I also didn't know what to do about the VHF2L column, as I never
really learned exactly how it works.  I just put 0%, since I figure if
I don't even know how exactly one uses it, then I don't know it.

I guess I should change my ZBLL %, since that's not really the number
of cases I know, but my chance for a 1 look LL, and even then it's
only an estimate.

I count the chance for a PLL skip after COLL as a "ZBLL" case, but I
don't count all the cases where I know whether to use the L or R
reflection of an alg on the same RL symmetric COLL case to be more
likely to get a ZBLL solve.

I can go back through and count the cases I know instead.  For this
database are you guys more interested in the percentage of cases
known, or the chance for a 1 look LL?


--- In zbmethod@yahoogroups.com, "Doug Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks Bob!
> Made me sit down and count up the cases I know w.r.t the 
> probabilities. I was ONE case away from knowing more than Chris (at 
> least on paper) for ZBLL. I was a bit suprised at the high percentages 
> here. So anyhow I decided to learn one more case: "T1 with edges H".
> That did the trick and tipped the scale :).
> Anything to bring out our competitive natures.
> Not sure how VHF2L would be defined so I'm not sure what that column 
> really means.
> I hope everybody did the case counts with factoring in the 
> probabilities of occurance. I think that would be a better comparison 
> value.
> -Doug

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to