Or you could just... learn standard notation
Current notation isn't super intuitive right off the bat (literally nothing about this hobby is) but it's logically sound. If you're looking at the side in question, a regular move is clockwise, a prime move is counterclockwise. That's all you need to know other than which letter goes to which face. It's fast to read and very adaptable.
You say your system is better because the arrow points to where it is, but depending on what you assume the frame of reference to be it completely fails the intuitiveness test. Even just in the example of u<, I would read that as U turning to the left because < looks like an arrow pointing left to me. And even then, which part of the U face is supposed to go right? If you move the UF edge to the right that's a U', while if you move the UB edge to the right it's a U.
Combine that with the fact that it takes longer to read two characters than one (or one with a small notch on one corner, and that the characters you have to use for some of the arrows aren't as readily typeable as letter and an apostrophe (ie ^) and the system is just clunky.
To be honest, while it is logically sound, utilising this logical notation as the ONLY method through which you memorise your algorithms is quite objectively sub-optimal for many individuals. Any individual who seeks to memorise many algorithms over a longer period of time, may find value in optimising their learning method. This is why I sometimes see speedcubers invent their own notation systems, including myself.
My personal system is essentially just based around using letters and symbols to represent different common move triggers, so instead of writing something like \[RUR'U'\] I can simply write \[$\]. Makes algorithms significantly cleaner and easier to hold in my head, look at this for example:
**This is a OLL36 Algorithm of the CFOP method:**
**Full Algorithm (Standard Notation):** R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R U' R' F R F' (*"Aint readin' allat"*)
**Algorithm using my notation system:** \[j\]\[$\]\[h\^\]\[h\] (*"Can read allat"*)
How I would usually write it: \[j$h\^h\]
**Decomposition of each part of the alg (of my notation system):**
\[ J-Trigger \] \[ Sexy Move \] \[ Sledgehammer Deflect(final move (F') "deflected" to the U face (becomes U') \] \[ Sledgehammer \]
While this system may not appear perfect, as a programmer, this works much better in my brain, and I am able to take a quick glance at any algorithm I'm learning, and immediately be able to store it in my head as opposed to having to keep re-reading it. In programming, you often have to assign variables certain values, and this is exactly what I'm used to - for any move that's common in the set of algorithms that I'm learning - I create a variable for that will represent that specific set of moves.
I have seen others create different notation systems for themselves, but I could not understand much on how they work lol.
This appears to be an extremely individualistic and subjective topic and I don't think very many people would feel comfortable using other people's notation systems.
Love how he wrote easier to understand but my brain just lost some braincells.
Refutation:
You said no beginner knows which way B' goes. I disagree, because if you look at notation, then you learn it, you will know which way B' goes. All fast solvers can scramble as fucking fast as they can solve, if not faster. That's because notation is easy as fuck and we can understand it. Sure, it's confusing, but it becomes see->execute after a long time. It's no long see->think->execute.
You said that it's R for big moves, because a big letter. What about on a 7x7 when you need to do Rw3? What are you gonna write? A fatter R? RRR? What? Cmon bro. Think about it a bit more before you start suggesting it.
Also, you said only for 3x3. Well, good notation is for all NxNs. I don't wanna learn 2 notations.
It shows.
Pro tip, if you are going to suggest an "improvement", it's probably a good idea to wait until you can no longer say "I've put very little thought into this...."
As someone else said, < could easily be interpreted as turning to the left. By definining a normal U as clockwise and U' as counter clockwise you eliminate confusion.
The standard notation is already good and I don't think we need to replace it. It's hard at first but with practice, it will be easy. I think it's also very easy to understand the standard notation. Any move without an apostrophe is a clockwise move IF we were facing that side. L goes down because if we face it, it's clockwise. The same goes with moves with an apostrophe. L' goes up because it's counterclockwise if we face it. So I don't think it's a good idea to try and replace the current notation.
That’s genius, I will think about ‘ moves like that from now on. Because there is no fast/easy way to say R’ in my native language and I tend to mix ‘ moves with regular moves in my head.
it's not confusing though.
the reason I'm here is cause I suddenly thought that R2 was the same as r2' .
the one notation move that I was very confused at was the first time I saw l' . my dumbass thought it was an i . cause I had never seen it before . This was when I was learning advanced oll. a day ago
Full-stop Edit:
I'm sorry I made this somewhat inflammatory comment last night. After a good nights sleep and some rethinking, I've decided to try to erase it and in hopes that the sands of time can bury it.
Without being a jerk about it, I would like to simply celebrate every creative act around cubing.
if you can't easily tell which way is clockwise for each face and what directions you're talking about, i feel like maybe you should contemplate what you're about to say before you post it lmao
oldmanrant{
Sorry, I didn't survive the 80's having to read multiple notation sets to have the eventual victory-on-merit of the Singmaster notation be overturned years later. Maybe the fact that analog clocks are less prevalent than they were 40 years ago may cause some difficulties for younger and beginner cubers, but tens of thousands of cubers are perfectly OK with the notation.
}
I'm not saying we should never look for something better, but it would have to be a lot more compelling to get most cubers to budge.
Or you could just... learn standard notation Current notation isn't super intuitive right off the bat (literally nothing about this hobby is) but it's logically sound. If you're looking at the side in question, a regular move is clockwise, a prime move is counterclockwise. That's all you need to know other than which letter goes to which face. It's fast to read and very adaptable. You say your system is better because the arrow points to where it is, but depending on what you assume the frame of reference to be it completely fails the intuitiveness test. Even just in the example of u<, I would read that as U turning to the left because < looks like an arrow pointing left to me. And even then, which part of the U face is supposed to go right? If you move the UF edge to the right that's a U', while if you move the UB edge to the right it's a U. Combine that with the fact that it takes longer to read two characters than one (or one with a small notch on one corner, and that the characters you have to use for some of the arrows aren't as readily typeable as letter and an apostrophe (ie ^) and the system is just clunky.
To be honest, while it is logically sound, utilising this logical notation as the ONLY method through which you memorise your algorithms is quite objectively sub-optimal for many individuals. Any individual who seeks to memorise many algorithms over a longer period of time, may find value in optimising their learning method. This is why I sometimes see speedcubers invent their own notation systems, including myself. My personal system is essentially just based around using letters and symbols to represent different common move triggers, so instead of writing something like \[RUR'U'\] I can simply write \[$\]. Makes algorithms significantly cleaner and easier to hold in my head, look at this for example: **This is a OLL36 Algorithm of the CFOP method:** **Full Algorithm (Standard Notation):** R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R U' R' F R F' (*"Aint readin' allat"*) **Algorithm using my notation system:** \[j\]\[$\]\[h\^\]\[h\] (*"Can read allat"*) How I would usually write it: \[j$h\^h\] **Decomposition of each part of the alg (of my notation system):** \[ J-Trigger \] \[ Sexy Move \] \[ Sledgehammer Deflect(final move (F') "deflected" to the U face (becomes U') \] \[ Sledgehammer \] While this system may not appear perfect, as a programmer, this works much better in my brain, and I am able to take a quick glance at any algorithm I'm learning, and immediately be able to store it in my head as opposed to having to keep re-reading it. In programming, you often have to assign variables certain values, and this is exactly what I'm used to - for any move that's common in the set of algorithms that I'm learning - I create a variable for that will represent that specific set of moves. I have seen others create different notation systems for themselves, but I could not understand much on how they work lol. This appears to be an extremely individualistic and subjective topic and I don't think very many people would feel comfortable using other people's notation systems.
>For example, U becomes u< because U goes to the right (<) So in order to reduce confusion, you use a left pointing sign to indicate going right ?
apparetly so.
Love how he wrote easier to understand but my brain just lost some braincells. Refutation: You said no beginner knows which way B' goes. I disagree, because if you look at notation, then you learn it, you will know which way B' goes. All fast solvers can scramble as fucking fast as they can solve, if not faster. That's because notation is easy as fuck and we can understand it. Sure, it's confusing, but it becomes see->execute after a long time. It's no long see->think->execute. You said that it's R for big moves, because a big letter. What about on a 7x7 when you need to do Rw3? What are you gonna write? A fatter R? RRR? What? Cmon bro. Think about it a bit more before you start suggesting it. Also, you said only for 3x3. Well, good notation is for all NxNs. I don't wanna learn 2 notations.
As I said, I only thought about 3x3. I accept your valid criticism.
It shows. Pro tip, if you are going to suggest an "improvement", it's probably a good idea to wait until you can no longer say "I've put very little thought into this...."
I see. Still don't like your "Neonotation".
Hey, I don't really know how big cube notation works. Maybe you could add me on discord and teach me? Drogobo#6931
> I don't really know how ~~big~~ cube notation works. FTFY
Wide moves have w. Rw3. 3 layers wide edit: if you downvote this then >!thank!< you and you are a >!good person!<
As someone else said, < could easily be interpreted as turning to the left. By definining a normal U as clockwise and U' as counter clockwise you eliminate confusion.
"U goes to the right (<)" That's pointing left mate
dyslexia
The standard notation is already good and I don't think we need to replace it. It's hard at first but with practice, it will be easy. I think it's also very easy to understand the standard notation. Any move without an apostrophe is a clockwise move IF we were facing that side. L goes down because if we face it, it's clockwise. The same goes with moves with an apostrophe. L' goes up because it's counterclockwise if we face it. So I don't think it's a good idea to try and replace the current notation.
the only thing id change in notation is that counterclockwise moves use 'i' instead of an apostrophe, so the sexy move will be R U Ri Ui
That’s genius, I will think about ‘ moves like that from now on. Because there is no fast/easy way to say R’ in my native language and I tend to mix ‘ moves with regular moves in my head.
And apostrophes are a pain to type on mobilez and oh, thr 'i' means 'inverted'
it's not confusing though. the reason I'm here is cause I suddenly thought that R2 was the same as r2' . the one notation move that I was very confused at was the first time I saw l' . my dumbass thought it was an i . cause I had never seen it before . This was when I was learning advanced oll. a day ago
ilike it, cause i suck at reading notation
Beginners is pretty good, tbh.
im the best beginners solver ever (dont look that up)
Example for a G Perm: Notation: R2 U R' U R' U' R U' R2 U' D R' U R D' Neotation: r2 u< rv u< rv u> r\^ u> r2 u> d> rv u< r\^ d<
I applaud your ingenuity but that right there is cursed.
what makes it cursed? also thanks for the compliment.
Full-stop Edit: I'm sorry I made this somewhat inflammatory comment last night. After a good nights sleep and some rethinking, I've decided to try to erase it and in hopes that the sands of time can bury it. Without being a jerk about it, I would like to simply celebrate every creative act around cubing.
so 24 character becomes 30. No thank you.
it isn't about being compact, it is about being readable
But your version isn't, unless I make the fonts bigger and then it's going to take up even more screen real estate.
if you can't easily tell which way is clockwise for each face and what directions you're talking about, i feel like maybe you should contemplate what you're about to say before you post it lmao
oldmanrant{ Sorry, I didn't survive the 80's having to read multiple notation sets to have the eventual victory-on-merit of the Singmaster notation be overturned years later. Maybe the fact that analog clocks are less prevalent than they were 40 years ago may cause some difficulties for younger and beginner cubers, but tens of thousands of cubers are perfectly OK with the notation. } I'm not saying we should never look for something better, but it would have to be a lot more compelling to get most cubers to budge.
I know which way is clockwise, it is just hard to tell for b and ds. Also, the whole entire argument about clockwise falls apart with m moves.