L2L4 - The Lost Methode ? Help Find it!

[FatBoyXPC]

The idea was go look at the edges in the E layer and check their orientation, then check the orientation of the edges in the U layer, then do the appropriate F/f SM F'/f'. As long as you use L/R/U moves, you should be fine. Or you could wait until you get CO/CP done, then do the EO alg. That way you don't have to keep 2gen algs for CO/CP. Since during EP you'll be preserving EO anyway, you can to F SM F' directly after CP.

Why are you so hostile when I just want to understand? It's attitudes like this that promote people to learn algorithmic solutions without ever learning what's going on. I know a decent handful of members here don't really appreciate that. Given your attitude, I wouldn't be surprised if you were in that handful (though I've never seen you directly make a comment, but in fairness I can't recall specific usernames I've seen post about it).

 

[qqwref]

The idea was go look at the edges in the E layer and check their orientation, then check the orientation of the edges in the U layer, then do the appropriate F/f SM F'/f'. As long as you use L/R/U moves, you should be fine. Or you could wait until you get CO/CP done, then do the EO alg. That way you don't have to keep 2gen algs for CO/CP. Since during EP you'll be preserving EO anyway, you can to F SM F' directly after CP.

Wouldn't using that technique it takes roughly 12 moves minus cancels (3 move setup, 6 move alg, 3 move unsetup) just to flip one E edge? And on a typical solve you'd have 2 flipped edges in E. That's a huge waste of moves for a method that aims to be sub15.

Why are you so hostile when I just want to understand?

Look, I'm not a teacher and I'm not paid to post here. I have limited patience and you have exceeded it. It's as simple as that. I help people out either because I want to be nice or because I think they will be interesting to talk to once they get over whatever they're stuck on. But at this point I've given up on the possibility of helping you understand what you're doing wrong.

 

[FatBoyXPC]

Using that technique I'm not flipping E edges. I'm flipping U layer edges. If you do EO after CO/CP you'd have to do the CO/CP preserving EO algs (RUR'U' M' URU'r' / inverse / the 4 edge flip one). You take a count of bad edges in E, bad edges in U and flip the appropriate amount of NON U layer edges in the U layer. When you start moving edges from E into U, they're now good edges.

Fair enough about the teacher ordeal. I'd rather wish you didn't give up though, because I'm truly interested in this method. Maybe in the time spent in looking into it more something will click. That still doesn't mean you need to insult me though, you can just say you can't explain it anymore or any better, etc. and I can see help elsewhere. At least with Stefan when I don't understand something and he insults me he'll dumb it down so a two year old can understand it. Sure, I get insulted, but at least I get the benefit of understanding it, since I'd get insulted anyway.

 

[qqwref]

Using that technique I'm not flipping E edges. I'm flipping U layer edges. If you do EO after CO/CP you'd have to do the CO/CP preserving EO algs (RUR'U' M' URU'r' / inverse / the 4 edge flip one). You take a count of bad edges in E, bad edges in U and flip the appropriate amount of NON U layer edges in the U layer. When you start moving edges from E into U, they're now good edges.

You've lost me, too vague. Maybe you could explain with an example of what turns you intend to do. We have UL, UF, UR, FL, FR, BR flipped. Now what?

Fair enough about the teacher ordeal. I'd rather wish you didn't give up though, because I'm truly interested in this method. Maybe in the time spent in looking into it more something will click. That still doesn't mean you need to insult me though, you can just say you can't explain it anymore or any better, etc. and I can see help elsewhere. At least with Stefan when I don't understand something and he insults me he'll dumb it down so a two year old can understand it. Sure, I get insulted, but at least I get the benefit of understanding it, since I'd get insulted anyway.

Do you really want to say "that doesn't mean you need to insult me"? I'm sorry, that's how people with finite patience react when you annoyingly ask for the same explanation ten times in a row. You might want to understand what you're doing wrong, but that doesn't mean you need to DEMAND that I help you. And hey, I'm sorry if Stefan's "here is a one word response, now go figure the answer out yourself, idiot" approach is easier to follow than an actual attempt to explain it.

Nobody is going to be able to help you if you don't actually read and then think about the explanations people are providing. From your responses I really don't get the feeling you've done that.

 

[FatBoyXPC]

You've lost me, too vague. Maybe you could explain with an example of what turns you intend to do. We have UL, UF, UR, FL, FR, BR flipped. Now what?

I was actually talking to cincyaviation about this earlier. You could always check the amount of flipped edges you have and then if using F SM F' (or it's variants, etc) doesn't take care of the issue then you could always remember how many "extra" edges need flipped and just make sure flip them when you remove / replace them. That would also depend on your target slots I suppose / how your algorithms affect the rest of the cube.

jms_gears showed me a real simple algorithm that flips the BR/BL edges (in place). Unfortunately it'd be a huge waste of moves. My goal was to find a number of flipped edges in E, then flip that amount of edge in U. Obviously you'd want to avoid flipping the U layer edges. If it can't be done without having to do setup moves + F SM F' then you can just take note of making sure to do a d/d' to the back instead of the front or whatever.

Nobody is going to be able to help you if you don't actually read and then think about the explanations people are providing. From your responses I really don't get the feeling you've done that.

Typically when somebody doesn't understand what you say, you back up and explain things in more detail. I like to understand things, hence why I kept asking and saying "I don't understand." I could see your point if I was arguing with you, but I wasn't. Your reaction would be horrible for any sort of job where you have to interface with people (internal or external customers, doesn't matter), and you explain something that they don't understand. Maybe you have that reaction here because it's "permissable" but really it's incredibly negative. The few times I've earned myself "idiot" from Stefan, all but one he's explained it in much simpler detail. Yes, he proceeded to insult as well, but at least I got my answer. The funny part is, I not once demanded you help me. I just kept telling you I don't understand.

I really figured that people here interested in theory would be more willing to explain things to those that want to understand instead of getting annoyed. I won't generalize the member list here to your actions, but it's interesting, nonetheless.

 

[oll+phase+sync]

What about the following simplyfication:

- don't solve one Edge of the first Layer
- CO if there is no Medge in Last Layer, do 3 additional moves R E/E'/E² R' to place a medge. (this will also shoout one edge to Last Layer wich simplyfies CP)
- ( CO again : consider only knowing 27 CO algs with oriented Edge in Last Layer - you could now flip a Last Layer edge by M' U M without destoying first layer
...
- during EO placing the Last fistlayer edge in a way that results in an easy medge placement or using the "gap" to fist place the medge and then EO+Place Firstlayer Edge

I still need some fast algs wich operate on 4 Egdes (U and E ) and flip at least 2 of them.

 

[jms_gears1]

Now we don’t necessarily need a separate alg for each case. But we would have to not be using a fixed target and also have d/d2/d’ setup moves. For example, jms_gears1 gave us Ru2R'u'Ru'R' which sends 3 edges in 3 different directions. Sure that’s 2 algs less you have to learn, but the trade off is you have to keep track of what algs send what edges where, keep track of changing orientations on the fly (simple ZZ orientation recognition no longer works), and keep track of the bottom 2 layers for setup. I’m not so sure the memorization load would be reduced at all. But for the sake of argument, if each algs we come up with has an average of 2 edge movements, that would put us down to 97 algs. And if we somehow standardize these edge movements, for example always shooting to BL and BR in the EO step, the tradeoffs I listed above would be a lot more manageable.

I dont think that 'my' approach would mess up recog at all.
Im talking about algs that mess up as many Edges as possible, in the CO step.

In the CO step it doesnt matter if any other edges are solved because it is the first step.

 

[qqwref]

The few times I've earned myself "idiot" from Stefan, all but one he's explained it in much simpler detail.

Which I tried to do, repeatedly. You should just accept that combinatorics (efficiently counting things) is not something which can be made arbitrarily simple. If you want to really understand what's going on, you will simply have to put more work into it than you were.

I really figured that people here interested in theory would be more willing to explain things to those that want to understand instead of getting annoyed. I won't generalize the member list here to your actions, but it's interesting, nonetheless.

The only thing interesting about our conversation is that you're an ass who just gets offended when you're asked to try harder, and is too stubborn to take a second look at an idea once it's gotten into your head. I won't generalize the community to your actions, but it's neither fun nor useful to argue with you.

 

[buelercuber]

wow people really know how to spell method.

 

[FatBoyXPC]

Which I tried to do, repeatedly. You should just accept that combinatorics (efficiently counting things) is not something which can be made arbitrarily simple. If you want to really understand what's going on, you will simply have to put more work into it than you were.

That's fine, but I still never understood why my method didn't work. I haven't thought about this much since then, so I still really don't.

The only thing interesting about our conversation is that you're an ass who just gets offended when you're asked to try harder, and is too stubborn to take a second look at an idea once it's gotten into your head. I won't generalize the community to your actions, but it's neither fun nor useful to argue with you.

I get "offended" by you talking down to me when I've clearly admitted I don't understand. It's not like I set out to "prove you wrong" I just genuinely didn't understand. I looked at your idea, a lot. I still never got explained why my idea will not work. You'd find it a lot more fun and useful to argue with me if you thought of a way I could understand your point. What gave you the desire to come back to this thread, anyhow? The only reason I did is because it was on the main page.

 

[StachuK1992]

When someone has the balls to learn this, he'll decide to use whatever works for him and generate algs for it.

So I've decided to make L2L4 my current development project. (Thank uberCuber for this. )

Starting tomorrow (after I read some posts from a thread I'm making right now that is unrelated), I'll begin the journey in creating algorithms.

Please, if you have a specific idea for which order to do LL in, say so here.
I'd rather just get these on my own, rather than have more people working on this, at least for the start. Dealing with talking to people organizing who's doing what would just waste time.

-statue
asdf done. see new thread.

 

[cincyaviation]

So I've decided to make L2L4 my current development project. (Thank uberCuber for this. )

Starting tomorrow (after I read some posts from a thread I'm making right now that is unrelated), I'll begin the journey in creating algorithms.

Please, if you have a specific idea for which order to do LL in, say so here.
I'd rather just get these on my own, rather than have more people working on this, at least for the start. Dealing with talking to people organizing who's doing what would just waste time.

-statue

If it helps, here are a couple of the few algs i generated for this before i gave up.
F'R'FR2U2R'FRU2R'F
R2U2R2U'R'U'R'FRF'R

RU'L'UR'M'U'LUM

 

[FatBoyXPC]

I think with the way the previous conversations were going, the preferred style was CO CP EO EP.

 

[StachuK1992]

I think with the way the previous conversations were going, the preferred style was CO CP EO EP.

Yes, Kir's convinced me that this would be a very nice way to do this.
That, and I really had no backing logic for doing this otherwise.

EP will be done by tomorrow night.
Then CP, then EO, and finally CO. So if anyone wants to help, please develop CO. Thanks.

 

[oll+phase+sync]

Here are some friendly statistics, on the number of cases:

To use full blown L2L4 (e.g. place BL, FL, BR , FR edge exactly in this order ) case count is

CO CP EO EP
117 29 55 16 = 217

BUT:

CO (117 -> 54)
considering that it does not realy make a difference with wich edge we start I take any oriented medge currently in U-layer that's 27 cases (same number as winter variation), and another 27 cases it is not oriented. The reason I'd declare the other 76 cases to be practicaly inexistent is: these are the cases where all medges are in E-layer:
Probability: 4/8 * 3/7 * 2/6 * 1/5 = 1,4% not really much.
Also the probability to have an placed medge is quite high , not seeing an easy way to calculate it currently. But again the probabylity none of the medges is oriented is eaqsy (1/2)^4 * 6,25% = 0,000892857
less than one promille
Orientd medges in E just need 3 moves like R2ER2 to be placed.

Another cool statistic: cited from waterman methode (If I recall correctly) probability to have an placed medge after first layer is 20,5% EDIT percentage was even higher also 2,2% to get to placed medges.

CP (29 -> 10?) EDIT to be correct there are 12 cases but the two cases where corners are already positionend are copy of the EP or EO step.
The good there are only 10 cases with edge in U, but it is not so easy to ignore the other cases, but there should be algs with solve multiple cases like Fat-A-Perms

EO (55 -> ???)
I have not really found any great simplifications here besides using Edge 3 cyles when aplieable.
Also some algs from EP may be reused here (after an y/y' move )

 

[StachuK1992]

For CO, I'd just recommend 2-look to start. Between recog and alg count, it would probably be alot easier. p)
However, once you get into it, you should of course bother finishing the rest, otherwise you wouldn't be credible to say that you know all of the L2L4 algs.

As for reducing cases as mentioned above,
I'd rather not just ignore cases because they don't pop up as much, but I'll be sure to include statistics of likelihood in the final product.

 

[StachuK1992]

Bumpity
I have all of my text files set up for algs.
CO CP EO EP

Here's what I'm planning to do:
FL + CO
FR + CP
y2
FL + EO
FR + EP

These files will be kept semi-up-to-date.
Once a night, assuming I've worked on this that day, the sheets that need updated will be updated.

Now that I have everything organized, it's time for generation!

 

[FatBoyXPC]

Is there any reason why you can't just use d moves to move the bottom two layers around, and then just have 4 algs per step to shoot to a given location? This is in specific reference to CO, but I guess could be applied to the other steps as well.

 

[StachuK1992]

Is there any reason why you can't just use d moves to move the bottom two layers around, and then just have 4 algs per step to shoot to a given location? This is in specific reference to CO, but I guess could be applied to the other steps as well.

No. I just think that this will make the method even more brain-dead.

The FL should be planned FULLY in inspection when mastered.
Then the rest should be totally brain-dead. Just look and apply.

I have ~1/9 of the algs done so far. Shall get another 1/9 done tonight.

Edit:
EP is done.
EP - pure, do not disturb any F2L apart from FR
16/16 including solved

LL perms - 5
	Done				AUF GOGOGO
	Uperm				R U' R U R U R U' R' U' R2
	Uperm				R2 U R U R' U' R' U' R' U R'
	Zperm				M2 U M2 U M' U2 M2 U2 M' U2
	Hperm				M2 U M2 U2 M2 U M2

UF-> perms - 12
	2 2swaps - 3
	UL-UR 				R M2 U M2 U2 M2 U M2 R'
	UL-UB				R M2 U M2 U M' U2 M2 U2 M' U2 R'
	UB-UR				U2 R U M2 U M2 U M' U2 M2 U2 M' U2
	
	3cycles - 3
	UL>UF				R2 U' R U R U R U' R' U' R
	UR>UF				U R' U R U R' U' R' U' R' U R2
	UB>UF				R y R U' R U R U R U' R' U' R2 y' R'
	
	5cycles - 6 (always starts with UF->FR)
	UL>UR>UB>UF			U R U' R2 U2 R2 U2 R U R' U' R' U' R2 U2 R
	UL>UB>UR>UF			R U R' U' R' U' R2 U' R2 U2 R U R U R'
	UR>UL>UB>UF			R U' R' U R U R' U2 R U' R' U' R U' R' 
	UR>UB>UL>UF			U2 R U R' U2 R U' R' U' R U2 R'
	UB>UR>UL>UF			R2 U2 R' U R U R U2 R U' R' U' R
	UB>UL>UR>UF			R U' R' U' R U2 R' U R U R'

 

[StachuK1992]

Quick update and request:
F D' L U' L' D F' R U2 R'
U' F2 U R U R' F2 U2 F U' F (except with a flipped FR)
I can't seem to find a good alg for these two. Ideas?
They are both CO cases, shooting the edge to FL.

(the 16) EP is done, and can be found in the post above this one.
40/118 CO are done
A few (~5 of each) CP and EO are documented.
This brings me to about 30% of the documentation.
I plan on finishing CO tonight, bringing me up to over 60% of documentation.