@@JPerm I Had Already Watched That And Re Watched It Fully After Reading Your Comment But There's No Mention Of Reverse Moves In That Vid And I Still Don't Understand What It Means
Amazing video! I’m so glad I found this channel! I appreciate you, you have great fundamental understanding of how to teach AND you strive for quality work. I also like that you speak objectively. Keep going!
I really like the work you put it in the last two videos, I'm no statistician but this looks solid enough. Taking risk into account sounds very difficult because different cubers have different abilities, and wouldn't rate the same things with the same risk. So we would need to weight each risk factor differently making a personalised formula for each cuber.
I think this would be super useful for events such as OH. As times are not taken into factor you could just make a new tap and use the information from the previous tap. Yes you don't always use the same alg as you would for TH but it would mean you'd only have to input the information once, plus I think it'd be interesting to see the coefficients of doing OH algs TH and vice versa.
I had some training in econometrics, I can identify two big problems: 1. You are feeding 2x data points into a formula with 7 predictors (6 columns + intercept), and there is 1 obviously very strong correlation (SHTM). It is not surprising that the data will fit well. But, if u regress only the residual after removing the effect of SHTM, you will find the remaining R^2 is only 0.56, that means your additional factors are contributing poorly to the formula; or you are missing out a lot of other factors. And, as u may know, missing variable that is correlated with the regressors will undermine the whole regression. Link: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JbE-ISv2BkIuP3becsniqi5KqnA7pqQf4l1VqD8-JtI/edit?usp=sharing 2. The data feeding is quite horrible, as one should tell from the negative coefficient of slice. Come on, 2x data never would be qualified as a good data source. Also, as a cuber, I would say initial and AUF regrips/rotations are definitely important. This is a methodological problem instead of statistical. And that's the main thing I disagree with your formula. It is an interesting video to watch, but for now I don't see myself using your formula at all.
I think the best dataset for algorithms would be a pb ao5. It takes risk into account, but still bases the data of doing perfect execution, which should happen with practice. Another thing is that some moves flow better than others, like a regripless 2 gen alg is much faster than a regripless RUF gen alg of the same move count. I also feel like another factor could be about favouring certain triggers, as people have done these moves hundreds (maybe thousands) or times over, which is why people like the j perm Na pll because of the mindless and fast execution of the j perm as oppose to new an weird move combinations. This effect does slowly reduce overtime when people become more familiar with the alg, but it is still worth thinking about. I really like the idea though, and it already looks reasonable accurate. Hope you get to read this :)
Maybe a bigger PB average like 12, but yeah I think something like that would be a good control. Flow based on move ease could be captured in adding more columns with those moves described somehow, like number of F/R/D/U moves each counted. I'm not sure how it would turn out with all these columns, but i might do it someday once I have a bigger dataset
Risk of an algorithm can be quantified by considering the variance in turn times for one algorithm. Riskier alg -> easier to mess up -> turn times fluctuate more -> larger variance.
That's a good idea! I could use these factors to instead of predict time, predict the variance in each alg. Then you could see which factors are the riskiest.
Have you put the stats from all your alternative v-perms, into your formula. Which one turned out to be better, according to your formula? Do you agree with the formula?
Interesting thought. My V perm and the reverse are both 19 or 17 depending on how you count the regrip. I'm thinking they should actually both be soft regrips, so 17. The standard (with rotation) is at least 16.5 (14.5 in moves, 2 for rotation). The last segment has 2 overworks making it 19.5, but if you do it as index-middle-otherthumb, the overworks are gone. This is way harder though, and with tons of practice I've never made it consistent. Besides the formula, my alg has a large soft regrip vs the smaller soft regrip in its inverse, making it worse. However, it also doesn't start with a regrip, so these 2 may balance out. The standard alg's rotation requires regripping both hands, which is probably worth more than a normal regrip and is my main source of mess ups. The formula says the standard may be the fastest by a little bit, but the amount of stuff that needs to go right is too much for me. So I still like mine best!
I agree you should have used avg times for pll and a larger data set to be able to maybe account for risk as the numbers produced are just ratios of different factor's speed
I think that would be useful, but I don't think I necessarily *should* have since knowing potential speed is also a useful thing. Well I should have done both, but I wanted to save my hands 😭
Really loved the video. This is very good for deciding what algorithm you can learn because once you start learning many advanced algorithms there are many options... And, for people thinking that this is too mathematical... Well for many competitive sports or video games there are so many mathematical things that people have discovered but you don't know about the maths behind it cause when you learnt it you learnt it in simple language...
Instead of amount of regrips, add a regrip score. Like how bad the regrips are in total. Soft regrip: 0.5, meh regrip: 0.75, hard regrip: 1, really hard regrip: 1.5.
Good idea! I think giving them subjective scores like this may not be right, but the better way in theory is to just have those as separate columns and let the math do the work to discover those numbers (maybe that's what you were suggesting). In practice, I feel like not enough algs have regrips mid way, making this calculation even harder.
Cube Head improved this by counting “ghost moves”. Basically, ghost moves are moves that take so little time they’re negligible. This would allow you to not count them. For example, in R U’ R, the U’ doesn’t really take up any time, so it’s basically an R2 in terms of time.
Ga: M2 U2 M2 U' (Jb-perm) U' M2 U2 M2 *Block on the right Gb: M2 U2 M2 (Jb-perm) M2 U2 M2 *Block on the left Gc: M2 U2 M2 U (Ja-perm only left hand) U M2 U2 M2 *Block on the left Gd: M2 U2 M2 (Ja-perm only left hand) M2 U2 M2 *Block on the right
I really like math so now I like your channel even more! :) Could we see a spreadsheet of your OLL alg times to get more information in order to get a better formula?
that was super interesting!! the problem I seem to have is that I'm terrible at learning algs-although I've gotten a bit better-so I don't know if I can get much benefit out of it. I've been optimizing my CMLL algset to be easy to remember and apply, rather than necessarily the fastest possible algs. but it does point towards why my As2 alg feels so much snappier than my S4 alg, even though they're inverse.
I thought for some algos, doing AUF after PLL can be harder. Like doing U' after A perm (i dont know which A perm, but i hope you get my point). So maybe you can add AUF on that sheet. Overall its very interesting content, mybe one of the best cubing content in history. Haha.
Oh idk is it better example or not. At least for me, i cant doing AUF instantly after this Ja perm algo x U2 r' U' r U2 l' U R' U' R2 bcs i should doing AUF with D. Thats why i change my Ja perm to the reverse version of that alg.
Yes, PLL algs where you can't AUF after should just be avoided. The A perm isn't bad though, since one of your hands gets to stay in home grip and can do all 3 AUFs from there.
I don't think using PB times is the best option for this, since they represent only a single data point. If you plugged some kind of average in there you might get something slightly better
im curious how much the direction of the corner cuts affect the times. I mean its more convenient to do for exapmle R'U than R'U', but how much faster it is? It feels like negative corner cuts are riskier from the aspect of lock-ups, so maybe they affect the average times more, than singles. For example this U perm: RUR'UR'U'R2U'R'UR'UR - this seems a very good alg from this perspective it has 8 of the better corner cuts, and just 4 negative (maybe its not the best exaplme it just feels like it, maybe because it doesnt have any regrips or overwork).
No idea how much of an impact this has, but that's something I never thought of! It's probably also more important when doing difficult turns, such as reverse flicks (push turns)
_@@JPerm:_ I do know the Following. REPEAT 1: "Well, I got 25.5 and 27.5 for these Algorithms. This means that they are slower than an *N-perm.* 🤦👎🗑 Ga: M2 U2 M2 U' (Jb-perm) U' M2 U2 M2 *Block on the right Gb: M2 U2 M2 (Jb-perm) M2 U2 M2 *Block on the left Gc: M2 U2 M2 U (Ja-perm only left hand) U M2 U2 M2 *Block on the left Gd: M2 U2 M2 (Ja-perm only left hand) M2 U2 M2 *Block on the right"
Hey, what do you think about doing the same thing with the whole solve ? Yes, there are more factors that can influence your solve. However, one of the most significant factor is lookahead, so, having your time and solve efficiency, you can find your lookahead efficiency coefficient and to compare it with other cubers.
This is soooo interesting, would it be possible to make a formula that feeding the actual alg to it, it could calculate how many regips, overworks, soft regrip, etc, and spit out a score, that would be revolutionary! Giving that to a computer alg finder, and we might have a whole new set of optimized algs?
In your next video could you talk about the reverse moves cause I have tried to work it out myself but I have no clue on what I need to do. I think it will help a lot of us. By the way great idea!
Hey jperm just recommending but for pll you can use L',U,R,U',L,U2,R',U,R,U2,R' for JB Just to let you know last month I used your code JPERM last month at scs
I'm joining a subject name Forcasting. It's main goal absolutely for forcasting and just very same as what you are doing in this video, maybe more complexity. If Covid-19 didn't exist, I would probably do this project for passing this subject after watching your video. What a nice video !!!
This is a great piece work. Really interesting. Would it be possible for something like this to be used where you put in your times for predefined algs and it tells you which factors appear to effect your times most? Like regrips, slices etc - to help you identify what to work on?
What about working with floating numbers for each move? E.g.have 1.0 for R, but 1.2 for L' ? just in case the left hand is slower? This would result in a small table for 1 number every move (regular, prime and double). Additional to your concept of overworking a finger, I want point out that sometimes a move is more expensive than usual. E.g. after a R' move the index finger is set up for a F move, but not for a U. (I am not sure if this is already covered by regrips; but I doubt it) just my 2 cents; I like your idea of introducing another metric
Adding columns for each moves sounds interesting. I feel like it would be more useful if RUL algs were common, but the good ones are always mostly R or mostly L, so you could just do a separate analysis on entire algs (comparing mirrored algs) rather than individual moves.
Your second point could be covered by reverse moves since in your example the U would have to be done lefty. Or if you use a special finger trick like right index push, you could make a separate column for that type of move.
@@JPerm I guess a state-diagram could depict the problem at best. Let's have the notation for a state like (R): meaning, the last move was R. Or (RU), meaning the last moves were R and U. And have transitions from one state to another state (or same state again); each transition has floating number costs between e.g. 0.5 and 2.5. Let's note the transition like -R'-> meaning the move is R'. Have () as start-state with no history, a sequence for sexy-move could look like: () -R-> (R) -U> (RU) -R'-> (RUR') -U'> (UR'U') and it allows for some very common and fast moves to have only very little cost (last two transitions). It also allows to code overwork a finger, because the states have a "history". But to be honest, this state-machine could get very big and it needs to be learned by a AI, having input data as you provided in your video. Number of state-transitions: 12 moves * 3 variants (regular, prime, double) = 36 Number of states with just 2 recent moves stored: 36*36 = 1296 (very big) Number of states with 3 recent moves: 36*36*36 = 46656 (way too big) But a state-machine allows to have some states with only 1 move history, some 2 with 2 move history and so on, this should help to keep the states less. All in all this sounds as a big pile of work, and I question if this is worth it. For every cuber the transtion costs would be different. It depends on what finger tricks a cuber has mastered. And how good he is for some specific finger tricks. A roux-cuber is certainly trained better at M, M2 and M' moves than a CFOP-cuber. But maybe he is a bit slower on RUR'U'. Please go on with your idea of another metric, it is so more simplistic than my idea. (And helps me to improve my own metric analyer, that got too complicated and I stopped that project :)
OMG!!!!! These Gperm’s are driving me insane 🙈 Why can’t I remember them🤷♂️ the triggers are so difficult. The only nice thing is JPERM’s website and that I can practice two at a time that bounce back and forth.
JPerm, I have a question about H perm finger tricks. I use different finger tricks and I'm by no means a super fast cuber, but I think the way I do the H perm is better than the way you do it. I'd like to hear your thoughts on it because this way removes the soft regrip you do with your left index finger when you do the U' moves. 1. M2 flick with my right hand (same as you) 2. A U turn with the back side (or nail) of my left index finger 3. M2 flick again with my right hand 4. U2 flick with my left hand, left index finger quickly followed by my left middle finger 5. M2 flick again with my right hand 6. A U turn with the back side of my left index finger again 7. M2 flick to finish it. It may not be worth it because you have to set up your left index finger to the UFL corner, but you can do that when you set up for the M2 slices anyway
Yours is better if you define overworks differently than I did, and assume reverse moves don't cost more time or risk. So there is potential for it to be faster, but I suspect it's about the same.
@@JPerm Is there a reason you do it the way you do instead of the way I do? Bc the way I do it seems to flow much smoother. And have you ever executed it the way I do bc if you haven't I recommend trying it-you might like it more
This is really cool! I have a question that I haven't actually found an answer to in my brief browsing of the internet. Is it fine to do eido U2 instead of the double flick U2?
I'm not sure, but the only time I ever use that is for final AUF since I can't bridge it nicely with any other turns. For anyone wondering, eido is when you do 1 flick for U2, for example moving your right index finger from BRU to FLU
Well, i recommend that you should learn the double flick for a reason: -When you make a turn with a single finger twice, that would cause you to overwork your finger, which will result to a badder solve because, I dont remember exactly but if we do the math here.., Lets say you do a U2 with one finger, a turn cause 1 and because you overwork you had to go back to the point where you start which lets say, cost you 0.5.. And if you do a U2 10 times.., 0.5 x 10 = 5 seconds slower. The reason the double flick was an advantage is because you use two fingers to make a turn which automatically remove the 'overwork' part which saves a lot of times. *Coming from a sub 14 solvers, To other people who are more experienced and far better than me, please correct myself if i stated something wrong. Thank you.*
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
when u create an algorithm to evaluate algorithms
lol
Pretty much the best way to describe this
@@kavegem9801 no, he could still input it
@@kavegem9801 argh, now I get what you mean. Recursively using algorithms to check if algorithms that tests algorithms work😆
There is big O which is used to check how "good" or fast the algorithm is as the input increases.
Difficulty: *Asian*
Grace Williams lmao
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
HE'S CANADIAN
@I Will defeat jperm r/woooosh
emotional damage
J Perm trying to change the way we cube
Nice channel btw
yes this is brand new stuff never seen before
When my non-cuber friends ask how i learn how i solve cubes i’ll show them this to make me look smart xD
hahaha lmafo i just did the same thing xD
After watching this video:
My brain*: **The What**
Me: *Look's like I'm good with the algorithms that I earlier used*
I love how I'm watching a cubing video that doesn't have a cube in it
Blindfolded method !
It does at 0:05
a cubing video that make us look smarter
I changed my algorithms after the Your Algorithm Sucks video
and
J Perm:
Every non cuber: SEE PEOPLE WHO SOLVE RUBIX COOBS ARE GOOD AT MATH
every cuber: too confusing MY BRAIN IS BREAKING
Fr🗿
nah bro he went to study in college
you're now a mathemagician
Mathecuber
Cube magician
It seems nobody got the reference...
cubetician
JPERM :"AND NEXT IS THE REVERSE MOVE..."
ME: "WTH IS HE TALKING ABOUT?"
All explained in the main video!
@@JPerm oooo he maaad
@@JPerm I Had Already Watched That And Re Watched It Fully After Reading Your Comment But There's No Mention Of Reverse Moves In That Vid And I Still Don't Understand What It Means
@@JPerm Is a reverse move when you do U with your right hand then 1 move later you do *U'* with your *right* hand
J perm please can make the video about rubik's cube patterns please
flexing his true asian
flexing his *computer science
Sneaky Demons hes canadian...
He's candian
The work you've put into creating this algorithm is godly, great explanation so 👍
J perm : Comment any more coloumn I can add.
Me : If I could understand
Amazing video! I’m so glad I found this channel! I appreciate you, you have great fundamental understanding of how to teach AND you strive for quality work. I also like that you speak objectively. Keep going!
I really like the work you put it in the last two videos, I'm no statistician but this looks solid enough. Taking risk into account sounds very difficult because different cubers have different abilities, and wouldn't rate the same things with the same risk. So we would need to weight each risk factor differently making a personalised formula for each cuber.
Finally a comment worth reading not just I can't understand or I'm early....
Btw I agree
Finally a comment worth reading not just I can't understand or I'm early....
Btw I agree
Oh no, if Feliks gets his hands on this, he'll make 150% more efficient OLL and PLL algs
wellll, there's probably gonna be a 2.7 UWR probably lol.
RIP Yu Sheng Du
Let's be honest in most of his solves that are good times(for him meaning sub 5) he uses ZBLL
He tries to pretend that he's a mathematician.
*smart move right there*
I think this would be super useful for events such as OH. As times are not taken into factor you could just make a new tap and use the information from the previous tap. Yes you don't always use the same alg as you would for TH but it would mean you'd only have to input the information once, plus I think it'd be interesting to see the coefficients of doing OH algs TH and vice versa.
I wish more cubes could do stuff like this. This takes a lot of work but the results are so cool in my opinion.
I had some training in econometrics, I can identify two big problems:
1. You are feeding 2x data points into a formula with 7 predictors (6 columns + intercept), and there is 1 obviously very strong correlation (SHTM). It is not surprising that the data will fit well.
But, if u regress only the residual after removing the effect of SHTM, you will find the remaining R^2 is only 0.56, that means your additional factors are contributing poorly to the formula; or you are missing out a lot of other factors. And, as u may know, missing variable that is correlated with the regressors will undermine the whole regression.
Link: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JbE-ISv2BkIuP3becsniqi5KqnA7pqQf4l1VqD8-JtI/edit?usp=sharing
2. The data feeding is quite horrible, as one should tell from the negative coefficient of slice. Come on, 2x data never would be qualified as a good data source.
Also, as a cuber, I would say initial and AUF regrips/rotations are definitely important. This is a methodological problem instead of statistical. And that's the main thing I disagree with your formula.
It is an interesting video to watch, but for now I don't see myself using your formula at all.
When J Perm unboxed the Dayan Tengyun v2
‘I thought cubing wasn’t Maths related’
J perm also uses maths to create an amazing formula
I think the best dataset for algorithms would be a pb ao5. It takes risk into account, but still bases the data of doing perfect execution, which should happen with practice. Another thing is that some moves flow better than others, like a regripless 2 gen alg is much faster than a regripless RUF gen alg of the same move count. I also feel like another factor could be about favouring certain triggers, as people have done these moves hundreds (maybe thousands) or times over, which is why people like the j perm Na pll because of the mindless and fast execution of the j perm as oppose to new an weird move combinations. This effect does slowly reduce overtime when people become more familiar with the alg, but it is still worth thinking about. I really like the idea though, and it already looks reasonable accurate. Hope you get to read this :)
Maybe a bigger PB average like 12, but yeah I think something like that would be a good control. Flow based on move ease could be captured in adding more columns with those moves described somehow, like number of F/R/D/U moves each counted. I'm not sure how it would turn out with all these columns, but i might do it someday once I have a bigger dataset
@@JPerm awesome I appreciate the input :), thanks for replying and yeah more columns would work well
I guess my turning, my AUF, my look ahead, and my algorithms suck
I took a basic econometrics class last semester, and after learning the OLS, I can understand everything about statistics that you showed here!
Risk of an algorithm can be quantified by considering the variance in turn times for one algorithm. Riskier alg -> easier to mess up -> turn times fluctuate more -> larger variance.
That's a good idea! I could use these factors to instead of predict time, predict the variance in each alg. Then you could see which factors are the riskiest.
193 ways to have a big brain moment in cubing 👀
You got the stonk charts man, such mafematics.
Conrgats!
Today onwards, Jperm is officially a Data Analysis channel!
Not to be mean or anything but your name reminds me of an Indian college in the middle of nowhere
Have you put the stats from all your alternative v-perms, into your formula.
Which one turned out to be better, according to your formula?
Do you agree with the formula?
Interesting thought.
My V perm and the reverse are both 19 or 17 depending on how you count the regrip. I'm thinking they should actually both be soft regrips, so 17.
The standard (with rotation) is at least 16.5 (14.5 in moves, 2 for rotation). The last segment has 2 overworks making it 19.5, but if you do it as index-middle-otherthumb, the overworks are gone. This is way harder though, and with tons of practice I've never made it consistent.
Besides the formula, my alg has a large soft regrip vs the smaller soft regrip in its inverse, making it worse. However, it also doesn't start with a regrip, so these 2 may balance out. The standard alg's rotation requires regripping both hands, which is probably worth more than a normal regrip and is my main source of mess ups.
The formula says the standard may be the fastest by a little bit, but the amount of stuff that needs to go right is too much for me. So I still like mine best!
@@JPerm Use the wide T perm xD
@@JPerm How about the R2/U/D T-perm that is 13 moves?
[R2 U R2 U'] R2 (U' D) [R2 U' R2 U] R2 D'
Interesting. How about factoring awkward moves. This could make it easier to consider the risk.
Watch the earlier vid so you remember that this gets better with practice!
I agree you should have used avg times for pll and a larger data set to be able to maybe account for risk as the numbers produced are just ratios of different factor's speed
I think that would be useful, but I don't think I necessarily *should* have since knowing potential speed is also a useful thing. Well I should have done both, but I wanted to save my hands 😭
Really loved the video. This is very good for deciding what algorithm you can learn because once you start learning many advanced algorithms there are many options... And, for people thinking that this is too mathematical... Well for many competitive sports or video games there are so many mathematical things that people have discovered but you don't know about the maths behind it cause when you learnt it you learnt it in simple language...
Instead of amount of regrips, add a regrip score. Like how bad the regrips are in total. Soft regrip: 0.5, meh regrip: 0.75, hard regrip: 1, really hard regrip: 1.5.
Good idea! I think giving them subjective scores like this may not be right, but the better way in theory is to just have those as separate columns and let the math do the work to discover those numbers (maybe that's what you were suggesting). In practice, I feel like not enough algs have regrips mid way, making this calculation even harder.
Ok
Now i understand the difference between normal cuber and genius cuber...
Cube Head improved this by counting “ghost moves”. Basically, ghost moves are moves that take so little time they’re negligible. This would allow you to not count them. For example, in R U’ R, the U’ doesn’t really take up any time, so it’s basically an R2 in terms of time.
With a bigger dataset, you could totally publish a research paper on this (with someone to help you of course). Kudos to you Dylan Wang.
If a noncuber were to stumble on this video, the stereotype that "cubers have to be smart or good at math" would be reinforced in them lol
Ga:
M2 U2 M2 U' (Jb-perm) U' M2 U2 M2
*Block on the right
Gb:
M2 U2 M2 (Jb-perm) M2 U2 M2
*Block on the left
Gc:
M2 U2 M2 U (Ja-perm only left hand) U M2 U2 M2
*Block on the left
Gd:
M2 U2 M2 (Ja-perm only left hand) M2 U2 M2
*Block on the right
I really like math so now I like your channel even more! :)
Could we see a spreadsheet of your OLL alg times to get more information in order to get a better formula?
Show your cube collection
Plzz
Hey J Perm I’ve be watching since 150k keep up the great work love the videos
Really good and thorough explanation. Great video as always!
warning: brain.exe just crashed
This is really awesome, nice work!
You should make a video of good practice routines to get better. I’d love to see your tips!
that was super interesting!!
the problem I seem to have is that I'm terrible at learning algs-although I've gotten a bit better-so I don't know if I can get much benefit out of it. I've been optimizing my CMLL algset to be easy to remember and apply, rather than necessarily the fastest possible algs.
but it does point towards why my As2 alg feels so much snappier than my S4 alg, even though they're inverse.
this is actually amazing. nice work!
I thought for some algos, doing AUF after PLL can be harder. Like doing U' after A perm (i dont know which A perm, but i hope you get my point). So maybe you can add AUF on that sheet.
Overall its very interesting content, mybe one of the best cubing content in history. Haha.
Oh idk is it better example or not. At least for me, i cant doing AUF instantly after this Ja perm algo x U2 r' U' r U2 l' U R' U' R2 bcs i should doing AUF with D. Thats why i change my Ja perm to the reverse version of that alg.
Yes, PLL algs where you can't AUF after should just be avoided. The A perm isn't bad though, since one of your hands gets to stay in home grip and can do all 3 AUFs from there.
I don't think using PB times is the best option for this, since they represent only a single data point. If you plugged some kind of average in there you might get something slightly better
im curious how much the direction of the corner cuts affect the times. I mean its more convenient to do for exapmle R'U than R'U', but how much faster it is? It feels like negative corner cuts are riskier from the aspect of lock-ups, so maybe they affect the average times more, than singles. For example this U perm: RUR'UR'U'R2U'R'UR'UR - this seems a very good alg from this perspective it has 8 of the better corner cuts, and just 4 negative (maybe its not the best exaplme it just feels like it, maybe because it doesnt have any regrips or overwork).
No idea how much of an impact this has, but that's something I never thought of! It's probably also more important when doing difficult turns, such as reverse flicks (push turns)
@@JPerm Wide T perm is too good!
_@@JPerm:_ I do know the Following.
REPEAT 1:
"Well, I got 25.5 and 27.5 for these Algorithms. This means that they are slower than an *N-perm.* 🤦👎🗑
Ga:
M2 U2 M2 U' (Jb-perm) U' M2 U2 M2
*Block on the right
Gb:
M2 U2 M2 (Jb-perm) M2 U2 M2
*Block on the left
Gc:
M2 U2 M2 U (Ja-perm only left hand) U M2 U2 M2
*Block on the left
Gd:
M2 U2 M2 (Ja-perm only left hand) M2 U2 M2
*Block on the right"
*And "slower than an N-perm" speaks higher volume than the teacher.
That was... kinda fascinating, I hope we will see more videos like this in the future
Can you please do a review of gan 356 m
Hey, what do you think about doing the same thing with the whole solve ? Yes, there are more factors that can influence your solve. However, one of the most significant factor is lookahead, so, having your time and solve efficiency, you can find your lookahead efficiency coefficient and to compare it with other cubers.
0:20 NH perm 👁️👄👁️
this is the best explanation i have seen, with formula make me know that cubing is actually really close to mathematic. but,sadly i dont understand.
This completely went over my head.
Interesting, definitely will be very useful when making new algorithms.
I’m satisfied of judging an algorithm subjectively
This is soooo interesting, would it be possible to make a formula that feeding the actual alg to it, it could calculate how many regips, overworks, soft regrip, etc, and spit out a score, that would be revolutionary! Giving that to a computer alg finder, and we might have a whole new set of optimized algs?
In your next video could you talk about the reverse moves cause I have tried to work it out myself but I have no clue on what I need to do. I think it will help a lot of us. By the way great idea!
I came up with an Nb algorithm and by using your formula I discover its better than the previous I used !
Life is out of control !
1:00 thanks J Perm, now I know that without having to take computer science!
Hey jperm just recommending but for pll you can use L',U,R,U',L,U2,R',U,R,U2,R' for JB
Just to let you know last month I used your code JPERM last month at scs
imagine trying to tell jperm how to do jperm
Btw I have another lag: E-Perm, which is:A perm and then the lefty version( of the same alg)
Me: *16 move cross*
S A M E
i beat you with 17
i have no idea how he could talk about that stuff for 11 minutes and i cant understand a signal bit of it??
did you watch the main video?
*s i g n a l*
I'm joining a subject name Forcasting. It's main goal absolutely for forcasting and just very same as what you are doing in this video, maybe more complexity. If Covid-19 didn't exist, I would probably do this project for passing this subject after watching your video. What a nice video !!!
Me: trying to explain not all cuber's are good in math
Alao Me:trying to explain j perm is good in math and cube
This is a great piece work. Really interesting. Would it be possible for something like this to be used where you put in your times for predefined algs and it tells you which factors appear to effect your times most? Like regrips, slices etc - to help you identify what to work on?
What about working with floating numbers for each move? E.g.have 1.0 for R, but 1.2 for L' ? just in case the left hand is slower?
This would result in a small table for 1 number every move (regular, prime and double).
Additional to your concept of overworking a finger, I want point out that sometimes a move is more expensive than usual. E.g. after a R' move the index finger is set up for a F move, but not for a U. (I am not sure if this is already covered by regrips; but I doubt it)
just my 2 cents; I like your idea of introducing another metric
Adding columns for each moves sounds interesting. I feel like it would be more useful if RUL algs were common, but the good ones are always mostly R or mostly L, so you could just do a separate analysis on entire algs (comparing mirrored algs) rather than individual moves.
Your second point could be covered by reverse moves since in your example the U would have to be done lefty. Or if you use a special finger trick like right index push, you could make a separate column for that type of move.
@@JPerm I guess a state-diagram could depict the problem at best.
Let's have the notation for a state like (R): meaning, the last move was R. Or (RU), meaning the last moves were R and U.
And have transitions from one state to another state (or same state again); each transition has floating number costs between e.g. 0.5 and 2.5. Let's note the transition like -R'-> meaning the move is R'.
Have () as start-state with no history, a sequence for sexy-move could look like:
() -R-> (R) -U> (RU) -R'-> (RUR') -U'> (UR'U')
and it allows for some very common and fast moves to have only very little cost (last two transitions).
It also allows to code overwork a finger, because the states have a "history".
But to be honest, this state-machine could get very big and it needs to be learned by a AI, having input data as you provided in your video.
Number of state-transitions: 12 moves * 3 variants (regular, prime, double) = 36
Number of states with just 2 recent moves stored: 36*36 = 1296 (very big)
Number of states with 3 recent moves: 36*36*36 = 46656 (way too big)
But a state-machine allows to have some states with only 1 move history, some 2 with 2 move history and so on, this should help to keep the states less.
All in all this sounds as a big pile of work, and I question if this is worth it. For every cuber the transtion costs would be different. It depends on what finger tricks a cuber has mastered. And how good he is for some specific finger tricks. A roux-cuber is certainly trained better at M, M2 and M' moves than a CFOP-cuber. But maybe he is a bit slower on RUR'U'.
Please go on with your idea of another metric, it is so more simplistic than my idea. (And helps me to improve my own metric analyer, that got too complicated and I stopped that project :)
Jperm being big brain
hey will u do critiques on other cubes like 4x4/5x5 or methods like roux,zz etc?
OMG!!!!! These Gperm’s are driving me insane 🙈 Why can’t I remember them🤷♂️ the triggers are so difficult. The only nice thing is JPERM’s website and that I can practice two at a time that bounce back and forth.
Actually there is another z perm which you didn't show in your data which is Y' M2 U' M2 U' M' U2 M2 U2 M' which I guess is one of the fastest Zperm
*JPerm doing Math*
Me: *Finally*
Others: *What is this nonsense??*
The best channel for solving rubiks cube.
Hi j perm,
Your simply awesome
Love your videos
Non cuber:what's the secret to solving the rubiks cube
Me:lots of mathematical algorithms...
You could add soft regrips, awkward Moves
J perm: you multiply this by that and the formula coefficient blah blah blah
*METH*
This man proved, with math and algorithms, that I suck
As a statistics major, 1:00 made me sad.
Then you showed a linear regression equation and it made me big sad
Me: Hey guys! You should watch this video. Friends: ok. What’s the name of the video? ME: your algs sucks.
Please upload pyraminx tutorial
What makes your F2L very fast?
Me: Watching this video to learn better algs Also Me: 0:10 R2D2 OMG
What a detailed explanation is!!!!!!😩😩
Good video j perm how are you today
All the dislikes are blind people trying to find to like
Can you do a cfop teaching
Excellent work
wow!
do a review on 356 m
JPerm, I have a question about H perm finger tricks. I use different finger tricks and I'm by no means a super fast cuber, but I think the way I do the H perm is better than the way you do it. I'd like to hear your thoughts on it because this way removes the soft regrip you do with your left index finger when you do the U' moves.
1. M2 flick with my right hand (same as you)
2. A U turn with the back side (or nail) of my left index finger
3. M2 flick again with my right hand
4. U2 flick with my left hand, left index finger quickly followed by my left middle finger
5. M2 flick again with my right hand
6. A U turn with the back side of my left index finger again
7. M2 flick to finish it.
It may not be worth it because you have to set up your left index finger to the UFL corner, but you can do that when you set up for the M2 slices anyway
Yours is better if you define overworks differently than I did, and assume reverse moves don't cost more time or risk. So there is potential for it to be faster, but I suspect it's about the same.
@@JPerm Is there a reason you do it the way you do instead of the way I do? Bc the way I do it seems to flow much smoother. And have you ever executed it the way I do bc if you haven't I recommend trying it-you might like it more
nice data set dude 👍👍👍👍👍👍
This is really cool! I have a question that I haven't actually found an answer to in my brief browsing of the internet. Is it fine to do eido U2 instead of the double flick U2?
I'm not sure, but the only time I ever use that is for final AUF since I can't bridge it nicely with any other turns. For anyone wondering, eido is when you do 1 flick for U2, for example moving your right index finger from BRU to FLU
Well, i recommend that you should learn the double flick for a reason:
-When you make a turn with a single finger twice, that would cause you to overwork your finger, which will result to a badder solve because, I dont remember exactly but if we do the math here.., Lets say you do a U2 with one finger, a turn cause 1 and because you overwork you had to go back to the point where you start which lets say, cost you 0.5.. And if you do a U2 10 times.., 0.5 x 10 = 5 seconds slower.
The reason the double flick was an advantage is because you use two fingers to make a turn which automatically remove the 'overwork' part which saves a lot of times.
*Coming from a sub 14 solvers,
To other people who are more experienced and far better than me, please correct myself if i stated something wrong. Thank you.*
@@JPerm well, sorry J perm, but i guess that took me to write quite long so i didn't you realize you were here.., if i was wrong, please correct me.
Dylan are you left handed?
For cubing it's my faster hand, but in normal life I'm right handed
Please upload a video on 2 sided pll recognition your previous video was like not good please make a new one
hey jperm. is there an age limit to critiques?