# Every vid i watch has an aversion to explaining corner perm, end my suffering.



## JLarsen (Nov 3, 2008)

I use and orient first method on my corners, I use the numbers method to memo them. Now fill in the blanks......

Fist look at you buffer piece and remember the number that the corner belongs to, you then follow the pieces in order memorizing the piece in the buffer spot. A cycle is ended when__________________. You then shoot to the lowest number that has not been used.(Something like that I really am not sure) Please end my suffering? This is something that should take 1 minute max, but nobody seems to like to explain it.

For example, I just went to memo my corners, and it looked like this; 13683683683683.......and so on and so fourth. How am I supposed to recognize this? and what do I do when i do recognize it?

P.S; See how I was very specific in my title, and look at that, no response yet, are you drawn to vague threads more???


----------



## Cyber (Nov 4, 2008)

U cycle will end when u got the same piece back to buffer slot.
U can get that if u have odd number of numbers in ur cycle!
If u have even numbers in ur cycle u got pairty problem...


----------



## fanwuq (Nov 4, 2008)

Cyber said:


> U cycle will end when u got the same piece back to buffer slot.
> U can get that if u have odd number of numbers in ur cycle!
> If u have even numbers in ur cycle u got pairty problem...



Not U cycle, A cycle. We are talking about corners. 

Memo: 13683683683683

You start with 1, assuming that is your buffer, ignore 1. That piece goes to 3, and piece at 3 goes to 6. Perform A perm setup to 1>3>6.
Then, perform 1>8>3
1>3>6
By the way, that memo is impossible.
Do you mean 368? That's all you need to perform.
You do 1>3>6, then you are left with 1 and 8 that need to be swapped for parity.


----------



## KConny (Nov 4, 2008)

Cyber said:


> U cycle will end when u got the same piece back to buffer slot.
> U can get that if u have odd number of numbers in ur cycle!
> If u have even numbers in ur cycle u got pairty problem...



Seriously, don't you see how your bad English makes that sentence almost unreadable? Put some effort in to your posts if you want someone to read them.


----------



## JLarsen (Nov 4, 2008)

fanwuq said:


> Cyber said:
> 
> 
> > U cycle will end when u got the same piece back to buffer slot.
> ...




Okay so to get out of that never ending cycle, just start another, i get that, now how the hell did you know 1 and 8 for parity????


----------



## fanwuq (Nov 4, 2008)

because it's a 2 swap...
You either have another set of corner 2 swap in another cycle, or you have edge 2 swap.
Then, you set up to E, H, Y, V, R, J, T, F.


----------



## JLarsen (Nov 4, 2008)

fanwuq said:


> because it's a 2 swap...
> You either have another set of corner 2 swap in another cycle, or you have edge 2 swap.
> Then, you set up to E, H, Y, V, R, J, T, F.




So if im left with 2 corners, then i need to apply parity fix..maybe, im just guessing because i have no idea how you decided it was a 2 swap. maybe i should just try to learn 3op.....UGH, piece by piece is so friggin easy after orientation too.....shame


----------



## fanwuq (Nov 4, 2008)

Wait, you aren't using 3OP?
Piece by piece with CO is stupid. Use regular classic Pochmann, the setups are actually easier.
Also, DO NOT learn from video. Learn to read. Macky's guide is very helpful. I learned from there without any other guides.
cubefreak.net.


----------



## JLarsen (Nov 4, 2008)

fanwuq said:


> Wait, you aren't using 3OP?
> Piece by piece with CO is stupid. Use regular classic Pochmann, the setups are actually easier.
> Also, DO NOT learn from video. Learn to read. Macky's guide is very helpful. I learned from there without any other guides.
> cubefreak.net.




SIGH* i looked at that before and i was like, WOW, IM NOT LEARNING THIS CRAP. So i decided i would learn one tiny friggin thing about what i already know, in order to finish this crap once and for all. And as far as piece being stupid, you gave no reason why, so thanks.


----------



## joey (Nov 4, 2008)

You want to do it without learning anything. Ok great. Well, shows your dedicated.

CO with PBP is dumb, don't ask for reasons, you don't want to learn anything, so it won't help you.


----------



## JLarsen (Nov 4, 2008)

joey said:


> You want to do it without learning anything. Ok great. Well, shows your dedicated.
> 
> CO with PBP is dumb, don't ask for reasons, you don't want to learn anything, so it won't help you.



Well purely because I'm lacking a horrifically fine detail of a method i understand in full otherwise, im now going to learn this cycle crap on macky's site. So, tell me, does this seem logical? In fact I DO want to learn something, but NOBODY can tell me what I want to learn. Weeee.


----------



## fanwuq (Nov 4, 2008)

joey said:


> You want to do it without learning anything. Ok great. Well, shows your dedicated.
> 
> CO with PBP is dumb, don't ask for reasons, you don't want to learn anything, so it won't help you.



Exactly. 
Lazy people like you don't deserve to understand how to BLD.
Macky's guide is not crap. It's is good literature. If you don't understand it, then, you know nothing about true BLD.


----------



## JLarsen (Nov 4, 2008)

fanwuq said:


> joey said:
> 
> 
> > You want to do it without learning anything. Ok great. Well, shows your dedicated.
> ...



Look, im not saying that Mack's guide is bad, and honestly, I'm not lazy, I've been working on this all day for like 4 days now, and I'm getting frustrated, by explanations like yours. Now all I was saying, is that it makes more sense to learn one little thing you are missing to a method you are effiecient at, then learn a new one altogether. I know how to do piece by piece on my corners, the only thing i need to learn, is parity.Now I can't find this, therefore I'm getting impatient. Plain n simple, perfectly clarified, k?


----------



## mrbiggs (Nov 4, 2008)

fanwuq said:


> Macky's guide is not crap. It's is good literature. If you don't understand it, then, you know nothing about true BLD.



In all fairness, Macky's guide is not easy, either.

And I think it's obvious that he knows nothing about true BLD seeing as that he's here telling us that he's having trouble solving a cube blind.

To the OP, if I were you, I'd just take the advice of the people here, which I will reiterate:

First, your actual question about cycles has been answered--if you don't understand it, you should go over it a few more times. 

Second, Macky's guide to BLD cubing is an excellent resource and is how I learned originally (though his memo method did not mesh well with me, but that's something you have to figure out for yourself anyway). 

Third, if you're really having trouble with 3OP, I'd suggest learning Old Pochmann, aka Classic Pochmann. It's a slightly different approach to BLD, and in my opinion, understanding one method is helpful in figuring out the other. I should specify that by "really having trouble" I don't mean looked at the pdf once or twice and gave up, I mean spend several weeks studying it if you have to.

Fourth, take it slow. Some people out there learned how to do BLD cubing in a day. I'm not one of them, and you might or might not be either. Do a lot of sighted solves and see where and why you're doing what you do. Then, you can start to do actual blind solves. Personally, I find it helpful when learning a new method to put another step in there, where I write down my memo and then execute under the table or something, so I become familiar doing the setups blind without having to also worry about memo. I think it took me well over a month to do my first successful blind solve, a product of not putting enough effort in and not investigating different memo methods enough.

Fifth, you're being really obnoxious, and if you cut that down you're going to get much nicer responses. It's your own fault you're getting impatient, and *****ing about it to us is just annoying.


----------



## cookingfat (Nov 4, 2008)

why not do your corners using classic pochmann? you orient and permute them at the same time, and you only need to memo about 7 items. setup moves are easy and intuitive and normally 1 or 2 turns, then either a Y, Ja or Jb perm to swap the pieces, and then undo the setup move. do this for each corner and they are all solved. If there are an odd number of moves, then do a parity fix by doing y' Ra y


----------



## rjohnson_8ball (Nov 4, 2008)

@ Sn3kyPandaMan, I just answered you in another thread. The sequence (1 2 4 5 6 7 5 6 7 5 6 7 ...) is not possible because only one piece can belong in position 5. This given sequence has 4 belonging in 5 and 7 belonging in 5, which is impossible. A sequence can _*never*_ loop back into the middle of itself. If you believe you encounter something like that, then you are perceiving the piece or position incorrectly and you need to figure out what it really should be. Sometimes this can happen if you confuse yellow with white, for example.

Your next question might be how to solve a long sequence using 3OP method. Consider the sequence (1 2 3 4 5 6 7). First do the 3 cycle (1 2 3). Notice that _the cubies in positions_ 1 and 2 get correctly placed into positions 2 and 3, but cubie _in position_ 3 returns back into position 1. Well actually this is okay because that piece will want to go into 4 next. So our reduced sequence is (1 4 5 6 7). Next we do the cycle (1 4 5) putting cubies correctly into positions 4 and 5 and cubie from 5 goes back into position 1. That reduces our sequence to (1 6 7), which is completely solved by a 3 cycle. So you see, when you reduce a sequence using a 3 cycle, all you do is eliminate the 2nd and 3rd things in the list.

I will answer more of your questions if I can understand them. I learned from cubefreak.net.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Nov 4, 2008)

rjohnson_8ball said:


> Your next question might be how to solve a long sequence using 3OP method. Consider the sequence (1 2 3 4 5 6 7). First do the 3 cycle (1 2 3). Notice that 1 and 2 get correctly placed into positions 2 and 3, but cubie 3 returns back into position 1. Well actually this is okay because that piece will want to go into 4 next. So our reduced sequence is (1 4 5 6 7). Next we do the cycle (1 4 5) putting cubies correctly into positions 4 and 5 and cubie from 5 goes back into position 1. That reduces our sequence to (1 6 7), which is completely solved by a 3 cycle. So you see, when you reduce a sequence using a 3 cycle, all you do is eliminate the 2nd and 3rd things in the list.
> 
> I will answer more of your questions if I can understand them. I learned from cubefreak.net.


Uh, that's not quite right. "1 and 2 get correctly placed into positions 2 and 3" should be more like "2 and 3, which are at locations 1 and 2, get correctly placed into positions 2 and 3."

```
Position:     1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Belongs at:   2 3 4 5 6 7 1
```

Cycling (1 2 3) gives:

```
Position:     1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Belongs at:   4 2 3 5 6 7 1
```


----------



## rjohnson_8ball (Nov 4, 2008)

@ Lucas, I rephrased it (in italics).


----------



## JLarsen (Nov 5, 2008)

rjohnson_8ball said:


> @ Sn3kyPandaMan, I just answered you in another thread. The sequence (1 2 4 5 6 7 5 6 7 5 6 7 ...) is not possible because only one piece can belong in position 5. This given sequence has 4 belonging in 5 and 7 belonging in 5, which is impossible. A sequence can _*never*_ loop back into the middle of itself. If you believe you encounter something like that, then you are perceiving the piece or position incorrectly and you need to figure out what it really should be. Sometimes this can happen if you confuse yellow with white, for example.
> 
> Your next question might be how to solve a long sequence using 3OP method. Consider the sequence (1 2 3 4 5 6 7). First do the 3 cycle (1 2 3). Notice that _the cubies in positions_ 1 and 2 get correctly placed into positions 2 and 3, but cubie _in position_ 3 returns back into position 1. Well actually this is okay because that piece will want to go into 4 next. So our reduced sequence is (1 4 5 6 7). Next we do the cycle (1 4 5) putting cubies correctly into positions 4 and 5 and cubie from 5 goes back into position 1. That reduces our sequence to (1 6 7), which is completely solved by a 3 cycle. So you see, when you reduce a sequence using a 3 cycle, all you do is eliminate the 2nd and 3rd things in the list.
> 
> I will answer more of your questions if I can understand them. I learned from cubefreak.net.



As far as every post made within the past 20 hours or so, not updated. I've got it figured out now, done. I was up last night really late trying to fill in the gaps, and I did it, done.


----------

