• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 35,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

WANTED: New Dedge Flip Algorithm!

Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
294
OMG - I want someone to explain to me how I could have gotten to reParity™ from your "weird doubleparity alg". I will eat my cube raw, and the arm that it is attached to, if it can be shown how those two algorithms are somehow clones of each other.
Convert your alg to a version without cube rotations or l-turns and ignore the leftover 3x3x3 moves.

Sorry about your arm.
Yeah, that's alright, I only ate part of it, and it should grow back soon enough. It's the perfectly good cube I will be missing! More similar than I had realized, but not a clone. (see post below)

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showpost.php?p=309828&postcount=205
 
Last edited:

joey

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2007
Messages
4,410
WCA
2007GOUL01
YouTube
cardologist
Lucas: I shouldn't have to defend myself from cheap shots like this. That goes for the rest of the Mods too. The Mods here don't do any of this put-down stuff to the "inside" clique. It's like there is a hit list (masterofthebass?) for certain out-spoken members (preferably new ones), and once you get on it, ANY post that is critical,demeaning,insulting,attacks the credibility of the member,disputes claims of the member, etc. is a GOOD/ESSENTIAL post for a Mod to make. Maybe you even get paid for doing that? You also back each other up, and go out of your way to make one another look good in the forum, (which is admirable), but this double standard serves to highlight even more the deliberate mistreatment dished out to the rest. Have a group chat, figure out quick who doesn't deserve to be mistreated anymore, and please be a little friendlier! WOW. :confused:
This is hilarious.
 

fanwuq

Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
2,833
WCA
2008FANW01
YouTube
fanwuq
This is hilarious.
-1

I don't it would be if you were defending yourself. reThinker was making a serious statement, not a joke.
Actually, it is hilarious. There are no arguments and insults.

It's just funny that he comes up with a convoluted self-centered argument when everyone can clearly see that the algs are the same. Put both algs in alg.garron.us or any other simulator and play them one move at a time, side by side. Lucas was not being disrespectful at all.

If he made a legit, thoughtful defense, then it's not right to take it as a joke, but that whole post was just full of poor reasoning. Many of his statements were funny in an ironic way.
 

masterofthebass

Premium Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
3,923
Location
Denver, CO
WCA
2007COHE01
YouTube
masterofthebass
first off, none of us get paid for this. This is something we do out of our own time. Second, I will admit that most of my recent posts mainly have an negative tone to them, because I've posted enough that posting something I agree with seems to take too much time. Also, perhaps there's a reason why most of my posts are directed towards new members, but that doesn't mean that I say something because they are new. All my posts are directed towards content, and thats really it.
 

Dene

Premium Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
6,911
WCA
2009BEAR01
YouTube
masterNZ
Actually, Dene is the one with a hitlist, and he is not a mod. Nor are there any newbies on the hitlist because I ignore newbs.
 
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
294
first off, none of us get paid for this. This is something we do out of our own time. Second, I will admit that most of my recent posts mainly have an negative tone to them, because I've posted enough that posting something I agree with seems to take too much time. Also, perhaps there's a reason why most of my posts are directed towards new members, but that doesn't mean that I say something because they are new. All my posts are directed towards content, and thats really it.
OK, fair enough. You had me really worried though, Dan.
 
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
294
Put both algs in alg.garron.us or any other simulator and play them one move at a time, side by side.
Even better IMO

WOW. Ok I have to admit that this is pretty cool. It IS actually mirroring for the core edge perm stuff. I should have spotted this earlier. You did good with this video. Even though the 3x3x3 moves change the ending position. This is quite amazing. I set out to create my alg by first discovering an 8-cycle of edges->[4 Mslice dedges] for the core alg, using SINGLE slice moves only. That 8-cycle idea (along with some others that relate to this)was spawned (by myself) earlier in the thread, and since it wasn't being pursued by anybody else - I decided to find something that could do this myself. I then experimented on making that (I actually had more than one) M-slice 4-cycle of dedges into a useable (OLL) using wide turns instead of single slices. I had a lot of flexibility here, since my original idea was OK with LL and F2L slot change. As it turned out, the best solution was also the cleanest. Finally I worked on transforms for speed and simplicity (whereas cmowla was probably more concerned with BQTM). So I not only started out with a completely different idea, I was also heading for the DBL parity position where the URF-UFL corners are swapped. Whereas cmowla's alg started out (I believed)instead to make a 4-cycle of edges->[2 dedges], and not only that he was trying to get a different DBL parity position "flipping" one and swapping dedges UF<->UB. I don't think his alg actually achieved what he was trying to get originally, and maybe that is why he called it "weird". Note the dedge commutation at the end. Probably wasn't looking to fix with 2s2 since he had something else in mind. Yet, it is mind-boggling to me, to see that both these algs end up dancing to the same tune so to speak, on their way to different weddings.

r U2 r' F2 l' B2 l B2 l' D2 l D2 l' F2 U2


reParity™ - r U2 l' U2 x' r' U2 l U2 r' U2 l U2 l' U2 y' 2m2 y'

OK, that being said, the actual turns of the core alg are really not IDENTICAL, and how those different turns would be executed is going to be different too, and the ending 3x3x3turns are not the same either, which gives a different position for the resulting (PLL/OLL). Not cloned. It is rather ironic, that if cmowla would have put more emphasis on finding an alg that was easier to use, instead of just getting a really good result in fewest BQTM - he might have actually refined his alg down to the EXACT same alg that I eventually came up with. Yep. He was really close.

EDIT: Does anybody care to know what the expected likelyhood of this symmetry popping up is, with ANY two parity algs within <r,l,U2,B2,D2,F2>? After looking at this for awhile, I am seeing that this symmetry might not be that unusual for these types of parity algs. Really there aren't THAT many ways to logically put those turns together and still get a useful alg. Anybody care to take a stab at the math and logic behind this conundrum?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
294
OMG - I want someone to explain to me how I could have gotten to reParity™ from your "weird doubleparity alg". I will eat my cube raw, and the arm that it is attached to, if it can be shown how those two algorithms are somehow clones of each other.
By the way, I don't want the courtesy of a ™ after "lucasparity". That's what others called it, and that's all I ever want it to be called. And I don't really plan to go around naming my other algs stuff like ®2parity™ or XDiagonalizer or TwinParityAlgs. If an alg is worth talking about enough by name, it will get one (like the Sun, which actually doesn't really get talked about).
lucasparity. Done. Everyone seems to be interpreting my Name™ thing as some sort of vanity obsession. It might appear that way, but that is NOT the case at all. The MAIN REASON for giving names to algs, is because of examples like the one quoted above. So what does this refer to: "cmowla's weird doubleparity alg"? Why not define it first, CmowlaWeirdX2™= (r U2 r' F2 l' B2 l B2 l' D2 l D2 l' F2 U2). Now any use of CmowlaWeirdX2™ makes an unambiguous reference to a specific alg. It's a good thing that "lucasparity" has a name, since you have been credited with MORE than one parity alg. I have seen it stated, "that cool parity algorithm that Lucas came up with". Huh? I know you have given names for your other algs = "Omega" rings a bell. Did you wait around for somebody else to call it that? NO. I give names (labels) to algs so that I can refer to them "by name". Their names are shorter, and less ambiguous than doing it any other way. And preventing ambiguity is the main reason for the ™ after the name. It is not about claiming ownership, or a vain attempt at noteriety. It is simply about giving authenticity to the name/label being used. I feel like I have to put "lucasparity" in quotes now every time I refer to it. Doesn't look as properly naming as lucasparity™, but it's your child, and you can name it whatever you want. I totally understand how you might feel uncomfortable doing it my way, but you see, I AM cool.:cool:
 
Last edited:

deadalnix

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2007
Messages
560
WCA
2008SECH01
You write too much. If you cannot express clearly something, this is usually because this things isn't clear for you.

And if it isn't clear for you, you are proabably making wrong assumptions.

If you cannot express what you are saying with a few brief and clear sentences, then you shouldn't write anythings and think the problem again.

I see 2 people here doing very long and complicated speach. You and cmowla. The experience show that these long speach are mostly going the wrong way.
 
Top