# Not really visual memroy, but not really just memo'ing numbers..



## Lotsofsloths (Mar 1, 2008)

When I memo my corners I don't remember numbers or letters are even visually memo them.
I just remember how(I guess which finger???) I tapped each piece.
Its kind iof weird, but its fast!
Anyone else do this?


----------



## DennisStrehlau (Mar 1, 2008)

No!
 i memorize everything just with images

Greetings...Dennis


----------



## alexc (Mar 1, 2008)

That is visual. You kinda see the path of the cubies. I do that for CP, although once I switch to a method with no CO I will use images.


----------



## malcolm (Mar 1, 2008)

Yeah i memo sort of like this, just move my fingers over the path to help me memo. Gets me times between 30s-1m


----------



## jeff081692 (Mar 1, 2008)

Thats what I do for EP but I am still trying out different memo methods so that could change.


----------



## ThePizzaGuy92 (Mar 1, 2008)

alexc said:


> That is visual. You kinda see the path of the cubies. I do that for CP, although once I switch to a method with no CO I will use images.



I use pochmann [no CO] and visually memorizing corners is really easy, I found images a little difficult considering the three different possible orientations of each cubie.


----------



## alexc (Mar 1, 2008)

ThePizzaGuy92 said:


> alexc said:
> 
> 
> > That is visual. You kinda see the path of the cubies. I do that for CP, although once I switch to a method with no CO I will use images.
> ...



What do you mean the three orientations? You have a different image for each orientation. i.e.-UFL-dog FUL-cake LUF-rubik's cube


----------



## ThePizzaGuy92 (Mar 2, 2008)

alexc said:


> ThePizzaGuy92 said:
> 
> 
> > alexc said:
> ...



yes but that translates to alot of work for me :]


----------



## Speedy McFastfast (Mar 2, 2008)

PG, you simply visually memorize where the corners are at? I've been experimenting with BLD, and I found that I can memorize the orientation of the corners visually, and then use a cycle of numbers 1-8 to permute them. I guess I'm not very fast though, but I did manage to BLD the corners of my cube in 1:51 last night


----------



## Kristoffer (Mar 2, 2008)

ThePizzaGuy92 said:


> alexc said:
> 
> 
> > That is visual. You kinda see the path of the cubies. I do that for CP, although once I switch to a method with no CO I will use images.
> ...



I use the pochmann method but I do CO tho. Then I don't need to think about those orientations and I can memorize and execute them faster


----------



## Lotsofsloths (Mar 2, 2008)

How would you solve corners without orientation!?
That would be crazy setup moves!!!!!!!


----------



## Harris Chan (Mar 2, 2008)

Not really, at most 3 moves, usually 1-2 with Pochman. Remember he's talking about just doing 2 cycle for corners, not 3 cycle.


----------



## ThePizzaGuy92 (Mar 4, 2008)

Speedy McFastfast said:


> PG, you simply visually memorize where the corners are at? I've been experimenting with BLD, and I found that I can memorize the orientation of the corners visually, and then use a cycle of numbers 1-8 to permute them. I guess I'm not very fast though, but I did manage to BLD the corners of my cube in 1:51 last night



yeah I use entire visual on my corners, just a last second scan before blinding myself, then execute before I loose the mental picture. 
Not that impressive considering Rowe memo's the whole cube visually, I think Lucas does too. I plan on making the switch to full visual, but I tried once and it was a terrible failure. :]



Kristoffer said:


> I use the pochmann method but I do CO tho. Then I don't need to think about those orientations and I can memorize and execute them faster



I used to do that, but I found the full Pochmann corner system much quicker and easier, especially with visual memo because I only feel like I'm memorizing *ONE* thing [edges] for the entire BLD solve. no EO, no CP, no CO.



Lotsofsloths said:


> How would you solve corners without orientation!?
> That would be crazy setup moves!!!!!!!



since I use pochmann, one corner is done at a time. it takes a maximum of 3 moves to get any corner into any orientation in the buffer zone [RDF] to do the Y-perm [without the first F and last F']. Also, you can often avoid difficult setup moves by instead setting up for a J-perm.


----------



## Blue Transaparent (Mar 4, 2008)

*Out of gas....*

I started BLD a week ago and tried my hand at 3-cycle from Macky's site, i was able to do the EO then CO then CP but after that i usually ran out of gas, i guess its the memo thats killing me. specially EP memo... 

what do you guys recommend for cubers with a not so great or limited memo recall? does Pochmann method requires less stuff to memorize? 

HELP :confused:

I've read about POA and journey method for memorizing? dont quite understand how it works?


----------



## AvGalen (Mar 4, 2008)

Methods that don't use seperate orientation steps require less memo.
Memo takes practice. (1 cube is hard at first, now 3 cubes is doable)
Practice can be helped by memo-techniques which you can search for on this forum.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Mar 4, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> Methods that don't use seperate orientation steps require less memo..


Can people stop writing this?

Every memo method for a puzzle encodes exacly the same amount of information in your brain. I could come up with a conversion scheme for 3OP into a 20-digt number and claim that I'm only remembering one number. (Don't tell me it's 20 digits, or else I'll do it in base 36 (numbers + letters).)


----------



## AvGalen (Mar 4, 2008)

Worst case with no orientation: 12 edges + 8 corners = 20 pieces of information
Worst case with orientation: 12 edge permutations + 8 corner permutations + 6 edge orientations (if there are > 6 unoriented just remember the oriented ones) + 8 corner orientations

You store the same information in your brain, but not in the same amount of storage.


----------



## LarsN (Mar 4, 2008)

Oddly, I find it easiest to remember CO and CP, than just corner stickers. I have used both methods so it's not a matter of habit.


----------



## ThePizzaGuy92 (Mar 5, 2008)

Lucas Garron said:


> Every memo method for a puzzle encodes exacly the same amount of information in your brain. I could come up with a conversion scheme for 3OP into a 20-digt number and claim that I'm only remembering one number. (Don't tell me it's 20 digits, or else I'll do it in base 36 (numbers + letters).)



Sorry, but your mistaken. Pochmann's system has two things to memorize [EP & CP], whereas the 3-cycle system has 4 things to memorize [EP, EO, CP, & CO]

EDIT- I didn't realize Avgalen already said this


----------



## Pedro (Mar 5, 2008)

LarsN said:


> Oddly, I find it easiest to remember CO and CP, than just corner stickers. I have used both methods so it's not a matter of habit.



me too...I didn't do just stickers a lot, but...


----------



## Lucas Garron (Mar 5, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> Worst case with no orientation: 12 edges + 8 corners = 20 pieces of information
> Worst case with orientation: 12 edge permutations + 8 corner permutations + 6 edge orientations (if there are > 6 unoriented just remember the oriented ones) + 8 corner orientations
> 
> You store the same information in your brain, but not in the same amount of storage.


 Yea, sure. Uh-huh. I could easily reduce CO to two algs - is that two pieces of information? Or how about my 5-pieces-of-data CO system? And what about arguing that EP without EO is 2^11 worth of data easier and faster?
This is silly... 
Also, please count cycles, not permutation.
I might be willing to concede "pieces of information" (seperately/distinctly imprinted into memory), but not "data." Pieces of information for orientation is pretty wishy-washy, too. I memo EO algs right before I pull down the blindfold, and sometimes it's as simple as R setup + U-layer flip).
And what's "amount of storage"? Are you counting neurons employed? 
Can Stefan help out on this?

(By the way, EO requires one extra bit to keep track of whether you memoed flipped. And CO is so 7.)

(Oh, and those are not worst cases.)



ThePizzaGuy92 said:


> Lucas Garron said:
> 
> 
> > Every memo method for a puzzle encodes exacly the same amount of information in your brain. *I could come up with a conversion scheme for 3OP into a 20-digt number and claim that I'm only remembering one number.* (Don't tell me it's 20 digits, or else I'll do it in base 36 (numbers + letters).)
> ...


Do you read? 
You're using "things" pretty loosely. If you do it this way, I'll claim that MGLS requires as many "things" to memorize as Fridrich.


----------



## ThePizzaGuy92 (Mar 5, 2008)

Lucas Garron said:


> ThePizzaGuy92 said:
> 
> 
> > Lucas Garron said:
> ...



pronouns save time, did any of the "things" I used confuse you?


----------



## AvGalen (Mar 5, 2008)

Lucas Garron said:


> 1.  Yea, sure. Uh-huh. I could easily reduce CO to two algs - is that two pieces of information?
> 2. Or how about my 5-pieces-of-data CO system?
> 3. And what about arguing that EP without EO is 2^11 worth of data easier and faster?
> 4. This is silly...
> ...


1. You can, but I can't. So for you it might be only 2 pieces of information, for me that might be 8 (not including setups)
2. Yours, not mine
3. That is silly. It would be 11 or 12 out of 24 possible (without EO) and 11 or 12 out of 12 possible (with EO). So the same amount of pieces of information, just from different pool sizes
4. You see, we agree 
5. Why would I count cycles? There is no need to remember the number of cycles. You should memo in cycles, but not count them.
6. Agreed again
7. That stores data in short term and doesn't work for multi-blind (maybe for 2 or 3, but not for 15).
8. I agree, this is vague. But if you would write down what to remember you understand
9. He probably could. I think he would say something like "I don't understand why people like to orient seperately".

I don't understand the "EO requires one extra bit" (my mind doesn't work in bits) and CO is only 7 if you want to calculate nr. 8. I store CO in short term so not all pieces of information to calculate nr. 8 might be available anymore.


----------



## hait2 (Mar 6, 2008)

each method has its tradeoffs.. orientation+permutation simultaneous solving methods (like sticker-based) require a more difficult memo system because you need 2 images for each sticker pair, whereas permutation needs one. so sure, orientation separate steps may require more info to be memorized if you choose to memorize them separately, but they also require a simpler system (for instance 1 image per cubie).

however, the orientation-first methods have the advantage that you can memo orientation and permutation simultaneously but solve separately which is what i do. i have 3 images for each piece for a PAO system and if the edge is flipped, i memo the inverse of the image (upside down, reverse action or whatever). these are not extra images so the system isn't more complex, i hope it's clear why. similar for CO, i memo the person/whatever on fire or freezing depending on orientation.

orientation-permutation simultaneous methods don't have this option, and they're stuck with a more complex system from the get-go


----------



## Lucas Garron (Mar 6, 2008)

hait2 said:


> orientation-permutation simultaneous methods don't have this option, and they're stuck with a more complex system from the get-go


Hmm. I see your memo method as more useful for sticker cycling.
And it's not really "orientation and permutation simultaneously"...


----------



## malcolm (Mar 6, 2008)

But... You can memo without orientation, yet still execute with a orient first method quite easily? so you can't complain..


----------



## Joël (Mar 7, 2008)

Lucas Garron said:


> AvGalen said:
> 
> 
> > Methods that don't use seperate orientation steps require less memo..
> ...



I think you are both right. In the end, the same information is *encoded*. It's just that with some methods, the information is encoded more efficiently. Just like information is encoded more efficiently when you compress a .bmp file into a .zip file for example.

With the information that you memorize, you can recreate the whole cube state, if you are interested in that.

But what Arnoud means is that the information is memorised more efficiently, so it requires less memo.

It's like when ChrisH uses his letterpair system: He has to memorise 50% less images than a person who uses 1 image for 1 piece. So ultimately, the same amount of information is encoded with less memorisation.


----------



## hait2 (Mar 9, 2008)

Lucas Garron said:


> hait2 said:
> 
> 
> > orientation-permutation simultaneous methods don't have this option, and they're stuck with a more complex system from the get-go
> ...



one of us is misunderstanding, i'm not sure who. in that sentence, i was referring to the sticker cycling methods, and how they require a more complex system to start, but as a result solve orientation and permutation simultaneously

@joel
yes, this is my point. chrisH uses a more complex system to allow him to memorize more efficiently.

this is the key - the amount you memorize is directly proportional to the system you have in place. his system is more complex than a one image per piece system, but allows him to memorize more data in less chunks. this is not even really related to the method that he uses. i was just saying that sticker-cycling methods force a more compex system in the beginning - which then allows for less chunks of information to be memorized. orientation-first methods have an easier system, but the system can be expanded quite easily. in the end, it doesn't matter

theoretically, nothing is stopping you from creating a system with so many images that you can memorize any cycle of any length as one image. practically, i'd rather start a snow-shovelling business in hell.


----------



## joey (Mar 9, 2008)

I don't see why you think sticker-cycling methods are harder. I think they are simple..


----------



## tim (Mar 9, 2008)

orientation-first:
Edges:
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1101 1111 0001
Corners:
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
2100 0111

sticker-cycling:
Edges:
3 6 7 9 12 14 15 18 19 22 23
Corners:
5 7 12 14 16 21 23


----------



## Lucas Garron (Mar 18, 2008)

Alright: Reviewing Miller's paper, in *The Span of Immediate Memory*, it seems that pieces of information ("chunks") are about equally easy to remember, regardless of how much each piece represents (so a letter represents 4.5ish binary digits with nearly the same effort). So it seems that pure sticker cycling saves a bit (okay, that was no pun intended. But now it is. ) on pieces of information (something like 5-10 for me). But don't let me catch you saying that you are memorizing less data.


----------



## andrewvo1324 (Mar 23, 2008)

Yea i trace the way im putting pieces like i drag my finger from corner to corner.

Then i just remeber how i traced it and its fast..


I just need a better Edge MEmo


----------



## ROOT (Mar 29, 2008)

since i cant memorize 12 numbers without getting some mixed up, i memo 8 edges with numbers and the rest visual/muscle. for orientation i also use visual/muscle memory. for corner permutation i use muscle memo. play with it and youll get it right.


----------

