# SALOW Notation for Curvy Copter.

## Would you support Curvy Copter as an event?

• ### No

• Total voters
39

#### Sion

##### Member
An example of a pure Positive Jumble: UR+ LF+ UF UR-' LF-'

An example of a pure Negative Jumble: UR- LF- UF UR+' LF+'

An example of a pure "NS" Jumble: UR+ LF+ UF UR+' LF+'

An example of a pure "Unusual" Jumble: UR+ LF- UF UR-' LF+'

An example of a combo Jumble: UR+ LF- UF UR+' LF+'

I'm sure doing these can give people a better grasp on SALOW. I'll be doing a video soon.

Besides, most bizarre jumble cases would most likely only be present in scrambles. Most jumbles are most likely going to be pure positive jumbles anyway.

Last edited:

#### whatshisbucket

##### Member
I now have a solver that can solve any position that is in cube shape, including those which require jumbling moves to solve. It averages roughly 70 moves if you count the 5 move conjugates that have been discussed here extensively as only 2 moves (because they are so essential and rather simple).

#### One Wheel

##### Member
I now have a solver that can solve any position that is in cube shape, including those which require jumbling moves to solve. It averages roughly 70 moves if you count the 5 move conjugates that have been discussed here extensively as only 2 moves (because they are so essential and rather simple).
Honestly I’m not sure about using scrambles that end in a jumbled position, I just think that for competition jumbling needs to be an allowable part of the scramble.

#### Sion

##### Member
Honestly I’m not sure about using scrambles that end in a jumbled position, I just think that for competition jumbling needs to be an allowable part of the scramble.
I can agree, though it would be nice to see some jumbled action in copter scrambles anyway since there are particular cases for solving certain going-to-cubeshape positions, as is demonstrated in RedKB's jumbled solving tutorial.

#### whatshisbucket

##### Member
Personally if this puzzle were to ever appear in a competition I would prefer if the scrambles used the full potential of the puzzle. I plan on asking Matt Galla (creator of this thread) for assistance with that step since he already has code for working with the possible shapes. Anyone know if he's on these forums?

#### Sion

##### Member
Was about to make a video, and then I ended up messing mine up by accident

Anyway, the images I posted in my first post's most recent update details what each rotation does to a neutral cube state. Now I need to get solving.

EDIT: I just figured out a way to use both numbers and +/- signs that can be very easy to understand. Give me a moment to type it up and to transcribe the jumbles.

Last edited:

#### Sion

##### Member
Here are some of the jumbles in this new system:

An example of a pure Positive Jumble: UR+ LF+ UF UR- LF-

An example of a pure Negative Jumble: UR- LF- UF UR+2 LF+2

An example of a pure "NS" Jumble: UR+ LF+ UF UR+2 LF+2

An example of a pure "Unusual" Jumble: UR+ LF-2 UF UR- LF+2

An example of a combo Jumble: UR+ LF-2 UF UR+2 LF+2

#### whatshisbucket

##### Member
This is obviously better than before, but still inferior to removing pluses and minuses all together.

#### One Wheel

##### Member
This is obviously better than before, but still inferior to removing pluses and minuses all together.
I disagree. @Sion is right. ++ or +2 work out the same, but pluses and minuses to denote jumbling moves is a clean, intuitive system.

#### KingCanyon

##### Member
Seems like I understand the notation better with this demonstration. How would you prevent jumbling turns that aren't possible to move because of other pieces in the random scramble generator?

#### whatshisbucket

##### Member
Seems like I understand the notation better with this demonstration. How would you prevent jumbling turns that aren't possible to move because of other pieces in the random scramble generator?
That would be a bit of a pain for a random-moves scrambler, but for a random-state scrambler I only need to have a move sequence to reach each attainable shape, and then choose one at random. Matt Galla has already done work in this area when exploring the shape space, although I do not think his work is too hard to reproduce. Essentially the difficulty lies in deciding which possible piece location block which edges from turning. Once that is known, it is easy to explore the entire shape space with a simple breadth-first search.

EDIT: Much of the work here is quite difficult to reproduce (the symmetry stuff and constructing a massive graph), but what i need (move sequences to reach each shape ignoring symmetry) is not so much.

Last edited:

#### Sion

##### Member
These past days have been productive.

What we have done:

Came up with a finalized notation system using numbers and +/- symbols that is easy to read and transcribe intuitively.

Made the realization that it is possible to make a scrambler for CC that accounts for forms other than cubeshape.

#### whatshisbucket

##### Member
So I figured out how to work with the shapes (guess I didn't need Matt's help after all) and confirmed his number of 654117 different shapes (when rotations and reflections are counted as distinct shapes). I gotta sleep now, but I will have a full random-state scrambler tomorrow. The average move depth for a randomly chosen shape is 12.26 moves.

Last edited:

#### Sion

##### Member
So I figured out how to work with the shapes (guess I didn't need Matt's help after all) and confirmed his number of 654117 different shapes (when rotations and reflections are counted as distinct shapes). I gotta sleep now, but I will have a full random-state scrambler tomorrow.

Will you use the +/- and number system like in my most recent post?

#### whatshisbucket

##### Member
Will you use the +/- and number system like in my most recent post?
Currently that is not my intent, as I plan on using +s and -s as shorthand to denote the 5 move conjugates that appear all the time. For example, UF+ would denote (UR1 LF1 UF3 UR1' LF1') and UF- would denote (UL1' RF1' UF3 UL1 RF1) (the 1's here are for clarity). I'd certainly be open to hearing other ideas.

#### Sion

##### Member
Currently that is not my intent, as I plan on using +s and -s as shorthand to denote the 5 move conjugates that appear all the time. For example, UF+ would denote (UR1 LF1 UF3 UR1' LF1') and UF- would denote (UL1' RF1' UF3 UL1 RF1) (the 1's here are for clarity). I'd certainly be open to hearing other ideas.

The only issue I have with that is that in reconstruction, you are going to have a lot of 3 moves, which to beginners could be quite confusing (I for one.) Not to mention, as I said in a previous post, for scrambling purposes, pure positive and pure negative jumbles are probably not going to be the only kinds of jumbles involved.

The only reason why there is no "UF3" In SALOW is because a pure 180 degree rotation would be equal to UF-3 and UF+3, which technically cancel out. Canonically, this would make much more sense, and would lessen the need for shorthands.

#### Sion

##### Member
If we agree to disagree, would you be fine with making two scramblers with the two different notations and let others decide?

#### whatshisbucket

##### Member
Not to mention, as I said in a previous post, for scrambling purposes, pure positive and pure negative jumbles are probably not going to be the only kinds of jumbles involved.
If you wanna write a scrambler that uses more nuanced short jumbles to move pieces around, then go ahead, although I don't think it will do much for the movecount.