• 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!

Wiki Discussion Thread

Joined
Feb 18, 2018
Messages
1,934
Likes
818
WCA
2016STEE01
mentions "To scramble this thing i have used the standart WCA pyraminx scramble, including tips + some random moves to mix up the smaller edges"
Hey @AvGalen, thank you for the video. To be honest I completly forgot to look on YouTube about Master Pyraminx scrambles or if anyone had info on that (which is like how could I forget) but never the less thank you for that.

So to follow up on your post, would that way of scrambling work then for anyone that practices/wants to practice Master pyraminx? I ask because I would like to be clear on that, and I am thinking about maybe having a "Race to sub x Master Pyraminx" thread, but before I post anything on that, I would like to make sure that I have the correct scrambles.

I guess that last question I have in regards to the scrambles is; Does anyone have a better idea of scrambles or a better way of scrambling the Master Pyraminx? I think that the way Fyodor does it in the video is great, but I just want to check.

Sorry for all of these and the previous questions, but I do sincerly appreciate all your help and time with this. This is all new to me (regarding UWR's and scrambles for Unofficial events), and so I just want to make sure that I have doing things the right way, and not making a mistake.

EDIT: Yay! Another question : )
If I were to do another Ao50 or Ao100 on Master Pyraminx (with the way of scrambling as I mentioned above) would anyone have any objections to me adding those times to the Wiki UWR page, since there is nothing there at the moment? Thanks
 
Last edited:

AvGalen

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
6,857
Likes
89
Location
Rotterdam (actually Capelle aan den IJssel), the N
WCA
2006GALE01
YouTube
arnaudvg
I think you worry too much about making "official rules" for "unofficial events" ;)
I would just do handscrambles and sometimes I get a 3 minutes and sometimes I get a 1:30. Of course I am not aiming for the UWR but just messing around while watching a movie. In general I think UWR's don't need official scrambles
 

pjk

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Messages
6,349
Likes
611
WCA
2007KELL02
The wiki has been a great resource for the community over the years. In effort to make the wiki more useful to newcomers, we need to make a few new articles and improve some of the existing ones. Firstly, what are you thoughts on the main page of the wiki here? Should we put more intro articles at the top like notation, how to solve links, etc.?

Here are a couple pages that we should work to improve to help new comers understand speedcubing and answer the most common questions:
Intro to speedcubing - needs to be improved and updated.
FAQ - we should clean and update this page with the latest questions and answers (and links).
Youtube cubers - update with new channels and the latest/greatest of Youtube cubing.

Can someone please edit the NxN puzzle grid to include up to 33x33.
Can you link to what you're referring to exactly?
 
Last edited:

pjk

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Messages
6,349
Likes
611
WCA
2007KELL02
I assume he means the grids featured in Pages like This one
I see 33x33 on that grid. A new page can be created by clicking on red links.

How does one create a Wiki article? I would like to create one regarding the 3x3 subset EODF/EODB.
In the search bar, type in the title of the page you want to add, and when the search comes up, if a page doesn't exist, a link will come up to create the page:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Starting_a_new_page
Let me know if you need further help. Note you need to have an account and be logged in, which takes just a few seconds.
 

qwr

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2019
Messages
15
Likes
7
I noticed the 3x3 OLL and PLL pages don't feature authorship or comments, like the 4x4 parity page does.
The 3x3 page uses Template:Alg while the 4x4 parity page uses Template:Alg5 which supports author and algo name but doesn't display like in fixed width. https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Template:Alg5

Do you think it's worth asking the community to try to track down who invented each algorithm?
Also I think it's helpful to mention comments, like some anti-sune algorithms are simply inverses of the sune algorithms.
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2019
Messages
214
Likes
179
I noticed the 3x3 OLL and PLL pages don't feature authorship or comments, like the 4x4 parity page does.
The 3x3 page uses Template:Alg while the 4x4 parity page uses Template:Alg5 which supports author and algo name but doesn't display like in fixed width. https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Template:Alg5

Do you think it's worth asking the community to try to track down who invented each algorithm?
Also I think it's helpful to mention comments, like some anti-sune algorithms are simply inverses of the sune algorithms.
would tracking down whoever invented the alg be that easy and possible? also i'm pretty sure anybody can edit the wiki,if you see some info you think should be added you can add it yourself
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
901
Likes
45
Location
New Orleans, LA
YouTube
4EverTrying
I noticed the 3x3 OLL and PLL pages don't feature authorship or comments, like the 4x4 parity page does.
The 3x3 page uses Template:Alg while the 4x4 parity page uses Template:Alg5 which supports author and algo name but doesn't display like in fixed width. https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Template:Alg5

Do you think it's worth asking the community to try to track down who invented each algorithm?
Also I think it's helpful to mention comments, like some anti-sune algorithms are simply inverses of the sune algorithms.
First of all, I am glad that you appreciate my effort in implementing this template (and writing the 4x4x4 parity algorithms wiki page). This is a very good question, and aerocube gave a pretty good TLDR answer.

Now, the longer version . . .

Your inquiry about the 3x3 OLL and PLL pages is not so straight-forward to do without a fuss from the community (let alone be free from major guesswork and let alone be nearly (if not entirely) impossible). I will explain in more detail below why such detailed documentation exists (and can exist without a fuss from the community) for 4x4x4 parity algorithms but not for 3x3x3 algorithms.

I went out of my way to make Template Alg4 and Template Alg5 primarily to encompass the longer 4x4x4 algorithms; but I also decided to include authors because, unlike 3x3x3 algorithms, the majority of 4x4x4 algorithms listed on the 4x4x4 parity algorithms wiki page required specialized knowledge (which most people do not have nor care to acquire) to create. So naturally there are fewer people who are knowledgeable enough to find short (or maybe even move optimal) and/or speed optimal 4x4x4 parity algorithms, as they, more often than not, must at least in part be found by hand (2-gen is one example of an exception -- they can be found exclusively with computer searches, as the search space for 2-gen is far less than allowing all turns).

Since move optimal 3x3x3 computer solvers are time-feasible to use and are readily accessible, it's impossible to attribute a 3x3x3 algorithm (OLL, PLL, COLL, etc.) to an author, as doing so would not do the other hundreds (if not thousands) of other authors justice (despite that if someone finds an algorithm entirely with someone else's 3x3x3 solver, some would think that that individual should not claim credit for the algorithm). Don't get me wrong, this subset of move optimal 4x4x4 parity algorithms, for example, can actually be found indirectly with a 3x3x3 optimal solver (as I explain in the yellow box). Therefore, the majority of them are not attributed to a specific author because there are quite a few people who have done searches using that technique to find such algorithms. But this number of individuals is far fewer than those who have found algorithms to cases for popular 3x3x3 sub-steps.

Current 4x4x4 move optimal solvers are pretty much incapable of finding some of the move sequences I attributed my name to on the 4x4x4 parity algorithms page in our lifetime, for example (but that 18 move single dedge flip algorithm was found by my custom written 4x4x4 parity algorithm solver), and almost all "algorithm bars" which attribute an algorithm to an individual cite the first post which the algorithm was released publicly on the internet.

All in all, 4x4x4 parity algorithms (in general) have been found in brief 4x4x4 parity algorithm exploration "renaissance bursts" within the last 20 years. On the other hand, algorithms for cases in popular 3x3x3 sub-steps can (and are) being found (and refound) all the time by various members of the community.

In closing, I have a few honorable mentions when there was more than one (independent) founder of a 4x4x4 parity algorithm. "Lucas Parity", one of the most popular 4x4x4 parity algorithms to date, was provably found by two different authors (as I explain in the Interesting Note in this part of the introduction of the 4x4x4 parity algorithms wiki page). Kåre Krig and I also provably (and independently) found the same 4x4x4 parity algorithm (Rw' U R' U2 R U' Rw' U2 Rw' U2 Rw' U' R U2 R' U Rw') in this section. (If you follow the posts, you will see why this is "provably true" (undebatable)).

Maybe you can see now why such an analysis is not doable for 3x3x3 algorithms found for the most popular sub-steps for solving the 3x3x3! Such an analysis (which would most certainly involve more than two independent authors) would need to be conducted; and even if it was conducted, it would be debatable (for reasons already mentioned).
 
Last edited:

qwr

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2019
Messages
15
Likes
7
Your inquiry about the 3x3 OLL and PLL pages is not so straight-forward to do without a fuss from the community (let alone be free from major guesswork and let alone be nearly (if not entirely) impossible). I will explain in more detail below why such detailed documentation exists (and can exist without a fuss from the community) for 4x4x4 parity algorithms but not for 3x3x3 algorithms.
If we want to draw an analogy to mathematics we can use "first known appearance". It will undoubtedly take some web and book digging but I believe it's worth it to try some kind of attribution at all (even if debated) then leave it unattributed. Unfortunately I am new to the community so I don't know the history and others will be able to contribute more.

If I had to guess many basic CFOP algorithms can first be traced back to 1979 with David Singmaster 1982 by Jessica Fridrich and Mirek Goljan shown here http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/system.html I am happy to attribute these algorithms to Fridrich and Goljan. What do you think?

I suspect Singmaster's notes are the first reliable source to exist at all. (https://maths-people.anu.edu.au/~burkej/cube/singmaster.pdf is a fascinating read if you are interested in the math) I would attribute the first U perms, Z perm, A perms, X perm (H perm) to him. Singmaster cites some very old books and preprints but I think citing him is a good first approximation.

Addendum: I think most in the community don't care about the history of algorithms so I don't think there will be a fuss.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
901
Likes
45
Location
New Orleans, LA
YouTube
4EverTrying
If you want me to modify Template Alg5 (well, make a copy of it and modify that) so that you can make the edits you desire, let me know of which parameters you would like. To make matters simplest, you can just draw what you want the entire "algorithm bar" to look like, and I can go from there.

For example, I can easily shorten the space allotted for the algorithm itself (to encompass the shorter length of 3x3x3 algorithms -- just specify how many characters you want it to be able to take (including spaces) without it wrapping to two lines) and remove the "{{wide}}" parameter (which really just would take a "Y" for "Yes, this 4x4x4 parity algorithm can be executed with wide turns and still preserve the first three layers" or "N" for "No, this 4x4x4 parity algorithm cannot ...".

Or I can leave this parameter in, but rename it to "{{regripless}}" (or something else) for which you can pass the same arguments "Y" or "N". (But, as I mentioned in the documentation of Template Alg5, you don't have to pass any arguments in these parameters).

I would of course remove the "WCA" parameter, as SiGN and standard 3x3x3 notation are the same. (No need to have to input the algorithm twice, if the notation being displayed is the same one which can be interpreted by alg.cubing.net.)

In short, I am willing to help you with making a new template, but I am not going to be making any edits to those pages because I've had my fair share of edits to the PLL page being undone completely (many hours of work). But by all means, you are more than welcome to experiment.
 

qwr

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2019
Messages
15
Likes
7
I don't have any concrete plans for modifying the template currently. My only gripes are that the template isn't fixed width which hinders readability and aesthetics (ex. https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/4x4x4_parity_algorithms#Opposite) , and the page is too long to navigate comfortably (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Very_long).

To be technical, I would go as far as to say that instead of having each algorithm line/row be its own template, each special section like a link to alg.cubing.net should be its own template, and then the data is organized in a standard wikitable. This would solve the issue of width alignment. The reasoning goes that since we are creating lists of algorithms, they fit naturally into a tabular structure. The template has the advantage of specifying key-value pairs which may make entering new data easier. A wikitable has the interesting advantage of being possibly sortable by column.

For the 4x4 parity page in particular I think there should be shortcuts to the common algorithms people are looking for when speedsolving:
https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/4x4x4_parity_algorithms#Opposite
https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/4x4x4_parity_algorithms#1_flip

There should be a distinction between "speedsolving" algorithms and "theoretical interest" algorithms (which are more exhaustive)
Who decides the category I'm not sure.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
901
Likes
45
Location
New Orleans, LA
YouTube
4EverTrying
I don't have any concrete plans for modifying the template currently. My only gripes are that the template isn't fixed width which hinders readability and aesthetics (ex. https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/4x4x4_parity_algorithms#Opposite)
If you can, go revisit the 4x4x4 parity algorithms wikipage. I have modified Template Alg5 so that all "algorithm bar" (tables) have fixed column widths. The problem is, the page background itself is not wide enough to encompass the length of the "algorithm bars". So it doesn't look ideal. (This is why I thought it was best to keep it like I had it, but if you think that having all algorithm bars aligned like this makes it worth it, then I can keep it this way.)

(If anyone knows how to change the background width (if it can be done), let me know how.)
 
Last edited:

qwr

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2019
Messages
15
Likes
7
If you can, go revisit the 4x4x4 parity algorithms wikipage. I have modified Template Alg5 so that all "algorithm bar" (tables) have fixed column widths. The problem is, the page background itself is not wide enough to encompass the length of the "algorithm bars". So it doesn't look ideal. (This is why I thought it was best to keep it like I had it, but if you think that having all algorithm bars aligned like this makes it worth it, then I can keep it this way.)

(If anyone knows how to change the background width (if it can be done), let me know how.)
It's a lot better than it was before. I'm pretty sure some space can be saved in the name width and if needed also abbreviating common authors (ex. CM, C. Mowla, or Mowla for Christopher Mowla)
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
901
Likes
45
Location
New Orleans, LA
YouTube
4EverTrying
It's a lot better than it was before. I'm pretty sure some space can be saved in the name width and if needed also abbreviating common authors (ex. CM, C. Mowla, or Mowla for Christopher Mowla)
Okay, I will keep it this way. Also, I will look into that.

Note that I also reduced the fixed algorithm column length, because when viewing the page on my iPhone 6 (sideways/landscape view), I can just see the hyperlinked algorithm length ordered pair (BQTM, BHTM) to tap/click on it to see the animation. But if you have a suggestion for the fixed length (it's currently at 525px), let me know.
 
Last edited:
Top