Lucas Garron
Premium Member
I consider the word "full" to be a disambiguator.
The following are true:
I know CFOP.
I don't know full CFOP.
I know over 30 OLLs. I can solve every scramble using the correct steps, but I don't know the "full" set of algs for each step.
However, it's still a bit ambiguous. I know ZZ, but I'm not proficient at it, and there's no common measure for "full" (what's "full Petrus"?).
I also can follow the steps for ZB, but I've barely learned any special algs for it, so I'm far from being able to do what I would consider "ZB solves."
If I know the basic structure of Latin, do I "know" Latin? Or does "speak" == "know"? Is language even a good analogy?
The following are true:
I know CFOP.
I don't know full CFOP.
I know over 30 OLLs. I can solve every scramble using the correct steps, but I don't know the "full" set of algs for each step.
However, it's still a bit ambiguous. I know ZZ, but I'm not proficient at it, and there's no common measure for "full" (what's "full Petrus"?).
I also can follow the steps for ZB, but I've barely learned any special algs for it, so I'm far from being able to do what I would consider "ZB solves."
If I know the basic structure of Latin, do I "know" Latin? Or does "speak" == "know"? Is language even a good analogy?