(Re-)considering The Limits

[Carrot]

That's pretty much how I interpreted "equally fast" already. And I think it's wrong saying that, cause we can't know about the potentials. And if we could, I'd be rather surprised if they were equal. I'd expect some difference. Actually, that does make saying "they're not equally fast" better than "they are", let me correct myself here. I do consider "they're equally fast" just as bad as picking one and saying it's faster.

I would go as far as saying that they are equally fast has around 0% chance to be true, therefore picking one randomly and saying it's faster would be correct in 50% of the cases, while saying they are equally fast would be correct 0% of the time, therefore you can by picking randomly and be somewhat sure that there is only 50% of being off instead of 100% chance of being off. I would therefore say that I would rather take the chance and have a chance of winning that going for the middle and have 100% chance of losing.

However, I do agree with Stefan about it's ridiculous to even guess, as the chance of being wrong is greater than the chance of being correct.

 

[rj]

I've been thinking of CMLL with orientation of edges built in.

 

[5BLD]

I've been thinking of CMLL with orientation of edges built in.

Ollcp
I made a roux variation called PPCLL that works by also doing some of 4b
Too many algs though

 

[CubezUBR]

The fastest people in the world now take longer to perform a 20 move scramble than to perform a 50 move solution

scramble comes from paper, execution of a solve comes from the brain
its the same with almost anything: you can think of a sentence faster than you can read it out of a book. so yeah but i dont see how your post relates to my original one?

 

[Endgame]

Ollcp
I made a roux variation called PPCLL that works by also doing some of 4b
Too many algs though

isnt that that method you devised a year ago and i never understood