Random Cubing Discussion

[qqwref]

I think so. Any edge can be placed anywhere, and 3-cycles and 2-flips are possible, so arbitrary 3-cycles should be possible. We can move centers themselves with something like
U M2 U' x2 y U M2 U' y' x2

 

[mr. giggums]

ccw U-Perm - z2 U' M2 U z2 [U M2 U' U' M2 U , z]*2 z2 U' M2 U z2
cw U-Perm - z2 U' M2 U z2 [z , U M2 U' U' M2 U]*2 z2 U' M2 U z2

H-Perm - z U M2 U' U' M2 U z2 U M2 U' U' M2 U x' z U M2 U' U' M2 U z' x U M2 U' U' M2 U z2 U M2 U' U' M2 U z'
I need a better H-Perm and the best Z-Perm I can find is 2 U-Perms.

 

[qqwref]

Possibly slow Z-perm:
x' U M2 U2 M2 U x2 U M2 U2 M2 U x'
U M2 U'
x U M2 U2 M2 U x2 U M2 U2 M2 U
z' U M2 U' z2 y U M2 U' z' [11 applications]

EDIT: Interesting 3-cycle:
[x' U M2 U2 M2 U x U M2 U']2 [6]

 

[riffz]

x' U r U' L' U' L U r' U' r U L' U' r' U L U'

Just the common Y perm from a different angle. It find it faster than U2 (F R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R F') U2

 

[4.]

the Mufang 3x3 is the most underrated cube ever... it's awesome.

 

[Godmil]

the Mufang 3x3 is the most underrated cube ever... it's awesome.

What are you comparing it with?

 

[Robert-Y]

x' U r U' L' U' L U r' U' r U L' U' r' U L U'

Just the common Y perm from a different angle. It find it faster than U2 (F R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R F') U2

I'd use: (R' U2 R' F' R2 U') (R' F' U' F R U R' F U2' R) (well actually the mirror of this)

I can get around 1.6-1.7 secs with this.

 

[miotatsu]

As I see it there are max 13 additional algs to learn for orienting all corners in two steps:
U face: 81-1= 80 80/AUF= 20 distinct cases (of which 7 are standard OLL)
After solving these you can only have a std OLL left on the D face.
Whan I have some more info I would like to move this discussion to one of the existing HTA threads.

mhmm, and also will there be additional algs for the corner permutation? also one other thing to consider is doing the final edges before the double-turn group is reached can have some tricky cases in terms of keeping the E slice intact, I have been doing a fair amount of solves where I do the E slice and then this step and I noticed a good amount of the cases can be solved normally without breaking it, so that is decent at least

 

[riffz]

I'd use: (R' U2 R' F' R2 U') (R' F' U' F R U R' F U2' R) (well actually the mirror of this)

I can get around 1.6-1.7 secs with this.

Oooooh. Awesome. Thanks.

 

[cmhardw]

I just had a realization today. When you practice speedsolving more often... your times get faster. Who knew? :fp

 

[qqwref]

Another way to do this WV case...
R2' F' R U R U' R' F R

An F2L trick (both backwards and forwards):
R' U' R' U R' U' R2

 

[Magix]

Hey people, there are enough of those "how to get faster" threads around here, thought I'd just ask here. I keep reading about beginners who say they get like an average of 1 minute 30 on beginners method and stuff. I was at like 3 minutes on beginners method and now with friedrichs (2 look oll pll) I'm at around 1 min 15 sec average. Best was I believe 51 seconds.

Now I know practice, lookahead, less cube rotation, etc, but compared to these beginners I seem to be getting horrible times. Am I doing something wrong or do I actually just need to practice more? >.<
How long did it take you all to get a constant average of like sub 50, 40, etc?

 

[qqwref]

A whole bunch of things could be the culprit:
- you take a long time to find pieces
- you have a bad cube
- you tend to do everything on the bottom
- you turn slowly and/or don't know fingertricks
- you use way too many moves for the cross/F2L

Don't worry about how long you take, because the journey is as fun as actually being fast, maybe even more fun (cubing is less interesting when you aren't improving). Some people take 5+ years from when they learn to when they finally get sub-20; others can do it in 3-4 months. Just go with the flow, and work on any problems you find.

 

[cmhardw]

Ok you grammarians really get to shine on this one. I think I understand why laypeople, when typing, refer to a "Rubik's cube" as a "Rubik cube", or "Rubix cube", or generally things other than what we would consider the correct "Rubik's cube." I think they are going by the fact that using "Rubik's cube" in many sentence constructions just generally does not make grammatical sense.

Here is what I mean. John owns two wristwatches. I want one of those watches. I would never say "I would like to buy a John's watch." I would usually say "I would like to buy one of John's watches."

Now we know that Mr. Rubik invented an awesome toy, probably one of the coolest toys in the history of toys in most of our opinions. As he is the inventor of the toy we shall refer to it as his invention, his cube. Therefore this particular toy puzzle is referred to as Rubik's cube as opposed to John's cube or a generic cube with no qualifier.

I would now like to buy one of these cubes. Using the same logic as for John's watch I would never say "I would like to buy a Rubik's cube" ... No wait... I would actually say that - every single time.

I think this is the problem. "Rubik cube" implies that the word "Rubik" is an adjective modifying "cube." "Rubix cube" also implies that the word "Rubix" is an adjective modifying the word cube. These make grammatical sense taken in this context. Saying "I would like to buy a Rubik's cube" is grammatically using the possessive "Rubik's" to modify the noun "cube," essentially using it as an adjective. I think most laypeople reject this construction as awkward or wrong, and instead type "Rubik" or "Rubix."

I don't consider myself a grammar nazi, grammarian, or generally qualified to make intricate distinctions for things like this in the English language. So, for those of you who are - discuss

 

[qqwref]

People who spell it "Rubix" simply don't understand that the word is meant to be a possessive. And I think people who spell it "Rubik Cube" or "Arubix cube" etc. misheard the term and then never bothered to do even the most minimal research to look up what it was really called.

Anyway, there's nothing grammatically wrong with using Rubik's to describe a noun. The same construction exists in many other contexts: "Parkinson's disease", "Avogadro's number", "Botts' dots". It's not the most common way to describe an eponymous object or idea, but it's by no means ungrammatical.

About the "John's watch" example, you wouldn't want to say "I want to buy a John's watch" because "John's watch" is not a common term, and thus it is used to refer to a specific item: the watch John owns. So saying "a John's watch" is like saying "a that book". Some common terms also imply a specific item (Avogadro's number), but others, like Rubik's Cube, imply something there are many of, and so you would necessary use the term in a different way than you would use John's watch. It even makes sense to add another possessive: "I can't solve John's Rubik's Cube".

But at the real heart of the issue, we have the fact that "Rubik's Cube" is after all a proper noun and brand name, and we know those don't really have to follow common grammatical patterns. Thus you can cook a dish with some I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!, or listen to a Panic! at the Disco song, or view a spreadsheet on Google Documents. (Is Google an adjective? Does it matter?)

 

[ilikecubing]

An F2L trick (both backwards and forwards):
R' U' R' U R' U' R2

Woww awsome trick,thanks are there more like this?

 

[qqwref]

I'm sure there are more like that - you should look for some yourself.

Has anyone done BLD 2-2-cycles like this?:
U' R U' (M2 U2 M2) U' R' U
Similar alg, interesting way of doing a commutator:
U' R U' M2 U2 M2 U' R' U' M2 U2 M2


EDIT: Here's an interesting way to practice partial edge control for OH: do a top 4-flip, and then a 2gen scramble.

 

[Robert-Y]

Hmm I was just browsing the video section of this forum and noticed that good accomplishments on video aren't getting that many comments as they normally would in the past (IMO)...

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?27133-3x3-OH-18.12-Average-of-12-by-moka
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?27091-4x4x4-Cube-Avg-42.14
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...9.39-and2x2-7x7-Relay-9-36.96-By-asiahyoo1997

I thought it was a bit weird. Not that the threads NEED comments or anything. I guess that knowing what Faz can achieve is making other people's videos seem not as impressive or something...

 

[aronpm]

People who spell it "Rubix" simply don't understand that the word is meant to be a possessive.

Or just don't know. It's surprising how many people know what a Rubik's cube is (or don't, even) but don't know the name. If they haven't seen the name written before I don't think that "Rubix" is a terrible crime against humanity that's worse than killing babies, since having an "x" is all hip and cool, and people would expect a hip and cool product like the Rubik's Cube to have a name like that.

 

[Kian]

When I'm not absolutely certain how to spell a word/proper noun, I look it up. I do so because I respect myself too much to put such an error next to my name when it's just so simple to get correct. There's really no excuse for carelessness. There's nothing wrong with not knowing something; there is something wrong with being too lazy to perform even the simplest of tasks.