# Random Cubing Discussion

#### irontwig

##### Member
Parity fix: R U B:B' R B' D2 F L' F' D2 B2 R' where the conjugated alg is a ten move ZBLL (T-perm in T orienation).

#### oll+phase+sync

##### Member
In particular I would argue that the notation:

(A B)*1.5

or

$$(A B)^{1.5}$$
(corresponding to the repetition notation Singmaster used)

is especially bad as it doesn't really make any sense mathematically if A and B are taken to be group elements,
If defining an Operator funcMult( A, 2) = A + A = AA makes mathematical sense, as you say, and the standard operator would be funcMult(A, 2) = A*2

Defining any Operator for funcBiTail( A, B ) = ABA makes mathematical sense, too.

#### cuBerBruce

##### Member
If defining an Operator funcMult( A, 2) = A + A = AA makes mathematical sense, as you say, and the standard operator would be funcMult(A, 2) = A*2
In mathematics, A + A is not the same as AA. If A is an element of a multiplicative group, A + A is not mathematically meaningful.

#### Kirjava

##### Colourful
D F R' U' B' L' B' U B F2 L' R2 U' L F U' B' F2 L2 F2 B' R U F2 B'

L2U2F'R' yx'
R'UR2UrU'R'U2R2Ur'
U'MUMUMU'M2U'

24 moves

what?!

#### DavidWoner

##### The Punchmaster
L' U L (R U2 R' U' R U' R') L' U2 L
and
L' U2 L (R U R U' R U2 R') L' U' L

same alg but for 2x2 R' F R2 U2 R' U' R U' R2' F2 R

Last edited:

#### Kirjava

##### Colourful
[[F'R,D2],U2] for optimal

#### riffz

##### Member
[[F'R,D2],U2] for optimal
I'll save others the trouble of reading nested comms and cancelling moves:

F' R D2 R' F U2 F' R D2 R' F U2

Pretty fast.

#### qqwref

##### Member
Interesting LL alg (hold LL on left): (r U r') U2 (R U' L' U R') U2 r U'

EDIT: Also, (r2 U r') U2 (R U' L2 U R') U2 r U'

#### RyanReese09

Interesting LL alg (hold LL on left): (r U r') U2 (R U' L' U R') U2 r U'

EDIT: Also, (r2 U r') U2 (R U' L2 U R') U2 r U'
Might switch to that 2nd alg if I can perform it faster, hate my OLL for that case.

#### DavidWoner

##### The Punchmaster
Might switch to that 2nd alg if I can perform it faster, hate my OLL for that case.
The first r2 of that alg is unnecessary, and is more commonly written as F U' R2 D R' U2 R D' R2' U F' aka [F U' R2 D R': U2] and is my favorite alg for that case. I assume you're using the R U2 R2 etc alg for that case now, which does suck (though it's a useful OLLCP). You might also try r U2 R' U' R2 r' U R' U' r U' r' in addition to the F U' one in order to prevent diag corner CP PLLs.

#### RyanReese09

The first r2 of that alg is unnecessary, and is more commonly written as F U' R2 D R' U2 R D' R2' U F' aka [F U' R2 D R': U2] and is my favorite alg for that case. I assume you're using the R U2 R2 etc alg for that case now, which does suck (though it's a useful OLLCP). You might also try r U2 R' U' R2 r' U R' U' r U' r' in addition to the F U' one in order to prevent diag corner CP PLLs.
Yeah I was using the R U2 R2 one. It does suck. I can't decide which I like better, qq's rotationed version of that alg, or the F U' R2 alg. Meh, shall time both.

I just started OLLCP last week, and have most of the awkward OLLs done (in the sense of, I can always avoid a diag CP PLL)

#### teller

##### REAL Fingertricks!
Yeah I was using the R U2 R2 one. It does suck. I can't decide which I like better, qq's rotationed version of that alg, or the F U' R2 alg. Meh, shall time both.
This one isn't horrible:

r U2 R' U' M (R U R' U') r U' r'

#### Athefre

##### Member
A couple of months ago I taught my brother how to solve; using 8355. Sometime later I showed him that he can improve his solve times using pairs. He quickly got frustrated and resorted to orienting the corner in a desirable way then pairing it with the edge, then got tired of that and resorted further back to the original 8355. I thought the way he was creating pairs was interesting.

Place the corner at UFR then,

If the edge is oriented, place it at UB and perform F'U'FU until the pair can be slotted with RUR'.
If the edge is misoriented, place it at UL and perform RUR'U' until the pair can be slotted with F'U'F.

Last edited:

#### Athefre

##### Member
I'm thinking that maybe OCELL and NMLL would work better if the first step involved orienting the L/R colors instead of U colors. It looks like it would lead to better sequences for the second step. So, merge the two ideas into one and it would work for an LL with oriented edges and for the people that use non-matching blocks in Petrus or ZZ.

I feel like I have to continually stress that I know that nobody so far uses non-matching blocks.

#### Kirjava

##### Colourful
I feel like I have to continually stress that I know that nobody so far uses non-matching blocks.
In which methods? I know they're actively used in Roux/Petrus. People use them in ZZ but I don't know if that's by people who use ZZ as a main method.

#### Escher

##### Babby
I feel like I have to continually stress that I know that nobody so far uses non-matching blocks.
I do in 2x2 :3

#### teller

##### REAL Fingertricks!
Oops...okay, I'm fired.

#### Athefre

##### Member
Maybe I should have said "complete non-matching in 3x3x3 speed" (forgot about you Rowan) which doesn't just mean opposite blocks.

Is there a name for an LL method that orients the corners and separates opposite edges (not necessarily placing the two edge bars correct relative to each other)? Then PLL for the second step. It looks like it would be 23 cases - 14 for Orient+Separate, 9 for PLL.

EDIT: Actually, I think it's 30. How did I forget the "correct" 7?

Last edited: