Fresh Cuber

[Rabid]

They aren't superfluous. You kinda need them to communicate counterclockwise turns.

But the apostrophe seems like an arbitrary choice. The inelegance of the notation is a steep entry fee into the sub-cult.

 

[yurivish]

Do you perhaps also think that periods to denote the beginning of the decimals in a number is also a steep entry fee into the world of mathematics? Or function notation? Or the apostrophe used to denote various mathy things?

 

[not_kevin]

They aren't superfluous. You kinda need them to communicate counterclockwise turns.

But the apostrophe seems like an arbitrary choice. The inelegance of the notation is a steep entry fee into the sub-cult.

It isn't an arbitrary choice. The apostrophe is based off mathematics, which typically means a reflection of the original (A' is a reflection of A through some process). If you reflect a clockwise turn, you get a counterclockwise turn; therefore, it isn't arbitrary.

 

[MistArts]

This is ridiculous. If you can't read your own handwriting, is it the notation's fault? It's your own fault if you can't distinguish letters from prime markings and numbers.

The Prime markings are superfluous. Why not just have use a 1?

1 would a confusing way to descibe the notation with the fact that bigcube notation have other numbers for useage in the notation. Why cause confusion if you can use a simplier way to do it. Beside, almost cubers, if not all cubers, you the ' to notify as prime or contercockwise. Of course, we can differ the notation by variating the prime marking to another simple symbol like * or ~ but we cannot do this easily for there is hard to execute a new notation.

 

[AvGalen]

The ' might be coming from math and we all might have gotten used to it, but I really never liked it. 25 years ago I was used to - and I liked it much better (as in -F, not F-). But I would really like to just use R3 for R', R2 for R2 and R1 for R. That could be used on more types of puzzles, like Megaminx (R3 and R4 instead of R-- and R-) and like Clock (11 instead of -1)

 

[hawkmp4]

That's more intuitive, yes, but R3 and R' imply a different way of executing ultimately the same move. Inverting algorithms would be more difficult. I use commutators for Megaminx and I only remember A and B and do the inverting in my head. Especially when I was learning, inverting R2 and thinking about it in a somewhat intuitive way would be more difficult.

 

[Rabid]

It isn't an arbitrary choice. The apostrophe is based off mathematics, which typically means a reflection of the original (A' is a reflection of A through some process). If you reflect a clockwise turn, you get a counterclockwise turn; therefore, it isn't arbitrary.

I’m fine with the Mathematical origin..but it comes off as an inside joke meme. Heck, I like to throw a ~ and ! into appropriate Forums to denote approximate and not. If cubing is sincerely interested in reaching the huddled masses the notation needs to be re-imagined into something more palatable.

 

[rjohnson_8ball]

The trailing parenthesis was missing on the URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_(symbol)

I think the little "prime" symbol is quick and easy to mark an inverse twist. Other choices could have been F+, F- or F, Fi but now I guess the use of F, F' has become widespread. What I worry about is our future notation for big cubes. I think we are drifting toward 3F meaning the 3rd slice inward from the F face, and 3f meaning all 3 slices from the F face. Currently, f means double layer twist on F for 3x3 but just a single slice in from F for 4x4 and 5x5. I am not sure what f (with no number in front) should mean for bigger cubes.

I do not see any problem with 3x3 notation as being ambiguous, not like N-KB3 in chess where either knight could be moved to B3. (In that case the chess author should indicate the start location of the knight, like N(N1)-KB3.)

 

[Rabid]

I do not see any problem with 3x3 notation as being ambiguous, not like N-KB3 in chess where either knight could be moved to B3. (In that case the chess author should indicate the start location of the knight, like N(N1)-KB3.)

Ideally the notation should be universally expandable.
It's not ambiguous. It's cumbersome. Chess fixed it with algebraic.

 

[AvGalen]

I always thought this notation nAm and nam should be enough for most all twisty puzzles.
n indicates the amount of layers
A indicates "wide" turns, meaning all layers from n to the outer layer. By using an n equal to the amount of layers (meaning n=5 on a 5x5x5) cube rotations like xyz can be simulated
a indicates "slice" turns, meaning only the nth layer. This way MES can be simulated
m indicates the amount of turns to perform in the clockwise direction. m=3 equals ' on a cube and m=4 equals - on a MegaMinx.
A and a should indicate the face to turn, like RUFLDB and rufldb for Right-Up-Front-Left-Down-Back for a cube

2r3 would indicate a counter-clockwise slice move of the second rightmost layer.
5F would indicate a z-cube-rotation on a 5x5x5

 

[Lofty]

I have tried comparing Chess and Cubing with a friend of mine whose job is teaching chess. I don't think they are that similar that they can be compared as much as you are trying to compare them.
BLD solving a cube without holding a physical cube is not the same as playing chess without an actual board. Two skilled BLD chess players can play without a board because they can both visualize the board in their head which isnt really the same as imagining a cube in your head but idk I dont do BLD solving of cubes or chess playing.
The notation should be independent of color and works just fine as is save for expanding it to the larger size cubes. I think learning that prime simply means inverse is not harder than using the grid system of the chess board and learning the letters corresponding to the sides of the cube no worse then learning the letters corresponding to the pieces in a game of chess.
A further difference is that Chess starts from a set point and the possibilities become greater as the game progresses while on a cube you start out with the most possibilities and as you start to solve parts of the cube you restrict yourself. Just a difference between the two I've thought of.
I think your opinion of notation has been biased by the fact you chose to learn how to solve on a site that uses applets instead of written notation. If you learned from a site that used basic notation you could easily scribble that on your paper and take it with you on the bus.
Do you always talk this eccentric or just in random online forums? Do you use a thesaurus or something similar or just have a very large diction?

 

[DavidWoner]

there is nothing ambiguous at all about the current notation scheme(for 3x3 at least). it is extremely straightforward and i understood it before i finished reading the passage about it back when i first learned

here is why your suggestions for new notation will not work:

Color notation: as it has been pointed out already, you would have to learn many times the number of algorithms based on how you hold the cube. and even more obviously, the varying color schemes. what abut people who have cubes with pink or black or purple stickers? what about megaminx, where there are 3 shades of blue and two shades of green? since so many cubes have different colors, all algorithms would be personalized for each cube, which is the worst way to "reach the huddled masses" as you say.side notation is best because by definition, every single cube has a right, left, front, back, up, and down face

why prime notation is best for 3x3: it is easiest to handwrite. plain and simple. a 1 would not catch on, because my 1 looks identical to my lowercase L(i imagine many others would have the same problem.) also, as trivial as this may sound, it takes longer to write a 1 legibly. if you don't believe me time yourself writing ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' compared to 1111111111(make sure they don't look like lower case "L"s)

this is actually why other notations (*, #, ~, i) have also not caught on.



and besides, why does it matter if the symbol is arbitrary? every punctuation mark and every letter in every language is arbitrary (except for chinese characters, egyptian pictographs, etc.) and nobody questions them. in fact, changing from prime notation would probably be just as difficult as changing the question mark. it would take the collective effort of the thousands of people using prime notation to alter it. and it is frankly not worth it just to satisfy the only person i have ever heard of that has a problem with the current notation system(you).

 

[Rabid]

there is nothing ambiguous at all about the current notation scheme(for 3x3 at least). it is extremely straightforward and i understood it before i finished reading the passage about it back when i first learned

here is why your suggestions for new notation will not work:

Color notation: as it has been pointed out already, you would have to learn many times the number of algorithms based on how you hold the cube. and even more obviously, the varying color schemes. what abut people who have cubes with pink or black or purple stickers?.. every single cube has a right, left, front, back, up, and down face

. it would take the collective effort of the thousands of people using prime notation to alter it. and it is frankly not worth it just to satisfy the only person i have ever heard of that has a problem with the current notation system(you).

I’m not suggesting a fix, just a perceived lack of elegance in the current notation.

I used to play a lot of street-chess in Portland, and people would bring their own pieces for the outdoor boards. Most people used standard Staunton, but one hippy freak used a Simpsons set. A few pieces were missing so he subbed a couple of the 7 dwarves and a plastic unicorn. It may have been fun for him to capture en-passant with Dopey, as he was toked out of his gourd. I spent too much time deciphering whether Bart or Lisa was my Bishop. My point is, standardization is essential for ideal play. Colour schemes may well be whimsical, but that doesn’t mean they have to be pandered to. I can’t honestly play serious chess if I have to castle with Custer.

The side notation gets screwy, as it depends on grip and orientation. It makes no sense to base a notation on an assumed position for every algorithm. From my (admittedly short) experience it’s common for applets to vary from notation..even if they are technically mirrors..wouldn’t it make more sense to have a standard perspective?

Many people have issues with the current notation. In this very thread. The collective effort isn’t a plausible argument; I point to the usage of algebraic chess notation.

Usually if someone is telling you about an algorithm in person or on a video, they can show you the moves on a cube. I don't know of any solely auditory Rubik's cube tutorials.

The ' might be coming from math and we all might have gotten used to it, but I really never liked it. 25 years ago I was used to - and I liked it much better (as in -F, not F-)

.. but now I guess the use of F, F' has become widespread. What I worry about is our future notation for big cubes…. I am not sure what f (with no number in front) should mean for bigger cubes.

 

[Mike Hughey]

Using up-down-right-left-front-back is quite analogous to algebraic notation in chess - it is based upon position with respect to a frame of reference (as on a chessboard, where the letters go left-right and numbers go front-back with respect to the frame of reference of the board itself - you have to know which way the board is turned to know what the coordinate of a square is). The only difference is that there's no alphabetical order for us to correlate it with. Perhaps you'd be happier if we replaced "U D R L F B" with "a b c d e f"?

But then, isn't an alphabet a rather arbitrary thing anyway? It's certainly easier for the typical English-speaking person to follow "U D R L F B" than it would be to use "a b c d e f".

 

[Rabid]

But then, isn't an alphabet a rather arbitrary thing anyway? It's certainly easier for the typical English-speaking person to follow "U D R L F B" than it would be to use "a b c d e f".

And exactly the same for typical non-English-speaking persons. Exactly my point. Notation should transcend language.

I still don't follow how (for instance) U can be considered remotely elegant, when every cock of the cube shifts its gist. If we are to assume a “correct” reference point (white up for example) then W makes just as much sense. Standard colours may even be more efficient, because you can actually roll the cube randomly and still have the algorithm mean exactly the same thing.

 

[not_kevin]

I still don't follow how (for instance) U can be considered remotely elegant, when every cock of the cube shifts its gist. If we are to assume a “correct” reference point (white up for example) then W makes just as much sense. Standard colours may even be more efficient, because you can actually roll the cube randomly and still have the algorithm mean exactly the same thing.

But that would not help people who have different color schemes (for example, black instead of white, such as on V-cubes, or green-opposite-yellow compared to white-opposite-yellow). Furthermore, it would not help color neutrality, and trying to learn F2L by codes (non-intuitive F2L) would be a pain.

 

[Rabid]

But that would not help people who have different color schemes (for example, black instead of white, such as on V-cubes, or green-opposite-yellow compared to white-opposite-yellow). Furthermore, it would not help color neutrality, and trying to learn F2L by codes (non-intuitive F2L) would be a pain.

I don't think it's my concern to teach a chess player how to play on his Civil War Chess set. I'm not pitching a solution, just a crisis. I’m saying that holistic standardization would benefit the community. You need to beguile beyond American high school students.

I can't speak for F2L codes..what a pain.


I'll throw a personal progress report into this jacked-thread.
I'm doing intuitive Petrus F2L almost exclusively. I’m slowing down and counting sub 50 turns to get them. Seems pretty good to me. My LL algs are on the back burner until my new cube arrives.

 

[pcharles93]

But then, isn't an alphabet a rather arbitrary thing anyway? It's certainly easier for the typical English-speaking person to follow "U D R L F B" than it would be to use "a b c d e f".

And exactly the same for typical non-English-speaking persons. Exactly my point. Notation should transcend language.

I still don't follow how (for instance) U can be considered remotely elegant, when every cock of the cube shifts its gist. If we are to assume a “correct” reference point (white up for example) then W makes just as much sense. Standard colours may even be more efficient, because you can actually roll the cube randomly and still have the algorithm mean exactly the same thing.

You know what? Half of that reasoning doesn't apply to a speedsolve or any kind of solve. Roll around the cube randomly? Why and when would that be helpful? If you drop your cube, you can do cube rotations and use the exact same alg instead of keeping it with blue as U or something. Also, you could turn a nice RFU algorithm into a hellish BDF one. Does it really matter if notation is elegant? Would you rather us use Helvetica or Verdana to type out algorithms? If you really want to use color for notation instead of relative locations of faces, go ahead and do it. Have fun learning 84 PLL's and 228 OLL's. Or whatever method you use, just don't try and talk us into it.

 

[Rabid]

Does it really matter if notation is elegant? Would you rather us use Helvetica or Verdana to type out algorithms? If you really want to use color for notation instead of relative locations of faces, go ahead and do it. Have fun learning 84 PLL's and 228 OLL's. Or whatever method you use, just don't try and talk us into it.

I taste animosity. I’m too new to cubing to have an informed opinion. My comparison of speed-cubing notation to other (seemingly) related disciplines shows it’s lacking. I also dislike QWERTY keyboards and prefer the Metric System. The Horizon doesn’t welcome change soon.

 

[not_kevin]

Does it really matter if notation is elegant? Would you rather us use Helvetica or Verdana to type out algorithms? If you really want to use color for notation instead of relative locations of faces, go ahead and do it. Have fun learning 84 PLL's and 228 OLL's. Or whatever method you use, just don't try and talk us into it.

I taste animosity. I’m too new to cubing to have an informed opinion. My comparison of speed-cubing notation to other (seemingly) related disciplines shows it’s lacking. I also dislike QWERTY keyboards and prefer the Metric System. The Horizon doesn’t welcome change soon.

I personally hate QWERTY and also prefer the Metric System. You're not alone in those points; however, to me, the current method of cube notation makes sense, and I don't see a better alternative as of yet.