# what is the 3x3x3 single WR boundary.



## Enter (Sep 20, 2010)

I think when you are really lucky on the F2L and LL skip it could go to sub 5.


----------



## ben1996123 (Sep 20, 2010)

Well Faz and Stefan Huber already have sub 5's without LL skips, so I think definitely sub 4, maybe sub 3.


----------



## Enter (Sep 20, 2010)

Sub 3 that is immposible!
Quadruple X-cross with LL skip


----------



## izovire (Sep 20, 2010)

I think low 4 sec. using fridrich this is possible with a lot of luck. 

If it were humanly possible to solve it in one look and less than 20 moves.. the WR would be like 3-4 sec. 

Then there'd also be FMC Wr's too! lol


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 20, 2010)

3.90 exactly.


----------



## Carson (Sep 20, 2010)

Assuming organizer's do not throw out scrambles because they are too easy: someone will eventually get something like a R U R' or a U Perm as a solution. It could happen this weekend, or it could be 10 years from now... there is no way to be sure.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Sep 20, 2010)

Carson said:


> Assuming organizer's do not throw out scrambles because they are too easy: someone will eventually get something like a R U R' or a U Perm as a solution. It could happen this weekend, or it could be 10 years from now... there is no way to be sure.


 
Optimal scramble lenths, etc.

R U' R' or equivalent != legit scramble.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 20, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> 3.90 exactly.


 
I agree. Surely 3.90 is possible, but 3.89 or less is impossible.



Carson said:


> Assuming organizer's do not throw out scrambles because they are too easy: someone will eventually get something like a R U R' or a U Perm as a solution. *It could happen this weekend, or it could be 10 years from now*


 
Or, way more likely, it could be a few billion years from now.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Sep 20, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> Or, way more likely, it could be a few billion years from now.


 
For some reason, I don't see cubing being around in a few billion years. Hell, the sun could have expanded enough to kill all life on Earth, so by that time there could be interplanetary records. I'd say the next few decades are a bit more likely that a ridiculous scramble gets loose(assuming again that they don't throw away scrambles).


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 20, 2010)

Stachuk1992 said:


> Optimal scramble lenths, etc.
> 
> R U' R' or equivalent != legit scramble.


 
It's perfectly plausible that CE spits out a a cube with a 3 move solution.
Is it likely? No. There are roughly 18^3 = 5832 (less, actually, because I'm over counting in several ways. But it's a good enough rough estimate) states that have 3 move solutions. 6000/43 quintillion = 1.4 × 10^-16. But there's no mechanism that prevents CE from generating such a position.


----------



## pcuber (Sep 20, 2010)

People could be living on other planets by then and two billion years is a long time.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Sep 20, 2010)

hawkmp4 said:


> It's perfectly plausible that CE spits out a a cube with a 3 move solution.
> Is it likely? No. There are roughly 18^3 = 5832 (less, actually, because I'm over counting in several ways. But it's a good enough rough estimate) states that have 3 move solutions. 6000/43 quintillion = 1.4 × 10^-16. But there's no mechanism that prevents CE from generating such a position.


 I've been under the impression that CE did have a mechanism to prevent such things.

If not, I'm now under the impression that scrambles such as ones for Pyra and 2x2 will be used for more puzzles, thus eliminating this.


----------



## Eleredo (Sep 20, 2010)

I vote for sub 5. With A LOT, and I really mean, A LOT of luck, it should undoubtedly be possible.


----------



## QCcuber4 (Sep 20, 2010)

Ive never seen anything lower than Yu's 6.57, and it was a PLL skip, for all i know, i don't see how it could go any lower than 4.50... then again we've were worshiping sub 20 not so long ago... so yeah. But a sub 7 avg... now THAT would kick some ass. Go Feliks.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 20, 2010)

Stachuk1992 said:


> I've been under the impression that CE did have a mechanism to prevent such things.
> 
> If not, I'm now under the impression that scrambles such as ones for Pyra and 2x2 will be used for more puzzles, thus eliminating this.


As far as I know, scrambles for 2x2 and Pyraminx are functionally the same as our 3x3 scrambles. A random state is generated, then solved. The inverse of the solution is the scramble. Again as far as I know, we don't 'throw out' scrambles for any puzzle.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Sep 20, 2010)

hawkmp4 said:


> As far as I know, scrambles for 2x2 and Pyraminx are functionally the same as our 3x3 scrambles. A random state is generated, then solved. The inverse of the solution is the scramble. Again as far as I know, we don't 'throw out' scrambles for any puzzle.


 Ah, okay.

And some judges have done so - <insert some Toronto comp 1-2 years ago>


----------



## DavidWoner (Sep 20, 2010)

If I recall correctly, it wasn't thrown out, it was inversed. Same with the WR 2x2 scramble from nationals, except that took place halfway through the round.


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Sep 20, 2010)

I can't see lower than sub 5 with Fridrich.

If a new, totally amazing method comes out that destroys the current ones, maybe sub 4.5 is possible. Maybe.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 20, 2010)

PatrickJameson said:


> For some reason, I don't see cubing being around in a few billion years.


 
How dare you attack my math with reality?


----------



## Chrish (Sep 20, 2010)

*A wild StefenPochmann appears before you!*


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Sep 20, 2010)

ben1996123 said:


> *Well Faz and Stefan Huber already have sub 5's without LL skips*, so I think definitely sub 4, maybe sub 3.


 
They do?


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 20, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> How dare you attack my math with reality?


 
Okay, I will attack your math with math.
Assuming that your proposed "a few billion years from now" is a fixed value and not a range 
and that "It could happen this weekend, or it could be 10 years from now" are 2 fixed values (maybe even more if the event is spread over 2 days) it is exactly twice (or more when spread over 2 days) as likely to have such a scramble happen "this weekend, or 10 years from now" than "a few billion years from now"

just saying that your math sucked for once



Chrish said:


> *A wild StefenPochmann appears before you!*


 
Did you wrote that wrong on purpose?


----------



## Erik (Sep 20, 2010)

Chrish said:


> *A wild StefenPochmann appears before you!*


 
*throws masterball*


----------



## Stefan (Sep 20, 2010)

AvGalen said:


> Okay, I will attack your math with math.
> *Assuming that your proposed "a few billion years from now" is a fixed value and not a range*
> and that "It could happen this weekend, or it could be 10 years from now" are 2 fixed values (maybe even more if the event is spread over 2 days) it is exactly twice (or more when spread over 2 days) as likely to have such a scramble happen "this weekend, or 10 years from now" than "a few billion years from now"
> 
> just saying that *your math sucked for once*



Nah, it's just your assumption that sucks


----------



## macky (Sep 20, 2010)

Stachuk1992 said:


> hawkmp4 said:
> 
> 
> > Again as far as I know, we don't 'throw out' scrambles for any puzzle.
> ...



And some organizer has done so - <insert some Toronto comp 6-7 years ago>


----------



## Stefan (Sep 20, 2010)

Erik said:


> *throws masterball*


 
*uses commutator power*


----------



## XXGeneration (Sep 20, 2010)

I think that there shouldn't be a "set" lower limit, neither an opinion of one.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Sep 20, 2010)

Stefan is like "Ghost." You can't catch him without one of two secret items.

I wonder what they are. (Silphe Scope/Pokedoll in the game...)


----------



## Sin-H (Sep 20, 2010)

ElectricDoodie said:


> ben1996123 said:
> 
> 
> > Well Faz and Stefan Huber already have sub 5's without LL skips, so I think definitely sub 4, maybe sub 3.
> ...


 yes, but, more importantly, Breandan has 2 sub5s which were both full step.

I don't really dare having an opinion on this. I mean, if you had told/predicted me my PBs of today a year ago, I would have declared you mental... So I don't vote or say anything about this.


----------



## frogmanson (Sep 20, 2010)

5-10 TPS + God's number (20 moves to solve cube) O: 4 to 2 seconds >.<


----------



## Joker (Sep 20, 2010)

Good solve+LL skip=sub 5 or maybe even 4 if your someone like Feliks.
But I personally think every solve in a comp should take atleast 15 moves. And who would wanna memo 43,000,000,000,000,000,000 algs? Learn a million a day and it'll still take 43,000,000,000,000 days to learn all possible permutations.


----------



## oprah62 (Sep 20, 2010)

LOL 15 moves.......................................


----------



## James Ludlow (Sep 20, 2010)

a double xcross ll skip could easily equate to sub3 (7-7-7move splits)


----------



## KboyForeverB (Sep 21, 2010)

You can get sub 7 without any skips, just a few easy F2L pairs, an easy OLL, and maybe like a U perm to finish and voila, WR


----------



## dimwmuni (Sep 21, 2010)

sub 7 and sub 6 are definitely possible, after that I don't know. Of course with a very short scramble (to the point where the inverse of the scramble would be obvious) then it would be easy to get sub 5.


----------



## Toad (Sep 21, 2010)

There's no way the WR will ever get sub10. All you guys are just being ridiculous.


----------



## Dene (Sep 21, 2010)

QCcuber4 said:


> then again we've were worshiping sub 20 not so long ago... so yeah.


 
Hang on what? Who was worshipping sub20 not so long ago?


----------



## The Puzzler (Sep 21, 2010)

it's over 9000


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Sep 21, 2010)

Dene said:


> Hang on what? Who was worshipping sub20 not so long ago?


 
Well, if you call 7 years not so long.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Sep 21, 2010)

If this is purely theoretical then imagine all humans cubing 8 hrs a day, with multiple daily comps in every country.
Surely the 4 sec barrier would be broken in no time at all.

In reality I think the 7 sec barrier will be broken within a year and everything else will depend on how popular cubing becomes.


----------



## Thompson (Sep 21, 2010)

frogmanson said:


> 5-10 TPS + God's number (20 moves to solve cube) O: 4 to 2 seconds >.<


 
Lol imagine a 2 second solve.


----------



## Zeat (Sep 21, 2010)

QCcuber4 said:


> Ive never seen anything lower than Yu's 6.57, and it was a PLL skip, for all i know, i don't see how it could go any lower than 4.50... then again we've were worshiping sub 20 not so long ago... so yeah. But a sub 7 avg... now THAT would kick some ass. Go Feliks.


 

Feliks has a video doing a 6.12 sec


----------



## Ditto64 (Sep 21, 2010)

I think people will get to around 5 sec.
Then it will start relying on LL skips to become faster.
Besides I don't really know how rare an LL skip is, I just know it's very rare.
But this is all just my opinion.


----------



## maggotcuber (Sep 21, 2010)

Ditto64 said:


> I think people will get to around 5 sec.
> Then it will start relying on LL skips to become faster.
> Besides I don't really know how rare an LL skip is, I just know it's very rare.
> But this is all just my opinion.


 
same here, just like how the current 3x3 single WR hasn't been broken for a while. people can do it, even though they do it without skips, it requires an easy scramble. honestly, i feel like the average is going to start catching up to the single WR.


----------



## Joker (Sep 21, 2010)

maggotcuber said:


> same here, just like how the current 3x3 single WR hasn't been broken for a while. people can do it, even though they do it without skips, it requires an easy scramble. honestly, i feel like the average is going to strat catching up to the single WR.


 
Don't get ahead of yourself...new single WR comes before a sub 7.5 average, or I think it should.
And even Feliks gets happy when he gets a sub 8, which doesn't happen enough to have a sub 8 average yet.


----------



## KboyForeverB (Sep 21, 2010)

Zeat said:


> Feliks has a video doing a 6.12 sec


 Yeah, Full step too


----------



## Joker (Sep 21, 2010)

I don't think this is a question about "if", more like a question about "when"


----------



## maggotcuber (Sep 21, 2010)

Joker said:


> Don't get ahead of yourself...new single WR comes before a sub 7.5 average, or I think it should.
> And even Feliks gets happy when he gets a sub 8, which doesn't happen enough to have a sub 8 average yet.


 
im not saying that would happen this moment. i meant over time getting a WR single will be more dificult to get. and slowly, times will get more consistant and the avergaes will be much closer to the single solves.


----------



## oprah62 (Sep 21, 2010)

Don't put pressure on Feliks... He has enough


----------



## cincyaviation (Sep 21, 2010)

oprah62 said:


> Don't put pressure on Feliks... He has enough


No one is. And besides, we can put all the pressure we want on him, he doesn't have to listen.


----------



## oprah62 (Sep 21, 2010)

cincyaviation said:


> No one is. And besides, we can put all the pressure we want on him, he doesn't have to listen.


 
Oooh, Aren't you a little rebel.


----------



## Edward (Sep 21, 2010)

cincyaviation said:


> No one is. And besides, we can put all the pressure we want on him, he doesn't have to listen.


 
You do realise it's not pressure until he does listen right? 

Also, how would you like it if at a comp, everyone who doesn't live under an internet rock was looking at you to get the next world record. You'd either be pumped, or nervous, but it's almost impossible for a normal person to be completely unaffected.


----------



## hic0057 (Sep 21, 2010)

Edward said:


> You do realise it's not pressure until he does listen right?
> 
> Also, how would you like it if at a comp, everyone who doesn't live under an internet rock was looking at you to get the next world record. You'd either be pumped, or nervous, but it's almost impossible for a normal person to be completely unaffected.


 
Are you saying that faz is normal?


----------



## Edward (Sep 21, 2010)

hic0057 said:


> Are you saying that faz is normal?


 
Are you saying he isn't?


----------



## The Puzzler (Sep 21, 2010)

DIS!


----------



## qqwref (Sep 21, 2010)

I bet 7.08 will never get beaten or even tied.

In 2020, the WR will be Faz with an average of 7.09 7.09 (8.46) 7.09 (7.09).


----------



## RyanReese09 (Sep 21, 2010)

Doing it in competition leads me to believe that 5.5-6 is the lowest it will go


----------



## Whyusosrs? (Sep 21, 2010)

The Puzzler said:


> DIS!


 
What the freak are you talking about.


----------



## QCcuber4 (Sep 21, 2010)

Edward said:


> Are you saying he isn't?



Faz is a normal person like everyone else wtf is this?


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Sep 21, 2010)

I think it's quite possible to sub5 in comp if the top 20 were able to do competitions multiple times weekly. Think about it, the top 20 all F2L in under 5 seconds (at least for their PB times), so an LL skip would throw that sub5 very easily (anybody remember Rowe's video where he did the 7.08? He had a 3.6 F2L).

Erik somewhat had an advantage, he was hitting competitions almost every weekend for quite a stretch. I'm by no means saying this is unfair, but he had more of a shot to set WR's than most Americans (although several Europeans had plenty of opportunity as well). I'm not trying to take Erik's credit away, he still did a great job, I was just throwing this out there.


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 21, 2010)

Erik said:


> *throws masterball*


 
I thought throwing puzzles/balls wasn't allowed anymore after the infamous megaminx-throw and several Rama-related-juggling-ball-incidents



StefanPochmann said:


> Nah, it's just your assumption that sucks


So your math was sound, but your grammar wasn't? Weak defence 
I just want to make clear that I am not picking on you just for fun. I want people to realise that just because something (a comet hitting earth, killing all life) has a very slight chance of happening at all, that doesn't mean that is is more likely to happen 1000 years from now than it is to happen tomorrow. Of course it is much more likely that it will happen in the future than that it will happen exactly tomorrow


----------



## RCTACameron (Sep 21, 2010)

A friend once said to me, "I think the fastest WR there will be in human history will be 4 or 5 seconds." (This guy is now KBoyForeverB here). I think that the WR will stop going down, not when people can't get any faster, but when speedcubing dies out and no one cares anymore.


----------



## Godmil (Sep 21, 2010)

I liked it when I read this the other day on Jessica Fridrich's old site:



> I estimate the limit for speed cubing at 10-12 seconds (the average time).


----------



## MTGjumper (Sep 21, 2010)

That wasn't a terrible estimate really. The very best can average ~high 8s - low 9s consistently.


----------



## Olivér Perge (Sep 21, 2010)

Why is the lowest value fixed? Isn't there any chance that WR would might be faster than 4.50? 

bluecloe45, Plaincow: You guys know that the current WR is 7.08, right?



RCTACameron said:


> I think that the WR will stop going down, not *when people can't get any faster*, but when speedcubing dies out and no one cares anymore.


 
What do you mean?


----------



## Stefan (Sep 21, 2010)

AvGalen said:


> So your math was sound, but your grammar wasn't? Weak defence


Huh? What was wrong with the grammar?

Let's revisit Carson's quote:


Carson said:


> Assuming organizer's do not throw out scrambles because they are too easy: someone will eventually get something like a R U R' or a U Perm as a solution. *It could happen this weekend, or it could be 10 years from now*


First of all: "someone will eventually" implies that we're talking about *the first occurence*. Secondly, the examples of "this weekend" and "10 years from now" suggest that there's a reasonable chance that this happens in our lifetime. And that is simply very doubtful.



AvGalen said:


> Of course it is much more likely that it will happen in the future than that it will happen exactly tomorrow


In this case, yes. But not always! Imagine you're flipping a coin. When is the first time you get heads? Is it more likely to happen in the first three attempts or in the next billion? That's right, more likely in just the first three! About seven times as likely! And the expected number of attempts is just 2.

Back to the cubing case. There are 43*10^18 possible states. I'll be generous and extend Carson's lucky scrambles to all that can be solved in up to four moves (about 47000) and all "alg scrambles" (let's say you know 100 algs and you can apply them from 24 angles). That's about 50000 such lucky scrambles. So about one in 10^15 scrambles. So you'd expect 10^15 scrambles until the first such lucky one. I'll be generous again and assume we have 50 competitions every weekend with 4 rounds and thus 20 scrambles each, so 1000 scrambles every weekend. So you'd expect it to take 10^12 weekends which is about 19 billion years. That's where my "few billion years" came from (you didn't think I pulled that number out of my ***, did you?). With "few billion" meaning something _"could be 4 billion, could be 30 billion, could be something in between"_.

Remember the coins where it's way more likely to happen in the first three attempts than in all future attempts? Even if I extend Carson's "this weekend" and "10 years" to mean something like "in our lifetime" or "in the next 1000 years", it's much more likely to happen much later, and the expected range is in the billions of years (well, assuming a slight increase from now, and not considering the sun exploding or people stopping cubing or us replacing ourselves with robots than can multiply faster and cube more often or whatever). Also, he said "someone *will* eventually", and that's rather doubtful, given how long it should take and how much can happen to humans/cubing in the meantime, quite possibly stopping cubing completely so it *never* happens.

Bottom line: I felt Carson's statement sounded like it's reasonable to expect this to happen in our lifetime, and I disagree and didn't want others to accept it uncritically. I could've estimated how unlikely it is, but I simply preferred to express it in his terms (saying when it might happen).


----------



## Godmil (Sep 21, 2010)

Nicely put Stefan.
As hard as it is to accept, it's simply the case that if you apply random moves to the cube the 'entropy' will increase. In theory you could get an easy solve, but in reality it's just not going to happen.

... wait sorry, what was this thread about?
Ah yes, so does anyone think that advances in cube construction technology will make faster times easier in the future? It was 7 years ago that I last cubed, so getting my hands on a F2 and Haiyan Memory has been a revelation... I wonder what cubes will be like in another 5-10 years?


----------



## Enter (Sep 21, 2010)

@Godmil
no matter what cube they will make in the future human beings have their limits.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Sep 21, 2010)

Godmil said:


> As hard as it is to accept, it's simply the case that if you apply random moves to the cube the 'entropy' will increase.


Oh, but we already use maximum entropy.


----------



## Godmil (Sep 21, 2010)

I think I'm still getting used to all this new cubing terminology, but I read the above line as "One handed, but we already....."


----------



## IamWEB (Sep 22, 2010)

Obviously if we keep cubing and then eventually have kids, and the process repeats then generations later will have strong finger strength and more brain development going on for look ahead. It's quite simple to assume that we are the cubers of the now, but the leaders of the future!!!!!


----------



## Zane_C (Sep 22, 2010)

Evolution takes a bit longer then that, I probably shouldn't of went there.


----------



## dimwmuni (Sep 22, 2010)

IamWEB said:


> Obviously if we keep cubing and then eventually have kids, and the process repeats then generations later will have strong finger strength and more brain development going on for look ahead. It's quite simple to assume that we are the cubers of the now, but the leaders of the future!!!!!


 
That's inheritance of acquired characteristics not evolution, so (unfortunately) that doesn't work.


----------



## a small kitten (Sep 22, 2010)

He just wanted to have kids. Give him a break.


----------



## IamWEB (Sep 22, 2010)

I actually never said it was evolution (if you were addressing me about that directly), but why wouldn't inheritance work?

Actually NO, it was joke no need to further discuss it the aspects of how it would or wouldn't work.


----------



## Zane_C (Sep 22, 2010)

My mistake, on topic; people have gotten sub 5 at home, so at a comp there's no real reason why someone won't be able too in the future.


----------



## XXGeneration (Sep 22, 2010)

I don't think there is a limit for single solves, but for averages, those are more heavily based on skill.


----------



## Daniel Wu (Sep 22, 2010)

qqwref said:


> I bet 7.08 will never get beaten or even tied.
> 
> In 2020, the WR will be Faz with an average of 7.09 7.09 (8.46) 7.09 (7.09).


I agree. The 7.08 will live on forever. This is clearly the most probable scenario. A standard deviation record too most likely.


----------



## Weston (Sep 22, 2010)

IamWEB said:


> I actually never said it was evolution (if you were addressing me about that directly), but why wouldn't inheritance work?
> 
> Actually NO, it was joke no need to further discuss it the aspects of how it would or wouldn't work.


 
lolLamarck

I wonder what the OH limit is.
For me, a LL skip on a really good solve would maybe be like sub 7?


----------



## musicninja17 (Sep 22, 2010)

Lamarc-ian evolution.
Giraffes don't grow longer necks because their parents stretched them reaching for things. The fittest ones survived (aka ones born with taller necks) so this trait lived on.

Cubing has nothing to do with survival rates really, so this doesn't work much.


----------



## Weston (Sep 22, 2010)

musicninja17 said:


> Lamarc-ian evolution.
> Giraffes don't grow longer necks because their parents stretched them reaching for things. The fittest ones survived (aka ones born with taller necks) so this trait lived on.
> 
> Cubing has nothing to do with survival rates really, so this doesn't work much.


 
I forgot the example (so this isn't a very good post lol) but I think there have been a few instances where Lamarckian inheritance has been observed. Not as in giraffes and necks, but I think it was with toads maybe?


----------



## oprah62 (Sep 22, 2010)

Weston said:


> I forgot the example (so this isn't a very good post lol) but I think there have been a few instances where Lamarckian inheritance has been observed. Not as in giraffes and necks, but I think it was with toads maybe?


 
Super tongue stretching?
edit: If it's regarding the scaly bumps theory, it was a fraud.http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/hoaxipedia/case_of_the_midwife_toad/. There may be others though


----------



## Kian (Sep 22, 2010)

oprah62 said:


> Super tongue stretching?
> edit: If it's regarding the scaly bumps theory, it was a fraud.http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/hoaxipedia/case_of_the_midwife_toad/. There may be others though



Epigenetics, however, is a very real thing. Though not exactly what you're talking about, it's close in a certain context.


----------



## oprah62 (Sep 22, 2010)

How is epigenetics related to this fraud?


----------



## Kian (Sep 22, 2010)

oprah62 said:


> How is epigenetics related to this fraud?


 
It's not, but it is related to Lamarckian ideas, in some sense.


----------



## oprah62 (Sep 22, 2010)

I don't really see what you are getting at, or at least not clearly. Isn't epigentics something humans take action on, where "Lamarkian theory" is nature?


----------



## TK 421 (Sep 22, 2010)

Nakajima is the BEST


----------



## rubiknewbie (Sep 22, 2010)

6 sec. That's it.


----------



## Edward (Sep 22, 2010)

QCcuber4 said:


> Faz is a normal person like everyone else wtf is this?


 
That's exactly what I said. You took my post out of context...


----------



## IamWEB (Sep 22, 2010)

TK 421 said:


> Nakajima is the BEST


 
TRUTH!



rubiknewbie said:


> 6 sec. That's it.


 
I have a hard time believing this.
AKA DISAGREEMENT!


----------



## mrCage (Sep 22, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> How dare you attack my math with reality?


 
I thought maths was for real!

Per


----------



## Stefan (Sep 22, 2010)

Evolution blah blah blah.... you people got it all wrong. All we need to do is selective breeding, have the fastest cubers f*** each other. And I bet people are thinking about this already. Why else do you think so many teenage boys practice so much to become fastest?


----------



## Cubenovice (Sep 22, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> Evolution blah blah blah.... you people got it all wrong. All we need to do is selective breeding, have the fastest cubers f*** each other. And I bet people are thinking about this already. Why else do you think so many teenage boys practice so much to become fastest?



Breeding übercübers?


----------



## Bryan (Sep 22, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> Evolution blah blah blah.... you people got it all wrong. All we need to do is selective breeding, have the fastest cubers f*** each other. And I bet people are thinking about this already. Why else do you think so many teenage boys practice so much to become fastest?


 
After a most awkward mystery event involving Erik Akkersdijk and Harris Chan, Stefan realizes that he should've added more detail to his proposal.....


----------



## Enter (Sep 22, 2010)

@Stefan
you are reading my mind 
Breeding übercübers? nice so sub 3 is possible! 
or Gene-doped cubers in year 2020


----------



## qqwref (Sep 22, 2010)

Bryan said:


> After a most awkward mystery event involving Erik Akkersdijk and Harris Chan, Stefan realizes that he should've added more detail to his proposal.....


 :tu

Interesting question: do you guys think genetics has a significant influence on cubing? (I mean things that would make someone better - I'm not counting genetic problems that would prevent you from being fast, like hand deformities.) Can someone really have natural talent for cubing, or is being good simply a function of dedication, practice, community involvement, and cube knowledge?


----------



## RyanReese09 (Sep 22, 2010)

qqwref said:


> :tu
> 
> Interesting question: do you guys think genetics has a significant influence on cubing? (I mean things that would make someone better - I'm not counting genetic problems that would prevent you from being fast, like hand deformities.) Can someone really have natural talent for cubing, or is being good simply a function of dedication, practice, community involvement, and cube knowledge?


 Of course some things come easier to some people (you can call that genetics if you wish) but I believe it's though practice (and good practice, you can practice but poorly (aka not practicing lookahead/finger tricks))


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Sep 22, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> Evolution blah blah blah.... you people got it all wrong. All we need to do is selective breeding, have the fastest cubers f*** each other. And I bet people are thinking about this already. Why else do you think so many teenage boys practice so much to become fastest?


 
But who would the male cubers...

Never mind.


----------



## ukrcuber (Sep 23, 2010)

dude, i dont think anybody's gonna be that lucky to get sub-5 ever. whilst, i agree sub-6 is possible, but will be very tough to get


----------



## Chapuunka (Sep 23, 2010)

theanonymouscuber said:


> But who would the male cubers...
> 
> Never mind.


 
You're gonna bring Sarah into this aren't you.


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Sep 23, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> You're gonna bring Sarah into this aren't you.


 
Not what I meant, but whatever.


----------



## JeffDelucia (Sep 23, 2010)

I don't think he was going to but you just did... :fp


----------



## uberCuber (Sep 23, 2010)

3.90 is not one of the options so I can't vote. damn.


----------



## Faz (Sep 23, 2010)

I think sub 5 will eventually be done. I do look forward to the time when the 3x3 single is constantly broken, in little increments. (Hopefully this day isn't too far off)


----------



## musicninja17 (Sep 23, 2010)

Somebody, EVENTUALLY, will get an UBER LUCKY SCRAMBLE.


----------



## RyanReese09 (Sep 23, 2010)

musicninja17 said:


> Somebody, EVENTUALLY, will get an UBER LUCKY SCRAMBLE.


 
unelss they use some uber l33t method, an obviously easy scrmable will be thrown out


----------



## Joker (Sep 23, 2010)

RyanReese09 said:


> unelss they use some uber l33t method, an obviously easy scrmable will be thrown out


 I thought WCA doesn't throw out scrambles?


----------



## TMOY (Sep 23, 2010)

RyanReese09 said:


> unelss they use some uber l33t method, an obviously easy scrmable will be thrown out


Over-lucky doesn't necessarily mean obviously easy. Your cube can very well be in a state which is 20 moves away from solved and have a, say, 25- or 30-move solution by some normal speedsolving method.


----------



## 小夕Jason (Sep 23, 2010)

well cool


----------



## Alcuber (Sep 25, 2010)

sub 5


----------



## Enter (Nov 10, 2010)

fazrulz said:


> I think sub 5 will eventually be done. I do look forward to the time when the 3x3 single is constantly broken, in little increments. (Hopefully this day isn't too far off)


 
me to but then it will stop forever and no one will break it again


----------



## Cube-Fu (Nov 10, 2010)

I think 10 turns a second is possible, and most shuffles can be solved in about 20 turns ... so, add a little for extraneous, and a minimal turn solving pattern ... sub 3 seconds?


----------



## uberCuber (Nov 10, 2010)

Cube-Fu said:


> I think 10 turns a second is possible, and most shuffles can be solved in about 20 turns ... so, add a little for extraneous, and a minimal turn solving pattern ... sub 3 seconds?


 
any scramble can be solved in 20 moves or less, but nobody could see the optimal solution in less than 15 seconds of inspection


----------



## SixSidedCube (Nov 10, 2010)

QCcuber4 said:


> Ive never seen anything lower than Yu's 6.57, and it was a PLL skip, for all i know, i don't see how it could go any lower than 4.50... then again we've were worshiping sub 20 not so long ago... so yeah. But a sub 7 avg... now THAT would kick some ass. Go Feliks.


 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0jX8D_YkLw

This solve is awesome!


----------



## Cube-Fu (Nov 10, 2010)

uberCuber said:


> any scramble can be solved in 20 moves or less, but nobody could see the optimal solution in less than 15 seconds of inspection


 
It doesn't have to be the optimum solve, just a technique that can acheive near it ... say 25-30 turns. Then, a lucky solve happens and bingo, sub 3.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Nov 10, 2010)

there's a difference between move optimized and speed optimized?


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Nov 10, 2010)

Cube-Fu said:


> It doesn't have to be the optimum solve, just a technique that can acheive near it ... say 25-30 turns. Then, a lucky solve happens and bingo, sub 3.


 
Even with fewest moves Petrus, finding a solution less than 30 moves is extremely hard unless you have a lucky scramble. Fewest moves allows you an hour. You can only inspect for 15 seconds. Finding a solution under thirty moves in 15 seconds? Possible, but definitely not probable.


----------



## uberCuber (Nov 10, 2010)

theanonymouscuber said:


> Even with fewest moves Petrus, finding a solution less than 30 moves is extremely hard unless you have a lucky scramble. Fewest moves allows you an hour. You can only inspect for 15 seconds. Finding a solution under thirty moves in 15 seconds? Possible, but definitely not probable.


 
8 - "It's possible!"
4 - "But not very probable."
- 12 Angry Men




you're welcome


----------



## Zeat (Nov 10, 2010)

hey look... The CFOP method will not be the faster method in 5 years or something like that. I think 5 sec.


----------



## RyanReese09 (Nov 10, 2010)

Zeat said:


> hey look... The CFOP method will not be the faster method in 5 years or something like that. I think 5 sec.


it IS undoubtebly the fastest method out currently

though blockbuilding methods have the most potential. it has fewer moves. so logically if someone can master blockbuilding methods..then yes
Constant 7tps for a 40 move solution (blockbuilding) = 5ish seconds
constant 7tps for 60 move solution (cfop) = 8-9ish seconds. these numbers are judgemental because OLL/PLL = higher tps but..yeah

blockbuilding has the most potential but noone has gotten insanely fast yet


----------



## Escher (Nov 11, 2010)

RyanReese09 said:


> it IS undoubtebly the fastest method out currently
> 
> though blockbuilding methods have the most potential. it has fewer moves. so logically if someone can master blockbuilding methods..then yes
> Constant 7tps for a 40 move solution (blockbuilding) = 5ish seconds
> ...



CFOP can be around 40-45 moves average, trust me.


----------



## uberCuber (Nov 11, 2010)

RyanReese09 said:


> blockbuilding has the most potential but noone has gotten insanely fast yet


 
Roux involves blockbuilding and Big Green has gotten sub-10 averages of 12. Is that not insanely fast enough for you?


----------



## Kynit (Nov 11, 2010)

RyanReese09 said:


> Constant 7tps for a 40 move solution (blockbuilding)


Keep in mind that F2L is extremely fingertrick and recognition friendly; 2-gen 7 tps is a lot easier than 3- or 4-gen.

That said, I think Roux's 2nd block overcomes this problem quite a bit. I'm not completely sure if it's better or not, but I think fast turning is a lot easier on Roux than, say, Petrus or Heise.


----------



## RyanReese09 (Nov 11, 2010)

uberCuber said:


> Roux involves blockbuilding and Big Green has gotten sub-10 averages of 12. Is that not insanely fast enough for you?


 
sub10 is insanely fast although the kind of speed im talking about is human limit speed 


Escher said:


> CFOP can be around 40-45 moves average, trust me.


 
it's not hard to get 40/45 but when im flying during a solve i dont do move count friendly algs (such as f2l cases) i do algs which can be performed fastest. one f2l pair can tkae a maximum of 11 moves to do, that's a lot.


----------



## Escher (Nov 11, 2010)

RyanReese09 said:


> it's not hard to get 40/45 but when im flying during a solve i dont do move count friendly algs (such as f2l cases) i do algs which can be performed fastest. one f2l pair can tkae a maximum of 11 moves to do, that's a lot.



So just don't do 'algs' or 'cases' as you're using those words. Real f2l is a lot more than just that. One f2l pair might take that many (11) moves, but on the vast, vast, vast majority of scrambles you can do something differently earlier, and that's the whole point. 

The human limit should include the ability to get 25 move f2ls at a consistent 5-6tps and reduced length LLs using hundreds of different tricks.


----------



## RyanReese09 (Nov 11, 2010)

Escher said:


> So just don't do 'algs' or 'cases' as you're using those words. Real f2l is a lot more than just that. One f2l pair might take that many (11) moves, but on the vast, vast, vast majority of scrambles you can do something differently earlier, and that's the whole point.
> 
> The human limit should include the ability to get 25 move f2ls at a consistent 5-6tps and* reduced length LLs using hundreds of different tricks.*


 
i use basic multislotting in my solves (pairing up easy cases/destroying bad pairs)
U2 R2 U2 R' U' R U' R2
do that backwards, yest taht's an 8 move f2l, though that's so slow for me to perform as compared to.. U R U' R' U' R U' R' U R U' R'


----------



## Faz (Nov 11, 2010)

I was curious as to the move count of fridrich, and I did an average of 12. It came out to be 53 moves on average. I still think there is a lot of room for improvement in my F2L movecount, so I'd definitely agree with Rowan, and say that a 45 move average with Fridrich is possible.

ts;dr Fridrich > all


----------



## irontwig (Nov 12, 2010)

fazrulz said:


> I was curious as to the move count of fridrich, and I did an average of 12. It came out to be 53 moves on average. I still think there is a lot of room for improvement in my F2L movecount, so I'd definitely agree with Rowan, and say that a 45 move average with Fridrich is possible.
> 
> ts;dr Fridrich > all


 
I got 53.5 with non-colour-neutral free-fop (my speed method):

50, (41), 65, 46, 60, 47, 52, 52, 51, (65), 55, 57


----------



## Rinfiyks (Nov 12, 2010)

uberCuber said:


> any scramble can be solved in 20 moves or less, but nobody could see the optimal solution in less than 15 seconds of inspection


 
You'd be surprised. Not impossible that a cubing savant will shock us all one day with incredible intuition. They don't have to see an optimal solution either. 6 tps and 40 moves would suffice.


----------



## Rpotts (Nov 12, 2010)

RyanReese09 said:


> i use basic multislotting in my solves (pairing up easy cases/destroying bad pairs)
> U2 R2 U2 R' U' R U' R2
> do that backwards, yest taht's an 8 move f2l, though that's so slow for me to perform as compared to.. U R U' R' U' R U' R' U R U' R'


 
Why are you in this thread talking about _yourself_? 

listen to Rowan, btw your reply didn't really have anything to do with the theory of his post/what you bolded.


----------



## bluedasher (Nov 12, 2010)

I think the WR boundary is low!!! probably around 4 sec. You got to figure. If someone gets an easy X-cross (3-4 moves) and a LL skip it could easily be sub 5 with the right cuber.


----------



## o2gulo (Nov 13, 2010)

around sub 4? very lucky x-cross then get a LL skip........... (imagine doing that in a somp.)


----------



## i am cuber (Nov 13, 2010)

if somebody get a c-f-o-p skip.........


----------



## Enter (Feb 1, 2011)

me be i truly needed to make the poll bigger and add 4 sec. But still i believe that 4.5 is the limit.
And if you see the poll now nobody is wrong, the 4 people who voted (7.00-6.50) are walking on a thin ice douh


----------

