# Do we mind AUFs in PLL time attack?



## Pusha (Nov 13, 2011)

Do we count AUFs in PLL time attack?
We have the same discussion on the russian forum. So, the question is: Do we mind AUFs in PLL time attack? For example, if I do Jb-perm somewhere in the middle, do I've to do the last U'?


----------



## CRO (Nov 13, 2011)

I do it, but only because it's in my muscle memory..


----------



## JyH (Nov 13, 2011)

I don't.
I want to know if it's allowed to switch which LL I do during one. For example, my first three are AAE. So am I allowed to do both A perms, then not do the x2 and just start E perm from there, or do I have to do x2 E perm?


----------



## Jaycee (Nov 13, 2011)

JyH said:


> I don't.
> I want to know if it's allowed to switch which LL I do during one. For example, my first three are AAE. So am I allowed to do both A perms, then not do the x2 and just start E perm from there, or do I have to do x2 E perm?


 
I would say it's not allowed. But trust me, I wish it was. >.<


----------



## antoineccantin (Nov 13, 2011)

JyH said:


> I don't.
> I want to know if it's allowed to switch which LL I do during one. For example, my first three are AAE. So am I allowed to do both A perms, then not do the x2 and just start E perm from there, or do I have to do x2 E perm?


 
I also do AAE, but for the transition between A and E, I do Lw2 instead of R2.


----------



## Litz (Nov 13, 2011)

I don't see a point in doing it if you're not going to do it as you would while in a normal solve (or even worse, if you're going to alter or cancel moves to transition into other algorithms) so I do the rotations and the U's at the end if any (I assume there would be no AUF in the solve). It's not an official event though so to each his own.


----------



## Enter (Nov 13, 2011)

I agree with Litz! 
only if you not complete the algorithm than it is not allowed!


----------



## Godmil (Nov 13, 2011)

I think they're important... but I wouldn't call them AUF's, they're part of the alg. In a real solve an AUF may cancel them out, but if you say miss out the final U' in the popular Jb perm think of the arrow diagram of what you're actually doing, it's certainly not just swapping two corners and two edges.


----------



## Sa967St (Nov 13, 2011)

I wouldn't mind them. 
Imo, R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' is still a J perm, R' U2 R U2 R' F R U R' U' R' F' R2' is still an R perm, and R' U' R U' R U R U' R' U R U R2 U' R' is still a Z perm.



Godmil said:


> I think they're important... but I wouldn't call them AUF's, they're part of the alg. In a real solve an AUF may cancel them out, but if you say miss out the final U' in the popular Jb perm think of the arrow diagram of what you're actually doing, it's certainly not just swapping two corners and two edges.


I disagree. The arrows are to show people what pieces are swapped to get an image of what case it looks like, but what matters is what the PLL actually looks like.
Of course AUFs matter in solves, but for the sake a PLL time attack I don't think they should be necessary because they're a trivial part of a PLL case.


----------



## riffz (Nov 13, 2011)

AUFs DO NOT MATTER in PLL time attacks.

/thread


----------



## Godmil (Nov 13, 2011)

Hey I got a cool new alg for Y-perms: R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R F'
It's one move shorter than the more popular one. It usually starts with a AFF, but that shouldn't count in PLL attacks should it?


----------



## Forte (Nov 13, 2011)

What Riffz said. How could you NOT count R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' as a J perm lol


----------



## Godmil (Nov 13, 2011)

Forte said:


> What Riffz said. How could you NOT count R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' as a J perm lol


 
Because it doesn't swap two edges/corner. Do I seriously need to open a paint package and show you what that alg actually does? You can't arbitrarily say that because an alg ends with a certain face then it isn't actually part of the alg.


----------



## Sa967St (Nov 13, 2011)

Godmil said:


> Hey I got a cool new alg for Y-perms: R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R F'
> It's one move shorter than the more popular one. It usually starts with a AFF, but that shouldn't count in PLL attacks should it?


What's your point? That doesn't permute the last layer.



Godmil said:


> Because it doesn't swap two edges/corner. Do I seriously need to open a paint package and show you what that alg actually does? You can't arbitrarily say that because an alg ends with a certain face then it isn't actually part of the alg.


Who says a Jb perm swaps 2 corners and 2 edges? It's the thing that looks like this:


----------



## Jostle (Nov 13, 2011)

Godmil said:


> Hey I got a cool new alg for Y-perms: R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R F'
> It's one move shorter than the more popular one. It usually starts with a AFF, but that shouldn't count in PLL attacks should it?


 
Are you high?


----------



## stricgoogle (Nov 13, 2011)

Godmil said:


> Hey I got a cool new alg for Y-perms: R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R F'
> It's one move shorter than the more popular one. It usually starts with a AFF, but that shouldn't count in PLL attacks should it?


 This can't be used in a solve as a Y perm, without a setup F. But, I use R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' as often as U, U' and U2 at the end. Same for R perm, Z perm, whatever else. Why should you use the algorithm with the same AUF in PLL time attacks, if you actually don't always use it in a solve?


----------



## Godmil (Nov 13, 2011)

I was showing by example how crazy it is to arbitrarily remove turns from an alg just because in an actual solve it would sometimes cancel out and not be needed. Sarah, I get the point your making, but really everywhere we learned PLL's from says that a J perm is swapping two adjacent corners and two adjacent edges (where one of the edges is between the two corners), the very name comes from the image of the layer with those pieces affected. I think I've made my point, curious if anyone else agrees with that logic.


----------



## Sa967St (Nov 13, 2011)

Godmil said:


> everywhere we learned PLL's from says that a J perm is swapping two adjacent corners and two adjacent edges


[citation needed]


Godmil said:


> the very name comes from the image of the layer with those pieces affected.


Really? You can still see the "J shape" in the above images.


----------



## riffz (Nov 13, 2011)

Godmil said:


> I was showing by example how crazy it is to arbitrarily remove turns from an alg just because in an actual solve it would sometimes cancel out and not be needed. Sarah, I get the point your making, but really everywhere we learned PLL's from says that a J perm is swapping two adjacent corners and two adjacent edges (where one of the edges is between the two corners), the very name comes from the image of the layer with those pieces affected. I think I've made my point, curious if anyone else agrees with that logic.


 
A PLL algorithm is one that permutes pieces on the last layer while preserving their orientation. Your example created an algorithm that does not do this.


----------



## Godmil (Nov 13, 2011)

Sa967St said:


> [citation needed]



I did have links for the wiki and Fridrich's site, but I didn't think I needed them, alternatively we could both make a list of every site we can find that describes the PLL's. I'll include ones that show diagrams swapping two corners and two edges, and you show ones that describe them by the colour patters around the outer edge. Then we could see what the popular consensus is in the cubing community. I'd love for someone like Kirjava to jump in now and agree with me, but I fear my tone has been too arrogant/sarcy in these posts so I'm probably on my own now  Also I'd be curious to see what Breandan does since he's kinda the king of PLL attacks.


----------



## Julian (Nov 13, 2011)

@Godmil In your example, you removed the F from the popular Y-perm, claiming that it's an AFF, and thus not part of the alg. This does not work in your case because *the pieces being affected are on the U-layer.* This is why you can ignore U moves before and after the alg, but not any other type of move.


----------



## Sa967St (Nov 13, 2011)

Godmil said:


> I did have links for the wiki and Fridrich's site, but I didn't think I needed them, alternatively we could both make a list of every site we can find that describes the PLL's. I'll include ones that show diagrams swapping two corners and two edges, and you show ones that describe them by the colour patters around the outer edge. Then we could see what the popular consensus is in the cubing community. I'd love for someone like Kirjava to jump in now and agree with me, but I fear my tone has been too arrogant/sarcy in these posts so I'm probably on my own now  Also I'd be curious to see what Breandan does since he's kinda the king of PLL attacks.


Well, you're saying that this is a Jb perm:




, 
but









aren't, when they're clearly doing the same pattern to the LL.


----------



## Dene (Nov 13, 2011)

Julian said:


> @Godmil In your example, you removed the F from the popular Y-perm, claiming that it's an AFF, and thus not part of the alg. This does not work in your case because *the pieces being affected are on the U-layer.* This is why you can ignore U moves before and after the alg, but not any other type of move.


 
Who said that the PLL has to be done on the U layer? If you're going to join the argument don't say something stupid.


----------



## Godmil (Nov 13, 2011)

What I'm saying is the Alg everyone lists as a J perm is the J perm alg. Not the J perm + AUF, as people are suggesting. Why else do we write those Us in the algs when we don't write AUFs for all the other cases.


----------



## Rpotts (Nov 13, 2011)

Godmil said:


> *I'd love for someone like Kirjava to jump in now and agree with me*, but I fear my tone has been too arrogant/sarcy in these posts so I'm probably on my own now  Also I'd be curious to see what Breandan does since he's kinda the king of PLL attacks.



Lol, unlikely.



Sa967St said:


> Well, you're saying that this is a Jb perm
> 
> 
> 
> aren't, when they're clearly doing the same pattern to the LL.



I personally think of that when I think of J perm, as it is the one with no AUF. Same with Rb perm :  Since that's the no AUF angle. 

To reiterate riffz and others, AUF doesn't matter in PLL time attacks.


----------



## Julian (Nov 13, 2011)

Dene said:


> Who said that the PLL has to be done on the U layer? If you're going to join the argument don't say something stupid.


...because the pieces being affected are on a different layer than the move being ignored.


----------



## aronpm (Nov 13, 2011)

Dene said:


> Who said that the PLL has to be done on the U layer? If you're going to join the argument don't say something stupid.


 
Lol dumb argument


----------



## Stefan (Nov 13, 2011)

Godmil said:


> the very name comes from the image of the layer with those pieces affected



Good thing we're not talking about AAEFGGGGHJJNNRRTUUVYZ-attack.



Godmil said:


> I'd love for someone like Kirjava to jump in now and agree with me, but I fear my tone has been too arrogant/sarcy



Didn't notice anything with your tone, you're just wrong and I'd be extremely surprised if Thom agreed with you there.


----------



## kajitatsu (Nov 13, 2011)

Julian said:


> ...because the pieces being affected are on a different layer than the move being ignored.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WScZIbVlDw Sarah does a J Perm on the D layer, omgcakes.


----------



## Sa967St (Nov 13, 2011)

kajitatsu said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WScZIbVlDw Sarah does a J Perm on the D layer, omgcakes.


What, no.
The yellow side has the J perm, I just end with it on the bottom because of the wide turns in the alg.


----------



## Godmil (Nov 13, 2011)

Stefan said:


> you're just wrong


Damn, you were me second hope. Anyway, so you're agreeing that people have mistakenly filled the Alg database with unneeded AUF's. If I was you I'd go through the wiki deleting those extra Us.


----------



## Sa967St (Nov 13, 2011)

Godmil said:


> Anyway, so you're agreeing that people have mistakenly filled the Alg database with unneeded AUF's. If I was you I'd go through the wiki deleting those extra Us.


 They're right with or without the AUFs (;


----------



## Godmil (Nov 13, 2011)

Sa967St said:


> They're right with or without the AUFs (;


 
But if the 'AUF' is redundant then the HTM/QTM's are all wrong.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 13, 2011)

Godmil said:


> so you're agreeing that people have mistakenly filled the Alg database with unneeded AUF's


 
No, they do serve a purpose there.



Godmil said:


> But if the 'AUF' is redundant then the HTM/QTM's are all wrong.


 
I don't see any wrong ones.


----------



## Jaycee (Nov 13, 2011)

@ Godmil :

Just imagine that the First Two Layers don't exist at all when doing the alg. This way, it doesn't matter whether or not you AUF. When you do that alg, the last layer will be solved, just not aligned with where it needs to go. Sarah's diagrams are a perfect example of this.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 13, 2011)

For my own PLL attacks, I've always thought that if I needed to do an AUF in an actual solve then it was basically part of the alg and I should use it in the attack, whereas if I would usually set it up without the AUF then it wasn't part of the alg and I didn't need to include it.

More realistically/standardizedly, I'd say to ignore AUFs, although you should remember not to cancel or combine moves between the end of one alg and the start of another. For instance if you're doing the R'UR'D2RU'R'D2R2 alg and then the inverse, you do actually have to do two R2s in a row - no RR' or whatever.


----------



## Julian (Nov 13, 2011)

qqwref said:


> You should remember not to cancel or combine moves between the end of one alg and the start of another.


Would you say that combining R' R' into R2' is okay?


----------



## Forte (Nov 13, 2011)

Godmil said:


> But if the 'AUF' is redundant then the HTM/QTM's are all wrong.


Honestly, I think that the ones that include AUF are wrong (or misleading at least). T perm should by 10HTM, for example.

Back to your other point about J Perm = 2 edge swap and 2 corner swap, in an actual solve no one thinks of a J perm as that. People recognize it based on the blocks, and people recognize AUF for the standard alg for that case by looking at the block on F (which stays in place).
For example, when I see  in a solve, I don't think of it as "J perm without AUF". I think of it as "J perm + U' for AUF".


----------



## Escher (Nov 13, 2011)

Lolthread.

EDIT: Owait I'm meant to contribute -

The names for PLLs are arbitrary descriptions for patterns we see that can each be described in 2-4(?) numbers of ways, if you talk about pieces being swapped in relation to the centres.

So long as you execute something that fits into one of the multiple swap definitions for a 'PLL', and do 21 of them, then you've done a 'PLL' time attack. Do AUFs if you like - I guess they'll boost your TPS and allow you to regrip occasionally - but you really don't have to.

And yes, the algs you perform should only visibly affect the 8 cubies that make up a layer.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 13, 2011)

While we're at it, I'd like to point out something about the usual PLL arrow diagrams that I find inconsistent. Most cases minimize arrows, but not the G-perms. They could be done so that two corners are solved and two need to be swapped. Then we'd have five instead of six arrows (one would be bidirectional) and we'd have only one arrow-crossing instead of two.


----------



## Godmil (Nov 13, 2011)

Ok, I'm more tolerant of the other view now. I always saw it in the way that the algs swapped certain pieces and any U moves at the end could be cancelled out by an AUF depending on the case. I guess it's perfectly valid to view a PLL as a sequence that solves a particular LL pattern.


----------



## Forte (Nov 13, 2011)

Yay


----------



## Jaycee (Nov 13, 2011)

Godmil said:


> Ok, I'm more tolerant of the other view now. I always saw it in the way that the algs swapped certain pieces and any U moves at the end could be cancelled out by an AUF depending on the case. I guess it's perfectly valid to view a PLL as a sequence that solves a particular LL pattern.


 
What exactly changed your mind?


----------



## cubernya (Nov 13, 2011)

Stefan said:


> While we're at it, I'd like to point out something about the usual PLL arrow diagrams that I find inconsistent. Most cases minimize arrows, but not the G-perms. They could be done so that two corners are solved and two need to be swapped. Then we'd have five instead of six arrows (one would be bidirectional) and we'd have only one arrow-crossing instead of two.


 
Stefan, would you like me to change this? It shouldn't be too hard


----------



## Godmil (Nov 13, 2011)

Jaycee said:


> What exactly changed your mind?


 
Sarah's second set of 4 images. In the 4 cases one could be solved with a J perm and the other 3 needed AUF's we differed in opinion on which of those cases was which, but there was no difference in the moves. So it seemed there could be no meaningful difference in the definitions.


----------



## cubernya (Nov 13, 2011)

Actually, in regards to the diagrams on the G perms, it would be harder than I thought. I was just thinking about the parity issues, then pulled out my cube...If you have a 2 swap of corners then it is necessary to have either a 2 swap of edges or a 4 cycle of edges.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 13, 2011)

theZcuber said:


> Stefan, would you like me to change this? It shouldn't be too hard


 
Nah... not worth it, plus that shouldn't be decided by one person. I'm sure many people would object, maybe even me, after thinking it through. Was just something I realized and wanted to share.


----------



## cubernya (Nov 14, 2011)

Just wanted to see what it would look like. I had to put in the 2 cycle of corners and a 4 cycle of edges. It looks a little weird, but it works.

Obviously just a rough sketch. Could redo and make it look good if people like how this appears.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 14, 2011)

Julian said:


> Would you say that combining R' R' into R2' is okay?


Very arguable. Personally I'd say no.

PS: The reasons the G-perms are written as two 3-cycles is because nobody wants to have to recognize one of four edge W-perms. It's just too ugly. (I don't think anyone recognizes G-perms based on cycles anyway, though - seems like the most natural way is to just do the block + two corners style.)


----------



## Jaycee (Nov 14, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Very arguable. Personally I'd say no.


 
IMO, if you're going as fast as people like Sergey (and the other Sergey) are, it'll look like an R2' either way.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 14, 2011)

Yeah, but I guess if you look closely you can tell whether they are taking advantage of the R+R or R'+R' or not (that is, by using a special grip/fingertrick specifically designed for that sequence of PLLs). As long as they're doing what they would normally do to execute one PLL, and then doing the same for the next one, and so on, it's fine.


----------



## Dene (Nov 14, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Nah... not worth it, plus that shouldn't be decided by one person. I'm sure many people would object, maybe even me, after thinking it through. Was just something I realized and wanted to share.


 
Oi you, clear up some PM space


----------



## antoineccantin (Nov 14, 2011)

theZcuber said:


> Just wanted to see what it would look like. I had to put in the 2 cycle of corners and a 4 cycle of edges. It looks a little weird, but it works.
> 
> Obviously just a rough sketch. Could redo and make it look good if people like how this appears.


 
I've seen that somewhere before...


----------



## cubernya (Nov 14, 2011)

You may have, but I just made that diagram in paint, so it's not the exact same thing.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Nov 14, 2011)

theZcuber said:


>








The source code to these is embarrassing. Someone should do this over in SVG; it'd be faster and prettier.


----------

