Proposition - Let's fix some cubing terms!

Status
Not open for further replies.
StachuK1992 said:
3-Better meta-definitions for methods. F2L>LL would be one meta-method. CF would be another, perchance.
A nice way to organize methods other than "good" or "bad" or something too convoluted would be nice. I know Thom has already thought about this - other thoughts?
Click to expand...

Some meta definitions:
CF
EF
EOF (edge orientation first)
Face or FF (Face First)
BB (Block Building)
BCE (Blocks, Corners, Edges: proposed by Kenneth in 2007, would fit Roux)
BEC (Blocks, Edges, Corners: shameless “copy” by Cubenovice in 2011, would fit Heise)
F2L>LL (Fits Alot)

Going out on a limb: OC (treating Opposite Colored pieces as being the same color)

My question: just how detailed may / should a meta definition be?
And what is the final goal?
Is it:
- Fitting each method into a single meta definition?
- or
- Assign meta tags to each method?

I would prefer the latter.
Some examples:
LBL: meta tags face and F2L>LL
HTA: meta tags EOF and OC
ZZ: meta tags EOF + F2L>LL
Roux: meta tags BB and BCE
Petrus: meta tags BB and F2L>LL (BCE excluded as there are various options to solve LL)
Guimond: meta tags CF and OC
Human Kociemba: meta tag OC

This could be of some use in the Wiki methods page.
Perhaps the tags could even be assigned to posts by the OP (A drop down box would ensure consistent tagging)
 
Two small comments in case no one brings then up:

- Adjacent numbers should always be delimited. Rw22 should mean (Rw Rw... Rw) 22 times, it should never mean (Rw2)2.
- I am particularly against '2 instead of 2'. It looks worse, is harder to read because it separates the "larger" letters and digits, is unnecessarily inconsistent with convention (e.g. WCA regs, but that's due to me)

(Also, I actually don't really mind Rw as an alias for r in SiGN because the notation is still unambiguous – but it detracts from the consistency and simplicity.)
 
As far as NxNxN cube notations I most prefer notations which:
- correspond with existing 3x3 notation as much as possible, and
- express the most common types of moves succinctly and unambiguously, on any size of cube.
Keep in mind that these are subjective and that other people might not agree that these are important, or might think that other things are very important (completeness, efficiency, easiness to parse, etc.).

Objectively your notation is fine, cmowla, but it doesn't really fit either of my criteria. It doesn't really correspond with 3x3 notation in that it uses Rw2 for a double layer turn, and since Rw* is the most common type of move on pretty much all physical cubes, both in scrambling and solving, it's also pretty big to use 3 characters for it when you could get away with fewer. And I personally find it subjectively awkward to write something like "Rw32", but that's just me. Jaap's scrambler uses a roughly similar idea, with subscripts, and it got pretty tough to read.

IMO SiGN does fit these criteria pretty well (especially so if we define "Rw" as an alias for "r" and "(r)" or similar as an alias for "x"). It doesn't seem like a huge number of people use it though, and I'm not sure whether that's because the WCA doesn't use it, or because there's something fundamentally wrong with it, or simply because people just don't care enough about bigcube notation.
 
About the term '2-gen', if we get rid of it (it was brought up on CubeCast) what would 2GLL be re-named to?

I don't know if everyone will like acronyms that contain names of faces such as RULL (for <R,U>LL), it doesn't really seem to fit with the rest of the acronyms (other than CMLL, but the M in it is just lol anyway).
 
Yeah, ELL is fine the way it is as long as it's specified what puzzle it's for. Same for CLL being "corners of the last layer", given the context.

Suggestion: 3ELL, 4ELL, 2CLL, 3CLL etc.
 
Last edited:
Relevant PM I received
adragast said:
Hi,

I don't think this is really important but as the private forum is trying to "fix some cubing terms" I thought you may want to discuss on the "layer by layer" name. It may not be precise enough.

The main issue comes from the sandwich method. This is not what we have in mind when someone mentions a layer by layer method. However, strictly speaking, it does solve one layer of the cube, then another one and finally the last one.
Some belt methods could even be considered as layer by layer methods. Solve the middle layer, then solve one remaining layer and finally finish with the last one.

I personally like the term layer-by-layer and don't think we need to fix it. But well, maybe some people in the private forum would have a different opinion if they think about it.

Adragast
Click to expand...
 
adragast said:
The main issue comes from the sandwich method. This is not what we have in mind when someone mentions a layer by layer method. However, strictly speaking, it does solve one layer of the cube, then another one and finally the last one.
Click to expand...

WTF ? Strictly speaking, the methods of the sandwich family solve the extreme layers first, period. There are different strategies for that, solving one layer then the other one is only one of them. I think he meant the Waterman method.

Another case in point is the face+CLL method for 2^3 (it is technically a LBL method but generally not called as such).
 
StachuK1992 said:
Relevant PM I received [adragast's stuff /]
Click to expand...
I've thought about this in regards to Waterman and also beginner's methods adapted from layer-by-layer that don't explicitly solve the cube layer by layer.
For instance, the method I used before my transition into CFOP was
1.) Cross
2.) Middle layer
3.) FL corners
4.) 4LLL

Even though it does, in a way, solve the cube one layer at a time, I wouldn't consider it a layer-by-layer method and rather a beginner's method. I think that "The Beginner's Method" has so many variants that instead of being grouped as one collective concept, all of the beginner's methods are under the term "beginner's methods". The layer-by-layer method in which one solves Cross, FL, 2nd layer, and LL in my opinion should be renamed "Traditional Layer-by-Layer" under the Layer-by-Layer methods umbrella. Just my two cents (and hopefully sense as well).

Sa967St said:
Yeah, ELL is fine the way it is as long as it's specified what puzzle it's for. Same for CLL being "corners of the last layer", given the context.

Suggestion: 3ELL, 4ELL, 2CLL, 3CLL etc.
Click to expand...

I've already gone about calling CLL for 3x3 3CLL; in my opinion, the different types of CLL and whatnot should be classified by colloquial names, as it has been done with PLL cases (Allan, Bert, and the like).

Sa967St said:
About the term '2-gen', if we get rid of it (it was brought up on CubeCast) what would 2GLL be re-named to?

I don't know if everyone will like acronyms that contain names of faces such as RULL (for <R,U>LL), it doesn't really seem to fit with the rest of the acronyms (other than CMLL, but the M in it is just lol anyway).
Click to expand...

As far as 2-gen goes, I think the usage of the term '2-gen' should be lenient. Just as Lucas (or whoever) proved the cube was 2-gen (using two algorithms to solve the cube from any state), 2GLL uses only the R and U faces. Both are correct, and any feuding against the true definition is in my opinion unnecessary. Just don't be a dick about the whole thing like some people are being, saying "Well <R U R', D> is 2-gen!" Even though it is technically true, the kind of 2-gen a particular writing or whatever is talking about should be able to be figured out.
 
Lucas Garron said:
I don't know why people really care. See Stigler's Law to see why I think this is so petty.

EDIT: Note that I am still strongly in favor of attribution for new ideas. But Fridrich/CFOP is established and at this point it's just a name. Maybe we should put up a clear wiki section explaining the history, but "Fridrich" is still clear and accurate while people can like using "C"FOP all they like.
Click to expand...

I rewrote parts of it: [wiki]CFOP[/wiki]
 
irontwig said:
It's not like I've looked through every FMC solution...
Click to expand...

Yes, but i used it in in same fmc round as Mirek - at the old fmc site. If i'm not completely mistaken that was my only time to use domino style ending.

Per
 
Naming Convention

We all know Winter Variation (WV) and Summer Variation (SV). I think their mirrors might as well have names following the same style. I propose Fall Variation (FV) for the mirror of Winter Variation and Spring Variation (SpV?) for the mirror of Summer Variation. It just saves from saying "the mirror of Winter Variation".

In fact, I will start calling these by these names anyway whether people like it or not. :p
 
Bob said:
We all know Winter Variation (WV) and Summer Variation (SV). I think their mirrors might as well have names following the same style. I propose Fall Variation (FV) for the mirror of Winter Variation and Spring Variation (SpV?) for the mirror of Summer Variation. It just saves from saying "the mirror of Winter Variation".

In fact, I will start calling these by these names anyway whether people like it or not. :p
Click to expand...
Lol, I like it, although Winter variation is not referring to the time of the year, but rather the last name of the person who invented it.
 
I really like this. :)

Ditto about using these names anyway regardless of whether it's proper naming or not.

jskyler91 said:
Lol, I like it, although Winter variation is not referring to the time of the year, but rather the last name of the person who invented it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, we know, but whatever. It's convenient to name the mirror and inverse cases this way. :p

edit: Instead of Fall Variation, how about Autumn variation?
 
Last edited:
jskyler91 said:
Lol, I like it, although Winter variation is not referring to the time of the year, but rather the last name of the person who invented it.
Click to expand...

Yes. However, somebody already decided to name the R U R' cases "Summer Variation" (probably out of ignorance, but maybe not). It's too late to change that now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
Speedcubing Theory - Proposition
Replies
0
Views
1,663
Sillas
S
E
California Proposition 19 (Legalization of Marijuana)
9 10 11
Replies
211
Views
26,767
Hadley4000
Hadley4000
OregonTrail
  • Poll Poll
An MS Paint Game Proposition
Replies
9
Views
1,365
Dene
Dene
vezeneca
[Member Intro] Hi I'm new here let me introduce myself
Replies
5
Views
1,023
GFAM
G
W
[Member Intro] Hello everyone! Let me introduce myself...
Replies
5
Views
1,168
abunickabhi
abunickabhi
Back
Top