A unique phase method for a Rubik's Cube

[sellingseals]

You very well said! I agree with you!

re-thinking this, I think it can be argued both ways. I mean somebody can explain the method of fridrich or roux and not explain how to exactly perform the method and somebody can intuitively figure out the method by the guidelines laid out. So I can see that point. I just don't think it's right to say that it's 100% intuitive to solve a cube using your method, as 100% intuition would also be coming up with the method for themselves. It's the 100% part that I have a problem with. The people that invented the solving strategies that we all know these days are the people that solved it 100% intuitively in my opinion, like the person that invented Fridrich, Roux, etc etc. Again, I think when looking at it this way, it can be argued from both sides that it could be named 100% and could not. Both have valid points, and if you can't agree with this at least, then lets agree to disagree.

 

[Gaétan Guimond]

It's good Intuition i'ts my story of cube my sequence of solving too is

Solving 8 corners (the cube 2x2x2);
Solving 12 edges

I haven't been inspired by anyone a book or the web. With you I'd go even further but I decided otherwise. I'm happy without recognition of my impact on the new life of this cube. Anyway I'm true

 

[mark49152]

"Intuitive" doesn't seem like the right word to describe solving without algorithms. There's arguably more reasoning and rational thought going on when solving this way than there is with recognition and algorithm recall. It's a misnomer.

With a truly 100% intuitive method, you would pick up the cube and... just know how to solve it.

 

[pijok]

I think this method is more intuitive and has less algorithms. But of course it uses commutators.

 

[pijok]

For speedcubing we use following definition of intuitive:

Intuitive solving consists in solving the Rubik's cube without using any algorithm that you do not understand. In most methods, for example for the last layer, most algorithm are used in such way that there is an input cube in some state, then you apply the appropriate algorithm that you learnt by heart, and quite magically, the cube is in the desired state.

A person can use (X Y X' Y') but not necessarily to understand essences.

How would you use a commutator without understanding it?? learning it by heart? Than it's just an algorithm.

This commutator in first time found by means of the computer as I know.

It seems you don't know it: Commutators refer to mathematical terms of group theory.

If you click at the link I posted, you can see that all parts of solving the cube are explained. So you are solving the Rubik's cube without using any algorithm that you do not understand. => its intuitive

In your method there are algs which aren't explained => It is not 100% intuitive. This doesn't mean it is not easy to understand!

 

[Kirjava]

Intuition is a learning tool. "Intuitive solving method" is a silly concept. Better to say 'without use of pre-memorised sequences'.

For speedcubing we use following definition of intuitive

That is just terrible.

"An intuitive approach to solving a case is arrived at by logic and
reasoning that has been generated by experimentation. I think the
ability to use intuition to generate solutions for something is
important - it demonstrates awareness of the effect caused by applying
moves which is an important trait in understanding the cube and
shortcuts available. In comparison to algorithmic approaches, a
solution for each case is discovered by the user using logic or trial
and error. Cases may be improved over time as the solver's ability to
intuit more efficient solutions improves." -Me

 

[porkynator]

Can we stop arguing about what "intuitive" means and start talking about cubing? About this method (or related things) in particular, please.

I looked deeper into this method (for 3x3 only), and I still think it's nice.
I suggest any rouxer reading this thread try out the LSE approach (after EO). Do you find it easier/faster/more efficient/... than the usual place UR and UL + finish?

 

[hkpnkp]

there is already one - heise method

 

[pijok]

Ok, say to me - How much time and vigour it took for a people found these commutators?
I think very much. Because many people tried to solve the cube layer-by-layer.
They were deceived by initial ease of a layer-by-layer method:

1. The first layer – Yes it is easy.
2. The second layer – More difficult than the first layer, but possible without algorithms.
3. The third layer – oh... it is very complicated if you don't know commutators or algorithms.

In case people solved the cube from difficult to simple – corners (2x2x2), and then edges and the centers, they found a simpler solution.
And if they didn't pay attention to the centers (on the solved cube it is possible to move only them), they would learn about parity of a Void-cube in the 70th - the 80th years!!! Valery Morozov knew about this parity already then.

And where you see intuition in the layer-by-layer methods and in commutators???

I too have another method (layer-by-layer) which I found, but I don't speak that it intuitive, because maybe this method for corners intuitively only for me. I very long found it - 5 years! Also you don't say that it is easy, also you don't say that it is easy. You can look at it here, if it is interesting to you:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v_FBBlPCCQ
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbEbEjmYoL4

Don't think that I know nothing about other methods.

You misunderstand me:
- I don't think every layer by layer method is intuitive
- I don't think that You know nothing about other methods
- I like your concept of 1)solve corners 2)solve edges 3) solve centers because it can be applied on any sized cube.
- I don't think it is easy to learn how commutators work, but if you understand them, it is easy to solve a rubik's cube intuitively
- commutators are a logical concept. You don't have to memorize anything if You understand how they work.

What i wanted to say is:
- Your method is not 100%intuitive
- (but that doesn't make it bad)

 

[ben1996123]

It's good Intuition i'ts my story of cube my sequence of solving too is

Solving 8 corners (the cube 2x2x2);
Solving 12 edges

I haven't been inspired by anyone a book or the web. With you I'd go even further but I decided otherwise. I'm happy without recognition of my impact on the new life of this cube. Anyway I'm true

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh5miheTXjQ

hello

 

[sm]

My new outputs from this method.
When we make a correct pair of 2 edges elements we get a complex element. This complex element contains 3 colors. And this complex element have its complex place which consists of three flowers.
For example, if we connect the White-Red edge with the White-Orange edge, we get the correct pair is the White-Red-Orange complex element. And this element have the White-Red-Orange complex place. It is similar to corners. And to set this complex element not more difficult than to set a corner element in first side in the layer-by-layer method.

 

[Kirjava]

this thread is way too silly and 'zen-like' for me to take it seriously

THE HEART OF THE CUBE IS THE FOUR CORNERS BECAUSE IT'S NUMBER CANNOT CHANGE

 

[sellingseals]

Hello all!
Ok. Maybe it is my mistake (not Valery) that I thus called this topic.
But only this unique method on 100% opened for me Rubik’s cubes, and for me this method will be 100% intuitive.
I hope we won't argue any more on this subject "intuitively or not intuitively". Each for himself must decide that.
I hope this method will be interesting to many people.
Best regards, Sergey.

I don't think anybody was arguing actually, and more giving their opinions. There have been a lot of people with the shared opinions on what you were calling it, as well as in the Twisty Puzzles Forum I've seen. I don't think it was arguing when so many people think the same thing? anyway, you are right, we will all see it differently.

 

[rj]

I don't think anybody was arguing actually, and more giving their opinions. There have been a lot of people with the shared opinions on what you were calling it, as well as in the Twisty Puzzles Forum I've seen. I don't think it was arguing when so many people think the same thing? anyway, you are right, we will all see it differently.

I think this should have been on twistypuzzles.

 

[sm]

Look please at this method for beginners - http://rubikscube.info/beginner.php
and compare it to this method.
There to be spoken:
Introduction
This method uses very few sequences that you need to memorize in order to solve the cube. Although there are quite a few sequences provided in this solution, most of them are intuitive steps, which once you understand you will never forget. But just like in any other game, you will need to study different methods in order to find your own solving strategy. Even though you might find our corners-first solution pretty straightforward, it will take a lot of practice before you fully master the method.

Look as difficult there solve edges, because there is a binding to centers.

 

[Kirjava]

This method is received not by a mathematical way. Do you know any other such methods?

Yes, of course I do.

Nobody wishes to see principle which allows solving the cube very easily.
If you didn't understand something, it isn't necessary to speak that it is silly.
We are ready to change the topic name but from it the method doesn't change. I asked the administrator about it.
After all we weren't rude to you.
Valery only expresses his point of view.
If you can't answer to the point, it isn't necessary to speak that it is silly.

The fact that the Rubik's cube is unreal to solve without commutators and formulas it is a stereotype and the myth which was created for many years and all support it. Nobody likes the truth because many minds fought for this puzzle, they have spent a time and power for its decision.
Now on the Internet were many methods which are stamped from of same commutators and formulas.
And everyone declares "it is my new method", though it doesn't bear anything new and unique.
Therefore I want to help to Valery to show this unique and original method.

You act so victimised and rambly, this is gaetan level insanity.

 

[brian724080]

You have nothing more to say?
These are all your arguments?

Basically Kirjava is saying that you're overrating to a slight bit of criticism.

 

[~Adam~]

Basically Kirjava is saying that you're overreacting to a slight bit of criticism.

The 'of course I do' requires knowing the depths of Kir's knowledge about cubing.
Maybe check out his sub 20 with 20 different methods video.

 

[irontwig]

this is gaetan level insanity.

That's some praise!

 

[MaeLSTRoM]

I don't see any adequate argument.
His successes in speedcubing to me doesn't speak about anything.
We now speak not about it.
And we personally didn't offend anybody.

You do realise that basically no method is actually based on the mathematics of the cube. Except maybe Kociemba/Thisthlethwaite.