# Noah's 3-Style Algs

#### Christopher Mowla

The ";" is a part of notation of commutators. For exapmle [D2, R U' R'] means execution: D2 R U' R' D2 R U R'. If theres R' (the setup move) and ";" it means that is starts with R' then you do commutator and when you finished you do R (undo the setup).

See this: https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Commutators_and_Conjugates#Short_notation
Hmm. I don't know where the discussion was to write the semicolon in the wiki, but I think using a semicolon outside of brackets (such as [A; [B, C] ]) was not Lucas' intent. Writing [A; [B,C] ] isn't any shorter than writing [A: [B,C] ]. This causes confusion to anyone who is used to real math notation as well. But [A; B, C: D] is shorter than writing [A: [B, [C: D] ] ], and that's what I think Lucas was aimed at doing...getting rid of brackets.

So [A; B,C] is the proper way to write [A: [B,C] ] should you wish to use the semicolon. I will pm Lucas and ask him if this was his intent. If so, I (or I will get him) to state this in the wiki to minimize confusion. I prefer brackets myself over a semicolon, but if a lot of people like this abbreviated notation, I just want to set the necessary conditions to have it work for the community rather than against it. The semicolon should not be interchangeable with the colon!

#### h2f

Yes you are right. Wrigting my explanation i wasnt sure what rules are in notation of comms. But i guess it is more about how Noah wrote down his comms.

#### Lucas Garron

##### Member
Hmm. I don't know where the discussion was to write the semicolon in the wiki, but I think using a semicolon outside of brackets (such as [A; [B, C] ]) was not Lucas' intent. Writing [A; [B,C] ] isn't any shorter than writing [A: [B,C] ]. This causes confusion to anyone who is used to real math notation as well. But [A; B, C: D] is shorter than writing [A: [B, [C: D] ] ], and that's what I think Lucas was aimed at doing...getting rid of brackets.

So [A; B,C] is the proper way to write [A: [B,C] ] should you wish to use the semicolon.
Indeed; I'm not sure why Noah is using semicolons, either.

In any case, I no longer think my idea is worth using (and didn't implement it on alg.cubing.net, even through it would be trivial). It confuses too many people, an no one will get hurt from too many brackets. I've also gone ahead and removed it from the wiki page, since I've rarely seen it used.

(If you're writing deeply nested algs to the point that you can't keep brackets apart... well, then you've got a different problem that my old proposal won't *really* solve.)

#### Tao Yu

##### Member
This works better as a thread, don't you think? More people can see it and it's easier to find.

u really memorize all of that algs?
Not really. You start off doing the cycles intuitively, and eventually, you get so used to the same cases over and over again that they become almost like algs. It's like intuitive F2L. (But yeah, Noah could rewrite that list from memory if he had to)

##### Member
This works better as a thread, don't you think? More people can see it and it's easier to find.
idk.
Not really. You start off doing the cycles intuitively, and eventually, you get so used to the same cases over and over again that they become almost like algs. It's like intuitive F2L. (But yeah, Noah could rewrite that list from memory if he had to)
tnx a lot.

#### Jezuz

##### Member
Please also do the edges and twists and flips!

#### leeo

##### Member
It appears that the ";" in conjugate notation has been removed. Thus [A;B:C,D] would have to be written [A:[B:C,D]] though the wiki no longer specifies that "B:C" binds stronger than "C,D", so it would have to be written [A:[[B:C],D]]

-

I find two means for dealing with in-place corner twists and in-place edge flips. Here I focus on one of these cases. If half of the BLD solving cases, there is an edge-corner parity which can be solved with a final N-perm, Y-perm, F-perm, or J-perm. In these cases there is always a reading of an odd number of edge destinations and an odd number of corner destinations.

For using a letter system (such as Speffz), the corner sequence reading could be something like, for example, "RN DT L". If there is also an in-place corner twist, read it like this, for example: _KP. This means that for corner position _K there is a reading for the corner _P on the same subcube piece. Affix "_KP" to the end of the reading, being sure to split it across the paring boundary. For example, "RN DT LK P", splits _KP across the pairing. Here _K is the end of _LK and _P is the beginning of the next sequence. In this odd-parity case, it can be solved to an N-perm by affixing C_ to the edge reading and _C to the corner reading. This gives the proper corner pairing: "RN DT LK PC".

Because all moves always preserve corner-twist parity modulo 3, the buffer will always twist to its home position. A similar method will also apply to in-place edge flips.

#### Rahul Tirkey

##### Member
Spoiler D
RUF-M
I think there's wrong notation
M - [x,[D, R U' R']
It would be- [x',[D, R U' R']

#### Rahul Tirkey

##### Member
Spoiler-G
M - [x ; [D2 , R U' R']] (8)
Here you put the wrong rotation so it would be,
M - [x' ; [D2 , R U' R']] (8)

#### Rahul Tirkey

##### Member
Spoiler- x
There's a wrong comms
D - [x'y' R'; [U2 R' D2 R]]
It would be,
D - [x' y R'; [U2 R' D2 R]]

#### Underwatercuber

##### Member
ZB needs to be [z' ; [R' D2 R , U2 ]] instead of [z' ; [U2 , R' D2 R ]]