Not really visual memroy, but not really just memo'ing numbers..

[Lucas Garron]

Worst case with no orientation: 12 edges + 8 corners = 20 pieces of information
Worst case with orientation: 12 edge permutations + 8 corner permutations + 6 edge orientations (if there are > 6 unoriented just remember the oriented ones) + 8 corner orientations

You store the same information in your brain, but not in the same amount of storage.

:rolleyes: Yea, sure. Uh-huh. I could easily reduce CO to two algs - is that two pieces of information? Or how about my 5-pieces-of-data CO system? And what about arguing that EP without EO is 2^11 worth of data easier and faster?
This is silly...
Also, please count cycles, not permutation.
I might be willing to concede "pieces of information" (seperately/distinctly imprinted into memory), but not "data." Pieces of information for orientation is pretty wishy-washy, too. I memo EO algs right before I pull down the blindfold, and sometimes it's as simple as R setup + U-layer flip).
And what's "amount of storage"? Are you counting neurons employed?
Can Stefan help out on this?

(By the way, EO requires one extra bit to keep track of whether you memoed flipped. And CO is so 7.)

(Oh, and those are not worst cases.)

Every memo method for a puzzle encodes exacly the same amount of information in your brain. I could come up with a conversion scheme for 3OP into a 20-digt number and claim that I'm only remembering one number. (Don't tell me it's 20 digits, or else I'll do it in base 36 (numbers + letters).)

Sorry, but your mistaken. Pochmann's system has two things to memorize [EP & CP], whereas the 3-cycle system has 4 things to memorize [EP, EO, CP, & CO]

EDIT- I didn't realize Avgalen already said this

Do you read?
You're using "things" pretty loosely. If you do it this way, I'll claim that MGLS requires as many "things" to memorize as Fridrich.

 

[ThePizzaGuy92]

Every memo method for a puzzle encodes exacly the same amount of information in your brain. I could come up with a conversion scheme for 3OP into a 20-digt number and claim that I'm only remembering one number. (Don't tell me it's 20 digits, or else I'll do it in base 36 (numbers + letters).)

Sorry, but your mistaken. Pochmann's system has two things to memorize [EP & CP], whereas the 3-cycle system has 4 things to memorize [EP, EO, CP, & CO]

EDIT- I didn't realize Avgalen already said this

Do you read?
You're using "things" pretty loosely. If you do it this way, I'll claim that MGLS requires as many "things" to memorize as Fridrich.

pronouns save time, did any of the "things" I used confuse you?

 

[AvGalen]

1. :rolleyes: Yea, sure. Uh-huh. I could easily reduce CO to two algs - is that two pieces of information?
2. Or how about my 5-pieces-of-data CO system?
3. And what about arguing that EP without EO is 2^11 worth of data easier and faster?
4. This is silly...
5. Also, please count cycles, not permutation.
6. I might be willing to concede "pieces of information" (seperately/distinctly imprinted into memory), but not "data." Pieces of information for orientation is pretty wishy-washy, too.
7. I memo EO algs right before I pull down the blindfold, and sometimes it's as simple as R setup + U-layer flip).
8. And what's "amount of storage"? Are you counting neurons employed?
9. Can Stefan help out on this?

(By the way, EO requires one extra bit to keep track of whether you memoed flipped. And CO is so 7.)

(Oh, and those are not worst cases.)

1. You can, but I can't. So for you it might be only 2 pieces of information, for me that might be 8 (not including setups)
2. Yours, not mine
3. That is silly. It would be 11 or 12 out of 24 possible (without EO) and 11 or 12 out of 12 possible (with EO). So the same amount of pieces of information, just from different pool sizes
4. You see, we agree
5. Why would I count cycles? There is no need to remember the number of cycles. You should memo in cycles, but not count them.
6. Agreed again
7. That stores data in short term and doesn't work for multi-blind (maybe for 2 or 3, but not for 15).
8. I agree, this is vague. But if you would write down what to remember you understand
9. He probably could. I think he would say something like "I don't understand why people like to orient seperately".

I don't understand the "EO requires one extra bit" (my mind doesn't work in bits) and CO is only 7 if you want to calculate nr. 8. I store CO in short term so not all pieces of information to calculate nr. 8 might be available anymore.

 

[hait2]

each method has its tradeoffs.. orientation+permutation simultaneous solving methods (like sticker-based) require a more difficult memo system because you need 2 images for each sticker pair, whereas permutation needs one. so sure, orientation separate steps may require more info to be memorized if you choose to memorize them separately, but they also require a simpler system (for instance 1 image per cubie).

however, the orientation-first methods have the advantage that you can memo orientation and permutation simultaneously but solve separately which is what i do. i have 3 images for each piece for a PAO system and if the edge is flipped, i memo the inverse of the image (upside down, reverse action or whatever). these are not extra images so the system isn't more complex, i hope it's clear why. similar for CO, i memo the person/whatever on fire or freezing depending on orientation.

orientation-permutation simultaneous methods don't have this option, and they're stuck with a more complex system from the get-go

 

[Lucas Garron]

orientation-permutation simultaneous methods don't have this option, and they're stuck with a more complex system from the get-go

Hmm. I see your memo method as more useful for sticker cycling.
And it's not really "orientation and permutation simultaneously"...

 

[malcolm]

But... You can memo without orientation, yet still execute with a orient first method quite easily? so you can't complain..

 

[Joël]

Methods that don't use seperate orientation steps require less memo..

Can people stop writing this?

Every memo method for a puzzle encodes exacly the same amount of information in your brain. I could come up with a conversion scheme for 3OP into a 20-digt number and claim that I'm only remembering one number. (Don't tell me it's 20 digits, or else I'll do it in base 36 (numbers + letters).)

I think you are both right. In the end, the same information is encoded. It's just that with some methods, the information is encoded more efficiently. Just like information is encoded more efficiently when you compress a .bmp file into a .zip file for example.

With the information that you memorize, you can recreate the whole cube state, if you are interested in that.

But what Arnoud means is that the information is memorised more efficiently, so it requires less memo.

It's like when ChrisH uses his letterpair system: He has to memorise 50% less images than a person who uses 1 image for 1 piece. So ultimately, the same amount of information is encoded with less memorisation.

 

[hait2]

orientation-permutation simultaneous methods don't have this option, and they're stuck with a more complex system from the get-go

Hmm. I see your memo method as more useful for sticker cycling.
And it's not really "orientation and permutation simultaneously"...

one of us is misunderstanding, i'm not sure who. in that sentence, i was referring to the sticker cycling methods, and how they require a more complex system to start, but as a result solve orientation and permutation simultaneously

@joel
yes, this is my point. chrisH uses a more complex system to allow him to memorize more efficiently.

this is the key - the amount you memorize is directly proportional to the system you have in place. his system is more complex than a one image per piece system, but allows him to memorize more data in less chunks. this is not even really related to the method that he uses. i was just saying that sticker-cycling methods force a more compex system in the beginning - which then allows for less chunks of information to be memorized. orientation-first methods have an easier system, but the system can be expanded quite easily. in the end, it doesn't matter

theoretically, nothing is stopping you from creating a system with so many images that you can memorize any cycle of any length as one image. practically, i'd rather start a snow-shovelling business in hell.

 

[joey]

I don't see why you think sticker-cycling methods are harder. I think they are simple..

 

[tim]

orientation-first:
Edges:
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1101 1111 0001
Corners:
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
2100 0111

sticker-cycling:
Edges:
3 6 7 9 12 14 15 18 19 22 23
Corners:
5 7 12 14 16 21 23

 

[Lucas Garron]

Alright: Reviewing Miller's paper, in The Span of Immediate Memory, it seems that pieces of information ("chunks") are about equally easy to remember, regardless of how much each piece represents (so a letter represents 4.5ish binary digits with nearly the same effort). So it seems that pure sticker cycling saves a bit (okay, that was no pun intended. But now it is. ) on pieces of information (something like 5-10 for me). But don't let me catch you saying that you are memorizing less data.

 

[andrewvo1324]

Yea i trace the way im putting pieces like i drag my finger from corner to corner.

Then i just remeber how i traced it and its fast..


I just need a better Edge MEmo

 

[ROOT]

since i cant memorize 12 numbers without getting some mixed up, i memo 8 edges with numbers and the rest visual/muscle. for orientation i also use visual/muscle memory. for corner permutation i use muscle memo. play with it and youll get it right.