite different. And you say it’s dumb but it’s not as it sets a precedent for future incidences where 2 people invent the same method and we could end up with loads of methods that are very similar.Hey I just had an idea. During this whole argument thing, people have said that this should be called Briggs with YruRU style CP. Well I was think about what YruRU stands for which is Yash's ru RU Reduction. So if we called it Yash's cp line and then ru RU reduction then that could abbreviate to *GASP*
YruRU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is just a suggestion of how we can finally come to a compromise and end this dumb argument that has been going on for way too long.
Fine then. Go right ahead and keep arguing for no reason if that suits you. I was only trying to help solve the dispute. I was not targeting you or anyone else who thinks the same way as you. I just think this argument has become pointless and it is only causing anger and division. Neither of those things have a place in our community.You are just ignoring Briggs and calling it what you called it before that’s not compromising a true comprimise would be to call all of these 2GR as they all reduce to 2 gen but I disagree with that because afaik that’s quite different. And you say it’s dumb but it’s not as it sets a precedent for future incidences where 2 people invent the same method and we could end up with loads of methods that are very similar.
This is a completely arbitrary choice of when exactly the person deserves credit in the developmental chain of an idea.If we are to care at all about history or giving credit to the hard work people in the past have put into things, it is important to not claim that something is obvious. We can look at anything around us and, if we understand how it works, we can think that it is obvious. "I could have invented that." But look at what was happening before it was created. Who else did it? It almost always happens that there was no one else doing it or that there were a few people trying. The first person to succeed and develop is a significant moment. Research a term called Hindsight Bias. This is the tendency to look at something from the past and think that it is an obvious idea or event.
Who else was doing CP Line and the steps that follow before Joseph Briggs? I'm the one that showed the post by Gilles Roux. He may have talked about the idea and used it in FMC, but he never fully developed and presented it. Joseph Briggs gets credit for it because he was the first to complete it. Ryan Heise talked about EOLine+F2L before anyone else, but he never developed the complete method. So, Zbigniew Zborowski gets the credit because he was the first to complete it. People have even provided significant developments to current methods or have solved long-standing problems in those methods. These are developments that have completely changed the way people use those methods. But the method is still called by the original person's name.
Yes, someone else probably would have eventually thought of any of these things and finished it. However, no matter how simple something may seem - even though it probably wasn't when it was being developed, we can't look back at things and dismiss what someone accomplished. They were the first to do it and to provide to us what we have today.
Except most of the reason I use it in B2 is to reduce the case count so I can do fancier things like BLS. Just using it for 2-gen cmll isn't really worth it.
This is what I've been trying to say the whole time.Can I ask a possibly naive question. Why does it matter what something is called, other than people know what you're talking about when it's referred to?
If you've been reading this as about names, then you've been reading the conversation on a very surface level.Can I ask a possibly naive question. Why does it matter what something is called, other than people know what you're talking about when it's referred to?
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
A | The "H" Method- A different Combination of Roux and CFOP | How-to's, Guides, etc. | 3 | |
CFOP vs ROUX | General Speedcubing Discussion | 12 | ||
[Member Intro] Yoooooooooooo I'm badatroux | Member Introductions | 8 | ||
G | I tried roux for 7 days | Puzzle Video Gallery | 0 | |
G | Trying roux for 7 days | Puzzle Theory | 2 |