# Can we really solve big cubes?



## Christopher Mowla (Sep 20, 2009)

..


----------



## blade740 (Sep 20, 2009)

cmowla said:


> *If someone did find an odd parity alg which is done by reason, how would this change cubing as it is today?*



Not at all. I am completely confident that I can solve the single edge group flip on any odd cube without messing up the puzzle.


----------



## Jake Gouldon (Sep 20, 2009)

HOW ARE YOU A MACK DADDY?


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Sep 20, 2009)

blade740 said:


> cmowla said:
> 
> 
> > *If someone did find an odd parity alg which is done by reason, how would this change cubing as it is today?*
> ...



Well I am sure that you are confident that you can do an algorithm to the cube (which you have memorized), but I am talking about not memorizing some unbvious algorithm to do that task.

Sure we become confident in doing an algorithm which we have done over and over again, but what about if we actually understood what is happening (not just the moves, but what is actually happening to the cube throughout the entire process).

*What I was implying is understanding* of the pure edge flip, not confidence or memorizaton.


----------



## Me (Sep 20, 2009)

I usually don't come in this part of the forums, but is this thread is turning on a big philosophic issue, much like ones Descartes came up with in his meditations. Can we really say that reality around us is true? Is there God? He wrote quite a few pages on that.

Having said this I think that we would say yes we can solve big cubes, a single edge flip is possible. However:

Do not try and flip a single edge, that's impossible.
Instead only try and realize the truth... there is no edge.


----------



## nitrocan (Sep 20, 2009)

cmowla said:


> Sure we become confident in doing an algorithm which we have done over and over again, but what about if we actually understood what is happening (not just the moves, but what is actually happening to the cube throughout the entire process).



As far as F2L goes, we cubers are pretty intuitive. For the last layer we just don't want to waste our time. 

But FMCers are intuitive on that too.

Besides, why do you need to know how an algorithm exactly works? Just memorize it and do it. It's an algorithm. You don't need to investigate how the piano makes its sound in order to play it. And I don't see many cellphone users wondering around about how their phone was programmed so that they can use it more efficiently.


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 20, 2009)

cmowla said:


> *If someone did find an odd parity alg which is done by reason, how would this change cubing as it is today?*



I think I know what you mean by this statement, that people don't understand how exactly they are transposing two edge pieces (nothing gets flipped in this case by the way). However, based on how you worded your statement I think you believe that finding an intuitive algorithm is difficult to do. I completely disagree.

Here's a completely intuitive algorithm to transpose two edges (the "flipped" edge parity case). I choose to swap two different edges, rather than two edge pieces adjacent on an edge of the cube:
r' U2 r' U2 r' U2 r' U2 r2 B2 r F2 r' B2 r F2

--edit--
A slightly more speedsolve friendly, and still completely intuitive, parity algorithm:
r' U2 r' U2 r2 F2 r' B2 r F2 r' B2 r2 U2 r' U2 r'
--edit--

There's also this one if you want a transposition that swaps two adjacent pieces on an edge of the cube:
r' U2 r' U2 r' U2 r' U2 r2 B2 r F2 r' B2 r F2 D' r2 D r' U2 r D' r' U2 r' D

I know these algs are longer than the standard speedsolving algs, but they are completely intuitive. If you understand what "parity" is, and a little bit about commutators, you will see exactly what I am doing in both of these algs.

I'm not trying to come across as arrogant, but you should realize that an intuitive way to handle "parity" is not difficult to do.

Chris


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Sep 20, 2009)

cmhardw said:


> cmowla said:
> 
> 
> > *If someone did find an odd parity alg which is done by reason, how would this change cubing as it is today?*
> ...




I understand what you are trying to say, and I don't take offense. However, 
the first portion of the one-edge perm. which you gave:
r' U2 r' U2 r' U2 r' U2 r2 B2 r F2 r' B2 r F2
is not very intuitive to me. I know perfectly well what odd parity is, but that just doesn't seem to ring a bell. To me, that is just repetition of moves which all of a sudden can be manipulated in such a way to edge with two opposite diagonal edges, once removed. The second portion of that alg is fairly intuitive because it can be achieved, as you said, with commutators. I fully understand that.

Therefore, what I am really concerned about not being intuititive is the first portion of the algorithm which you presented.


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 20, 2009)

cmowla said:


> Therefore, what I am really concerned about not being intuititive is the first portion of the algorithm which you presented.



What does r' U2 r' U2 r' U2 r' U2 r' do to a cube? You can use any non-supercube bigger than 3x3x3. Brainstorm. Tell me anything and everything it changes if you apply it to the solved state.

Chris


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Sep 20, 2009)

cmhardw said:


> cmowla said:
> 
> 
> > Therefore, what I am really concerned about not being intuititive is the first portion of the algorithm which you presented.
> ...



1) It rotates the top composite center 180.
2) It puts the [top front left' edge in the [back bottom right] edge slot.
3) It puts the [top back left] edge piece and moves it to the [top front left]
4) It takes the [back bottom right] edge and moves it to the [front bottom right] edge slot.
5) It takes the [front bottom right edge] and puts it in the back top left slot.


I understand where you are going, but how is that logic? It is just taking repeating moves until the centers are restored and a few edge pieces are swapped. Combining this with another piece causes another thing to happen, ..., which is then combined with a commutator and then the one edge correction. However, the very pieces that are combined here are only found by experimenation. *I do admit that it does take logic to combine these pieces in such a way to accomplish a specific result, but still that makes the algorithm incomplete, in terms of fully being derived from logic.*
Here is an unobvious algorithm that I found on my own which rotates all 4 edge complimentary edge pieces, in two opposite composite edges, counter clockwise

S l2 S' [preliminary moves]

l' U2
l' U2
l' U2 "intuitive algorithm"
l' U2
l'

S l2 S' [reverse of preliminary]

This is probably the easiest algorithm to memorize to accomplish this task (not to mention brief). I did need to use logic to do preliminary moves to prevent discoloration of the centers and restrict the edges affected to only two composite edges, but the "intuitive algorithm" was not found by reasoning, but by experimentation.

Here is another example, using the same base algorithm which you have provided for me:

S' r2 S [preliminary moves]

r' U2 r' U2 r' U2 r' U2 r2 B2 r F2 r' B2 r F2 "intuitive algorithm"

S' r2 S [reverse of preliminary moves]

This is more "intuitive" than even the commutator you attached to the end of the base (not to mention shorter). It prevents discoloration of the centers and restricts the edge swapping within the same edge.

My point is, I understand what you are saying about adding pieces together to achieve a desired result, but this is still not fully logical: it does require experimentation and experimentation is equivalent to computer-generated algorithms.

Please continue to comment. I am honestly interested in what you have to say.


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 20, 2009)

those 9 moves chris gave are actually a perfectly understandable parity fix that messes up some other pieces as well though. In order to solve parity you need to perform an odd number of slice turns. If you don't understand why then you don't understand what parity is yet. So just a single "r" turn fixes parity but messes up the rest of the cube. Doing "r U2" 5 times is an intuitive way to not mess up the cube too much while still doing an odd number of slice turns.


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Sep 20, 2009)

AvGalen said:


> Doing "r U2" 5 times is an intuitive way to not mess up the cube too much while still doing an odd number of slice turns.



I understand that completely. However, it is not obvious that the cube's centers will be restored until after one has done those 9 moves to a big cube. That is experimenation.

Algorithms such as:
r2 B2 U2 l U2 r' U2 r U2 F2 r F2 l' B2 r2

is:
a) Done by a computer
b) Done by experimenation

However, my aim is to not involve experimentation at all in order to make an algorithm.


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 20, 2009)

actually it is perfectly obvious to me that centers will be restored after doing that 5 times and this is why:

normally doing r 4 times would restore the centers. Think of this as passing down the right centerrow r times
now before you do the first r move, add a U2 move. this changes things because now 1 left centerrow is passed down as well, now requiring 5 (odd!) r turns for all those centerrows to return to their centers

( i actually changed the alg to U2 r * 5 to make this easier to understand)


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Sep 20, 2009)

I do not mean to be annoying, but be honest here. Are you telling me that because of that reasoning which you just gave, you knew what would happen before you even did that algorithm the first time? No matter how brief an algorithm is, if it was first done by experimentation and then was reasoned later why it works, that is still pure experimentation.

If I wanted to write a computer program to, for example, search a string (just as microsoft word searches a document). I could not by any means lean on experimentation to write such a program. A small fraction of experimentation might be required to learn the commands of the computer, but the algorithm itself needs to be understood in full. Otherwise the program would malfunction (have bugs), and never be reliable.

Experimentation can be more of an illness than a source of understanding.

Here's another analogy. Think of the weathermen (and women). They still do not understand hurricanes after countless years of scientific experiments. They have a say so on where hurricanes might go, but even with the best computer systems, hurricanes still stupify their "expertise".

Cubes are kind of like this. We develop a chart of algorithms in our heads through gained experimentation. We subconciously fuse these trial and error algorithms in our heads and, when we say that they are intuitive to someone who has never played with a cube before, those persons look at us like we are crazy. What happened there? Are they dumb or are we so experienced with cubes (when I say experienced, I am saying "we know what moves produce a positive result and which ones do not") that we don't realize that what we are doing is unobvious to an unexperienced cuber.

An intuitive algorithm is one that can be understood by just about anyone. The process for their understanding might take a while to process, but should be provable without experimentation.


----------



## blade740 (Sep 20, 2009)

cmowla said:


> I do not mean to be annoying, but be honest here. Are you telling me that because of that reasoning which you just gave, you knew what would happen before you even did that algorithm the first time? No matter how brief an algorithm is, if it was first done by experimentation and then was reasoned later why it works, that is still pure experimentation.



It's fairly obvious, like Arnaud said, why it fixes centers if you think about it a bit. Sure, I heard that alg before I knew what it did, but that doesn't mean I understand it any less now, just because I didn't discover it myself.


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 20, 2009)

cmowla said:


> Cubes are kind of like this. We develop a chart of algorithms in our heads through gained experimentation. We subconciously fuse these trial and error algorithms in our heads and, when we say that they are intuitive to someone who has never played with a cube before, those persons look at us like we are crazy.





> An intuitive algorithm is one that can be understood by just about anyone. The process for their understanding might take a while to process, but should be provable without experimentation.



I can see where you are going with this, and yes I can kind of see that to most people you might not be sure that the algorithm listed will solve centers after 5 inner slice turns.

However, I still am going to refute your claim that there does not exist a perfectly intuitive algorithm to solve parity. I am going to list one, and I am going to list it without having ever touched a cube.

I will describe the intuition to you as well, to make it obvious. You should be forewarned though, that this algorithm will be quite long.

r' B2 l U2 l' (u2 e2 d2) l U2 l' (u2 e2 d2) B2 l' (f2 s2 b2) l F2 l' (f2 s2 b2) l F2 D' f D' B2 D f' D' B2 D2

Lower case *m*, *e*, and *s* turns mean to turn the corresponding layer as M, E, S for 3x3x3, but only the single inner layer. You can also rewrite the alg with upper case M, E, S turns which imply to turn the triple layers. This rewrite of the alg would be written as follows:

r' B2 l U2 l' *E2* l U2 l' *E2* B2 l' *S2* l F2 l' *S2* l F2 D' f D' B2 D f' D' B2 D2

Again, to be clear, the bolded M, E, S turns in this algorithm are triple inner layer turns.

The intuition of this algorithm I hope is completely obvious. I will tell you only that it uses the *shortest, most optimal,* algorithm to toggle the parity of the inner wing piece orbit. The optimality of this algorithm cannot be called into question, because it is only 1 turn in length! I would hope that we cannot call the intuitiveness of this algorithm into question either, because it is very easy to know beforehand, and track during the application, its effect on the cube. Lastly, after toggling the parity of the inner wing orbit I use commutators to re-order pieces that were destroyed in the *side effect* of this optimal length parity toggling algorithm.

True to my word I did not even touch a cube in the writing of that algorithm. Everything was done in my head based on the intuition of what I am trying to accomplish. I did not need to do any experimentation of which commutators would be necessary beforehand, as I used the intuition of how to move pieces around with commutators.

I'm sure you could argue that I had to do experimentation in order to learn commutators in the first place, which nulls the intuition of using them afterward, but I would have to disagree with you. Here is why:

Can you ride a bicycle? If so, do you do it while constantly calculating and recalculating your changing center of balance, or do you do this intuitively? Now - were you capable of learning to ride this bicycle purely by your own reasoning abilities about the properties of center of balance of a mass in motion? I think you probably learned it by experimentation ;-) After which, your body developed a "muscle memory" of what worked via the experimentation, and now I would argue that you could ride a bicycle comfortably with very little conscious thought of the act.

I'm also not trying to be annoying, but I think your conditions on what constitutes intuition are excessively strict for cubing related tasks. I would define intuition on a cubing algorithm as being able to explain the purpose for every single turn you do in an algorithm, as well as how it relates to all the other turns. By this I mean you should be able to tell how the algorithm would fail for each turn if it was removed from the algorithm. That is a bit simpler, but also still requires that you know what you are doing - i.e. intuition.

Chris


----------



## Stefan (Sep 20, 2009)

r
There. An understandable odd parity alg. No lengthy discussion needed.



cmowla said:


> *If someone did find an odd parity alg which is done by reason, how would this change cubing as it is today?*


About as much as eating would change if someone today invented the spoon.



cmowla said:


> the cage method may be used as an example against my reasoning here *(since it bypasses odd parity)*


No it doesn't.


----------



## JTW2007 (Sep 20, 2009)

I would say that any alg is intuitive, most peoples' cube intuition isn't good enough to see the reasoning behind a single edge pair flip.


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 20, 2009)

I will be a bit shorter than Chris
After realising what parity actually was I thought of the following way to fix it
r to solve parity (odd)
U2 r U2 r' to restore the first center (even)
x'l' U2 l to restore the second center (even)
x' U2 r U2 r' to restore the last centers (even)
result: parity fixed and centers restored with the most basic moves possible. I will not discuss restoring the edges here. For an intuitive way to do that (without changing parity) see my (AVG) method for edge-pairing

I hope that convinces you and that it satisfies all of your requirements.
p.s. i am one of those FMC guys that solves most of the cube with intuition, but I also use things I discovered by using experimentation and I know some algs that I understand now, but didn't discover myself


----------



## Stefan (Sep 20, 2009)

JTW2007 said:


> I would say that any alg is intuitive


L' D' B2 L' F' L' U B2 R2 F' R2 F' L2 B' F' U L2 R2 B2 F R U' B' F' R D2 L F' D' R2 U' R2 B R' F' D' R U2 B2 L B2 L U2 R D2 R' U2
Explain.


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Sep 20, 2009)

StefanPochmann said:


> r
> There. An understandable odd parity alg. No lengthy discussion needed.
> 
> 
> ...



Yes it can, if you do it correctly.
Look at the following site. Specifically, I do steps 1-7 and the "edge lifter" in step 8. The other two algorithms in step 8 are odd parity algorithms, however, I use commutators to solve the rest. The _important thing to do is correct the upper half of complimentary edges so that the lower half can be put in correctly_. The lower half can be put in with commutators and possibly one quarter turn rotation. However, this bypasses the need to do odd parity algorithms, period.
http://virtualpolyhedra.googlepages.com/ultimate.html

I have seen countless videos on youtube make it seem that one must use an odd parity algorithm to complete the last portion of the cage, but that is a false notion.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 20, 2009)

cmowla said:


> The lower half can be put in with commutators and possibly *one quarter turn rotation. However, this bypasses the need to do odd parity algorithms*, period.


Hahahahaha.


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 20, 2009)

StefanPochmann said:


> cmowla said:
> 
> 
> > The lower half can be put in with commutators and possibly *one quarter turn rotation. However, this bypasses the need to do odd parity algorithms*, period.
> ...



Do you see why Stefan is highlighting the specific text he is highlighting? Read every bolded word. We're not trying to make you mad, but please read very carefully the words Stefan bolded from your post.

Chris


----------



## Stefan (Sep 20, 2009)

Equally hilariously, with his paragraph about cage in his first post he's basically saying _"Can we really solve the cube? I know we can, but let's pretend we can't. Can we?"_.


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Sep 20, 2009)

Thanks you guys for your input. The purpose of this thread was to gain more knowledge of the implied logic behind what I call the "U2 method" in finding the single edge correction algorithms. I found a lot of views and they are greatly appreciated. It has been fun and educational. 

Thank you StefanPochmann for your 28q algorithm:
Dw2' L' U F r U2 r U2 r U2 r U2 r F' U' L d L' d' L D L' d L
I will add it to my collection (and of course, give you credit and use this url as a reference to it). As a matter of fact, why don't you add that alg to your site? It is surely a much cleaner alg than the one you found by computer.

Thanks Chris for spending your time to try to clear things up for me about the "U2 method".

*I will say this last thing. The briefest odd parity algorithm yet invented or found by man or computer for the one edge "flip" (without messing up the rest of the cube, i.e. a pure edge "flip) is not 25q. I have personally derived one by hand from logical reasoning which is 24q. It seems like the "optimal" cube solvers of today just do not match up to reality of what there is to know about cube theory.*

There may be a shorter alg than 24q out there yet to be discovered, but based on how I found mine algorithm and the results of the "U2 method", I honestly cannot see that happening. However, I am always surprised.


----------



## qqwref (Sep 20, 2009)

The only reason we need a length parity algorithm at all is because in reduction we insist that the centers remain solved and all but the last two edges remain intact. Otherwise we would indeed, as in the cage method, simply do an r turn to fix it, and probably not even realize we had parity in the first place (similar to how on the 3x3 we do AUF turns without realizing the parity of edges and corners gets swapped). The problem is that as far as reduction is concerned an r move messes up too many things to quickly fix with commutators - for speedsolving purposes you don't have time to think (or care) about fixing center and edge swaps intuitively; it makes far more sense to memorize an algorithm, however unintuitive, and just do it as quickly as possible.

Here is a simple(r) parity algorithm which does not have any edge commutators. Here I can again explain what every move does, as well as reconstruct the algorithm from the concept even if I have forgotten the moves, so I consider it fully intuitive.
(r2 U2 r U2 r2) (B2 (l U2 l') E2 (l U2 l') (r U2 r') E2 (r U2 r') B2) 
The first sequence does an edge wing 4-cycle on U without affecting the edges on the bottom or sides (since parity algs ought to leave those alone). Now look at the cube: four rows of centers are off, in two block two-cycles. The second algorithm simply solves this with a single commutator-like algorithm by performing one two-cycle with E2, placing the other two-cycle in its place, and doing E2 again, fixing both E2 and the second two-cycle. This is set up by B2 to ensure that only two opposite 'slots' on E2 need to be affected.



cmowla said:


> It is entirely different than all of the algorithms you guys have given me or any "single edge correction" algorithms that I have ever seen. But, it is 24q. However, because it is derived from pure logic (meaning that it is much more logical than the explanations which I have been getting in this thread), I feel that it is too valueable to give away freely on the internet. In the near future, I will probably make and sell a brief book which explains how it was derived. It seems like the "optimal" cube solvers of today just do not match up to reality of what there is to know about cube theory.



This attitude is not really welcome in the cubing community. We're not competing against each other; nobody is trying to publish papers and win some kind of professorship, and there is no real money to be made in cubing. There is nothing to be gained for yourself by keeping some kind of secret withheld. Our goal is to increase shared knowledge and this is the only way cube theory can be developed to its fullest. I'm sure that if people had known you were trying to steal information in order to make money off of it they would have given you a lot less help. 

PS: There is nothing wrong with optimal cube solvers and I think many of us would appreciate it if you wouldn't insult our work simply because you think you have improved on it. As I have mentioned to you (although you did not seem to care to listen to ir) they rely only on the assumptions that the users have input. As far as parity algorithms people have been asking for algorithms in <Rw,Lw,U2,F2,D2,B2>, not because this is the way to construct the most optimal algorithms (and it probably isn't, especially in quarter turn metric, because of all the double turns) but because this leads to algorithms that are fast to execute. There is not enough computing power to be able to come up with an optimal parity alg if you allow every possible 4x4 move, so this computation has not been done, and it is wrong to assume that it has.


----------



## masterofthebass (Sep 20, 2009)

cmowla said:


> The lower half can be put in with commutators and possibly one quarter turn rotation. However, this bypasses the need to do odd parity algorithms, period.
> http://virtualpolyhedra.googlepages.com/ultimate.html



Even that link has a parity algorithm. Granted, it changes centers, but it fixes an odd edge parity:

F' L2 F2 d F' d2 F' L2 F2 d F' d

as you can see, there's an odd number of slice turns done... i.e. a parity fix.


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Sep 20, 2009)

qqwref said:


> PS: There is nothing wrong with optimal cube solvers and I think many of us would appreciate it if you wouldn't insult our work simply because you think you have improved on it. As I have mentioned to you (although you did not seem to care to listen to ir) they rely only on the assumptions that the users have input. As far as parity algorithms people have been asking for algorithms in <Rw,Lw,U2,F2,D2,B2>, not because this is the way to construct the most optimal algorithms (and it probably isn't, especially in quarter turn metric, because of all the double turns) but because this leads to algorithms that are fast to execute. There is not enough computing power to be able to come up with an optimal parity alg if you allow every possible 4x4 move, so this computation has not been done, and it is wrong to assume that it has.



Don't worry. My claim is not based on any of your work. I do not Plagiarize. I do not believe in stealing. This was not my intent as you have claimed. You judged me wrongly. My 24q algorithm is totally original, I can assure you. If it wasn't, do you think I could get 24q? I honestly do not think so. I could not even get 25q.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 20, 2009)

cmowla said:


> I have personally derived one by hand from logical reasoning which is 24q. It is entirely different than all of the algorithms you guys have given me or any "single edge correction" algorithms that I have ever seen. But, it is 24q. However, because it is derived from pure logic (meaning that it is much more logical than the explanations which I have been getting in this thread), I feel that it is too valueable to give away freely on the internet. In the near future, I will probably make and sell a brief book which explains how it was derived.


Ah... so this is what your threads are about. I wonder how long it will take until someone buys the book and posts the alg here.


----------



## nitrocan (Sep 20, 2009)

cmowla said:


> I have personally derived one by hand from logical reasoning which is 24q. It is entirely different than all of the algorithms you guys have given me or any "single edge correction" algorithms that I have ever seen. But, it is 24q. However, because it is derived from pure logic (meaning that it is much more logical than the explanations which I have been getting in this thread), I feel that it is too valueable to give away freely on the internet. In the near future, I will probably make and sell a brief book which explains how it was derived.



http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14729


----------



## qqwref (Sep 20, 2009)

cmowla said:


> My 24q algorithm is totally original, I can assure you. If it wasn't, do you think I could get 24q? I honestly do not think so. I could not even get 25q.



If you really have such a low opinion of others' work, again, you won't fit into the cubing community at all.


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Sep 21, 2009)

qqwref said:


> If you really have such a low opinion of others' work, again, you won't fit into the cubing community at all.



You take offense so easy don't you. I think you are intimidated.

And, lastly, who are you to tell me whether I belong in the cube community or not? You are not even a moderator! You have no authority to tell members who they are. You are, I am afraid to say, just one particle of this entire site, just as I am.

You could have at least private messagged this to me, not to display to hundreds of viewers. So now, I am afraid I need to put you in your place *in front of everyone*.


----------



## 4Chan (Sep 21, 2009)

cmowla said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > If you really have such a low opinion of others' work, again, you won't fit into the cubing community at all.
> ...



Hey ummm, qqwref is much more respected than you are.
You came here with a self pompous attitude and decided that everyone was wrong except you.

Youre being a jerk, so have fun with your book.
Cool story bro.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Sep 21, 2009)

cmowla said:


> You could have at least private messagged this to me, not to display to hundreds of viewers. So now, I am afraid I need to put you in your place *in front of everyone*.


Thank you for putting yourself in your place *in front of everyone*, cmowla.


----------



## blade740 (Sep 21, 2009)

cmowla said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > If you really have such a low opinion of others' work, again, you won't fit into the cubing community at all.
> ...



Being a moderator is not how you become respected in this community. Nor is publicly shaming others. You gain respect by contributing. By contributing your knowledge to the community, everyone benefits. Instead, you come into this thread, ask a question, then when several (highly respected, I might add) members give an answer that isn't what you wanted (or that you didn't understand?), you claim that the logic they are using is somehow "impure" and that your algorithm is "much more logical." 

See, if your way is really "much more logical" than you would get respect by explaining and sharing with the community. But instead, you decided that your knowledge is "too valuable to share freely on the internet" and that you're going to RANSOM this knowledge back to us. THAT is not the way to gain respect. 

If your discovery is really that revolutionary, your best bet is to just share it and let the community decide.


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 21, 2009)

Wow, this thread derailed so quickly into bizarre world. I thought we were having an interesting discussion, and now it has turned into some kind of a flame war.

cmowla, in general our attitude here can be most closely related to freeware software. We all share ideas freely, like qqwref said. Also, qqwref's name is Michael and he carries quite a lot of weight in our community, not to mention that he is respected by many people here.



> You take offense so easy don't you. I think you are intimidated.



This statement alone proves that you are new to the cubing community, and have not yet realized that our culture is quite different from most other competitive activities. You see, we do not compete against each other, but rather we all compete against the clock, or against our own abilities. Those results are simply ranked together. To say that qqwref is intimidated by you is such a strange and unusual way to respond to someone in this community. It certainly makes you stand out, and not in a positive way.

So let's say you created a 24q solution to the parity fix, that's great! Congratulations! However, your jerkish attitude has made sure that I will be very unlikely to buy such a book with this algorithm listed. How much money do you expect to make from us anyway? This is a very small community for one, and also I don't see how having a 24q solution to the parity fix will revolutionize cubing, as you put it before. If you truly discovered such an algorithm, and if it exists, then that's very interesting! I find the idea of optimizing this type of algorithm fascinating!

Come on though. Do you really expect us to buy a book from an author who not only insults us, but also claims that we're all intimated by your level of cubing insight? On the most simple level that just bad marketing, but to be perfectly honest I think it's just plain stupid of you to act like this when you're trying to sell such a book.

Good luck with your book sales, you're going to need it.

Chris


----------



## Stefan (Sep 21, 2009)

For the record, *I* didn't find him bad. More amusing. I think mainly he misunderstood how we work and then we had our typical overreactions. Oh and I'm of course still interested to see his 24-mover and explanation.


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Sep 21, 2009)

Yeah Chris.

I did not mean for this to happen. My main intention was to let the community know that there is an algorithm that is 24q.

I want to ask you a favor. Since you are a moderator, can you delete my 2 threads? This did not end up where I wanted it to be.

And, I can already predict that these members will take these very words which I am saying and use it against me. They are so cruel. What did I do to them? This is the puzzle theory section, not "pat me on the back because I have seniority" section. I wanted to inform them that there is "another universe" out there, but all they could say was "Prove it, show me, and if you are unwilling to give it to me for free, then you are a criminal!".

I highly respect you Chris. You have given me some good explanations. But, it seems that I am not wanted on this site, and I will not waste my time anymore. Even if I initially planned not to give my idea away, I will certainly not do it now.

*Oh. And again, I know someone is going to quote my words here and continue to make a mockery of me. It seems that new commers who don't have something to give the community for free is scorned upon. I have spent 8 months developing what I know about odd parity, and I am sorry to say, but I cannot throw away 100's of hours of work for nothing but respect from a community who doesn't care about my profile or my findings*. I am being honest. No one responded to my post for the last 4 hours, but less than 10 minutes after I finally attempt to defend myself (which I was a misunderstanding) 3 people (including LUCAS) decided to bash me instead of try to nicely explain to me that I misunderstood poor MG.


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 21, 2009)

StefanPochmann said:


> I think mainly he misunderstood how we work and then we had our typical overreactions.



Yeah I guess we do tend to overreact, I know I'm certainly one of those people. I try to tell myself that cubing is just a hobby, but I guess I take it a bit too seriously sometimes. Gotta work on better balance, after all the cube is still just a toy at the end of the day. Even if it is the coolest toy ever invented IMHO. ;-)

All in all cmowla no hard feelings.

--edit-- you must have been posting right as I was too:


cmowla said:


> I did not mean for this to happen. My main intention was to let the community know that there is an algorithm that is 24q.
> 
> I want to ask you a favor. Since you are a moderator, can you delete my 2 threads? This did not end up where I wanted it to be.



I don't have the ability to delete threads or posts in this forum, but even if I did I think there is a lot of good information in this thread and I don't want to delete material that could be useful to others.

I think Stefan was right. Cmowla I think maybe you were not used to a community like ours, which can be cruel at times to newcomers I will sadly admit that. Not to mention that people, including myself, overreacted to your previous statements. As much as we all hate to admit it, cubing is still just a hobby and I think a lot of us at times take it too seriously, or at least I do that sometimes.

I say no hard feelings, let's all try to muck through this and start out on a better footing. I respect the work you have put into cubing, and though I disagree with selling the results of that work, if that is what you choose to do then that is your choice.

I think this whole strange situation is most likely just a big misunderstanding.

Chris


----------



## 4Chan (Sep 21, 2009)

Hey man, if youre going to leave, do it gracefully.
Thats a rather backhanded farewell.

Maybe there's a reason they're cold to you, its because youre being pretentious, and you think that your 24q algorithm makes you a genius.
You dont deserve praise if you try to put yourself on a pedestal and then run away when you dont get the response you want.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 21, 2009)

lol thread. 

The best part was making fun of Michael Gottlieb. HAHA let's put the former Continental Record holder for 4x4 into his place.  Man that was great.

From everything that I read, I have to the conclusion that you are a pompous ass, with no respect for your fellow cubers. 

kthxbai


----------



## Stefan (Sep 21, 2009)

cmowla said:


> I cannot throw away 100's of hours of work


So don't do that.


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Sep 21, 2009)

I am sorry Chris, but I cannot be apart of this site anymore. (As a matter of fact, I deleted all of my posts in these threads).

As long as this cubing community approaches new commers and (even each other) like this, if there ever is someone like me who wants to bring something new and valid, he or she will not find it worth it.

The very fact that I want wadges for my knowledge should show people that it is something good.

Worst of all, all wished for the worst for me. They indirectly said, "I hope you fail in selling your book because you are not willing to give it to me for free". That is greed.

The reason I even found the 24q alg was not because I wanted to make money. I wanted to see for sure if 25q was the briefest alg.

In my research I initially found a 27q, but over time, reduced it to 24q (with logic of course).

However, if I never did find an alg less than 25q, then I would pay a lot of money to not only get the alg, but how to derive such a thing.

I wonder if anyone who responded to me rudely thought about that? I would pay money to know this if any of them would have found it. Knowledge is like gold to me, especially about the single edge correction on the greatest toy ever invented (as you so elligantly put it).


----------



## Stefan (Sep 21, 2009)

cmowla said:


> I cannot be apart of this site anymore.


LOL at that typo.



cmowla said:


> The very fact that I want wadges for my knowledge should show people that it is something good.


WAHAHAHAHA, you're killing me!



cmowla said:


> Worst of all, all wished for the worst for me. They indirectly said, "I hope you fail in selling your book because you are not willing to give it to me for free". *That* is greed.


<rofl waving white flag>


----------



## piemaster (Sep 21, 2009)

lol thread, my stomach hurts from laughing.  This really brightened up my day.


----------



## piemaster (Sep 21, 2009)

StefanPochmann said:


> cmowla said:
> 
> 
> > I cannot be apart of this site anymore.
> ...



rofl rofl rofl rofl! You're killing me man, stoppit!


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Sep 21, 2009)

Cubes=Life said:


> Hey man, if youre going to leave, do it gracefully.
> Thats a rather backhanded farewell.
> 
> Maybe there's a reason they're cold to you, its because youre being pretentious, and you think that your 24q algorithm makes you a genius.
> You dont deserve praise if you try to put yourself on a pedestal and then run away when you dont get the response you want.



I would like to see you come up with a 24q (without a computer of course)! Let's see if you can come up with one, if you spent your entire lifetime on it!

You were the absolute worst commentor in both of my threads. You took no part in the initial discussion, but gladly joined in when you seen that your respected friends were "jumping me".

Oh, and if you didn't notice, when I mentioned that I found the 24q, I said something like, "It has been a fun discussion..." meaning that I intended to end this thread, not go on and on about how much praise I want for my "genius" finding. I specifiically said that I would sell the book. I did not say that I am too good to give it to the community. I was only stating that 24q to let Chris and the other guy know that this conversation was not just to aggravate them.

By you trying to make humor out of all of this shows your lack of comprehension of all of the previous things said. Even though I deleted all that I said in my threads, don't worry, there were plenty people who quoted things that I said for you to follow.


----------



## dannyz0r (Sep 21, 2009)

cmowla said:


> Cubes=Life said:
> 
> 
> > Hey man, if youre going to leave, do it gracefully.
> ...



And what would you do if he did find one? Why do you keep coming back here and responding when you want to end the thread? You're just feeding them more things to quote you on and mock you for.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 21, 2009)

cmowla said:


> I am sorry Chris, but I cannot be apart of this site anymore. (As a matter of fact, I deleted all of my posts in these threads).


Awwww. It would be a shame to lose a cuber.



cmowla said:


> As long as this cubing community approaches new commers and (even each other) like this, if there ever is someone like me who wants to bring something new and valid, he or she will not find it worth it.


New and valid? Yes. But how did you present that new and valid idea of yours? You disrespected one of the best big cube solvers in the process.




cmowla said:


> The very fact that I want wadges for my knowledge should show people that it is something good.


Good? Sure you found by yourself but there are sooooo many cube programs that could have found that as well. Many are freely available and you're charging for them? HA!



cmowla said:


> Worst of all, all wished for the worst for me. They indirectly said, "I hope you fail in selling your book because you are not willing to give it to me for free". That is greed.


HAHAHAAHAHA! See comment above.



cmowla said:


> The reason I even found the 24q alg was not because I wanted to make money. I wanted to see for sure if 25q was the briefest alg.


That's awesome. If it wasn't to make money, then make it free to the public.




cmowla said:


> In my research I initially found a 27q, but over time, reduced it to 24q (with logic of course).


Yup, you're sooo cool.





cmowla said:


> However, if I never did find an alg less than 25q, then I would pay a lot of money to not only get the alg, but how to derive such a thing.



Well I wouldn't pay. Is it a fast algorithm? What worth is a low move count unless there was a 4x4 FMC official competition? To most cubers, nothing. 




cmowla said:


> I wonder if anyone who responded to me rudely thought about that? I would pay money to know this if any of them would have found it. Knowledge is like gold to me, especially about the single edge correction on the greatest toy ever invented (as you so elligantly put it).


Yup, I did think about that, but then again I only read all the stuff about putting the former continental record holder into this place. which immediately made me conclude that you are disrespectful and quick to assume that just because someone is just a "member" and not a "moderator" doesn't mean that person knows who belongs to a community like this.





cmowla said:


> Cubes=Life said:
> 
> 
> > Hey man, if youre going to leave, do it gracefully.
> ...



YES! GO GO GO!! DIG A DEEPER HOLE!!!


----------



## piemaster (Sep 21, 2009)

Oh no, keep going, I find you rather amusing.


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Sep 21, 2009)

dannyz0r

Thanks for your consideration. At least someone is trying to give me advice here.

And for those of you who think this is funny, I am very glad to entertain you. And if you *pay me*, I can do it some more. But I already know you do not want to spend a dime on anything. Your fun comes when you see others mocked. Your comic relief is when others (besides your friends of course) are bashed.

I would like to see you in my position to see if you would be laughing. *and do not try to write something hummmorous (oh look, I made a typo! WHooooooooooooooo*.


----------



## piemaster (Sep 21, 2009)

Oh no, not me. I started up with a proper introduction, made some buddies who used roux, joined another roux forum, made a fridrich BLD thread, and...um....well, it's a long story.


----------



## blade740 (Sep 21, 2009)

All unpleasantness aside, what do you think makes this knowledge worth paying for? What kind of incredible insight does your (slightly) more optimal algorithm (and it's derivation) give? How can a cuber benefit from knowing this? I really want to know WHY you think your information is more valuable than the loads of free information already available.

Also, if you don't mind my asking, how long is your algorithm in HTM? I have a nagging suspicion that it's actually LONGER than the standard algorithms we use.


----------



## piemaster (Sep 21, 2009)

cmowla said:


> dannyz0r
> 
> Thanks for your consideration. At least someone is trying to give me advice here.
> 
> ...



NO, you don't understand, it was a rather funny typo. "I cannot stand to be apart of this site anymore."


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Sep 21, 2009)

piemaster said:


> cmowla said:
> 
> 
> > dannyz0r
> ...



No, butt I dou, becuz yoew havvve too point it otu ot veryeone!


----------



## blade740 (Sep 21, 2009)

cmowla said:


> > NO, you don't understand, it was a rather funny typo. "I cannot stand to be apart of this site anymore."
> 
> 
> 
> No, butt I dou, becuz yoew havvve too point it otu ot veryeone!



I think you misunderstand. He was trying to make light of the situation, not humiliate you for making a small mistake.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 21, 2009)

You know, this would all be a lot better if you were less paranoid, stopped seeing bad intentions where there aren't any, and started trying to understand what we're saying. For example:



cmowla said:


> But I already know you do not want to spend a dime on anything.


Huh? Just recently I did pay about $11 for a booklet describing a new 3x3x3 method that the inventor didn't want to publish for free.



cmowla said:


> *all* wished for the worst for me. They indirectly said, "I hope you fail in selling your book because you are not willing to give it to me for free".


Huh? I didn't.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 21, 2009)

cmowla - stefan is stefan (you have to realize that he's a grammar nazi, he'll probably correct this once he sees it )

if you continue to type like that, more and more people bash you even more, not because of your idea or your pompous attitude, but strictly for grammar issues.


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Sep 21, 2009)

blade740 said:


> cmowla said:
> 
> 
> > > NO, you don't understand, it was a rather funny typo. "I cannot stand to be apart of this site anymore."
> ...



The only way light could be made of this situation is for these threads to be deleted from the archive! That is the only way to make light of this! Can't you see, I started out with an academic conversation with Chris, which then lead to the conclusion where I spoke my intent, then all of this mess began. I hope the webmaster will delete my threads as I have asked.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 21, 2009)

waffle=ijm said:


> stefan [is] a grammar nazi


Nah. Just pointed out the one I found particularly funny because he made a strong statement and accidentally turned it in the opposite direction. You think I didn't notice all the other typos?


----------



## blade740 (Sep 21, 2009)

> You think I didn't notice all the other typos?
> -
> Last edited by StefanPochmann : 6 Minutes Ago at 03:11 AM. Reason: fixed a typo


irony.


----------



## qqwref (Sep 21, 2009)

When you said that if your work was not original you "could not even get 25q", I took it to mean that you thought that whatever we had done was so worthless that basing algorithms on it could not possibly yield good results (and that your method by comparison was much better). So to me this seemed very arrogant, and I personally don't like it when someone acts arrogantly without having proven him/herself.

The fact is that a lot of the puzzle theorists here have invented various methods and algorithms themselves, so your having found a more efficient algorithm for one case doesn't really make us feel that you are better than us. Those who are respected here are not respected because of charisma but because of how helpful they have been or what they have accomplished or invented. Many of us have even invented their own methods or have become experts at blindfold or fewest move solving. As far as efficient algorithms, for instance, one thing I did was invent a way to swap irregular blocks of centers around on big cubes that is efficient enough to create six hearts on the 7x7x7 in 11 block quarter turns. Of course, the write-up is available for free and I am happy to answer questions about it. I do understand how it feels to invent something new, but if you want to get people you don't know interested in it you have to put your best foot forward and show that you are both respectful and worth respecting.


----------



## rachmaninovian (Sep 21, 2009)

lols...but in cage a parity fix can be 10 moves, and it's 13 quarter moves o.o
B2 D2 B' r' B D2 B' r B' r'


----------



## riffz (Sep 21, 2009)

I enjoyed reading this thread. Time for bed.


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 21, 2009)

Conclusion: Yes, we can really solve big cubes. That is what this thread was about and that is what has been proven and explained. I really don't see why someone would think this thread was meant to be about "solving 1 particular case in 24 moves (QTM) instead of 25".


----------

