[Unofficial] Weird 3x3 PLL skip

[Dene]

imaghost:
I can assure you that many people here have a thorough understanding of physics. I'm still waiting for your logical argument. And remember to set it out nicely for us.

 

[imaghost]

imaghost:
I can assure you that many people here have a thorough understanding of physics. I'm still waiting for your logical argument. And remember to set it out nicely for us.

This was never an argument. You haven't tried to prove me wrong yet.

 

[Escher]

"I did not disprove General Relativity is wrong by using logic."
I disproved General Relativity is right by using logic.
I proved General Relativity is wrong by using logic.

So you rephrased what you said. Twice.

The gist of it is still that you contradicted yourself later. Why?

 

[Dene]

imaghost:
I can assure you that many people here have a thorough understanding of physics. I'm still waiting for your logical argument. And remember to set it out nicely for us.

This was never an argument. You haven't tried to prove me wrong yet.

What are you on about? You aren't making any sense! How am I supposed to prove you wrong, if there's nothing to prove wrong yet??? I will prove you wrong when you have given your "logical argument" for why general relativity is false. Until you have given your argument, how in the world am I supposed to refute it?

You're an idiot just stop now. (btw I'm with Ethan, I reckon your just trolling now, but flaming you is fun anyway).

 

[imaghost]

"I did not disprove General Relativity is wrong by using logic."
I disproved General Relativity is right by using logic.
I proved General Relativity is wrong by using logic.

So you rephrased what you said. Twice.

The gist of it is still that you contradicted yourself later. Why?

reread your post that I replied with "I did not disprove General Relativity is wrong by using logic." Your grammar apparently was wrong.

imaghost:
I can assure you that many people here have a thorough understanding of physics. I'm still waiting for your logical argument. And remember to set it out nicely for us.

This was never an argument. You haven't tried to prove me wrong yet.

What are you on about? You aren't making any sense! How am I supposed to prove you wrong, if there's nothing to prove wrong yet??? I will prove you wrong when you have given your "logical argument" for why general relativity is false. Until you have given your argument, how in the world am I supposed to refute it?

You're an idiot just stop now. (btw I'm with Ethan, I reckon your just trolling now, but flaming you is fun anyway).

I know General Relativity is not false. I am not trying to prove it wrong. I am not arguing with you, or anyone else. You are not supposed to prove me wrong. You don't have to do anything. You did not have to reply. I am not here to argue. If I were to argue, it would be about the president, and why he shouldn't be president. But people never change their way in thinking, so why bother. I won't change just because someone says I am stupid. I apparently know I am not, or I wouldn't be here, talking about General Relativity and how I logically proved it wrong. I know it isn't wrong. I never said it was.

 

[veazer]

ou know that if noone posts in this thread... it will die? So why don't we stop arguing and go tell more people to use the search function, okay?

 

[Escher]

If I were to argue, it would be about the president, and why he shouldn't be president. But people never change their way in thinking, so why bother. I won't change just because someone says I am stupid. I apparently know I am not, or I wouldn't be here, talking about General Relativity and how I logically proved it wrong. I know it isn't wrong. I never said it was.

Lets end this here by saying that:

- you were wrong in your assertion that you would get more PLL skips using 2 looks of OLL.

- you don't always think logically, but you think you think logically.

- your proof of general relativity being wrong was actually wrong so its barely worth mentioning.

- you think that barack obama shouldn't be president for whatever reason. Completely pointless mention and i suspect intentionally inflammatory.

Okay?

EDIT:
Still, it's good to see somebody at least interested in logic...

EDIT2:
and I admit you managed to confuse me with your crazy triple negatives.

 

[Dene]

ou know that if noone posts in this thread... it will die? So why don't we stop arguing and go tell more people to use the search function, okay?

But arguing is fun!

I know General Relativity is not false. I am not trying to prove it wrong. I am not arguing with you, or anyone else. You are not supposed to prove me wrong. You don't have to do anything. You did not have to reply. I am not here to argue. If I were to argue, it would be about the president, and why he shouldn't be president. But people never change their way in thinking, so why bother. I won't change just because someone says I am stupid. I apparently know I am not, or I wouldn't be here, talking about General Relativity and how I logically proved it wrong. I know it isn't wrong. I never said it was.

You're just flat-out contradicting yourself. You just failed your logic course.

 

[AvGalen]

imaghost: People do change their way in thinking. It is you that doesn't change his way of thinking.

With logic I can now prove you are wrong on that point.
With logic I can now prove that you have been wrong so you don't use logic correct always.
With logic I can now conclude that means you should change your way in thinking sometimes.
With logic, experience and common sense everyone else on this forum has realised that this topic is clearly one of those things you should change your way of thinking about.

You might think this is logic, but it really isn't. It is drawing conclusion from a set of irrelevant data:
7/7 = 1, 6/6 = 1, 5/5 = 1, etc so 0/0 = 1.
0/7 = 0, 0/6 = 0, 0/5 = 0, etc so 0/0 = 0.
If 0/0 is both 0 and 1 that must mean that 0 = 1 and that must mean that 1 = 2.
(That logic is actually supported by the fact that 1/INFINITY = 2/INFINITY )

If I flip 4 coins, according to statistics, I will have 2 heads, 2 tails.

No, according to statistics you have:
* a 1/16 chance of 4 heads, 0 tails
* a 4/16 chance of 3 heads, 1 tail
* a 6/16 chance of 2 heads, 2 tails
* a 4/16 chance of 1 head, 3 tails
* a 1/16 chance of 0 heads, 4 tails
So according to statistics you have a 6/16 chance of 2 heads, 2 tails but almost twice as much chance (10/16) chance of not getting 2 heads, 2 tails

I don't always have one out of 72. I get more, almost always. I don't count, but I do know that I have them more often than that.

Statiscally your chance of getting exactly 1 PLL skip in 72 solves are already really small. Chances of always getting exactly 1 PLL skip in a series of 72 solves are basically 0.
So of course you will sometimes get more than 1/72 and you will also get less than 1/72 sometimes. You might even be right about getting more almost always but you still haven't proved that is because of 2 look OLL

For that prove you simply use math and that math has been provided very early in this topic. That math clearly stated that you don't have twice as much chance of getting PLL skips because you perform twice as many OLL's

Now here is a logic test for you: How many OLL's do you perform on average when you know the 3+7 2 look OLL algs?

 

[imaghost]

imaghost: People do change their way in thinking. It is you that doesn't change his way of thinking.

With logic I can now prove you are wrong on that point.
With logic I can now prove that you have been wrong so you don't use logic correct always.
With logic I can now conclude that means you should change your way in thinking sometimes.
With logic, experience and common sense everyone else on this forum has realised that this topic is clearly one of those things you should change your way of thinking about.

You might think this is logic, but it really isn't. It is drawing conclusion from a set of irrelevant data:
7/7 = 1, 6/6 = 1, 5/5 = 1, etc so 0/0 = 1.
0/7 = 0, 0/6 = 0, 0/5 = 0, etc so 0/0 = 0.
If 0/0 is both 0 and 1 that must mean that 0 = 1 and that must mean that 1 = 2.
(That logic is actually supported by the fact that 1/INFINITY = 2/INFINITY )

If I flip 4 coins, according to statistics, I will have 2 heads, 2 tails.

No, according to statistics you have:
* a 1/16 chance of 4 heads, 0 tails
* a 4/16 chance of 3 heads, 1 tail
* a 6/16 chance of 2 heads, 2 tails
* a 4/16 chance of 1 head, 3 tails
* a 1/16 chance of 0 heads, 4 tails
So according to statistics you have a 6/16 chance of 2 heads, 2 tails but almost twice as much chance (10/16) chance of not getting 2 heads, 2 tails

I don't always have one out of 72. I get more, almost always. I don't count, but I do know that I have them more often than that.

Statiscally your chance of getting exactly 1 PLL skip in 72 solves are already really small. Chances of always getting exactly 1 PLL skip in a series of 72 solves are basically 0.
So of course you will sometimes get more than 1/72 and you will also get less than 1/72 sometimes. You might even be right about getting more almost always but you still haven't proved that is because of 2 look OLL

For that prove you simply use math and that math has been provided very early in this topic. That math clearly stated that you don't have twice as much chance of getting PLL skips because you perform twice as many OLL's

Now here is a logic test for you: How many OLL's do you perform on average when you know the 3+7 2 look OLL algs?

Ah the old Pascal's triangle. I was basing it off of 2/4 is one half. I haven't looked at the triangle in about a year and a half.
So, you are saying, logically, 1/3 is undefined? 1/1 is undefined? Every number in the universe is undefined? The reason why this is not true, is because 0/0 does not equal one, or 0, but rather undefined. Logically it does, but it doesn't. Nobody on the internet can make me change my way of thinking. I might, but but I probably won't.
Anything over infinity is the same as anything else over infinity.
Logically speaking, if I flip 4 coins, I have an undefined probability of getting 2 heads and 2 tails. Logically speaking, Pascal's triangle doesn't exist o.o

Of course, all this is not true. Logically it is, but in reality it is not. Everybody is trying to argue with me, when I am agreeing with them. I know the logic is wrong, mathematically. But if you looked at it, you might say it is true. But no matter what, you will still say it is not, because you want to prove a point. You can change your way of thinking, you will never say, "Oh hey, I think he did prove Einstein wrong." It will never happen. I know it's wrong, I won't say it to save myself from all this.

Oh, and if people do change their way of thinking, why don't you? Take a look at what I am saying, and think a little. Same with everyone else. Changing back isn't so hard either, apparently.

 

[Ethan Rosen]

wow you're stupid. I'm done with this thread, but honestly you are just trying to make yourself seem deep by saying contradicting things that make no sense and calling it logic.

 

[blah]

But Arnaud, you can't use math to prove anything to him/her, because...

Logically I am right, mathematically I am wrong.

This is probably the most entertaining thread I've come across It's about intellect and logic, ooh.

This is what his YouTube account says:

6'3" and really skinny, most my friends are older than me and im taller than all of them lol

I don't know why I posted that but I chuckled when I read that.

Edit: I just read his last post, wow this guy's unbelievably hopeless.

 

[imaghost]

But Arnaud, you can't use math to prove anything to him/her, because...

Logically I am right, mathematically I am wrong.

This is probably the most entertaining thread I've come across It's about intellect and logic, ooh.

This is what his YouTube account says:

6'3" and really skinny, most my friends are older than me and im taller than all of them lol

I don't know why I posted that but I chuckled when I read that.

eh I put that there not too long ago... not really sure why, but I am really tall, and really skinny, one of the only people I know taller than me is my brother, and one of the only people skinnier than me... well... not really sure about that one.

wow you're stupid. I'm done with this thread, but honestly you are just trying to make yourself seem deep by saying contradicting things that make no sense and calling it logic.

Everything I said makes complete sense, if you think about it, and I mean really go in depth about it. That is the way I think, a lot of people don't understand, but some do.

As about the first thing, that is the point nobody seems to get. They are trying to prove me wrong, when I know I am wrong, and am agreeing with them.

 

[blah]

They are trying to prove me wrong, when I know I am wrong.

The sentence below is false.
The sentence above is true.

 

[mazei]

Does he realize the contradictions he has said?

 

[AvGalen]

Ah the old Pascal's triangle. I was basing it off of 2/4 is one half. I haven't looked at the triangle in about a year and a half.

I had never heard of Pascal's triangle, I looked it up and it has nothing to do with it. I agree with others that you just mentioned this to look intelligent (you failed). You said that statistics say that when you flip a coin 4 times you get 2 heads and 2 tails. I say that statistics say that when you flip a coin 4 times chances of getting 2 heads and 2 tails is 6/16.

So, you are saying, logically, 1/3 is undefined? 1/1 is undefined? Every number in the universe is undefined? The reason why this is not true, is because 0/0 does not equal one, or 0, but rather undefined. Logically it does, but it doesn't.

I never said that 0/0 equals 1 or 0. I said that your way of logical thinking would lead to that wrong conclusion and you proved my point when you said "logically it does".

Nobody on the internet can make me change my way of thinking. I might, but but I probably won't.

So I can't change your mind and you probably won't. That just makes you a stubern person that isn't willing to learn.

Anything over infinity is the same as anything else over infinity.
Logically speaking, if I flip 4 coins, I have an undefined probability of getting 2 heads and 2 tails. Logically speaking, Pascal's triangle doesn't exist o.o

Of course, all this is not true. Logically it is, but in reality it is not.

Now you are just rambling

Everybody is trying to argue with me, when I am agreeing with them. I know the logic is wrong, mathematically. But if you looked at it, you might say it is true. But no matter what, you will still say it is not, because you want to prove a point. You can change your way of thinking, you will never say, "Oh hey, I think he did prove Einstein wrong." It will never happen. I know it's wrong, I won't say it to save myself from all this.

No, you are not agreeing with others and we argue because we want to explain why you should agree with us

Oh, and if people do change their way of thinking, why don't you? Take a look at what I am saying, and think a little. Same with everyone else. Changing back isn't so hard either, apparently.

I am not changing my way of thinking about this because you are wrong. I have changed my mind about many other things because I was wrong, learned and changed. I will continue to do so in the future. I am also looking very closely to what you are saying. I think about what your are saying. I see the flaws in what you are saying. I explain to you what your flaws are. I give you a logic test that will improve your skills and general understanding. I see that you don't do that test and also misread my words.

In conclusion:
* Your math skills are bad
* Your logic is very often flawed
* Your debating skills are horrible
* Your refusal to change is a serious character flaw
* ...but you think we are the ones that need to change???

Please don't post for a day, than reread this topic and change your ways. We are not "out to get you". We are trying to show you how to become a better person!

 

[Stefan]

I know that numbers proved me wrong, but logically, which is the way I think, nobody has. Using logic, I have proved General Relativity wrong. But I know that I was wrong, because the math behind it. If I do the same OLL over and over again, a PLL skip will come more often than doing 100 different ones at random. Same with doing 6. Numbers don't mean anything when I am speaking logically. I know that this is not true though.

hahahahaha, thats really funny.

You're joking right?

My reaction exactly. I think any further discussion with him is hopelessly pointless.

I'm only on page 3, though, and there are 8 already, so I'm looking forward to a lot of fun reading the rest.

 

[Ellis]

I leave for the day and come back to this? Just... wow.

I did a lot of skimming towards the end. I just can't read all this. I don't think there's anything more that can be said anyway.

 

[Stefan]

For 2 look OLL you need 3 edge orienting OLL's and 7 corner orienting PLL's.

Wrong. You don't have to orient edges and corners separately. I suspect there's a set of less than 10 algs that give you a 2-look OLL. Remember 4 algs suffice for 2-look PLL.

2 look means you only look+perform before edge-OLL and then look+perform corner-OLL.

Traditionally. Not necessarily.

I had never heard of Pascal's triangle, I looked it up and it has nothing to do with it.

Actually it does. Check it again, look for 1 4 6 4 1 (the sequence you yourself came up with).

I think any further discussion with him is hopelessly pointless. I'm only on page 3, though

I've read the remaining pages now and conclude I was 100% right.

Clarification: The reasons I only point out Arnaud's mistakes and not imaghost's are that
(1) Arnaud's statements are actually meaningful statements and not just unanswerable nonsense.
(2) I know Arnaud will learn from my corrections whereas imaghost most certainly wouldn't.

 

[AvGalen]

Stefan: You are right about the 2 look OLL. I oversimplified this on purpose though. Imaghost mentioned using 6 OLL's but never stated which ones he uses and he mentioned that by repeating them several times he could get PLL skip with 2 look OLL. I didn't want to overcomplicate this by explaining to him what 2 look OLL means AND that there are variations.

About Pascal's triangle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_triangle#Pascal.27s_triangle_and_Combinations I missed that and didn't realise the connection with statistics from the first paragraps. My math is mostly intuitive and doesn't come from schooling. I find it said for imaghost that he actually had this knowledge but still thinks "statistics gives 2 heads and 2 tails" while others (like me) that don't have this knowledge can actually draw the correct conclusion by using logic.

Imaghost: As you can see it is quite easy for me to change my mind. All that is needed is for someone to point out my mistake. I hope you will do the same