Call Me Cray - Counting my 3x3 solves for 1 year!

[~Adam~]

I guess you must be perfect then. Most people aren't.

Perfect, no.
OCD, yes.

 

[TDM]

OCD, yes.

(Then why does your username not begin with a capital letter?

 

[applemobile]

I'm just going to guess how many I do.

 

[~Adam~]

(Then why does your username not begin with a capital letter?

That is going to bother me now.
Luckily not too much since usernames don't need to start with a capital to be valid.

Sorry for the OT.

 

[Mikel]

Perfect, no.
OCD, yes.

Well, unfortunately my cstimer session just crashed and I lost ~ 100 times. I don't know exactly how many though, so I'll just have to estimate, or in your words guess.

 

[cmhardw]

I,m definitely interested in the stats involved like the amount of skips for PLL, OLL, and LL and can't wait until next year to see it.

This is so cool! I really hope you succeed. I'm most curious to see how close your solves are to the mathematical probability of a OLL/PLL/LL skip. As of solve 583 you're averaging a PLL skip ~ 1/83 solves while you're averaging an OLL skip ~ 1/193 solves!

PLL skip: 1/72
OLL skip: 1/216
LL skip: 1/15552

For those who didn't know.

I am also very interested in the stats, particularly for OLL skips.

Can you give us some details on your solving method, and also let us know if those change throughout the year? For example, I'll bet you use at least some partial edge orientation control, so your OLL skip percentage would already be better than 1/216, and by extension your LL skip percentage would be better than 1/15552.

Do you use COLL, or do you try to preserve blocks at all with your OLL choice? This would improve your PLL skip percentage to be better than the 1/72.

Very neat! Good luck, and even if you don't make it for a year, the stats you will provide will be very interesting/helpful for the rest of us! If you do make it the whole year, then that is amazing and even more of an accomplishment!

Have fun!

 

[~Adam~]

Well, unfortunately my cstimer session just crashed and I lost ~ 100 times. I don't know exactly how many though, so I'll just have to estimate, or in your words guess.

I would definitely give up the challenge if I were in your shoes.
I'm glad that it doesn't bother you as much as it would me.

 

[BillyRain]

I am also very interested in the stats, particularly for OLL skips.

Can you give us some details on your solving method, and also let us know if those change throughout the year? For example, I'll bet you use at least some partial edge orientation control, so your OLL skip percentage would already be better than 1/216, and by extension your LL skip percentage would be better than 1/15552.

Do you use COLL, or do you try to preserve blocks at all with your OLL choice? This would improve your PLL skip percentage to be better than the 1/72.

Very neat! Good luck, and even if you don't make it for a year, the stats you will provide will be very interesting/helpful for the rest of us! If you do make it the whole year, then that is amazing and even more of an accomplishment!

Have fun!

Hi!

I use CFOP with full OLL/PLL.

I do not use any COLL and I don't really know how to edge control beyond sledging rather than conventional insert if I feel that it might help. But I think that will change in the near future when I put time into learning it properly. So I'd say right now my OLL/PLL skip chances are pretty close to standard.

Billy

 

[cmhardw]

Hi!

I use CFOP with full OLL/PLL.

I do not use any COLL and I don't really know how to edge control beyond sledging rather than conventional insert if I feel that it might help. But I think that will change in the near future when I put time into learning it properly. So I'd say right now my OLL/PLL skip chances are pretty close to standard.

Billy

Thanks for giving the details on your method, that helps with figuring out the stats!

If you always slegehammer, or at least alter your insertion, when a conventional insert would give you 4 flipped edges at OLL, then your OLL skip probability would be: \( \frac{1}{189} \)
Your LL skip chance would be: \( \frac{1}{13608} \)

Spoiler

OLL comes from 7 possible edge orientations, 1 of which is solved. Multiply this by 27 possible corner orientations.

LL skip comes from OLL skip chance times 1/72 PLL skip chance

This number will change if you aren't 100% on top of sledghammering or altering your insertions to avoid the all 4 edges flipped case, but that will give you a starting point.

---edit---
Additional Calculations

For some more information, say you are on top of paying attention to avoiding the all 4 edges flipped case 90% of the time, and 10% of the time you are doing basically standard Fridrich solves with no regards to edge orientation.

In that case your OLL skip chance would be: \( \frac{79}{15120} \)

Spoiler

\( 0.9*\frac{1}{189}+0.1*\frac{1}{216} \)

Your LL skip chance would be: \( \frac{79}{1088640} \)

Spoiler

\( 0.9*\frac{1}{13608}+0.1*\frac{1}{15552} \)

 

[Jaysammey777]

If you always slegehammer, or at least alter your insertion, when a conventional insert would give you 4 flipped edges at OLL, then your OLL skip probability would be: \( \frac{1}{189} \)
Your LL skip chance would be: \( \frac{1}{13608} \)

If he did sledge hammer only when there are 4 flipped edges, than he will never have an OLL skip when he does this, not altering the results of a skip, but rather what OLL appears... right?

 

[JackJ]

Thanks for giving the details on your method, that helps with figuring out the stats!

If you always slegehammer, or at least alter your insertion, when a conventional insert would give you 4 flipped edges at OLL, then your OLL skip probability would be: \( \frac{1}{189} \)
Your LL skip chance would be: \( \frac{1}{13608} \)

Spoiler

OLL comes from 7 possible edge orientations, 1 of which is solved. Multiply this by 27 possible corner orientations.

LL skip comes from OLL skip chance times 1/72 PLL skip chance

This number will change if you aren't 100% on top of sledghammering or altering your insertions to avoid the all 4 edges flipped case, but that will give you a starting point.

---edit---
Additional Calculations

For some more information, say you are on top of paying attention to avoiding the all 4 edges flipped case 90% of the time, and 10% of the time you are doing basically standard Fridrich solves with no regards to edge orientation.

In that case your OLL skip chance would be: \( \frac{79}{15120} \)

Spoiler

\( 0.9*\frac{1}{189}+0.1*\frac{1}{216} \)

Your LL skip chance would be: \( \frac{79}{1088640} \)

Spoiler

\( 0.9*\frac{1}{13608}+0.1*\frac{1}{15552} \)

I just love probability relating to that of the Rubik's Cube. I find it much more interesting and fun than exponential functions and logarithms. I've been toying with probability the past few days and it's so cool. I'm still trying to wrap my head around how you find that an OLL skip occurs 1/216 times.

You're the man Chris!

 

[uberCuber]

If he did sledge hammer only when there are 4 flipped edges, than he will never have an OLL skip when he does this, not altering the results of a skip, but rather what OLL appears... right?

This is a good point, I think. It does decrease the total number of OLL cases that can come up, but at the same time it makes certain cases more likely to appear.

 

[Lchu613]

(Then why does your username not begin with a capital letter?

That is going to bother me now.
Luckily not too much since usernames don't need to start with a capital to be valid.

Sorry for the OT.

Because he wanted it to be uniformly uncapitalized.

 

[Jaysammey777]

This is a good point, I think. It does decrease the total number of OLL cases that can come up, but at the same time it makes certain cases more likely to appear.

It only increases the cases with L or bar edges, decreases no edges, and does nothing to a full cross, so OLL skip remains the same. Or at least tht is how I think about it.

 

[cmhardw]

If he did sledge hammer only when there are 4 flipped edges, than he will never have an OLL skip when he does this, not altering the results of a skip, but rather what OLL appears... right?

This is a good point, I think. It does decrease the total number of OLL cases that can come up, but at the same time it makes certain cases more likely to appear.

It only increases the cases with L or bar edges, decreases no edges, and does nothing to a full cross, so OLL skip remains the same. Or at least tht is how I think about it.

Hmmm, that is a good point. I guess you would have to specify that in order to gain the advantage of the \( \frac{1}{189} \) OLL skip chance, you have to ensure that you never end up with a solved F2L and 4 flipped LL edges, by whatever means will ensure that. So, for example, you could sledgehammer during the F2L early on when you notice flipped LL edges, or generally alter your c/e pair insertions such that you can 100% of the time avoid a solved F2L with 4 flipped LL edges. If you can do that, then you can ensure the \( \frac{1}{189} \) OLL skip chance.

I just love probability relating to that of the Rubik's Cube. I find it much more interesting and fun than exponential functions and logarithms. I've been toying with probability the past few days and it's so cool. I'm still trying to wrap my head around how you find that an OLL skip occurs 1/216 times.

You're the man Chris!

I do too Yes, definitely start with the probability for OLL and PLL skips. To be better understand the 1/216 probability for an OLL skip, try calculating the probability of the "X" OLL case where all four edges are flipped, and all four corners are correctly oriented. If you want to open the door to some really cool cubing related probability, try finding the probability for OLL/PLL/LL skips on megaminx

As a side note I'm reading a book on the number \( e \) which includes discussion on its discovery, the history of the principal mathematicians involved, its uses in different fields of science and math, etc.. In the book there is a whole chapter on John Napier, the person credited with the invention of logarithms. Napier was the first to publish about logarithms, in 1614, but there is historical evidence that he wasn't the first to use them. His logarithms didn't work exactly like logarithms in the modern sense, he defined them without using the concept of the "base" of the logarithm like we do. However, with some algebraic manipulation before applying his logarithms, they turn out to be a close approximation to doing modern logarithms to the base \( \frac{1}{e} \). Cool stuff!

 

[Bindedsa]

Prisma does this for me, I'm up to 2800 not counting anything but TH. Though I have done about 650 One handed solves. No Bld or feet.

Hmmm, that is a good point. I guess you would have to specify that in order to gain the advantage of the \( \frac{1}{189} \) OLL skip chance, you have to ensure that you never end up with a solved F2L and 4 flipped LL edges, by whatever means will ensure that. So, for example, you could sledgehammer during the F2L early on when you notice flipped LL edges, or generally alter your c/e pair insertions such that you can 100% of the time avoid a solved F2L with 4 flipped LL edges. If you can do that, then you can ensure the \( \frac{1}{189} \) OLL skip chance.



I do too Yes, definitely start with the probability for OLL and PLL skips. To be better understand the 1/216 probability for an OLL skip, try calculating the probability of the "X" OLL case where all four edges are flipped, and all four corners are correctly oriented. If you want to open the door to some really cool cubing related probability, try finding the probability for OLL/PLL/LL skips on megaminx

As a side note I'm reading a book on the number \( e \) which includes discussion on its discovery, the history of the principal mathematicians involved, its uses in different fields of science and math, etc.. In the book there is a whole chapter on John Napier, the person credited with the invention of logarithms. Napier was the first to publish about logarithms, in 1614, but there is historical evidence that he wasn't the first to use them. His logarithms didn't work exactly like logarithms in the modern sense, he defined them without using the concept of the "base" of the logarithm like we do. However, with some algebraic manipulation before applying his logarithms, they turn out to be a close approximation to doing modern logarithms to the base \( \frac{1}{e} \). Cool stuff!

Interesting, if I am about to rotate and notice that there are is only one flipped edge I'll put that in my f2l slot then when inserting my pair it will orient it. How does this increase my chances? It's only of my next pair is misoriented and I have 3 oriented edges.

 

[BillyRain]

I'm very much afraid to announce that I am abandoning this challenge for the two following reasons.

1. I feel that I may not have been accurate enough in keeping track of every single solve that I have done. In the back of my mind every few days.. I am always thinking about whether I remembered to add that solve to the clicker or if I added that prisma session count to the running total.. I feel that unless one can have a flawless counting system and get a 100% accurate result.. the exercise is meaningless and pointless.

2. More importantly, I fear that it is hindering my enthusiasm to practice 3x3. Every time I want to solve 3x3 I have the added responsibility to keep track of every solve, be it a solve after a misscramble, a casual random solve or any other. I don't have this responsibility when practicing/solving other events so I think I have been subconsciously inclined to practice 3x3 less. This is reflected in the final total.. this is not alot of solves for less than 3 months IMHO.

Sorry if anyone was actually following this (I doubt it anyway) or if anyone was looking forward to the final data.

However, I hope that the data that I have finished up with (Which i believe to be more or less accurate), could be useful in some way..

I fail.

 

[Coolster01]

Had the feeling this would happen, but it's okay Cray!

 

[Rocky0701]

Yeah, at least you tried! I will probably do this, but for a month instead of a year.

 

[animeshsareen12]

what were you at before you stopped