# The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

#### Athefre

##### Member
He did also develop it further just by applying it to Roux because, as far as I can tell, your idea was specifically for 2x2, so I would argue that 42 is fully his creation.

Would it be okay for you if we just said that you invented and developed Transformation for 2x2 while Briggs later independently did something similar for Roux?
I think there's a misunderstanding of the concepts and methods. Sorry if I haven't explained well.

Corner Transformation is the conjugation of corners by turning the R layer (or L or anything else) in order to change the current case into another case. This can be used to reduce the number of cases and the move count. Or it can be used for other purposes. I didn't create it only for 2x2. It is an overall concept to be used on any puzzle in any method. I used it in NMLL, ZBLL, and many other applications as can be seen in my signature. Corner Transformation is applied to any number of corners. All eight corners can be involved.

In the 42 method, only five corners are involved. It is an application, or really a small subset, of the Corner Transformation concept.

It's cool that others are now seeing the benefits of this. I just think it's important to show that there's a structure and an origin.

• Transformation -> The application of conjugation to change one case to another.
• Corner Transformation -> The application of conjugation to change a corner case into another
• 42 Step 3 -> The application of Corner Transformation to the last five corners to reduce the number of cases to 42
• CLL, NMCLL, NMLL, PLL, and other pages can have a section describing how transformation can be applied to those steps
• Any other steps or methods that use transformation
• Edge Transformation -> The application of conjugation to change an edge case into another
• Any steps or methods that use transformation. I used it in ELL and OLLCP for example.

I think the wiki should follow that structure. 42 Step 3 would be the page currently called Conjugated CxLL, so maybe L5C Reduction or BLC from the 42 page would be a better fitting name. Or if there's another name he would like. I wouldn't be listed as a proposer for that step. I'll try to find time tomorrow to make the main Transformation page.

##### Member
I think the transformation idea you refer to is essentially BTR (which I can't remember if I ever got around to writing an article for). I'm completely fine with allowing you to claim primacy for the whole conjugation idea while I get listed as a developer/also ran/populariser/whatever (although as previously noted, I hadn't heard of your ideas beforehand). I'm especially open to it as I know very well the annoyance of having an idea recreated by someone else who gets credit for it.

Incidentally, I think it's cool that the idea for transformation/conjugation was first proposed so many years ago because I've long considered it the most promising area of method development (and was looking into it a fair amount before uni and work got in the way of meta-cubing stuff).

However, 42 is a speedsolving method rather than a a general concept so I think it should be able to stay up by itself with myself listed as the proposer as I can't seem to find anywhere you proposed it. In this way, I think saying you should be the proposer for it would be akin to listing whoever first hit upon redux for 4x4 as the creator of yau or hoya. You do seem to have hit upon the core ideas of 22 before me though so I'm happy to concede that as well.

Also, I think it's really cool that I found ideas along the same lines as you since I've long been a interested in your nmll and lse ideas so the fact that I can think along similar lines makes me quite happy . I'm also somewhat annoyed and disappointed with myself that I hadn't come across your transformation idea before since I have read a not insignificant portion of not only your posts but also the back catalogue of this forum so as not to accidentally duplicate someone else's work and claim it for my own. It also means that the extra time I could've had to develp further was kind of wasted.

But with all that said, I been a fan since not long after I started cubing and love what you've contributed to the method dev community

Edit: you might also be interested in ctls which is another transformation idea that I found after I've already proposed BTR

Last edited:

#### Athefre

##### Member
I think the transformation idea you refer to is essentially BTR (which I can't remember if I ever got around to writing an article for). I'm completely fine with allowing you to claim primacy for the whole conjugation idea while I get listed as a developer/also ran/populariser/whatever (although as previously noted, I hadn't heard of your ideas beforehand). I'm especially open to it as I know very well the annoyance of having an idea recreated by someone else who gets credit for it.

Incidentally, I think it's cool that the idea for transformation/conjugation was first proposed so many years ago because I've long considered it the most promising area of method development (and was looking into it a fair amount before uni and work got in the way of meta-cubing stuff).

However, 42 is a speedsolving method rather than a a general concept so I think it should be able to stay up by itself with myself listed as the proposer as I can't seem to find anywhere you proposed it. In this way, I think saying you should be the proposer for it would be akin to listing whoever first hit upon redux for 4x4 as the creator of yau or hoya. You do seem to have hit upon the core ideas of 22 before me though so I'm happy to concede that as well.
I completely agree. 42 is your creation, so I don't get any credit for that.

Also, I think it's really cool that I found ideas along the same lines as you since I've long been a interested in your nmll and lse ideas so the fact that I can think along similar lines makes me quite happy . I'm also somewhat annoyed and disappointed with myself that I hadn't come across your transformation idea before since I have read a not insignificant portion of not only your posts but also the back catalogue of this forum so as not to accidentally duplicate someone else's work and claim it for my own. It also means that the extra time I could've had to develp further was kind of wasted.

But with all that said, I been a fan since not long after I started cubing and love what you've contributed to the method dev community
Thank you! I wouldn't say you wasted your time at all. You worked on an idea that you think is very useful. You developed something that others are now interested in using. I've seen some of your other developments and I was very surprised. Some of them I had also worked on long ago, but never published. So you got there first. I thought "Wow, we must think very similarly!" You have a lot of good ideas.

Edit: you might also be interested in ctls which is another transformation idea that I found after I've already proposed BTR
Interesting. I can make a note of this when I make the transformation page.

#### PapaSmurf

##### Member
If you want another super impractical transmormation thing: learn ZBLL+1 edge (a lot of algs, but fewer than 1LLL), solve up to EOF2L-1 (BR slot), do an R', do an alg, AUF, R, AUF. Not practixal at all, but is basically CTLS on steroids.

#### Skewbed

##### Member
If you want another super impractical transmormation thing: learn ZBLL+1 edge (a lot of algs, but fewer than 1LLL), solve up to EOF2L-1 (BR slot), do an R', do an alg, AUF, R, AUF. Not practixal at all, but is basically CTLS on steroids.
Wouldn’t you need a 2x1x1 block in the last layer in which the corner is clockwise of the edge?

#### PapaSmurf

##### Member
No. Set up with U R' U2 R U R' U2 R U'
There's an orientated corner in UFR (that's a condition I forgot to put in), so you can do an R' to set up to ZBLL+FR. Then you do the alg R U R' U2 R U' R' U2 R U' R'. Then you end the conjugation with an R. (Yes, I can see that you can cancel, no it doesn't matter because this will never be used for anything, but it's fun to theorise).

#### Skewbed

##### Member
No. Set up with U R' U2 R U R' U2 R U'
There's an orientated corner in UFR (that's a condition I forgot to put in), so you can do an R' to set up to ZBLL+FR. Then you do the alg R U R' U2 R U' R' U2 R U' R'. Then you end the conjugation with an R. (Yes, I can see that you can cancel, no it doesn't matter because this will never be used for anything, but it's fun to theorise).
Oh, I though you were conjugating ZBLL, not ZBLL with an extra edge to solve.

#### Athefre

##### Member
If you want another super impractical transmormation thing: learn ZBLL+1 edge (a lot of algs, but fewer than 1LLL), solve up to EOF2L-1 (BR slot), do an R', do an alg, AUF, R, AUF. Not practixal at all, but is basically CTLS on steroids.
Interesting. Maybe I'll add this. Is this something that is already developed? Just trying to think if there's a way to add it to the page I'm making without just saying "Another thing that can be done is..." without a name or alg set. Yeah, not practical, so maybe it doesn't matter unless you eventually see some potential.

#### PapaSmurf

##### Member
Nothing has been developed at all and I see more potential in ZBLL plus a twisted corner than this, so I don't think there's a good reason to develop it.

#### Autumn Variation

##### Member

The closest thing I found to this method on the speedsolving forum is the 335 method. So, I guess I claim this now. Let's call this the "Edge Supertwist Method"

5 algs:
T perm: R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R'
Sune: R U R' U R U2 R'
Sexy move: R U R' U'
Reverse-Sexy move: U R U' R'
Edge Flipping alg (flips UF and UB): M' U M' U M' U2 M U M U M U2

8 steps:

1. Solve the E layer
2. Permute edges on 1 side by doing (AUF+ADF) R2 (Undo AUF-ADF). R2 switches UR to DR
3. Permute edges on the other side by doing (Sune)or(T perm)(Edge cases in the video)
4. Permute corners on 1 side by using commutators (with some sexy moves and some reverse-sexy moves) (also, there's parity. Just do a x rotation and T perm)
5. Permute corners from the other side using T perm+y'+R2 U2 R2 U2 (switches URF with URB)
6. Fix E layer by doing z rotation+M/U2 moves until it gets solved.
7. Orient corners by doing sexy move until corner is oriented, then doing D moves until another corner needs to be oriented. Repeat until all corners are oriented. (also, there's parity. at 10:20)
8. Orient all edges using the edge flipping alg. easy.

#### xcross

##### Member
i cant tell if your trying to make a speed solving method or noty

#### dudefaceguy

##### Member
I like permute/orient methods for their algorithm efficiency, i.e. not requiring many algorithms. The downside I see is that it requires commutators for corner permutation. If you can use corner commutators, you can permute and orient the corners at the same time so there is no reason to use two different steps for this.

Having to deal with parity is also a downside. You can avoid both of these problems by permuting corners before edges, which will also reduce the number of algorithms needed. But, then it is just PCMS.

Of course, methods are not all about efficiency. I like trying new methods just to get a unique challenge. I’ll try it out.

Edit: It worked and I solved the cube. I’m not sure who this method is for though. It has a low amount of algorithms, but more than beginner Petrus for example. It requires knowledge of commutators, but uses long algorithms where commutators would be more efficient. Edge permutation on the first side is easy, but it would be almost as easy to permute edges using M moves, which would not disturb corners. I’m not seeing any real advantage to permuting edges first. What were your goals in making the method?

And congratulations on formulating a method btw.

Last edited:

#### Autumn Variation

##### Member
I like permute/orient methods for their algorithm efficiency, i.e. not requiring many algorithms. The downside I see is that it requires commutators for corner permutation. If you can use corner commutators, you can permute and orient the corners at the same time so there is no reason to use two different steps for this.

Having to deal with parity is also a downside. You can avoid both of these problems by permuting corners before edges, which will also reduce the number of algorithms needed. But, then it is just PCMS.

Of course, methods are not all about efficiency. I like trying new methods just to get a unique challenge. I’ll try it out.

Edit: It worked and I solved the cube. I’m not sure who this method is for though. It has a low amount of algorithms, but more than beginner Petrus for example. It requires knowledge of commutators, but uses long algorithms where commutators would be more efficient. Edge permutation on the first side is easy, but it would be almost as easy to permute edges using M moves, which would not disturb corners. I’m not seeing any real advantage to permuting edges first. What were your goals in making the method?

And congratulations on formulating a method btw.
The reason I made this was that I'm challenging myself to create 10 different 3x3 methods that are completely different from any other method out there. I'll be posting one every day. In the end, I would kinda do a summary/recap of the methods, then I would do a video on how to create your own method to solve a 3x3.
Edit: I have to add to that that it would challenge my creativity and I feel like that could help me in solving other puzzles without tutorials.

Last edited:

#### dudefaceguy

##### Member
The reason I made this was that I'm challenging myself to create 10 different 3x3 methods that are completely different from any other method out there. I'll be posting one every day. In the end, I would kinda do a summary/recap of the methods, then I would do a video on how to create your own method to solve a 3x3.
Edit: I have to add to that that it would challenge my creativity and I feel like that could help me in solving other puzzles without tutorials.
In that case you have succeeded! Congratulations. I made my own 4x4 method last year, which was a lot of fun.

#### Athefre

##### Member
The Transformation wiki page is complete.

@shadowslice e Let me know if you like the description of the 42 method. Also check the example solve to make sure it is a proper solve.

Do you think that the Conjugated CxLL page should be renamed to better fit that it is the third step of the 42 method? Conjugated CxLL implies something more than a technique for solving the last five corners.

##### Member
The Transformation wiki page is complete.

@shadowslice e Let me know if you like the description of the 42 method. Also check the example solve to make sure it is a proper solve.

Do you think that the Conjugated CxLL page should be renamed to better fit that it is the third step of the 42 method? Conjugated CxLL implies something more than a technique for solving the last five corners.
Looks mostly good to me. I'll slightly edit the bit about me to mention BTR though it's essentially just a recreation of transformation as a whole

#### Autumn Variation

##### Member
some 335 variation I accidentally kinda created

#### brododragon

##### Member
Does anybody have any ideas on how to efficiently intuitively solve this:
If the picture didn't make it clear, it's solving all edges except E Slice edges and putting all corners on the correct layer (U or D layer).

#### ProStar

##### Member
Does anybody have any ideas on how to efficiently intuitively solve this:View attachment 11577
If the picture didn't make it clear, it's solving all edges except E Slice edges and putting all corners on the correct layer (U or D layer).
Yes. Scramble it up and solve it with Roux or Petrus

#### Etotheipi

##### Member
Does anybody have any ideas on how to efficiently intuitively solve this:View attachment 11577
If the picture didn't make it clear, it's solving all edges except E Slice edges and putting all corners on the correct layer (U or D layer).
I would do cross, 3 corners of the D layer, keyhole to make top cross, and then triple sledge to fix the last corners if necessary. I dunno if triple sledge counts as intuitive though lol.