# Idea to fix the cubing notation



## zed zed (Aug 10, 2021)

A few minutes ago, I proposed that MES be changed to follow RUF, on the r/Cubers discord. Many members jumped in to support this.

One member, Jeed, has been cubing for 5 years and average mid 9. Jeed has been confused and irritated by the illogic slice notations.

I'm sure many of you here have also been confused by the 3x3 notation, how S, z, F are the same direction, but M, x, R, and E, y, U are not.

It is important to keep notation as intuitive as possible, so the cuber, particularly beginners, can focus on the alg, not the moves.

I am proposing that we change the direction of slice letters, but add a prefix to denote that the sequence uses a fixed notation.

For example U perm, M2 U M' U2 M U M2, can be written as [FN] M2 U M U2 M' U M2

The prefix is [FN] because it doesnt conflict with the use of parenthesis ( ) to denote auf, alg angle, and triggers


----------



## JaredRB9000 (Aug 10, 2021)

True moment because LDF makes no sense

also now that I think about it maybe {FN} to avoid using [ ] because that's what comms are notated by


----------



## Swagrid (Aug 10, 2021)

Was a little bewildered when I learned M follows L, looked up why, saw the logic behind the slices, never was confused again. Although it is confusing that first time tbf.


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Aug 10, 2021)

ZF slow said:


> Was a little bewildered when I learned M follows L, looked up why, saw the logic behind the slices, never was confused again. Although it is confusing that first time tbf.


What was the logic?


----------



## DGCubes (Aug 10, 2021)

I feel like this is one of those cases where we'd ideally have done it this way from the start, but now we're in too deep. For people who use the current system extensively and not just for a couple algs (e.g. advanced 3BLD solvers), it seems like it'd be too hard to ever read M as the current direction of M', regardless of whether the [FN] is there or not. I'm not an advanced blindsolver though so maybe someone else can chime in!


----------



## JaredRB9000 (Aug 10, 2021)

TheCubingCuber347 said:


> What was the logic?


I'd also like to know, since it had to be a conscious decision at some point to make M follow L instead of R. It's been killing me for years now.


----------



## JaredRB9000 (Aug 10, 2021)

DGCubes said:


> I feel like this is one of those cases where we'd ideally have done it this way from the start, but now we're in too deep. For people who use the current system extensively and not just for a couple algs (e.g. advanced 3BLD solvers), it seems like it'd be too hard to ever read M as the current direction of M', regardless of whether the [FN] is there or not. I'm not an advanced blindsolver though so maybe someone else can chime in!


What if we write fixed notation in exclusively italic comic sans? Then there's truly no way to miss it and it definitely for real solves the issue.


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Aug 10, 2021)

DGCubes said:


> I feel like this is one of those cases where we'd ideally have done it this way from the start, but now we're in too deep. For people who use the current system extensively and not just for a couple algs (e.g. advanced 3BLD solvers), it seems like it'd be too hard to ever read M as the current direction of M', regardless of whether the [FN] is there or not. I'm not an advanced blindsolver though so maybe someone else can chime in!



It was to late even in 2008


brunson said:


> That's one of my biggest pet peeves. It's too late to change anything now, but if I had my way xyz would be reversed (to conform to the right hand rule of fields from physics) and MES would follow xyz. At least xyz uniformly correspond to a left hand rule of curl.


And the community is so much larger and this would effect so many more people. It's better just to leave it as is.


----------



## JaredRB9000 (Aug 10, 2021)

TheCubingCuber347 said:


> It was to late even in 2008
> 
> And the community so much larger and would effect so many more people. It's better just to leave as is.


In several hundred years when we're all long gone, my dream is for those who discover the Rubik's Cube once more to NOT HAVE TO DEAL WITH NONSENSICAL NOTATION DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE GRAVITY OF THE SITUATION????


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 10, 2021)

TheCubingCuber347 said:


> What was the logic?


M follows L because it’s closer to L than R in the alphabet. Same for the other slices.


----------



## zed zed (Aug 11, 2021)

TheCubingCuber347 said:


> It was to late even in 2008
> 
> And the community so much larger and would effect so many more people. It's better just to leave as is.


If the current notation is simply used changed without a signal, it will immediately affect many people. This is why fixed notation has a prefix, normal notation remains normal. This is to promote a smoother introduction for the community.
In short, the old notation is still around, but the fix will be around as an add-on.


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Aug 11, 2021)

xsac said:


> If the current notation is simply used changed without a signal, it will immediately affect many people. This is why fixed notation has a prefix, normal notation remains normal. This is to promote a smoother introduction for the community.
> In short, the old notation is still around, but the fix will be around as an add-on.


It's fine how it is really. Sure it may be a little confusing at first, but so is cubing. If you get used to the notation it becomes almost second nature. Of course, there are times when a different on could be better. But for the main notation I think it should stay the same.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Aug 11, 2021)

DGCubes said:


> I feel like this is one of those cases where we'd ideally have done it this way from the start, but now we're in too deep.



I think it's there subtle differences in where this reasoning is relevant, but it's a very powerful reason here.

I've worked a lot with notation (defining, standardizing, implementing), and I don't think it's possible to change M to its opposite without causing unreasonable trouble for the future. We have had no luck using context or other annotations disambiguating between two completely conflicting notations, and I don't think this situation would be any different. Everyone has to 100% know about the notation change and be diligent about it, or you end up in a situation where any alg with slices could be ambiguous.

I think the most likely way to make this work would be to introduce something like N = M' and Q = E'.
(I've seriously entertained this for alg.cubing.net / Twizzle, but as you can see I haven't adopted it yet.)

But no matter how we approach it, unless we can get the entire community to agree to a switchover *and* change all websites/databases (not to speak of forums, where we probably shouldn't bulk edit old posts), we'd be stuck with both old and new notation. And anyone who's learning notation afresh will have to learn *both* the old and the new to avoid any issues, which I think is a bigger burden for everyone than dealing with a slightly imperfect convention.



OreKehStrah said:


> M follows L because it’s closer to L than R in the alphabet. Same for the other slices.



Yeah, this is the least confusing mnemonic I've heard:

E follows D (both in the alphabet and in cubing)
M follows L (both in the alphabet and in cubing)
... but it breaks down for "S follows F".


----------



## trangium (Aug 11, 2021)

Lucas Garron said:


> I think the most likely way to make this work would be to introduce something like N = M' and Q = E'


I would propose H (horizontal) for E', and V (vertical) for M'. S can stay the same.

For example, R U R' U' M' U R U' r' would become R U R' U' V U R U' r', and R' E2 R2 E' R' U R E R2 E2 R would become R' H2 R2 H R' U R H' R2 H2 R.


----------



## zed zed (Aug 11, 2021)

trangium said:


> I would propose H (horizontal) for E', and V (vertical) for M'. S can stay the same.
> 
> For example, R U R' U' M' U R U' r' would become R U R' U' V U R U' r', and R' E2 R2 E' R' U R E R2 E2 R would become R' H2 R2 H R' U R H' R2 H2 R.


that sounds great!


----------



## DGCubes (Aug 11, 2021)

trangium said:


> I would propose H (horizontal) for E', and V (vertical) for M'. S can stay the same.
> 
> For example, R U R' U' M' U R U' r' would become R U R' U' V U R U' r', and R' E2 R2 E' R' U R E R2 E2 R would become R' H2 R2 H R' U R H' R2 H2 R.



This is cool! Like Lucas said, I think it'd be important to use entirely new notation for these moves for the sake of clarity. 



Lucas Garron said:


> And anyone who's learning notation afresh will have to learn *both* the old and the new to avoid any issues.


If the community unanimously converted to H and V going forward*, I don't think this would be a huge problem. In the future most of our current resources will likely be archaic anyway, so the need to read M and E would only be required for the curious. It's similar to how some very old resources write Ui instead of U' (although H and V are a bit more extreme, and less "guessable").

* This is a very big if. It's immensely hard to get the community to go for any naming change (see: PR/WB, Varasano, Kibiminx) but it could theoretically be done. Even if it's successful, it'd definitely result in at least a couple years of people using both, and probably arguing about it.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Aug 11, 2021)

trangium said:


> I would propose H (horizontal) for E'



My first thoughts here are:

H can be confused with "H perm". This doesn't cause huge issues with practice (as with "R perm"), but I think it's best to avoid conflict.
The most common slice-based H perms would actually use "V" in your suggestion, as opposed to H. I think this is likely to be confusing / annoying.

H conflicts with HIJK notation: https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Team_Blindfolded#HIJK_.28F2L_Slots.29 . I don't know how widely it's used these days, but that would personally be a reason for me not to support it.
Not that a compromise isn't possible, but I just wanted to caution that there are unintended conflicts with a lot of otherwise reasonable choices.

I'd be curious to hear more from experienced Roux solves about this.


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Aug 11, 2021)

xsac said:


> A few minutes ago, I proposed that MES be changed to follow RUF, on the r/Cubers discord. Many members jumped in to support this.


The convention could go either way. It just depends on who you talk to. So I don't think it's a good idea to change it, despite that if it this would have been the convention from the beginning, I personally would have found it to be better.



xsac said:


> I'm sure many of you here have also been confused by the 3x3 notation, how S, z, F are the same direction, but M, x, R, and E, y, U are not.


Compare L M to y L M y' and z L M z'. That's why. All three are literally the same. A similar argument could be made for what you prefer, but the old convention is not inconsistent/illogical.



xsac said:


> It is important to keep notation as intuitive as possible, so the cuber, particularly beginners, can focus on the alg, not the moves.


I don't know what you define as a beginner, but if you are literally referring to those who are just learning the cube, I think minimizing the number of types of moves is going to be as *easy* as possible. (If a beginner learns a solution from someone, it's not at all intuitive.)




xsac said:


> One member, Jeed, has been cubing for 5 years and average mid 9. Jeed has been confused and irritated by the illogic slice notations.


There are many cubers who have been cubing for 50 45 years, and many average much better than that. But all of them adapted the notation. I don't know what makes this generation an exception.



Lucas Garron said:


> I think the most likely way to make this work would be to introduce something like N = M' and Q = E'.
> (I've seriously entertained this for alg.cubing.net / Twizzle, but as you can see I haven't adopted it yet.)


No offense, Lucas, but I cannot tell you how much trouble you caused in the past by enforcing SiGN notation on your applets . . . when people who taught "the confused" were accustomed to old WCA. (And how much it confused *beginners*.) If they were thrown off by the case of a letter, how much more will they be thrown off by entirely new letters when looking to old forum posts, decades of cubing videos, etc.? I don't get it myself, but some cannot understand to click on a link to view the moves. They insist on (take pride in) reading the blue hyperlinked text to interpret the moves (*despite* that you pretty much made your applets available to use on every platform and device)!



TheCubingCuber347 said:


> It was to late even in 2008
> 
> And the community so much larger and would effect so many more people. It's better just to leave as is.


I couldn't have said it better. If people cannot adapt a notation, how can they adapt the more important (difficult) aspects of cubing anyway?




trangium said:


> I would propose H (horizontal) for E', and V (vertical) for M'. S can stay the same.



Although not related, V has been used for multi-layer inner slices of Superset notation for 20+ years. (But they didn't name it V because of "vertical".)

But I think children (and therefore most people) are more familiar with the terms *middle* and *equator* rather than *horizontal* and *vertical*. So I think since we have L and R for left and right, and U for upper, the letters should represent the most universal of abstractions.


----------



## zed zed (Aug 11, 2021)

Christopher Mowla said:


> The convention could go either way. It just depends on who you talk to. So I don't think it's a good idea to change it, despite that if it this would have been the convention from the beginning, I personally would have found it to be better.


I am in no way proposing a full replacement, just an optional modification and a prefix denoting the use of the modification.



Christopher Mowla said:


> I couldn't have said it better. If people cannot adapt a notation, how can they adapt the more important (difficult) aspects of cubing anyway?


People can adapt this less consistent notation, but isnt it the community's job to make the progression smoother for learners? consistency is one way to grease the progression.



Christopher Mowla said:


> Compare L M to y L M y' and z L M z'. That's why. All three are literally the same. A similar argument could be made for what you prefer, but the old convention is not inconsistent/illogical.


As said, it is not completely inconsistent, but can be improved.



Christopher Mowla said:


> I don't know what you define as a beginner, but if you are literally referring to those who are just learning the cube, I think minimizing the number of types of moves is going to be as *easy* as possible. (If a beginner learns a solution from someone, it's not at all intuitive.)


If it is to be learned, it should be made as easy to learn as possible.


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Aug 11, 2021)

xsac said:


> I am in no way proposing a full replacement or change, just an alternative and a prefix denoting the use of the alternative.


Due to the nature of the purpose of what notation serves, you technically are . . . that is, if *everyone* doesn't write an algorithm twice. Once in your version, once in the current version. (Where you provide links to animations like this in footnotes to describe what you're talking about.)

For example, in my 2 2-cycles document, I had to express algorithms in *three* different notations. Because:

The interested individuals . . . who also contributed to the document . . . were familiar with SuperSet
@Lucas Garron enforced SiGN on alg.cubing.net
And I felt obligated (and myself prefer) algorithms written in Old WCA notation, because I know the majority of people know that.

So are you willing (and do you think the community as a whole is willing) to become "bilingual"? I have a lot of patience, but doing this kind of pushes me to my limit! And all solving guides (at least the part expressing moves in notation) will be at least twice as long, videos twice as long, etc.


----------



## zed zed (Aug 11, 2021)

Christopher Mowla said:


> So are you willing (and do you think the community as a whole is willing) to become "bilingual"?


I am not pushing it to become bilingual, if they feel that this is an improvement, they will adapt.


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Aug 11, 2021)

xsac said:


> I am not pushing it to become bilingual, if they feel that this is an improvement, they will adapt.


If they are to understand what the prefix denoting the notation means, you're most certainly forcing them to become bilingual. Because if they don't know what that prefix means, they're going to execute the algorithm in the current notation and accuse you of posting an incorrect algorithm. Then you have to explain what the moves are. Therefore, yes, forcing them to learn two different notations.



xsac said:


> Can you show me an result of this enforcement, and what the sign notation is



SiGN notation is the same as the current 3x3x3 notation, but it is different on larger cube sizes. Original documentation. A video I made on a variant of it. It's a nice notation for the 6x6x6 and larger cubes, but since the majority of cubers don't share algorithms beyond that of the 5x5x5, it was more trouble than it was worth, IMO.


----------



## zed zed (Aug 11, 2021)

Christopher Mowla said:


> If they are to understand what the prefix denoting the notation means, you're most certainly forcing them to become bilingual. Because if they don't know what that prefix means, they're going to execute the algorithm in the current notation, accuse you of posting an incorrect algorithm. They you have to explain what the moves are. Therefore, yes, forcing them to learn two different notations.


I am not forcing anyone. Use it if you feel that it's worth teaching a more consistent version. Don't use it if you are lazy.


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Aug 11, 2021)

xsac said:


> I am not forcing anyone. Use it if you feel that it's worth teaching a more consistent version. Don't use it if you are lazy.


Wow, what an arrogant thing to say. If they don't like your version (which opposes a version that has been around probably longer than you have been alive), they're lazy.

But I digress . . . So I was talking about what the *majority* of people do who use notation. They exchange algorithms. Solving tutorials conprise a rather small percentage of all "algorithm exchanges" in the community.


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Aug 11, 2021)

xsac said:


> As said, it is not completely inconsistent, but can be improved.


Here's an analogy which pretty much sums up this thread:

I think everyone should adapt to what I think the English language should be! For example, there are so many words that are not pronounced they way they are spelled. It can be improved. And a lot of people agree with me. (Especially those whose native tongue is not English.)

By the way, if schools don't want to bother to teach school children "how to spell words in a way that makes more logical sense", they're lazy. But they can teach what they want.

And it doesn't matter that this change in spelling can potentially compromise the integrity of many legally binding contracts/agreements (and technical documents, Engineering specifications, etc.) written in the past. They can all be rewritten* if everyone eventually starts to spell things correctly*!

And all of those who have already written volumes of texts, books, etc., in the old/illogical way of spelling words, well, *too bad* if their work is not understood by the new (not lazy) generation. If they want their books/works to be read, they need to not be lazy. They need to *rewrite everything* they ever wrote if they want their work to be understood!

I don't really know how it's all going to work out, *but let's give it a whirl ANYWAY.*

P.S.

I am the author of the largest cubing wiki page on the internet https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/4x4x4_parity_algorithms . I have written every algorithm you see on that page in two different notations. I therefore have translated *more* moves (those algorithms are much longer than 3x3x3 algorithms, have many more types of moves, etc.) between two different notations than most cubers will during their entire cubing career.

*I am not lazy*. I have learned from actual experience that if a notation exists, it is *not* a good idea to change it. It can be* devastating*, not just "inconvenient". And I'm not over exaggerating anything if you may think that I am. There are many more algorithms which would have to be translated into your version of the notation than the quantity of algorithms on that ^^ wiki page. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

I have already paid my dues, and I don't want to have to see others have to pay just because a few people think they are better than all of those before them who had to suck it up and learn the notation! I hate to put it that way, but I cannot see your reasoning any other way.

. . . Unless you're not thinking about the implications *and consequences* (and consequences for those who were less fortunate than you, at that!) of what you're trying to accomplish.


----------



## TipsterTrickster (Aug 11, 2021)

We are in too deep to change it now, but another way you can write slice moves, kinda how people usually write wide moves, and this is also how we write slice moves in the face-turning octahedron community, is add an s after a move. Basically M becomes Rs’ and S becomes Fs etc… not the most popular way to do things, and probably won’t catch on, but it’s an option.


----------



## qwr (Aug 11, 2021)

It's too late and not big enough of an issue. If it were something truly illogical like L meaning right face and R meaning left face, then maybe it could be changed. But probably not.


----------



## JaredRB9000 (Aug 11, 2021)

trangium said:


> I would propose H (horizontal) for E', and V (vertical) for M'. S can stay the same.
> 
> For example, R U R' U' M' U R U' r' would become R U R' U' V U R U' r', and R' E2 R2 E' R' U R E R2 E2 R would become R' H2 R2 H R' U R H' R2 H2 R.


I'd be 100% on board with this, fixes the primary issue whilst allowing both to work at once. Maybe use letters that look/sound similar to the existing ones or alphabetically adjacent but either way, this would allow it to be implemented without breaking anything which goes beyond my idea.

Maybe NCS?


----------



## JaredRB9000 (Aug 11, 2021)

Christopher Mowla said:


> Wow, what an arrogant thing to say. If they don't like your version (which opposes a version that has been around probably longer than you have been alive), they're lazy.
> 
> But I digress . . . So I was talking about what the *majority* of people do who use notation. They exchange algorithms. Solving tutorials conprise a rather small percentage of all "algorithm exchanges" in the community.


100% agree that any modifications need to leave the current notation untouched, since after seeing better solutions (just flat-out using different letters), it's a bit silly to propose anything with the same issue after seeing them.


----------



## xyzzy (Aug 11, 2021)

DGCubes said:


> It's immensely hard to get the community to go for any naming change (see: PR/WB, Varasano, Kibiminx) but it could theoretically be done. Even if it's successful, it'd definitely result in at least a couple years of people using both, and probably arguing about it.


The kibiminx naming in particular is something I really _cannot_ get behind. It's not a matter of "it sounds bad/silly" or "I prefer 'kilominx'"; I think it's an abuse of the binary prefixes. I've been railing against the abuse of kilo to mean 1024 forever, and I feel like "abusing" kibi in a different way doesn't help that.

Then again, the current naming is also bad, so maybe we should all just have moved back to "flowerminx" like it originally was. (The earliest flowerminxes had straight cuts, but since that would cause physical obstruction mid-turn, a flower-shape hole in the centre was also cut out. Ergo, flowerminx. Modern ones used curved cuts instead, so the hole just looks like a star.)

I think record-versus-best is something that's at least understood within the community now. Although some of us are still stuck in our old initialisms and still use "UWR" just because we've been saying that for so long…



Lucas Garron said:


> ... but it breaks down for "S follows F".


S isn't close to F per se, but it's still _closer_ than it is to B.

I think the problem with this mnemonic is that there are _a lot_ of people who think it's a logical reason rather than merely a mnemonic (see e.g. ZF slow's post above), because they saw it in a J Perm video and weren't watching it with their brains turned on.



Christopher Mowla said:


> If people cannot adapt a notation, how can they adapt the more important (difficult) aspects of cubing anyway?


I think this is an issue of whether the notation is bad to the extent that it causes unnecessary cognitive load. It doesn't completely prevent learning algs from the notation, but it could make the process annoying enough that people put it off.

I can read old WCA notation and (current) WCA notation just fine. Doesn't mean I can read them as fast as SiGN.



Christopher Mowla said:


> SiGN notation is the same as the current 3x3x3 notation, but it is different on larger cube sizes. […] It's a nice notation for the 6x6x6 and larger cubes, but since the majority of cubers don't share algorithms beyond that of the 5x5x5, it was more trouble than it was worth, IMO.


SiGN has been greatly useful for big cube algs and reconstructions.

I think part of what turns people off to big cube algs is how long they _look_ in non-SiGN notations. Literally just compare the visual width of these different ways of writing the exact same alg (!!):


Spoiler



r U2 x r U2 r U2 r' U2 l U2 r' U2 r U2 r' U2 r'
(SiGN)

Rw U2 x Rw U2 Rw U2 Rw' U2 Lw U2 Rw' U2 Rw U2 Rw' U2 Rw'
(WCA)

2R U2 x 2R U2 2R U2 2R' U2 2L U2 2R' U2 2R U2 2R' U2 2R'
(old WCA (*))

Rr U2 x Rr U2 Rr U2 Rr' U2 Ll U2 Rr' U2 Rr U2 Rr' U2 Rr'
(Singmaster)

Banana G perm for scale:
R2 U R' U R' U' R U' R2 U' D R' U R D'

(*) If I'm not mistaken, even in the past, WCA notation already used w suffixes for two-layer turns on 444; the prefix-wide notation only applied to 666 and 777.



------

With all my mostly-off-topic blabbering out of the way…

The current directions for M and S are easy enough to justify if you time travel to the 1980s and think about what cubes and what methods were being used then. If you solve your first layer on the top face (not uncommon, especially if you weren't trying to go super fast), then the ways you'd insert an edge piece from the bottom layer into the top layer at the UF and UR positions were M D/D2/D' M' and S D/D2/D' S', respectively.

UF instead of UB is obvious (it's the one closer to your eyes – keep in mind that we're still talking about solving the first layer in the U layer); UR instead of UL makes sense for right-handed people.

This doesn't explain why E is the way it is, which I guess is because that direction was easier to execute with wrist turns?

Is this the actual justification? Hell if I know. You'd have better luck asking David Singmaster directly, and who knows if he'd still remember some silly arbitrary decisions he made half a lifetime ago. (edit) Wow did I get my history completely wrong. The EMS notation was introduced by Frans Schiereck as an extension to Singmaster notation, so that's the guy to ask. Looking at Cubic Circular, there's a _different_ slice notation that Singmaster followed, where Rs = R L' (the centres don't move). See also: http://rubikscube.info/waterman/booklet.php (end edit)

I'm very much against redefining EMS for only a minor benefit in readability, especially since the current notation is unambiguous, but moving forwards, trangium's H/V proposal seems rather reasonable.

One major difference between redefining EMS versus redefining wide/slice moves in big cube notation is that the latter has never been unambiguously interpretable. Do lowercase letters mean wide moves, as they do on 333? Or do they mean slice moves, but only on big cubes? Declaring that everyone should be using SiGN by fiat is a net plus for a bunch of reasons, and actually _reduces_ ambiguity. Redefining EMS _introduces_ ambiguity; how would you tell if an alg is in the "new" version or the "old" version if it's not tagged with {FN} in front? There are already people too lazy to hit caps lock to type out normal algs; you expect them to bother to type in {FN}?



TipsterTrickster said:


> We are in too deep to change it now, but another way you can write slice moves, kinda how people usually write wide moves, and this is also how we write slice moves in the face-turning octahedron community, is add an s after a move. Basically M becomes Rs’ and S becomes Fs etc… not the most popular way to do things, and probably won’t catch on, but it’s an option.


or you could just use SiGN

(Twizzle currently only supports SiGN and my stupid unfinished simulator (you know, the one with the cursed animation) sort of supports both Ben's FTO notation and SiGN although there's no way to input algs. Software-wise, there's already more SiGN support than Ben notation support.)


----------



## qwr (Aug 11, 2021)

Also, how are we supposed to meme about zoomer S move algs now?


----------



## JaredRB9000 (Aug 11, 2021)

qwr said:


> Also, how are we supposed to meme about zoomer S move algs now?


S moves get to stay the same since they're already correct! 

NCS is the future.


----------



## JaredRB9000 (Aug 11, 2021)

I'm dumb and forgot to check that NCS doesn't mess with anything; C also violates superset, maybe NAS or something. Keeps consonants and vowels to themselves to avoid confusion and doesn't violate anything I can think of, which is odd since A seems like something that'd be taken, ha.

NAS is the brighter future.


----------



## qwr (Aug 11, 2021)

JaredRB9000 said:


> I'm dumb and forgot to check that NCS doesn't mess with anything; C also violates superset, maybe NAS or something. Keeps consonants and vowels to themselves to avoid confusion and doesn't violate anything I can think of, which is odd since A seems like something that'd be taken, ha.
> 
> NAS is the brighter future.



I have a worse idea: instead of a nearby letter, just flip it around!
M -> W
E -> Ǝ (may not show up on your device depending on unicode support) or Э (for the Russian cubers) E is pretty rare anyway

Thus my Ua perm becomes W2 U W U2' W' U W2 (looks weird, but not any more than using N)


----------



## Swagrid (Aug 11, 2021)

TheCubingCuber347 said:


> What was the logic?





JaredRB9000 said:


> I'd also like to know, since it had to be a conscious decision at some point to make M follow L instead of R. It's been killing me for years now.


The slice follows the layer it is between that is closest to it in the alphabet. M is closer to L then it is to R, E closer to D than U, S closer to F than b


----------



## JohnnyReggae (Aug 11, 2021)

I have a crazy idea ... hear me out ... what if we just left it the way it is ? Complicating something like simple notation is over thinking everything IMO. It's really not that hard to follow, and as already being alluded to a change would require a massive shift by the community as a whole including resources. I don't think it's worth the effort in the end.


----------



## Swagrid (Aug 11, 2021)

I have to agree with JohnnyReggae here, it would be such a huge change over the community for something relatively small. Once you know how slice notation works it makes sense, so changing to RUF doesn't make a huge difference. And trying to change the letters takes away from the simple self-description of our notation. RUFLDB all describe themselves, Right, Up, Front, Left, Down, Back. M stands for middle, which makes sense as the M slice is the middle when you hold the cube. E stands for equator, which also makes sense. It runs horizontally around the cube in the middle, just as the real equator line. IIRC S stands for standing which doesn't make all that much sense. I hope I am wrong and it stands for sideways. If it does stand for standing it should be changed to sideways imo. 

There, that's it. Our notation reform. S now stands for sideways.


----------



## zed zed (Aug 11, 2021)

TipsterTrickster said:


> We are in too deep to change it now, but another way you can write slice moves, kinda how people usually write wide moves, and this is also how we write slice moves in the face-turning octahedron community, is add an s after a move. Basically M becomes Rs’ and S becomes Fs etc… not the most popular way to do things, and probably won’t catch on, but it’s an option.


We are definitely not in too deep. With new hardware and the rise of roux, slices are becoming more common every day. If the notation is to be optimized, it is to be done now.


----------



## zed zed (Aug 11, 2021)

JohnnyReggae said:


> I have a crazy idea ... hear me out ... what if we just left it the way it is ? Complicating something like simple notation is over thinking everything IMO. It's really not that hard to follow, and as already being alluded to a change would require a massive shift by the community as a whole including resources. I don't think it's worth the effort in the end.


this is not a shift. it's an add-on. it's like talking about a new method. its is optional.


----------



## zed zed (Aug 11, 2021)

Christopher Mowla said:


> Here's an analogy which pretty much sums up this thread:
> 
> I think everyone should adapt to what I think the English language should be! For example, there are so many words that are not pronounced they way they are spelled. It can be improved. And a lot of people agree with me. (Especially those whose native tongue is not English.)


Its more like: here is a new word i just coined, use it if you wish.


----------



## JohnnyReggae (Aug 11, 2021)

xsac said:


> this is not a shift. it's an add-on. it's like talking about a new method. its is optional.


Again, it's adding just to complicate things. Seriously, the current notation is hardly confusing.


----------



## Swagrid (Aug 11, 2021)

Shameless plug for the video I just made about this topic, inspired by this thread


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Aug 11, 2021)

xsac said:


> Its more like: here is a new word i just coined, use it if you wish.


Using the same letter to represent something different is not what I consider a new word. You're making an existing word an antonym to itself. (M = M', E = E'.)

Very chaotic.



xyzzy said:


> SiGN has been greatly useful for big cube algs and reconstructions.


I'm sure it has been. I didn't say it's pointless. Just more trouble that it was worth (for the 4x4x4 and 5x5x5).

If you were to enumerate the number of times people were confused when they saw the speedcubing form of a parity algorithm in lowercase letters versus how many people used it for reconstructions, you can't deny the possibility that it was simply more trouble than it was worth as far as *confusion* is concerned. Because the majority of the time (when considering the entire community), people don't to provide a link to alg.cubing.net. And as I mentioned to Lucas, even if they do, those whom they are posting the link for surprisingly sometimes still don't view the link -- they act as though a link wasn't provided/have no idea that online cubing simulators are a thing.

This thread isn't about genuine *confusion*. It's about *complaining* about why something is the way it is.



xyzzy said:


> I think part of what turns people off to big cube algs is how long they _look_ in non-SiGN notations. Literally just compare the visual width of these different ways of writing the exact same alg (!!):
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...



I'm not proposing that SiGN notation be removed from alg.cubing.net. At best, I'm just hoping that _someday_, there will exist an online cube simulator which gives people the option to link to algorithms written in old WCA notation OR SIGN notation (for the 4x4x4 and 5x5x5, at least). People should be given the freedom to choose how they want to express an algorithm . . . not being *forced* to use the notation which is the personal preference of the web designer. After all, these are links to a simulator which shows what the moves mean.

(And speaking of which @xsac . . . in a perfect world where everyone linked their algorithms to an online cubing simulator, it would no longer matter if they thought that M = M or M = M'. They could express the algorithms with any *notation variant* that they wanted. But we don't live in that world. So we cannot say that M = M' at will.)

This can be of benefit to the community as a whole. Those who like to solve with a lot of inner slice turns can link to algorithms in Old WCA. Those who like to do OBTM FMC can link to SiGN. That way, everyone's link/algorithms are as compact as they possibly can be.


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Aug 11, 2021)

This is my second double post in this thread (and I rarely ever double post!), but I just thought of something that I should have mentioned much earlier.

For those who like to write algorithms with M in the direction of R and E in the direction of U, you can do that on your own alg sheets. You can *privately *share those alg sheets with others who also write algorithms in that way. But *when you want to share with the public (internet), run (write) a script to do some replacements*. That way, if the notation is slowing you down personally, you don't have to suffer. And you don't really have to think that much when wishing to share your algorithm sheets with others.

For example, one way to handle it programmatically is to do the following replacements in this exact order. (Note that the _ represents a single white space.)

Replace all M'_ with N_.
Replace all M_ with M'_
Replace all N_ with M_.
(And do the same for E' and E.)

A more sophisticated script will be required if you don't write spaces between moves, but this should work if you do.

*Edit:*


Christopher Mowla said:


> A more sophisticated script will be required if you don't write spaces between moves, but this should work if you do.



I didn't take into account one situation. When M', M, E or E' are the last moves! So you will also need to do the replacements:

Replace all M'^p with N^p
Replace all M^p with M'^p
Replace all N^p with M^p.
Where ^p represents a hard return in Microsoft Word, for example. (^l is the soft return.) So if you use Microsoft Word, you will have to consider the end line characters.

The easiest way to handle all cases is to copy your algorithms into a .txt file and have your script first add a single white space at the end of each line. Then just do the 3 replacements mentioned before the *Edit*.


----------



## JaredRB9000 (Aug 11, 2021)

JohnnyReggae said:


> Again, it's adding just to complicate things. Seriously, the current notation is hardly confusing.


I don't think having NAS as an additional thing to know is exactly complex, it's conceptually no more complicated than MES and would take maybe a few seconds to explain to someone unfamiliar. Most people aren't going to use it, but I wouldn't call it complicated to learn at least how to read NAS.


Christopher Mowla said:


> This is my second double post in this thread (and I rarely ever double post!), but I just thought of something that I should have mentioned much earlier.
> 
> For those who like to write algorithms with M in the direction of R and E in the direction of U, you can do that on your own alg sheets. You can *privately *share those alg sheets with others who also write algorithms in that way. But *when you want to share with the public (internet), run (write) a script to do some replacements*. That way, if the notation is slowing you down personally, you don't have to suffer. And you don't really have to think that much when wishing to share your algorithm sheets with others.
> 
> ...


If someone were to go the ME swapping route, maybe they should also have the script also add/remove the {FN} tag at the beginning of the alg(sheet) just to keep track for themselves.


qwr said:


> I have a worse idea: instead of a nearby letter, just flip it around!
> M -> W
> E -> Ǝ (may not show up on your device depending on unicode support) or Э (for the Russian cubers) E is pretty rare anyway
> 
> Thus my Ua perm becomes W2 U W U2' W' U W2 (looks weird, but not any more than using N)


Ah, but then we get into my bit of loathing towards the letter W itself. Not only is it the only English letter that isn't one syllable, it's three. Why? It could've just been pronounced "dub" or something.

What if we use £ for A/E'. Having gone this far though, we may as well keep the currency theme for the new/fixed slices, and what if we make the issue even worse by not only using new symbols as antonyms for the letters they look closest to, but just flat-out re-use letters?
Say hello to ฿£$: the Dollar SiGN notation.


----------



## Brouxt Force (Aug 11, 2021)

As a Roux solver, I am very used to the way M and M' are, and it is not confusing in any way at all. Of course, in the beginning, it was weird, but it was still easy to get used to. The notation we use now is not hard to learn, and I personally would not want to learn new notation just to have two ways of expressing the exact same move to try to reduce confusion. In fact, all this would do is increase confusion, because most people who use M and E moves in their solves already know which way M and E go. And I can't remember a single time when I saw someone using an E move in a 3x3 speed solve using one of the main 3x3 methods, so having new notation for E especially is most certainly not a good idea.


----------



## JaredRB9000 (Aug 12, 2021)

Brouxt Force said:


> As a Roux solver, I am very used to the way M and M' are, and it is not confusing in any way at all. Of course, in the beginning, it was weird, but it was still easy to get used to. The notation we use now is not hard to learn, and I personally would not want to learn new notation just to have two ways of expressing the exact same move to try to reduce confusion. In fact, all this would do is increase confusion, because most people who use M and E moves in their solves already know which way M and E go. And I can't remember a single time when I saw someone using an E move in a 3x3 speed solve using one of the main 3x3 methods, so having new notation for E especially is most certainly not a good idea.


Yeah, and that should be left alone now; all I'm really looking for is to be able to use NAS on cubedb.net or alg.cubing.net and see where it goes from there.


----------



## Cuberstache (Aug 12, 2021)

Brouxt Force said:


> And I can't remember a single time when I saw someone using an E move in a 3x3 speed solve using one of the main 3x3 methods, so having new notation for E especially is most certainly not a good idea.


Mehta has some E moves and 3-style does too obviously. As for the original post, I don't think it's a good idea to change the notation. If anything, we definitely shouldn't just reverse the direction of the existing moves. H and V seem reasonable, but ultimately I think no change should be made.


----------



## trangium (Aug 14, 2021)

Interestingly, I just found out that the H/V idea has already been proposed in the exact form that I proposed it in! It can be found on this website: https://alchemistmatt.com/cube/rubikcenter.html
The best course of action would probably just be to do nothing, but this is interesting nonetheless.


----------

