# [Help Thread]The "Square-1 Help / Alg Sharing" thread

#### Sub1Hour

##### Member
If you do the M2 U2 M2 alg ( (1,0) / (-1,-1) / (0,1) ) then it will get rid of double parity
ITS NOT DOUBLE PARITY PLEASE REFER TO IT AS ONE OF THESE EP CASES
Opp
Ucw
Uccw
Z
H
W
O

#### NevEr_QeyX

##### Member
ITS NOT DOUBLE PARITY PLEASE REFER TO IT AS ONE OF THESE EP CASES
Opp
Ucw
Uccw
Z
H
W
O
He referred to it as double parity, so I'm keeping the vocabulary consistent.

#### Sub1Hour

##### Member
He referred to it as double parity, so I'm keeping the vocabulary consistent.
Double parity is not a thing that exists on a puzzle like square-1 where there is only 1 parity. If there is double parity on a puzzle with only 1 possible parity that means there is no parity.

#### NevEr_QeyX

##### Member
Double parity is not a thing that exists on a puzzle like square-1 where there is only 1 parity. If there is double parity on a puzzle with only 1 possible parity that means there is no parity.
I said the same thing he did so it wouldn't be confusing.

When I say double parity on squan everybody knows what I'm talking about right?

Last edited:

#### Sub1Hour

##### Member
Ok I'll say it again, I said the same thing he did so it wouldn't be confusing.

When I say double parity on squan everybody knows what I'm talking about.
That's opp/opp. I had no clue what that ones until you put it into 3x3 notation. It's much easier to refer to the ep cases in the format top/bottom instead of referring to it as something like "H perm but with and adj swap and parity on bottom". Instead of saying that you can just say W opp

#### NevEr_QeyX

##### Member
That's opp/opp. I had no clue what that ones until you put it into 3x3 notation. It's much easier to refer to the ep cases in the format top/bottom instead of referring to it as something like "H perm but with and adj swap and parity on bottom". Instead of saying that you can just say W opp
I'm not exactly sure where I said anything about H perms or Adj swaps but when I say double parity I don't mean literally double parity. I mean you have cases impossible to get on a 3x3 on top and bottom (which is double parity to the squan newcomer).

And I didn't put anything into 3x3 notation in that post so I'm not sure what you're referring to.

#### Sub1Hour

##### Member
I'm not exactly sure where I said anything about H perms or Adj swaps but when I say double parity I don't mean literally double parity. I mean you have cases impossible to get on a 3x3 on top and bottom.
well the problem with that is there are different swaps you can to do fix parity. I know only 2 being adj and opp but before csp was invented it was not uncommon to know things like W/solved and O/solved. The most commonly known parity is the adj case and doing that twice will yield Z or ajd/adj

#### NevEr_QeyX

##### Member
well the problem with that is there are different swaps you can to do fix parity. I know only 2 being adj and opp but before csp was invented it was not uncommon to know things like W/solved and O/solved. The most commonly known parity is the adj case and doing that twice will yield Z or ajd/adj
All I'm saying is do M2 U2 M2 and you will no longer have double parity.

Why are you bringing up single parity cases?

Last edited:

#### brododragon

##### Member
This alg is impossible in cubeshape, someone fill me in on this double parity (If its a z perm just say z perm)
I'm pretty sure it's Z perm.
I used Z3Cubing's tutorial for squan, and I know that double parity = no parity, but how would I solve that using the info in his tutorial? Or would I have to just learn an alg for that?
You can do 1 U-perm (from Z3) to solve a piece, then just do finish like normal.
Rotations don't change the shape... Do you mean slice?

#### Sub1Hour

##### Member
I challenge the relevancy of this argument, all I'm saying is do M2 U2 M2 and you will no longer have double parity
I challenge the relevancey of this case name. All I'm saying is use proper EP names. This is getting a bit drawn out but for the sake of making things clear while posting in this thread please use the EP names found here http://algdb.net/puzzle/sq1/ep

And I'm referring to single parity cases because they are the only parity cases. Double parity cases are just non-parity ep cases

Last edited:

#### NevEr_QeyX

##### Member
I challenge the relevancey of this case name. All I'm saying is use proper EP names. This is getting a bit drawn out but for the sake of making things clear while posting in this thread please use the EP names found here http://algdb.net/puzzle/sq1/ep
I said use M2 U2 M2 (Opp/Opp) to "fix" double parity, so that a person new to square-1 would understand what the alg would do instead of telling them a seemingly nonsense phrase like Opp/Opp and hoping they understand, this is a help thread not a "go look up the cubing lingo and do your own research which defeats the purpose of a help thread" thread.

PS you spelled relevancy wrong

Last edited:

#### Sub1Hour

##### Member
Here we go for the third time, I said use M2 U2 M2 (Opp/Opp) to "fix" double parity, so that a person new to square-1 would understand what the alg would do instead of telling them a seemingly nonsense phrase like Opp/Opp and hoping they understand, this is a help thread not a "go look up the cubing lingo and do your own research which defeats the purpose of a help thread" thread.
Here we go for the 4th time, I said double parity does not exist because it doesn't. A person new to square-1 should learn what a phrase like Opp/Opp means so they are able to efficiently communicate and understand what algorithms do what. This is a help thread and I linked the lingo in my last post if you could not tell. The page I linked shows you what each EP case I was referring too looks like and a simple click would give you the information you need to understand what I was talking about.

#### NevEr_QeyX

##### Member
Here we go for the 4th time, I said double parity does not exist because it doesn't. A person new to square-1 should learn what a phrase like Opp/Opp means so they are able to efficiently communicate and understand what algorithms do what. This is a help thread and I linked the lingo in my last post if you could not tell. The page I linked shows you what each EP case I was referring too looks like and a simple click would give you the information you need to understand what I was talking about.
He asked, I responded, and you made it overly complicated.

#### brododragon

##### Member
K guys, don't make this the 4th parents took cubes thread. @NevEr_QeyX made it understandable for beginners, and @Sub1Hour corrected it with the correct term.

#### NevEr_QeyX

##### Member
Side note: I fell like all heated arguments happen when the majority of people are offline

#### NevEr_QeyX

##### Member
Discussion closed

#### Sub1Hour

##### Member
K guys, don't make this the 4th parents took cubes thread. @NevEr_QeyX made it understandable for beginners, and @Sub1Hour corrected it with the correct term.
Thank you. I simply made a simple correction with the correct terminology. I'm not here to start a flame war or piss anyone off. I'm just trying to give the best advice that I can and knowing the correct terminology can be very useful as a beginner

#### brododragon

##### Member
Side note: I fell like all heated arguments happen when the majority of people are offline
Yeah it's 1 AM for me in America and since Americans are most of the membership the timezones will be slightly different, but pretty much all done part of night. Also explains the heat.

Last edited:

#### icarneiro

##### Member
What is the best way to solve Adj-Parity when it appears into the bottom layer?

What I do is: I put the edges in (FD)-(RD), and move to the top layer with: (1,0) / (2,0) [PARITY] (-2,3) /

FD -> Down layer, front side
RD -> Down layer, right side

When it appears in the up layer, I usually take around 6~7 seconds to solve the parity.
But when it is in down layer, I usually take 9~10 seconds.

This is very annoying...

#### NevEr_QeyX

##### Member
What is the best way to solve Adj-Parity when it appears into the bottom layer?

What I do is: I put the edges in (FD)-(RD), and move to the top layer with: (1,0) / (2,0) [PARITY] (-2,3) /

FD -> Down layer, front side
RD -> Down layer, right side

When it appears in the up layer, I usually take around 6~7 seconds to solve the parity.
But when it is in down layer, I usually take 9~10 seconds.

This is very annoying...
It's better to put it in RD BD and slice it to RU and FU then parity 0,3 undo slice