Mikel
Premium Member
This is the same with me. I am consistently sub-20 and I only know ~20 OLLs. This is due to the fact that I practice solving a lot, and I haven't spent as much time memorizing algorithms.
[Help Thread] CFOP Discussion
- Thread starter pcwiz
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 2 look oll 2 look pll 3x3 20 seconds 4ll a0100/27 a012/27 a05/26 advanced speedcubing algorithms beginner can't reach sub 30 cfop cross - pll solving cube f2l f2l help faster fridrich getting sub-30 help cross help f2l how to how to do faster 3x3 how to get faster how to's improve improve time keep cubing happy cubing oll pb/18.97 roux seconds solving speed speed cubing speedcubing stuck sub 20 sub 40 time tips
jskyler91
Veteran
I agree with what everyone has said up to this point (yes, even you Kir), however I will add that a lot of the speed you are looking for comes from confidence. You need to believe sub 20 is possible for yourself before you can really achieve it (in general), in short, assuming your algs aren't terrible and you don't turn ridiculously slow, your limiting factor might just be your perspective. If you think sub 20 is impossible then it very well may be like that for you because you have put up a mental block between yourself and the cube. Mushy stuff aside, you should really check out these vids for help on your algs and transitions:
OLL: Breandans Vid- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqCm...DvjVQa1PpcFPG-1wc7AjBRLSEbhZDNuOLMPPgjTI3i-w=
PLL: Also Breandans Vid- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWyj...DvjVQa1PpcFPG-1wc7AjBRM-8OzmlwLKJn6XeZ1Zfvl4=
F2l: My Vids (I don't know of any other complete sets so if anyone else would like to link to another please feel free)- http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?36158-video-My-F2L-Algs-from-All-4-Angles
Cross: BadMephisto's Vid- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY_FbpdNRCQ&list=PL0B7E0E5922B76D76&index=10&feature=plpp_video
Felik's Vid- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKs78QR-8Iw
And possibly my fingertricks vid- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDk8IOE_SRI&list=UU7p_GyWOWcsh2VbZJw23GMQ&index=11&feature=plcp
Looking Ahead/ Transitions:
My vid- http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?35861-How-to-Look-Ahead-in-the-Fridrich-CFOP-Method
PC Wiz vids- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsaBg73f9nY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfE7jYOXbgg
I hope these vids help you. There are definitely more out there, but these are some of the most helpful.
OLL: Breandans Vid- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqCm...DvjVQa1PpcFPG-1wc7AjBRLSEbhZDNuOLMPPgjTI3i-w=
PLL: Also Breandans Vid- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWyj...DvjVQa1PpcFPG-1wc7AjBRM-8OzmlwLKJn6XeZ1Zfvl4=
F2l: My Vids (I don't know of any other complete sets so if anyone else would like to link to another please feel free)- http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?36158-video-My-F2L-Algs-from-All-4-Angles
Cross: BadMephisto's Vid- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY_FbpdNRCQ&list=PL0B7E0E5922B76D76&index=10&feature=plpp_video
Felik's Vid- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKs78QR-8Iw
And possibly my fingertricks vid- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDk8IOE_SRI&list=UU7p_GyWOWcsh2VbZJw23GMQ&index=11&feature=plcp
Looking Ahead/ Transitions:
My vid- http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?35861-How-to-Look-Ahead-in-the-Fridrich-CFOP-Method
PC Wiz vids- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsaBg73f9nY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfE7jYOXbgg
I hope these vids help you. There are definitely more out there, but these are some of the most helpful.
Last edited:
Kirjava
Colourful
If you did that more often people would make fun of you less.
jskyler91
Veteran
I have no desire to be popular or liked by you Kir, all I care about is making sure that I truth prevails and that I help as many people as I can. Just so you realize, I get far more people who message me and say that they think I am right about our arguments then those who think I am wrong. You may "win" in the eyes of those who don't understand logic, but that doesn't make you correct or right, it just means that people don't realize that what you are saying is illogical or, more often then not using an Ad Hominem fallacy argument. Put the two of us before a group of rhetoricians or people who are old enough/ educated enough to understand a logical syllogism and I win 9 times out of 10(notice how i did not say intelligent enough because this is not an attack on the forum members just pointing out that most of you are below the age of 16 and haven't learned what a logical syllogism is therefore you assume that when one is using one they must be wrong or omitting facts when in fact they are just comparing logical premises to form a logical conclusion). And when I am wrong I admit it.
Last edited:
a small kitten
Veteran
+
Assumes that the people who message you are people who thoroughly understand logic. Or we can say the claim that people messaging their opinions have no weight in terms of assessing the "winner" of your arguments.
Long story short, please don't try to fight Kir. It's kind of pointless.
jskyler91
Veteran
I would say the fact that they understand the arguments I make which ARE logically sound shows that they DO understand logic. Also if a "winner" in this forum is a person who is generally accepted to be right and I have had a great deal of people say I am right then how am I wrong here? (This is a logical syllogism btw, Major premise: a winner is someone who is generally accepted as right, Minor Premise: I have more people who agree with me than those who dont' Conclusion: I am the winner)Now I realize that in fact more people may actually disagree with me than agree, but that only makes Kir winner because people are not understanding the logic and are being swayed by the personal attacks he makes on me.
Finally, why WOULDN"T I want to argue with Kir? If he is wrong and people tend to listen to him I would be doing a diservice to the forum to not point this out. This is the same reason he tries to discredit me supposedly i.e. to make sure the forum knows I am in his opinion wrong. Why is it that he must go unopposed no matter what he says, this forum was meant for community discussions, not just lecturing by one individual. I am trying to help the forum out by pointing out his incorrect logic. Are you saying I shouldn't help out the forum? That I shouldn't be a productive member of this community? I don't think that is at all fair to ask of me and I will not take that advice. I know my life would be easier if I did, but if I wanted an easier life I wouldn't spend hours of my time making videos in an attempt to help out the forum. Heck I wouldn't even post, I would just take all I could from the forum and leave. But that is not me, nor is it what I think this forum was made for.
Last edited:
Kirjava
Colourful
I truth
That must mean that you are right!!!!!
You should come on IRC sometime and see if you get the same kind of reception.
You lie a lot of the time. Last time you claimed I made a lot of ad hom attacks, after reqesting that they were pointed out, you refused to do so.
Claiming you have 'won' does not make you the 'winnner'. I am clearly more knowledgeable than you.
a small kitten
Veteran
I recommend that you avoid logic. Your progression of thought has major holes. I'm not going to voluntarily debate with you. If you really want debate, I will post more about the errors in your thought progression. Otherwise, I will leave you alone.
Anyway, my advice still stands. Please don't fight with Kir. He is more knowledgeable than the two of us combined. The way he phrases things can be jarring. Just focus on his content. Your advice to younger cubers is very thorough and you have great intentions. I think you should just stick to that instead of arguing with Kir. From an objective perspective, you will most likely "lose" all the fights you pick with him.
Last edited:
jonlin
Veteran
jskyler91
Veteran
First of all, I would like to state that my ONLY reason for not doing this before was to avoid a full on confrontation and because I did not feel like trying to teach someone who obviously does not understand the rules of argumentation how to argue, but alas here I go:
Let us first start with the wonderful Ad Hominem that Kir has been asking for so feverrently OH wait!!! He gave me one right here in this very forum:
Now this is one of his more subtle comments since he didn't actually claim anything here, but the most obvious interpretation of ths meaningless pointing out of my typo is to say that "Hey look jskyler91 is dumb and can't right" which makes my argument appear "wrong or stupid". In short it is an attempt to degrade my character. If you disagree with my initial premise then you will not agree with the next conclusion (this will be a suppressed syllogism, which means that is assumes the fact of the minor premise to be inherently obvious or true i.e. he wrote the actual statement of question) which is that he wrote this statement to purposefully degrade my character to make my arguement in this paragraph seem invalid.
THIS IS COMPLETELY ILLOGICAL. Just because a person makes a typo does not mean that their claims in the surrounding paragraphs are incorrect. What he tried to do here was employ a logical falacy i.e. a statement which is inherently flawed in its logic and therefore not valid, in order to assert a claim i.e. that I was wrong about the things I said in this paragraph he quoted. Kir loves to do this and has done this in almost every argument we have ever had, when he does this, his claims are almost always INCORRECT. ANy statement made to degrade the character of your opponent is IRRELEVANT and if done to assert a claim is ILLOGICAL.
Again, just because people may think you are right do to your illogical fallacies does not mean you are right.
LIE?!!! Show me a single time that I have lied Kir:
lie1 [lahy] Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2.
something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3.
an inaccurate or false statement.
4.
the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
Lies must be false statements made with intention, if not then it is called being incorrect, not lies
What your describe here Kir:
Is neither a lie or an incidence of incorrectness, it is a unfulfilled request due to a lack of a desire one one the requestee to enter into a conflict.
No, but winning does and yet again you try and subvert my claims by using an illogical statement: You state: Major premise: Knowing more than one person about more things makes that one person inherently more right about a specific statement, minor premise: a statement was made by you, Conclusion, you are right. This logic is flawed, first of all, to know more about things does not make a persons inherently right or the words the speak true; I can easily know everything and still state something which is wrong. Also, in the topics we have discussed you often know LESS than me about them. I AM COLOR NEUTRAL, YOU ARE NOT, I HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH ACTUALLY SWITCHING SUCCESSFULLY, YOU DO NOT.
I have to leave now to go to work, but I hope everyone can see (for as long as this post lasts) that Kir does in fact make Illogical statements very often.
Wow, all I can say is no, you are wrong here, please read my long post and I would love to here my flaws here. Just so everyone knows, I am a Rhetoric and education major at the University of California Berkeley, arguably the best public school in the world and I excel in my coursework. I am not making these statements without grounds or pulling them out of thin air, I could GUARANTEE that all of my professors, who are at the top of their field in Logic and Rhetoric would agree with what I have said as far as I meant it to go. I have literally written papers on the logical syllogism and I am certain I understand them. Please do not take my words here lightly.
Also, Kir knows a lot in terms of number of things, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN HE IS ALWAYS RIGHT NOR DOES IT NECESSARILY MEAN HE KNOWS A LOT ABOUT SPEFIC AND LEARNED KNOWLEDGE SUCH AS COLOR NEUTRALITY, such logic is FLAWED. If you need me to explain that then you do not understand logical syllogisms and you are the prime example of what I described as being the person who will likely side with Kir.
TO RELATE ALL OF THIS BACK TO THE OP SO THAT WE DON'T GE THOS GOOD MEMBER'S THREAD SHUT DOWN, ONE THING THAT WILL MAKE YOU FASTER IS UNDERSTANDING LOGICAL PROCESSES BECAUSE KNOWING THEM CAN MAKE IT EASIER TO DETERMINE WHAT ACTION YOU SHOULD TAKE IN AMBIGUOUS SITUATIONS SUCH AS WHEN YOU CAN'T SEE WHAT IS IN THE BACK TWO SLOTS.
BTW, If you would like to continue this discussion Kir, we can do so later tonight, in an appropriate setting as I will be making a thread in which we can discuss this and other issues of logic.
Let us first start with the wonderful Ad Hominem that Kir has been asking for so feverrently OH wait!!! He gave me one right here in this very forum:
Now this is one of his more subtle comments since he didn't actually claim anything here, but the most obvious interpretation of ths meaningless pointing out of my typo is to say that "Hey look jskyler91 is dumb and can't right" which makes my argument appear "wrong or stupid". In short it is an attempt to degrade my character. If you disagree with my initial premise then you will not agree with the next conclusion (this will be a suppressed syllogism, which means that is assumes the fact of the minor premise to be inherently obvious or true i.e. he wrote the actual statement of question) which is that he wrote this statement to purposefully degrade my character to make my arguement in this paragraph seem invalid.
THIS IS COMPLETELY ILLOGICAL. Just because a person makes a typo does not mean that their claims in the surrounding paragraphs are incorrect. What he tried to do here was employ a logical falacy i.e. a statement which is inherently flawed in its logic and therefore not valid, in order to assert a claim i.e. that I was wrong about the things I said in this paragraph he quoted. Kir loves to do this and has done this in almost every argument we have ever had, when he does this, his claims are almost always INCORRECT. ANy statement made to degrade the character of your opponent is IRRELEVANT and if done to assert a claim is ILLOGICAL.
Again, just because people may think you are right do to your illogical fallacies does not mean you are right.
LIE?!!! Show me a single time that I have lied Kir:
lie1 [lahy] Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2.
something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3.
an inaccurate or false statement.
4.
the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
Lies must be false statements made with intention, if not then it is called being incorrect, not lies
What your describe here Kir:
Is neither a lie or an incidence of incorrectness, it is a unfulfilled request due to a lack of a desire one one the requestee to enter into a conflict.
No, but winning does and yet again you try and subvert my claims by using an illogical statement: You state: Major premise: Knowing more than one person about more things makes that one person inherently more right about a specific statement, minor premise: a statement was made by you, Conclusion, you are right. This logic is flawed, first of all, to know more about things does not make a persons inherently right or the words the speak true; I can easily know everything and still state something which is wrong. Also, in the topics we have discussed you often know LESS than me about them. I AM COLOR NEUTRAL, YOU ARE NOT, I HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH ACTUALLY SWITCHING SUCCESSFULLY, YOU DO NOT.
I have to leave now to go to work, but I hope everyone can see (for as long as this post lasts) that Kir does in fact make Illogical statements very often.
Wow, all I can say is no, you are wrong here, please read my long post and I would love to here my flaws here. Just so everyone knows, I am a Rhetoric and education major at the University of California Berkeley, arguably the best public school in the world and I excel in my coursework. I am not making these statements without grounds or pulling them out of thin air, I could GUARANTEE that all of my professors, who are at the top of their field in Logic and Rhetoric would agree with what I have said as far as I meant it to go. I have literally written papers on the logical syllogism and I am certain I understand them. Please do not take my words here lightly.
Also, Kir knows a lot in terms of number of things, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN HE IS ALWAYS RIGHT NOR DOES IT NECESSARILY MEAN HE KNOWS A LOT ABOUT SPEFIC AND LEARNED KNOWLEDGE SUCH AS COLOR NEUTRALITY, such logic is FLAWED. If you need me to explain that then you do not understand logical syllogisms and you are the prime example of what I described as being the person who will likely side with Kir.
TO RELATE ALL OF THIS BACK TO THE OP SO THAT WE DON'T GE THOS GOOD MEMBER'S THREAD SHUT DOWN, ONE THING THAT WILL MAKE YOU FASTER IS UNDERSTANDING LOGICAL PROCESSES BECAUSE KNOWING THEM CAN MAKE IT EASIER TO DETERMINE WHAT ACTION YOU SHOULD TAKE IN AMBIGUOUS SITUATIONS SUCH AS WHEN YOU CAN'T SEE WHAT IS IN THE BACK TWO SLOTS.
BTW, If you would like to continue this discussion Kir, we can do so later tonight, in an appropriate setting as I will be making a thread in which we can discuss this and other issues of logic.
Last edited by a moderator:
Kirjava
Colourful
I switched to CN with CFOP when I was 16sec. I'm now 13sec.
But, I do.
^_^
jskyler91
Veteran
a small kitten
Veteran
The major problem is: you have an inadequate definition of "generally accepted as right". Just because more people have messaged you saying that they "think" you are right does not mean that you are right. This is because their opinions do not constitute the "general". They are not an accurate representation of "general".
By your logic...
Major Premise: Whether something is good or not depends on what the "general public" tells you.
Minor Premise: You have more people informing you than not that arson is the best.
Conclusion: Arson is the best.
The logic appears "strong" However, you cannot start with a fatal assumption. Your "perceived general public" is not really the general public. The conclusions you can draw can turn quite crazy. Obviously, the group of people who think arson is the best does not represent general public sentiment. I'm not trying to offend you or anything. Just pointing out that your reasoning is a bit of a stretch.
You have great intentions and your interest in helping others is very admirable. However, you are overly defensive and rush to conclusions. Just leave Kir alone. We are also creating unnecessary clutter on this thread.
Last edited:
evogler
Regular
I feel sad when people try to resolve conflicts by arguing about who is right.
Here's a wish for understanding and acceptance for everyone involved.
Here's a wish for understanding and acceptance for everyone involved.
Godmil
Premium Member
Jskyler, I really like your videos and feel you are a credit to the community. But I have to say you did make a few logical fallacies in your big post, I won't go into big details, but you did flip a definition immediately after plainly stating it, then you used an argument from authority after criticising its usage, and other stuff that I guess there is no point in mentioning as this thread will be deleted before you get back 
I hope this doesn't put you off trying to help on these forums though cause you really do a lot of good work.
I hope this doesn't put you off trying to help on these forums though cause you really do a lot of good work.
Rpotts
Veteran
This is the cause of this.
Capitalizing certain words doesn't suddenly make your arguments correct. You're assuming a lot here. You're using this minor typo thing instead of actually showing an example of what he was asking for.
The first argument you brought up was more people send you PMs agreeing with you. Most PMs I've received are from random noobs too.
Your major premise: I have not lied to you.
Your minor premise: 2 of these definitions say lying has to be deliberate.
Your conclusion: I have not lied.
You're ignoring the 3rd, very common definition. You have made false claims, possibly with nothing but the greatest intentions. Perhaps you've lied.
He's not saying you're lying because you haven't fulfilled his request, he's saying you're lying that he made ad hom attacks, and probably about exaggerated claims in other threads.
Goes to show how much you blow up color neutrality's importance and how ignorant you are about Kirjava.
One huge argument from authority / Argumentum ad populum
Also *Look here, I'm in college. I'm important.*
Your major premise: rpotts agrees with kir
Your minor premise: those who agree with kir don't understand logic
Your conclusion: rpotts doesn't understand logic
ಠ_ಠ
Last edited:
Jokerman5656
Catch Me If You Can
I'd say that jskyler ruined this thread with ~13 words.
I agree with what everyone has said up to this point (yes, even you Kir)
I agree with what everyone has said up to this point (yes, even you Kir)
Cool Frog
Veteran
whut?
I would also like to point out that you make some claims that are far fetched (Pokemon
) based on one or two examples.
jskyler91
Veteran
I agree to the last part, but I will have to talk this out with you later in the thread i want to make. I can't right now though, seeing as how I am feeling quite sick. Suffusive to say, your arsen example is in fact Logically sound, but it is not valid. Valid means that the claims are actually true in the real world. Sound just means that it follows logical form without any of the premises being inherently false. My claims, however are sound and valid; winning, in the general sense is the perception by the majority that one person is correct is as true as any statement made about majority of peoples can be (Everyone may not agree on this definition- you obviously don't- but the majority of people would, hence my use of the word majority). It is not a stretch, it just doesn't satisfy you because you are not part of the majority. We can discuss this more later if you would like to.
a small kitten
Veteran
jskyler: we are are not debating the definition of winning. I am objecting to you perceiving the random people who PM you as the "majority" or the "general".
