# Pyraminx - Unscrambled tips (fairness) ?



## Radu (Nov 30, 2011)

Hi. I posted this first on WCA forum, but due to the lack of activity and my curiosity to hear also other opinions I'm posting this here too (slightly corrected):

_Sorry if this has been discussed before, but I couldn’t find a topic here or on speedsolving, so please redirect me to one if it exists!

This topic might sound silly, but I think this “problem” is much more interesting than it appears to be at first sight. You just have to think a bit after reading this. All these came to my mind while I was practicing the pyraminx these days and realized I scramble every time all the tips, even if the scramble didn't show that I have to do it. I just want to make it as hard as possible every time I solve it. I asked myself how fair is not scrambling all the tips? And below is the explanation I find most realistic...

What I’m going to explain in this topic is why I think that in a pyraminx scramble all tips should be mixed and not let the actual random state scrambler give us a scramble with unscrambled tips. I’m totally convinced about this, unless we consider a solved puzzle a scrambled one, if the scramble gives us a solved puzzle. Just be a bit open-minded when reading this.

For the beginning, the main point is that the pyraminx can be regarded as 2 puzzles in 1…we just don’t see it like this. It’s the puzzle scrambled by the big letters (U, D, R, B), the main body and the puzzle were we scramble by the small letters (u, d, r, b), the tips.

Let’s suppose that we have 2 Rubik’s cubes, connected by a stick from one’s center face to the other. We would regard this as one puzzle. Obviously, if we would generate a scramble we would want both cubes to be scrambled and not let one of them in a solved state. (I could have said to imagine a siamese cube, but I wanted a more rudimentary approach). We can now think of 5 or 10 Rubik's cubes connected like this. We would need to scramble all of them to be fair. The same is for pyraminx, with the only exception that one of the puzzles (the tips) is just extremely simple and our mind gets “confused” by this. If we look at a tip and the rest of the pyraminx it’s almost a 1x1x2 cube. You have to twist it, to get it solved. It’s a puzzle with only 3 states, but it's a puzzle itself, not just a random layer. The tip is totally independent of the rest of the pyraminx which is the 2nd puzzle.
So, there are 2 different and independent solves. Leaving the tip unscrambled is like giving a solved puzzle to the solver.

Let’s extrapolate and suppose now another example. We have a huge puzzle with 100 tips. You have to solve the puzzle by bringing all 100 tips to the right position in order to solve this. Would it be fair to give to a competitor the puzzle scrambled with all 100 tips and to another one with only 75? This will obviously become just a matter of luck. It’s like giving someone to solve 100 puzzles and to another one 75!
Of course, the pyraminx is more complex and has also the body which has to be solved by some algorithms and the tips by some others, but technically it is a puzzle with n tips, where n=4. As long as we can scramble a puzzle, why not do it? And why accept unscrambled tips?

So, what I said in the beginning is false. The Pyraminx is not 2 puzzles in 1, but 5 puzzles in 1. We have the main body + 4 tips, which compose the puzzle. Therefore, it would be fair to always scramble all the tips of a pyraminx, if we want to have a fair scramble, otherwise some will solve a different number of puzzles than others. Pyraminx is confusing because it's the only WCA puzzle which is actually made of more puzzles (we just don't see it like this...we regard the tip more like a layer than like a puzzle) and also because n=4 it's a small number and doesn't seem to influence the solve too much. Solving 1 tip is less then 0.5s but it actually could be a puzzle with much more tips like in the example above where it's obvious that all the tips should be scrambled in order to be fair with all competitors.

I don’t pretend the regulations should be changed as we have to be consistent with the scrambles in the past and all the competitors must compete under the same rules, but I just wanted to point this out, see some other opinions about this issue and start a discussion about it. I hope I will not be the only one who sees the problem like this.

Thanks for reading!
_


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 30, 2011)

This is the same as the scramble filtering thread.

Only with poorer rationale.


----------



## Radu (Nov 30, 2011)

This really has nothing to do with that thread. It's strictly about the pyraminx and how we see it as a puzzle. It's about some basic concepts of it. What I was trying to say above about the scrambling concept of the pyraminx and the filtering of easy scrambles in that other topic it's not the point of this thread. It's just an exaggerated comparison.


----------



## RNewms27 (Nov 30, 2011)

If it is more satisfying to call an unscrambled tip a 1-tip skip or 2-tip skip then please do so. If we start scrambling all tips, every previous scramble < three tips would be unfair?


----------



## Zarxrax (Nov 30, 2011)

I see what you are saying here, but I believe a more interesting approach would be to not scramble tips at all, rather than to ensure that they are scrambled. Solving the tips does not cause any sort of mental effort, its merely a dexterity challenge.
Also, by essentially making the scrambles "harder", it would provide an unfair advantage to past competitors who did not have this restriction.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 30, 2011)

I think it's definitely a scramble-filtering issue. Scrambles with, say, 2 tips solved are obviously and objectively easier (as a group) than scrambles with 0 tips solved, as you pointed out with your "5 puzzles in one" idea. The questions we each have to answer are:
- is this a problem, in an already luck-based event? and
- if so, should we remove easier (1+ tip solved) scrambles from competitions?


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 30, 2011)

My first thought is to see how many of the possible scrambled states this restriction would cover.

Including the rotations of the outer tips, the pyraminx has the following number of legal scrambled states:
\( 2^5*3^8*\frac{6!}{2} = 2^4*3^8*(6!) = 75 582720 \)

If you require that all 4 scrambled tips be unsolved at the start of the scramble, then there are the following number of possible scrambled states:
\( (2^5)*(2^4)*3^4*\frac{6!}{2} = 2^8*3^4*(6!) = 14929920 \)

The (Number of legal states with unsolved tips) is approximately 19.75% of the (Number of legal states to the pyraminx - including the tips).

I think that if we make an event using the pyraminx puzzle such that at the start of every scramble all 4 tips are unsolved, then this is really only allowing for about 19% of the total possible states to a pyraminx (including the tips). I think such an event would be interesting, and in a way more "fair" by probably several different definitions of what "fair" could mean in this context. However, I feel that such an event should not be called a "pyraminx" event. Perhaps a "Modified Pyraminx" event, or something to that effect would be a good name. I just feel that only allowing as scrambles approximately 19% of the total possible configurations of the puzzle as a physical object (not an abstract construct) would change the nature of the event so much so that the name of the event should probably also be changed.

That's my take on it.

--edit--
I'm aware that this line of reasoning also means that the name of the "Magic" and "Master Magic" events should probably likewise be changed to "Modified Magic" and "Modified Master magic". I don't think that the names of the Magics events should be changed, so perhaps my line of reasoning is not a very good one for considering the pyraminx, and whether or not all tips should be always scrambled or not.


----------



## Tim Major (Nov 30, 2011)

4 tips on every scramble.

Goodbye sub 4 averages.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 30, 2011)

Radu said:


> This really has nothing to do with that thread.


 
It's pretty much the same issue.



Radu said:


> It's strictly about the pyraminx and how we see it as a puzzle.



Yeah, it was a pretty silly reason to filter pyraminx scrambles.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 30, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> I'm aware that this line of reasoning also means that the name of the "Magic" and "Master Magic" events should probably likewise be changed to "Modified Magic" and "Modified Master magic".


 
I don't see why. We're doing *the* official task as stated in the subtitles ("link the rings" and "unlink the rings").


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 30, 2011)

Stefan said:


> I don't see why. We're doing *the* official task as stated in the subtitles ("link the rings" and "unlink the rings").


 
I meant that the line of reasoning I proposed considers the event in terms of what portion of the legal scrambled states of the puzzle are allowable for the scramble of event itself. I guess this does not apply at all to magics since the event of magic does not even have scrambles.


----------



## Radu (Nov 30, 2011)

To all: Don't forget to read my last statement. I don't pretend the regulations to be changed or to introduce a new event (with all scrambled tips). I'm not trying to make a revolution or something totally impractical.

I just want to have a debate_ if the way we use to scramble the pyraminx is wrong since we started_? Because this is what I think. We let the scrambling program choose if a tip will be scrambled or not. We don't just scramble it and say "oops, that's an easy scramble"...the scrambling program just skips to scramble it!

To put it another way. We get a scramble...there are 2 options it was generated:

1. The actual way the generator gives us a scramble now: U R B' L U u l where the scramble total skips to scramble a tip (which I consider a puzzle itself)...actually 2 in this case.

OR

2. We can have the same scramble: U R B' L U u l, which actually comes from U R B' L U u b3 l r3 which obviously is the same. But there is a big difference in the way it gets scrambled. Every tip get scrambled, but the b3 and r3 obviously are not displayed as they bring the puzzle in a solved state.

I think the first option is the one we use now. Or if the generator works under the 2nd principle, then just let me know and close the thread . It's a big difference in the way those two work. This is why I said in the first post "unless we consider a solved puzzle a scrambled one, if the scramble gives us a solved puzzle".

So, I agree with this scramble if it comes from the 2nd way of scrambling, not from the first one. And why do I say that is best explained in the example in the first post with the 100 tips puzzle.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 30, 2011)

Radu said:


> The actual way the generator gives us a scramble now: U R B' L U u l where the scramble total skips to scramble a tip (which I consider a puzzle itself)...actually 2 in this case.


 

```
var tips=["l","r","b","u"];
  for (i=0;i<4;i++) {
   var j = Math.floor(Math.random() * 3);
   if (j < 2) {
    scramblestring[n] += tips[i] + ["","'"][j] + " ";
    picmove(4+i,1+j,n);
   }
  }
```

Looks like they all get scrambled to me.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 30, 2011)

Radu said:


> U R B' L U u l, which actually comes from U R B' L U u b2 l r2 which obviously is the same.


 
Not at all obvious to me, can you explain how that is the same and what you mean with "comes from"?


----------



## vcuber13 (Nov 30, 2011)

i think hes saying he doesnt understand why there is a 1/3 chance that a tip will be solved


----------



## Radu (Nov 30, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Not at all obvious to me, can you explain how that is the same and what you mean with "comes from"?


Sorry Stefan, you're right...I intended to say b3 and r3. I will just edit.

@kirjava - that code is interesting and should pretty much clear up everything. I'm not that good of a programmer, but does it clearly result everything gets scrambled or he randomly chooses between all 4 tips? So there can be 4 scrambled or none.?


----------



## vcuber13 (Nov 30, 2011)

i believe it generates a random number (1-3) for each of the tips and for example for the u tip, 1 is u 2 is u' and 3 is nothing.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 1, 2011)

Radu said:


> @kirjava - that code is interesting and should pretty much clear up everything. I'm not that good of a programmer, but does it clearly result everything gets scrambled or he randomly chooses between all 4 tips? So there can be 4 scrambled or none.?


 
Everything is scrambled. This entire thread is based upon an assumption you made that was wrong.


----------



## Brunito (Dec 1, 2011)

Tim i dont think you have to say byebye to sub4avgs cause i think Odder Oka and Me and maybe some other pyrmainxer can do sub4 avg 100 with only 4tip  it is not that hard i think


----------



## Carrot (Dec 1, 2011)

Brunito said:


> Tim i dont think you have to say byebye to sub4avgs cause i think Odder Oka and Me and maybe some other pyrmainxer can do sub4 avg 100 with only 4tip  it is not that hard i think


 
I guess I can just edit the scrambler and then do an avg100 and see what happens ;D


----------



## Tim Major (Dec 1, 2011)

Brunito said:


> Tim i dont think you have to say byebye to sub4avgs cause i think Odder Oka and Me and maybe some other pyrmainxer can do sub4 avg 100 with only 4tip  it is not that hard i think


 
I remember at WC when us 4 were cubing (or minxing) and we were timing just 4 tips. The times were over a second. The average amount of tips is 2, so adding 2 more would add roughly .5s.

I agree it's possible, but definitely much harder.


----------



## Radu (Dec 1, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Everything is scrambled. This entire thread is based upon an assumption you made that was wrong.


I didn't make any wrong assumption. I have looked on that code and found how the functions work. It just confirms what I was saying.



Radu said:


> We let the scrambling program choose if a tip will be scrambled or not. We don't just scramble it and say "oops, that's an easy scramble"...the scrambling program just skips to scramble it!




```
...var j = Math.floor(Math.random() * 3)
if (j < 2)...
```
- The Math.random function randomly generates a number between [0; 1) 
- Then we multiply it by 3. 
- Math.floor will take the integer part of this number. So we will have {0,1,2}.
- When the j<2 cycle comes in, we just throw away the {2}s. 

So, 33% the time (when the math.random is between 0.66 and 1) the tip will not get scrambled. It will not get scrambled because of a random function! Not because we chose so! Of course, every tip has to be taken into account, but it's just an illusion that all tips get scrambled because you see "for (i=0;i<4;i++)". It doesn't mean anything if after that "for" we put something that will block the scrambling process. And this is what happens in our case. 

Now it's clear how the generator works and it just proves it works under my nr. 1 assumption above, not the 2nd. Is this the way we want a puzzle get scrambled?

The correct code, from my point of view, should be: 


```
var tips=["l","r","b","u"];
  for (i=0;i<4;i++) {
   var j = Math.floor(Math.random() * [B][COLOR="red"]2[/COLOR][/B]);
   if (j < 2) {
    scramblestring[n] += tips[i] + ["","'"][j] + " ";
    picmove(4+i,1+j,n);
   }
  }
```


----------



## Carrot (Dec 1, 2011)

Tim Major said:


> I remember at WC when us 4 were cubing (or minxing) and we were timing just 4 tips. The times were over a second. The average amount of tips is 2, so adding 2 more would add roughly .5s.
> 
> I agree it's possible, but definitely much harder.



*cough* *cough* Our times was around one second, yours were over 2 seconds. The average number of tips are 2.667, so making all scrambles four tips will just add 1.33 tips, and if I am not mistaken our times were INCLUDING picking up the pyraminx, which is adding 0.3 to the time or so.

4 tips + picking up pyraminx = 1.20 (I think that was our average)
4 tips = 1.20 - 0.3 = 0.9
1.33 tip= 0.3

Which is a bit under your estimation


----------



## Stefan (Dec 1, 2011)

Radu said:


> Now it's clear how the generator works and it just proves it works under my nr. 1 assumption above, not the 2nd.


 
No. If it does prove anything, then that it's your 2., not your 1.

In programming, we usually start with 0, not with 1 as in normal life. It's just an offset of one. Now in the program, note that the number 0 is then displayed as b (=b1), 1 is displayed as b' (=b2) and 2 is not displayed (=b3). That's precisely your 2.:



Radu said:


> 2. We can have the same scramble: U R B' L U u l, which actually comes from U R B' L U u b3 l r3 which obviously is the same. But there is a big difference in the way it gets scrambled. Every tip get scrambled, but the *b3 and r3 obviously are not displayed* as they bring the puzzle in a solved state.


----------



## Radu (Dec 1, 2011)

Ok. I understand your post and it's totally logical. 
But when the generator was created, was it really meant to be like this?
If yes, do you agree with this thinking? Because, if we admit this as correct, it clearly results that we are accepting solved puzzle as scrambled ones if the generator gives us a solved scramble.

What do you think about my version of the code with "2" instead of "3"? It would always generate a puzzle with an unsolved tip..."b" or "b'" for ex. Wouldn't this be the fair solution? And the best way to see this "fairness" is by thinking at the puzzle with 100tips in the example in the first post. It's not fair to give someone to solve 100 tips and to someone else 75.

We basically return to the first post of the topic.


----------



## Godmil (Dec 1, 2011)

This is exactly the same argument for filtering BLD scrambles. Sometimes random pieces are solved, sometimes they're not, they should average out, which is why the competitions look at averages.
I get your point though. But I still think it's more fair to just stick to it being random, rather than forced to be a 'hard random'


----------



## Stefan (Dec 1, 2011)

Radu said:


> But when the generator was created, was it really meant to be like this?



No idea. That's why I said _"*If* it does prove anything"_. You can't tell from the code, but if you try, I think my argument is more direct.



Radu said:


> it clearly results that we are accepting solved puzzle as scrambled ones



Only if you artificially consider the tips separate puzzles, and you seem to be the only one doing that.



Radu said:


> What do you think about my version of the code with "2" instead of "3"?



Looks noobish, there's no point testing for <2 if you limited it to <2 already.


----------



## Radu (Dec 1, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Only if you artificially consider the tips separate puzzles, and you seem to be the only one doing that.


Why wouldn't this be a puzzle? I consider a 1x1x2 still a puzzle. The simplest one that can possibly be...but it is one. It can be scrambled an solved. It has 2 states. The same goes for the tips...a puzzle with 3 states. Maybe I'm not the only one who thinks like that...



Stefan said:


> Looks noobish, there's no point testing for <2 if you limited it to <2 already.


The point is that "var j = Math.floor(Math.random() * 2);" will always give a scrambled tip, therefore we will have a scrambled puzzle. Of course if we regard the tip as one.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 1, 2011)

Radu said:


> I didn't make any wrong assumption. I have looked on that code and found how the functions work. It just confirms what I was saying.



You made a wrong assumption. You don't understand the code. It contradicts what you were saying.

Also, I really wish you would realise how insane you sound when you say that you consider the pyraminx as more than one puzzle.


----------



## Godmil (Dec 1, 2011)

Radu said:


> Why wouldn't this be a puzzle? I consider a 1x1x2 still a puzzle. The simplest one that can possibly be...but it is one. It can be scrambled an solved. It has 2 states. The same goes for the tips...a puzzle with 3 states. Maybe I'm not the only one who thinks like that...



If the event was a single 1x1x2, then you're right it would be meaningless to give a competitor it solved (although even scrambled it is just a +2). However if the event was a whole series of 1x1x2 puzzles in a row, then it would be fine for some of them to naturally be solved.

Or... you could say the edges/centers on a higher order cube are individual puzzles in themselves... would you remove a 4x4 scramble if one edge pair was already made? If you keep reducing puzzles you get into crazy territory, like the 4 main steps in Fridrich are solved in different ways (at least the first 3 are), are they seperate puzzles?


----------



## Stefan (Dec 1, 2011)

Radu said:


> Why wouldn't this be a puzzle? I consider a 1x1x2 still a puzzle. The simplest one that can possibly be...but it is one. It can be scrambled an solved. It has 2 states.



I would've guessed 4 states.

And yes it *would* be a "puzzle" if it were on its own, but here it isn't on its own. Here it's part of the bigger puzzle.

Do you also count "Bucharest" as more than one word? After all, "rest" is a word...
(edit: should've used "speedcubing", cause "Bucha" isn't a word (that I know))


----------



## radmin (Dec 1, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> ```
> var tips=["l","r","b","u"];
> for (i=0;i<4;i++) {
> var j = Math.floor(Math.random() * 3);
> ...




j is used an array index
it will indeed be 0,1,2

if j=0 the tip will be added to the scramble
if j=1 then tip' will be added to the scramble
if j=2 then the tip will not be added to the scramble


----------



## EeeeeWarne (Dec 1, 2011)

Isn't this the point of an *average*?

This is all about screening scrambles, and if we were to do it...why would we scramble all 4 tips? I think everyone would prefer it if no tips were scrambled...Then we can change the event to Tetraminx!



Spoiler



Also, Bucharest can be rearranged and "scrambled" into 475 different words and phrases (just English too!). Admittedly some words are not ones that most people would ever have heard of...



Spoiler



A Butchers
Beach Rust
Beach Ruts
Brace Shut
Brace Thus
Brace Tush
Brace Huts
Braces Hut
Batch User
Batch Ruse
Batch Rues
Batch Sure
Bracts Hue
Bract Hues
Rehab Cuts
Rehabs Cut
Bathes Cur
Bathe Curs
Bate Crush
Beat Crush
Beta Crush
Abet Crush
Bah Cruets
Bah Truces
Bah Eructs
Brash Cute
Bash Truce
Bash Cruet
Bash Eruct
Bash Cuter
Baths Cure
Baths Ecru
Bahts Cure
Bahts Ecru
Bath Curse
Bath Cruse
Bath Ecrus
Bath Cures
Baht Curse
Baht Cruse
Baht Ecrus
Baht Cures
Bar Chutes
Bra Chutes
Bras Chute
Bars Chute
Bursa Etch
Bursa Tech
Ache Burst
Each Burst
Reach Tubs
Reach Stub
Reach Bust
Chaser Tub
Chaser But
Arches Tub
Arches But
Search Tub
Search But
Cheats Rub
Cheats Bur
Sachet Rub
Sachet Bur
Chaste Rub
Chaste Bur
Scathe Rub
Scathe Bur
Teach Burs
Teach Rubs
Cheat Burs
Cheat Rubs
Caster Hub
Carets Hub
Recast Hub
Caters Hub
Traces Hub
Reacts Hub
Crates Hub
Recta Hubs
Recta Bush
Cater Hubs
Cater Bush
React Hubs
React Bush
Trace Hubs
Trace Bush
Caret Hubs
Caret Bush
Carte Hubs
Carte Bush
Crate Hubs
Crate Bush
Arch Tubes
Char Tubes
Crash Tube
Chars Tube
Cash Tuber
Cash Brute
Cash Rebut
Chats Rube
Chat Rubes
Chat Rebus
Hearts Cub
Earths Cub
Haters Cub
Earth Cubs
Heart Cubs
Hater Cubs
Heats Curb
Haste Curb
Hates Curb
Heat Curbs
Heat Scrub
Hate Curbs
Hate Scrub
Eras Butch
Ears Butch
Sear Butch
Ares Butch
Sera Butch
Tares Chub
Aster Chub
Tears Chub
Rates Chub
Stare Chub
Tare Chubs
Tear Chubs
Rate Chubs
Trash Cube
Harts Cube
Hart Cubes
Hast Cuber
Shat Cuber
Hats Cuber
Hat Cubers
As Butcher
Sat Cherub
At Cherubs
A Butch Res
A Chub Erst
A Chub Rest
A Curbs The
A Scrub The
A Herb Cuts
A Herbs Cut
A Bet Crush
A Hub Crest
A Burs Etch
A Burs Tech
A Rubs Etch
A Rubs Tech
A Rub Chest
A Rub Techs
A Bur Chest
A Bur Techs
A Sub Chert
A Sub Retch
A Bus Chert
A Bus Retch
Cab He Rust
Cab He Ruts
Cab Eh Rust
Cab Eh Ruts
Cab She Rut
Cab Hes Rut
Cab Re Shut
Cab Re Thus
Cab Re Tush
Cab Re Huts
Cab Res Hut
Cab Erst Uh
Cab Rest Uh
Batch Re Us
Crab The Us
Crab Set Uh
Bract He Us
Bract Eh Us
Cabs He Rut
Cabs Eh Rut
Cabs Re Hut
Scab He Rut
Scab Eh Rut
Scab Re Hut
Bah Sec Rut
Bah Cur Set
Bah Cuts Re
Bah Cut Res
Bash Cut Re
Bath Rec Us
Baht Rec Us
Bar Etch Us
Bar Tech Us
Bar Sec Hut
Bar Sect Uh
Bar Cuts He
Bar Cuts Eh
Bar Cut She
Bar Cut Hes
Bra Etch Us
Bra Tech Us
Bra Sec Hut
Bra Sect Uh
Bra Cuts He
Bra Cuts Eh
Bra Cut She
Bra Cut Hes
Bras Cut He
Bras Cut Eh
Bars Cut He
Bars Cut Eh
Brat Sec Uh
Abs Rec Hut
Abs Curt He
Abs Curt Eh
Abs Cur The
Abs Cut Her
Tabs Rec Uh
Tabs Cur He
Tabs Cur Eh
Bast Rec Uh
Bast Cur He
Bast Cur Eh
Stab Rec Uh
Stab Cur He
Stab Cur Eh
Bats Rec Uh
Bats Cur He
Bats Cur Eh
Tab Recs Uh
Tab Such Re
Tab Curs He
Tab Curs Eh
Tab Cur She
Tab Cur Hes
Bat Recs Uh
Bat Such Re
Bat Curs He
Bat Curs Eh
Bat Cur She
Bat Cur Hes
Arch Bet Us
Char Bet Us
Chart Be Us
Cash Be Rut
Cash Tub Re
Cash But Re
Chat Sub Re
Chat Bus Re
Car Be Shut
Car Be Thus
Car Be Tush
Car Be Huts
Car Bets Uh
Car Best Uh
Car Hub Set
Car Tubs He
Car Tubs Eh
Car Stub He
Car Stub Eh
Car Bust He
Car Bust Eh
Car Sub The
Car Bus The
Car Tub She
Car Tub Hes
Car But She
Car But Hes
Arc Be Shut
Arc Be Thus
Arc Be Tush
Arc Be Huts
Arc Bets Uh
Arc Best Uh
Arc Hub Set
Arc Tubs He
Arc Tubs Eh
Arc Stub He
Arc Stub Eh
Arc Bust He
Arc Bust Eh
Arc Sub The
Arc Bus The
Arc Tub She
Arc Tub Hes
Arc But She
Arc But Hes
Scar Be Hut
Scar Bet Uh
Scar Tub He
Scar Tub Eh
Scar But He
Scar But Eh
Arcs Be Hut
Arcs Bet Uh
Arcs Tub He
Arcs Tub Eh
Arcs But He
Arcs But Eh
Cars Be Hut
Cars Bet Uh
Cars Tub He
Cars Tub Eh
Cars But He
Cars But Eh
Carts Be Uh
Cart Sub He
Cart Sub Eh
Cart Bus He
Cart Bus Eh
Sac Be Hurt
Sac Be Thru
Sac Rub The
Sac Bur The
Sac Tub Her
Sac But Her
Cats Hub Re
Cats Rub He
Cats Rub Eh
Cats Bur He
Cats Bur Eh
Cast Hub Re
Cast Rub He
Cast Rub Eh
Cast Bur He
Cast Bur Eh
Scat Hub Re
Scat Rub He
Scat Rub Eh
Scat Bur He
Scat Bur Eh
Acts Hub Re
Acts Rub He
Acts Rub Eh
Acts Bur He
Acts Bur Eh
Act Be Rush
Act Herb Us
Act Hubs Re
Act Bush Re
Act Hub Res
Act Burs He
Act Burs Eh
Act Rubs He
Act Rubs Eh
Act Rub She
Act Rub Hes
Act Bur She
Act Bur Hes
Act Sub Her
Act Bus Her
Cat Be Rush
Cat Herb Us
Cat Hubs Re
Cat Bush Re
Cat Hub Res
Cat Burs He
Cat Burs Eh
Cat Rubs He
Cat Rubs Eh
Cat Rub She
Cat Rub Hes
Cat Bur She
Cat Bur Hes
Cat Sub Her
Cat Bus Her
Ha Curb Set
Ha Cub Erst
Ha Cub Rest
Ha Be Crust
Ha Be Curst
Ha Bets Cur
Ha Best Cur
Ha Bet Curs
Ha Rub Sect
Ha Bur Sect
Ha Tubs Rec
Ha Stub Rec
Ha Bust Rec
Ha Tub Recs
Ha But Recs
Ah Curb Set
Ah Cub Erst
Ah Cub Rest
Ah Be Crust
Ah Be Curst
Ah Bets Cur
Ah Best Cur
Ah Bet Curs
Ah Rub Sect
Ah Bur Sect
Ah Tubs Rec
Ah Stub Rec
Ah Bust Rec
Ah Tub Recs
Ah But Recs
Rah Cub Set
Rah Be Cuts
Rah Tub Sec
Rah But Sec
Rash Be Cut
Has Be Curt
Has Bet Cur
Has Tub Rec
Has But Rec
Ash Be Curt
Ash Bet Cur
Ash Tub Rec
Ash But Rec
Hast Cub Re
Hast Be Cur
Shat Cub Re
Shat Be Cur
Hats Cub Re
Hats Be Cur
Hat Cubs Re
Hat Cub Res
Hat Be Curs
Hat Rub Sec
Hat Bur Sec
Hat Sub Rec
Hat Bus Rec
Tsar Cub He
Tsar Cub Eh
Star Cub He
Star Cub Eh
Rats Cub He
Rats Cub Eh
Arts Cub He
Arts Cub Eh
Tars Cub He
Tars Cub Eh
Rat Cubs He
Rat Cubs Eh
Rat Cub She
Rat Cub Hes
Rat Be Such
Rat Hub Sec
Art Cubs He
Art Cubs Eh
Art Cub She
Art Cub Hes
Art Be Such
Art Hub Sec
Tar Cubs He
Tar Cubs Eh
Tar Cub She
Tar Cub Hes
Tar Be Such
Tar Hub Sec
As Butch Re
As Curb The
As Herb Cut
As Rub Etch
As Rub Tech
As Bur Etch
As Bur Tech
Sat Chub Re
Sat Curb He
Sat Curb Eh
Sat Cub Her
Sat Hub Rec
At Chubs Re
At Chub Res
At Curbs He
At Curbs Eh
At Scrub He
At Scrub Eh
At Curb She
At Curb Hes
At Cubs Her
At Cub Hers
At Be Crush
At Hubs Rec
At Bush Rec
At Hub Recs


----------



## qqwref (Dec 1, 2011)

Radu said:


> So, 33% the time (when the math.random is between 0.66 and 1) the tip will not get scrambled. It will not get scrambled because of a random function! Not because we chose so!


Uh, what? Did you read the code? The function picks between [no turn, clockwise turn, counterclockwise turn] randomly for each tip, and prints the correct algorithm based on what it chose. It really does choose a random position. Your two points are exactly the same: there is no difference between choosing to not scramble a tip (and thus printing nothing) and choosing to scramble it by the equivalent of 0 degrees (and thus printing nothing).



Radu said:


> The correct code, from my point of view, should be:


This code is not "corrected" at all. In fact, it simply accomplishes a different task: to randomly choose one of the possible positions in which none of the tips remain solved, as opposed to what we do now, which is randomly choosing one of the possible positions with no restrictions.

Radu, I'd say you should read the topic again before responding, because you don't seem to understand what other people are saying. The question of whether it's even correct to discard obviously easy scrambles has been brought up, and deserves discussion, but your recent posts completely ignore this debate.



Stefan said:


> Do you also count "Bucharest" as more than one word? After all, "rest" is a word...
> (edit: should've used "speedcubing", cause "Bucha" isn't a word (that I know))


Or perhaps "Budapest"


----------



## Radu (Dec 1, 2011)

Godmil said:


> However if the event was a whole series of 1x1x2 puzzles in a row, then it would be fine for some of them to naturally be solved.


Why? I don't agree with this. Shouldn't all competitors have, if possible, the same difficulty for the puzzle? I don't think it's correct to give some to solve 10 1x1x2 and others 5, just because the generator "says" so...


Godmil said:


> Or... you could say the edges/centers on a higher order cube are individual puzzles in themselves... would you remove a 4x4 scramble if one edge pair was already made?


No. Because for pyraminx it's something different and I mentioned also in the initial post. The tips can be solved totally independent from the rest of the puzzle. They don't influence the solve of the main body. Which is not the case for any other puzzle. This is why I think they can be regarded as a different puzzle. 


Stefan said:


> I would've guessed 4 states.


I was thinking at a more simple 2D puzzle when I posted that . Where only a U2 would solve it.


qqwref said:


> Uh, what? Did you read the code? The function picks between [no turn, clockwise turn, counterclockwise turn] randomly for each tip, and prints the correct algorithm based on what it chose.)


Exactly. And my main question was if you think that "no turn" is a fair scrambling pick for the pyraminx' tip? Because I don't really think it is. 
Actually I haven't got a clear answer from anybody until now...just some, more or less, vague opinions which I understand that don't really agree with my point of view and consider a solved state of the tip fair. 
I'm ok with that . Maybe I'm the only one who sees it like this. (As I said, I'm not pretending now to change the regulations because of this). 


qqwref said:


> This code is not "corrected" at all. In fact, it simply accomplishes a different task: to randomly choose one of the possible positions in which none of the tips remain solved, as opposed to what we do now, which is randomly choosing one of the possible positions with no restrictions.


Maybe "corrected" was not the right word.  It's just the code which I consider the "fair" one.


----------



## vcuber13 (Dec 1, 2011)

> No. Because for pyraminx it's something different and I mentioned also in the initial post. The tips can be solved totally independent from the rest of the puzzle. They don't influence the solve of the main body. Which is not the case for any other puzzle. This is why I think they can be regarded as a different puzzle.


your saying that you cant solve the centres on a big cube with out effecting anything else?


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 1, 2011)

Radu said:


> So, I agree with this scramble if it comes from the 2nd way of scrambling, not from the first one.


 
The scramble comes from the second method of scrambling.

You can stop posting now.


----------



## Radu (Dec 2, 2011)

Seriously, your only constructive post in this topic was when you pasted the scramble, the rest is only rubbish trying to tell me that I'm wrong. Even if the others don't seem to really like my point of view, at least they had some interesting comments. You can skip this topic and let others bring arguments. You're not obliged to read or post here.

After reading the first post you could have said like "I think you're not right, the tips get scrambled, but they get in the solved state. I don't have a problem with that" or "Maybe you're right, it's not fair to randomly let the scrambler give the competitors to solve different number of tips"....instead of just writing every post that I'm wrong.

I don't know how you deduct that the scrambler works under the 2nd principle... At a first sight, for me it works under the 1st as it skips the scrambling of a tip...and the same for radmin from what I understand in his post. Stefan said that if that code proves anything, it proves the that it works under 2nd one. And I realized his statement is true too....actually you cannot conclude from the code, what is the real reason why it works like this.


----------



## Sebastien (Dec 2, 2011)

Radu said:


> actually you cannot conclude from the code, what is the real reason why it works like this.


 
Oh come on, this is obviously the only reasonable way a Pyraminx scrambler could work. It just chooses a random position for every tip. That's it. What else would be reasonable to scramble tips? I don't see any other options at the moment.

Also as qq already pointed out, your 2 ways of scrambling mentioned earlier in the thread are equivalent as they result in exactly the same probability distribution. You just seem to completely ignore that.

Eventually I understand wh you say, that Pyraminx -Tips differ from any other kind of pieces that we know from Speedcubing puzzles. But what you need to understand is, that your argumentation makes no sense speedcubingwise. We just regulary skip moves at every kind of puzzle. So why not for Pyraminx? An unscrambled tip is still way fairer as an unforced LL-Skip.

So here is my clear answer to you: I don't consider unscrambled tips as unfair in any way.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 2, 2011)

Radu said:


> Seriously, your only constructive post in this topic was when you pasted the scramble, the rest is only rubbish trying to tell me that I'm wrong. Even if the others don't seem to really like my point of view, at least they had some interesting comments. You can skip this topic and let others bring arguments. You're not obliged to read or post here.
> 
> After reading the first post you could have said like "I think you're not right, the tips get scrambled, but they get in the solved state. I don't have a problem with that" or "Maybe you're right, it's not fair to randomly let the scrambler give the competitors to solve different number of tips"....instead of just writing every post that I'm wrong.



ahahahaha



Radu said:


> I don't know how you deduct that the scrambler works under the 2nd principle... At a first sight, for me it works under the 1st as it skips the scrambling of a tip...and the same for radmin from what I understand in his post. Stefan said that if that code proves anything, it proves the that it works under 2nd one. And I realized his statement is true too....actually you cannot conclude from the code, what is the real reason why it works like this.


 
All tips are scrambled. If the scramble is a 3 the turn is ignored as it should be. It doesn't 'skip' scrambling any tips. This is the same as your "second principle".

You obviously do not understand the code enough to discuss this topic correctly.


----------

