Hey Ryan, I think doing something like this is alright for the 3x3x3, you can still get some really fast times, but I would hate the idea of also using it for the 5x5x5. Storing all that information by rote for the 5x5x5 would take me twice as long as using the stories I use, and the stories I use aren't even as good as P/A/O so it could be even faster with a better method than what I use.
Also, after learning more about the journey method and person/action/object, I think it would be considerably faster to use this method for a 3x3x3 rather than the current rote memorization techniques. I've already laid out my journey with 24 positions (I want to use it for 4x4 and 5x5 centers) and I'm working on the framework for the actual persons/actions/and objects right now. I plan on switching my memorization for all cubes to the P/A/O method, especially after seeing how fast the masters of this method can memorize things. Also, John Louis is a 4 level method P/A/O/O or person action object object? The reason I ask, one of the memorisers at the US competition describe one of his images as "Frank Sinatra Croons "Baby one more Time" to an Obelisk" and this appears to me to be P/A/O/O. Since the cube orbits only have 24 pieces it seems that a 4 level system or even a 5 level system (person/adverb/action/adjective/object, for example Bob Artistically Destroys the Red Car) Since the cube orbits are only 24 pieces instead of 52, why don't we make a more complicated system that fits our needs? With a 5 level system you could memorize the edge permutation of a 4x4 or 5x5 in at best 3 images. That would be awesome! Chris --- In [email protected], Ryan Heise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've been reading the various threads about memorisation, and have to > wonder what is appealing about translating information from one domain > into a completely unrelated domain in order to memorise it. > > We have discussed memorising a cube using numbers, sentences and cards. > Why not memorise the direct visual imagery that we get by looking at the > cube? With training it should be possible to form memory associations > based on the spatial relativity of same-coloured facelets, and observe > shape outlines formed by these sets of facelets. This is how our brains > are natively wired to perform visual analysis, anyway. > > By the way, a sequence of 4 random chords (4 notes each) constrained to > a range of just 2 octaves, contains more data than a single random cube > position (if you only care about the data that allows you to solve the > cube). If you can see visual patterns to the same extent that musicians > hear auditory patterns, then a single random cube shouldn't take more > than a few seconds to memorise. > > Ryan > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/speedsolvingrubikscube/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
