# Memorizing in pairs for toggle methods



## Stefan (Jul 5, 2008)

Memorizing in pairs with separate memory items for the first/second part of a pair (like person/action pairs) is particularly beneficial for "toggle methods" like M2. Which toggle between two "states" so that solving the same certain something requires two different algorithms for the two different states. So people think they need to be aware of the toggling state while solving. This is wrong! Many people know this already but I think many don't and that's a real pity because it works so beautifully.

----------------------------------------

Take a cube with the usual BOY color scheme and hold U=yellow and F=orange. Then scramble:
F2 R' D R B D' F2 D B' R' D' R

Solving with the M2 method from DF as buffer, the targets are:

```
1. orange/blue (FR)
2. orange/green (FL)
3. yellow/orange (UF)
4. white/blue (DR)
```

For each of the 24 possible color pairs, I have a person and an action. I memorize in pairs, first the person, then the action. So I'd translate the above to:

```
orange/blue    =>  Joel
orange/green   =>  laugh
yellow/orange  =>  Dad
white/blue     =>  bite
```

So I could memorize this as a short story of Joel laughing really loudly and my dad gets annoyed and bites him.

Then when I'm blindfolded, I execute the algorithms according to what I memorized. For each of the 2*24 possible memory items, I know exactly what to do:

```
Joel   =>  U R U' M2 U R' U'
laugh  =>  U' L' U M2 U' L U
Dad    =>  U2 M' U2 M'
bite   =>  U R2 U' M2 U R2 U'
```

----------------------------------------

So far, nothing special. But now let's try this scramble:
R2 F R2 U' R D' U F' D R2 F' R2

It's just like the above case, only the order of the middle two targets is switched, so I have to target UF before FL instead of the other way around:

```
1. orange/blue (FR)
2. yellow/orange (UF)
3. orange/green (FL)
4. white/blue (DR)
```

Again I translate the color pairs to memory person/action pairs. Notice it again starts with Joel and ends with bite, but the middle two items have changed:

```
orange/blue    =>  Joel
yellow/orange  =>  paint
orange/green   =>  Randi
white/blue     =>  bite
```

In this case the story could be Joel painting a picture of a sandwich and Randi tries to eat it.

Then blindfolded I apply the algorithms according to the mental items:

```
Joel   =>  U R U' M2 U R' U'
paint  =>  M U2 M U2
Randi  =>  U' L' U M2 U' L U
bite   =>  U R2 U' M2 U R2 U'
```

----------------------------------------

And right there is the beauty. The yellow/orange edge is translated to either "Dad" or "paint", depending on whether I'm at the first or second item in a pair. Which is the same as whether I'm at the untoggled or the toggled state. And "Dad" and "paint" have different algorithms assigned to them, each appropriate for their respective toggling state.

This means that the toggling issue can be ignored! I simply memorize in person/action pairs and pretend the toggling doesn't even happen! The memory method takes care of handling the toggling so that I don't have to be the least bit aware of the toggling and it's current state.


----------



## Inusagi (Jul 5, 2008)

I like it, cause those things normally stops me for a second while I am blindfolding...


----------



## clincher (Jul 5, 2008)

So for each edge you have a person and an action and for each person/object you have an alg. Was that easy to memorize or was it easy for you? Because I'm learning M2 and I liked the way you explained it, so this may be my memory method.


----------



## blah (Jul 5, 2008)

Does this simply mean the "track keeping" of the toggling happens during the memorization instead of the execution? _VERY_ good idea. And I'm glad you posted this 'cause I'm not one of those many people who already know this 

@clincher: I think Macky mentioned somewhere else in this sub-forum that it's much more effective to assign algorithms to persons/actions/objects rather than assigning them to pieces because of the "layers" of thinking involved. If you assign algs to pieces, this is what you're gonna get in your head during execution: person/action/object -> piece -> alg, that's two "layers". If you assign algs to persons/actions/objects, this is what you get: person/action/object -> alg, that's one "layer", and it greatly reduces thinking time when you have to go through the same process for about twelve times during a typical solve. And about the "so this may be my memory method", I wouldn't call this a memory _method_, it's more like a memorization _technique_ or _trick_? You can use any method on Earth you like, some use P/A/O, others use numbers, and I use letters, it doesn't matter because this same technique can be applied to any method used.


----------



## Stefan (Jul 5, 2008)

clincher said:


> So for each edge you have a person and an action and for each person/object you have an alg. Was that easy to memorize or was it easy for you?



Yes, this is a quite easy and natural way to memorize. That actually adds to the beauty. I don't pay extra for the toggle-ignoring benefit, instead I get it for free with the method I like anyway. Also, memorizing in pairs rather than single items takes half as many mental route locations, I visualize half as many scenes, and I get to know about parity for free. Thanks for the question. I've been doing this for so long that I take these things for granted and forgot to mention them.

Oh and notice that I don't have twice as many algs. This doesn't need any extra algs at all. Each alg just occurs twice, once for some person and once for some action.


----------



## Stefan (Jul 5, 2008)

blah said:


> Does this simply mean the "track keeping" of the toggling happens during the memorization instead of the execution?


I'd say no. It happened even earlier. In the design of the memory method. When I now get a cube, then neither during analysis/memorization nor during twisting do I think about the toggling. It's completely encoded/hidden inside the method.


----------



## Lotsofsloths (Jul 5, 2008)

IREALLY do not understand this xD
Yes I can BLD and yes I use M2.
So basically for each algorithm to shoot to a place(lets say DR=U R2 U' M2 U R2 U') so DR would either be Dr.Pepper or Drink(verb). And if its a verb its in the 2nd phase of toggle. And kind of like Petrus's thing where an alg = an algorithm. so once you hear Dr.Pepper you know its the first phase of toggle and you know what alg to do(U R2 U' M2 U...)

Thats what you mean right?
Ahh NVM, Im justgonna confuse everyone including ymself xD


----------



## Stefan (Jul 5, 2008)

Yes, you're right. Just that in case of DR, both Dr. Pepper and Drink translate to the same algorithm. Only the persons/actions of the M-slice targets have different algorithms (and for the R2 method, those of the R-slice targets).

This really was an afterthought or rather unexpected observation. I've been memorizing in pairs like that already for my older method, because of the other benefits and because the memory sport people do this, too (although some even use person/action/object triples). And my older method didn't have the toggling issue. So later, after inventing M2, I noticed that what I'd been doing already comes with this free extra benefit.


----------



## Tyson (Jul 5, 2008)

This is pretty cool. I think I had a less elegant solution for this (inspired by Rowe (my have involved a baseball cap)).

But thanks so much! We will definitely need to find you a girlfriend in Atlanta. Maybe we should hold a competition for it?


----------



## Stefan (Jul 5, 2008)

Something to consider, though: If you use Dr Pepper and Drink, i.e., you encode the target so literally, this might confuse you for understanding the idea, although I imagine it won't be bad for later actual usage. Notice that both "Dad" and "paint" encode yellow/orange for me, but that is not obvious. In fact, I can't explain a connection between them and that color pair. I assigned them arbitrarily. If you encode yellow/orange (UF) as let's say "UFe Meffert" and "UFfend" (these are terrible, but I can't think of anything better), then you might always have UF in mind and have trouble seeing that UFfend actually needs the DB algorithm. But really I only imagine this to hinder initial understanding but probably not later usage.


----------



## Stefan (Jul 5, 2008)

Tyson said:


> This is pretty cool. I think I had a less elegant solution for this (inspired by Rowe (my have involved a baseball cap)).


I'm interested to hear about it. And if it addresses the same issue, this thread would be a great place to add it to.



Tyson said:


> We will definitely need to find you a girlfriend in Atlanta.


Oh yes please. Preferably one usually living in Darmstadt or at least anywhere near me or at least not on another continent with a wide ocean in between.


----------



## tim (Jul 5, 2008)

That's almost exactly the same way i memorize. But instead of actions i use a mixture of actions/objects. Depends on the first object.
And to show what's possible with this method (after some practice):
24 cubes blindfolded
12 cubes in 36 minutes
4 cubes in under 9 minutes


----------



## amateurguy (Jul 7, 2008)

I've been looking for good example solves for M2 on this forum (I'm planning to switch to M2 from T-perm) but I couldn't get one that properly explained the memorization part.

But lo and behold... thanks so much, my understanding about memorizing M-slice edges are much clearer now. Just a question, because you assigned people and actions arbitrarily to edges without any connections, won't it be difficult at first to recall your image during memorization? 

For example, right now I numbered each edge from 1 to 12 (I use pre-orient), but I've experimented with memorizing using people whose names start with the letter A to K. But then if I want to switch to M2, I need to store almost twice as many figures to cycle stickers (not counting actions for memo-ing in pairs). Can someone be so kind to post his/her list of images assigned to each sticker? I need some help in this storing system (and a bit of inspiration!).

By the way, I plan to use a journey system from the front door of my house to the back door and placing Persons-Actions or Persons-Objects along the way.


----------



## Stefan (Jul 7, 2008)

amateurguy said:


> Just a question, because you assigned people and actions arbitrarily to edges without any connections, won't it be difficult at first to recall your image during memorization?



Maybe at first, yes. When I started, I used persons/objects which had some connection to the color pair. Like Donald Duck for white/blue. It can help getting used to it, but in the end I think it doesn't matter anymore, once you're used to it. And some of my old items really sucked so I replaced them with more memorable ones, not caring about an explainable connection between color pair and item. I now think of explainable connections as some kind of "training wheels", in the beginning they can help, but later you don't need them anymore, and they could perhaps even disturb because you might somewhat unconsciously always translate to the item through the explanation. Same reason I'm still looking at the F2L pair I'm currently solving rather than the next one. Helps in the beginning but it's a habit that's hard to get rid off, and it's now bad for me. I imagine people who just learned and practiced algorithms without understanding them don't have this trouble. All that said, I do have some I can explain and others I can't. The above possible advantages/disadvantages are just that - possible. I'm not sure about any of it. Do whatever fits you.


----------

