Petrus method for 4x4

[Bantler]

As I ramp up to bigger cubes, I was wondering if a Petrus-ish method is usable for 4x4 and larger cubes? I know it may not be the cutting edge, just curious if it's even viable.

 

[Ross The Boss]

meh, ive always found the centers to be a rather large impediment (assuming your building the block and then paring up the rest of the edge pieces). but you could try somewhat of a hoya approach to that step (or not, im very unfamiliar with the method to be honest)

 

[blade740]

Hoya is probably the closest useful method to what you're thinking of. The best analogue to petrus would be to do some kind of "pure" blockbuilding to make a 3x3x4 block, then maybe solve the last two faces on UF with K4-type techniques, but I wouldn't call that "viable".

 

[mDiPalma]

my reaction when people compare oblbl to petrus:

Spoiler

nope. coming from someone that extensively used OBLBL and Petrus, I can tell you that they're not even remotely similar in practice or in mindset

petrus involves expanding from 1x1x1>2x2x2>3x2x2>3x3x2>3x3x3 (you are expanding out in all 3 dimensions at once, for the most part)
oblbl is 1x1x1>4x3x1>4x3x2>4x3x3>4x4x3>4x4x4 (you are just expanding in 1 dimension, for the most part)

the real analogue would be

1x1x1>2x2x2>3x3x3>4x3x3>4x4x3>4x4x4

 

[AlphaSheep]

the real analogue would be

1x1x1>2x2x2>3x3x3>4x3x3>4x4x3>4x4x4

I tried this for a 7x7 once. It was a really bad idea. The method I used was sort of like this:

1. 2x2x2, 2x2x3, 3x3x3, 3x3x4, 4x4x4 -> Really easy to solve.
2. 4x4x5, 5x5x5, 5x5x6, 6x6x6 - > A little tricky to not mess up what you've already done, but I got it after about 15 minutes.
3. Use commutators to cycle 3 edges at a time to group edges. Maximum of 9 cycles are needed, I think. This took a while.
4. Finish like a 3x3 petrus solve.

I guess you could use a similar method for 4x4.

 

[mDiPalma]

I guess we should all definitely let you have the final word on the method then, because your official 4x4 averages are so incredibly fast. Sub 1:30?! You're probably even faster than Feliks Zemdegs. You're definitely the chief authority in all the land on 4x4. Can you teach me to be as cool as you someday

ya lol i'm not good at 4x4 at all. i don't know the Orientation parity alg, and i haven't owned a functioning 4x4 cube in 2 years

but my opinion is not founded in 4x4 speed. i'm just telling you that the oblbl 4x4 method is not at all like 3x3 petrus, and should never have been suggested in this thread. my 3 yr old cousin could provide you with the same information, having never turned a cube in her life

 

[TDM]

i'm just telling you that the oblbl 4x4 method is not at all like 3x3 petrus, and should never have been suggested in this thread.

What, so they don't both use blockbuilding to solve all but two adjacent layers?

 

[obelisk477]

Quod erat demonstrandum

Guys he's using Latin, you might as well give up now. We all know that anyone who uses Latin instantly has better logic than the rest of us.

 

[mDiPalma]

What, so they don't both use blockbuilding to solve all but two adjacent layers?

they do both use blockbuilding. but the MODE in which they solve all but 2 adjacent layers is not "identical" "analogous" or even "similar". that's the distinction i was making

you could apply the same argument to Petrus, Heise, ZZ, or CFOP with edge control. they all get to the same EOF2L-1 state, but NOT AT ALL in the same way. that makes them different methods. anyone not on mind-altering medication should be able to see that.


The OP asked for a "Petrus-ish method". OBLBL shares nothing in common with Petrus except what we just discussed. that's not enough to call it "a 4x4 petrus method"

AlphaSheep and I already noted the true 4x4 petrus equivalent: 1x1x1>2x2x2>3x3x3>4x3x3>4x4x3>4x4x4 /end thread

 

[lerenard]

they do both use blockbuilding. but the MODE in which they solve all but 2 adjacent layers is not "identical" "analogous" or even "similar". that's the distinction i was making

you could apply the same argument to Petrus, Heise, ZZ, or CFOP with edge control. they all get to the same EOF2L-1 state, but NOT AT ALL in the same way. that makes them different methods. anyone not on mind-altering medication should be able to see that.


The OP asked for a "Petrus-ish method". OBLBL shares nothing in common with Petrus except what we just discussed. that's not enough to call it "a 4x4 petrus method"

AlphaSheep and I already noted the true 4x4 petrus equivalent: 1x1x1>2x2x2>3x3x3>4x3x3>4x4x3>4x4x4 /end thread

I just tried a solve like that. It was horribly inefficient. I think the key idea behind Petrus is that you're slowly reducing the cube to a state that can be solved with a smaller subset of moves, and doing 1x1x1>2x2x2>3x3x3>4x3x3>4x4x3>4x4x4 on a 4x4 cube still requires you to consistently break into what you've already solved. I don't think the way a 4x4 works really allows you to do anything efficient and Petrus-esque. A Roux-based method would work better because of the free M-slice

 

[qqwref]

I'm gonna agree with mDiPalma here, the way of building the block in Petrus and OBLBL is (and feels) very different. They do share the idea of ending with the last 2 faces, and you can do a Petrus-style edge orientation step in OBLBL, but there's a lot more than that going on.