RE: The Lucas Parity Algorithm is a J-Perm in disguise (Cube Theory)
A few days ago, u/aofuwrm77 posted this thread, and it has gotten a lot of likes.
If you didn't know anything about the topic, I understand why you would give it a like (and say how great it is, etc.). But, . . .
I am going to do a little (but productive/informative) rant for those who are interested in learning more about this topic (and who didn't know about my work).
And my work is "relevant", because he literally mentioned me in the OP.
I know that u/cmowla has worked on this and other 4x4 parity algorithms long ago, but I was not able to understand his approach. Maybe I have reinvented things from him or other people. In any case, I believe that presenting the same ideas by different people is beneficial. If anything is unclear, please leave a comment.
In this "rant", I'm going to ask 5 questions which I would like to hear people's responses to in the comments.
I will start by pointing out some major details missing in his post (and his behavior towards me in the comment section).
_____________________________________
I was "punished" (with downvotes) for mentioning my contributions (providing video links) which he spoke of (in the quote mentioned previously), but he did not provide any links.
He certainly provided a link to a shorter post that was less "intimidating".
- And it seems like he just stuck with that idea (about how to "deduct" parity algorithms), as his thread has the same abridged construction of a parity algorithm.
- And I mentioned "intimidating", because he literally said that (in more words):
- After seeing that he was intimated, I kept it short, but he apparently already made up his mind to ignore that my content exists.
- BTW, I didn't think that my LONG (and detailed) posts were too much for him, because he's a mathematician. (Typically, mathematicians read a lot of technical writing, etc.)
_____________________________________
This 9 minute video (I have provided an embed link so that you don't see adds . . . and I can't possibly "make any money" from you, etc.) is one of the videos I provided him a link to over a year ago. (It's the second link in at the top of this post.)
Question 1. Readers, please watch that video (which, again, won't be of any benefit to my YouTube channel with the link provided) and tell me if you honestly think that what I showed in it was too difficult to learn from.
And , my video 9 minutes long, because I:
- Derived the "cuboid J Perm" from scratch
- Explained how to make alternate 3-cycle commutators of that kind (of which I also went out of my way to list for u/aofuwrm77 further down in that same post . . . a code block that begins with F' r' F U2 F' r F U2 = [F' r' F, U2] (8) ).
- Explained the setup moves to create 3 algorithms
- r2 B2 U2 l U2 r' U2 r U2 F2 r F2 l' B2 r2 (Red Bull / Old Standard)
- r U2 r U2 r' U2 r U2 l' U2 r U2 r' U2 l r2 U2 r'
_____________________________________
He didn't explain the setup moves he presented (and applied to an existing/unexplained J-Perm).
We want to swap two corners and two edges, just like in a J-perm situation. We only need the appropriate setup moves. It is easily checked that
S := R U2 R U2 z' y2
is an appropriate setup on the cuboid, where z and y2 are cube rotations.
He sounds like a poor mathematics text-book writer.
"The reader can verify . . . " or "As an exercise, . . . " etc. types of statements when they present something that could take the reader hours to figure out / understand.
Question 2. Was him presenting the setup moves (with no explanation for them) helpful to a level that me mentioning my video content (links provided below) which actually explains them on the 4x4x4 cube (not a different puzzle) merited downvotes?
_____________________________________
u/aofuwrm77's post also contained mention of the same concept on other twisty puzzles (which I don't ever mention, as I only care about /specialize in the nxnxn cube), but,
Question 3. If you were to know that the 9 minute video I mentioned existed (and my part 1 and part 2 video specifically deriving "Lucas Parity"), and you saw his thread, would you agree with him that his "approach" is an equal alternative to understanding Lucas Garron's (and Stefan Pochmann)'s lucasParity, that you would label me as being a d**k when I simply provided links to the very videos he is telling everyone he couldn't understand (after having over a year to review it)?
And I'm saying "approach" with quotes, I show a J-Perm 3x3x3 -> 4x4x4 analogy starting here (in a video 2 videos before that 9 minute one in my 4x4x4 Parity Algorithm Theory YouTube Playlist).
- It is ideal to watch that entire video to get the context, but even then, I diagrammed a much more relevant puzzle to the 4x4x4 for 4x4x4 parity . . . the 4x4x4 instead of a cuboid.
- (And I apologize about the "here" link, but I can't start the video at a specific place in embed mode.)
_____________________________________
Question 4. And if you were in his shoes (was directly given these links a year ago in this thread), would you have also:
- Still stuck with that opinion for more than a year later.
- Start a thread like this which:
- Mentions me (without links to my contributions)
- Explicitly state that you were "not able to understand his approach"
- Punish me in your thread comment section for, god forbid, mentioning the very content he neglected to let people decide for themselves is learnable or not
- I mean, was there something else I could have said in that thread's comment section than to provide links to the content he was bringing up?
- In the comment section, call me (who has done nothing but try to help you . . . and try to help others whenever an opportunity arises) a "d**k"?
?
_____________________________________
Question 5.
And knowing all of this so far, would you have had the audacity to post this image, acting like you're a "professor" on this topic, when you present a beginner student-level explanation?
(And he thinks I'm arrogant, when all he has done is copy u/ExtraTricky's answer and act like it's new perspective?)
- For those who don't know about my work (most of which was done more than a decade ago, so I can understand why), I'm the sole author of this wiki page (and pretty much everything linked to that page, including threads like this, spent a solid 4 years researching and finding hundreds of short parity algorithms by hand, etc.).
- Even if I speak with authority, I would NEVER post an image like the above ^^ to patronize my readers!
- I have been a servant (not a showoff) who did the work that needed to be done to teach this topic fully and correctly. And therefore, I felt it very necessary for me to start this discussion / thread response to let you know MY side of the story (without getting muted with downvotes and rude accusations . . . which are getting upvoted out of people's ignorance).
_____________________________________
I just want to know the answers to these questions from this community to know if I can still have hope in humanity . . .
That:
- Truth (and better content) should be valued above one's ego (especially when we're trying to leave stepping stones for future generations).
- Just because content is "old" (7-15 years old), that doesn't make it obsolete.
- I shouldn't have to defend my hard-earned results from people like u/aofuwrm77, who take advantage of people's ignorance, and outright disrespect (and name-call) members of the community who have literally contributed a lot to the community over the years, literally gaining nothing in return.
_____________________________________
P.S.
I was really surprised that u/aofuwrm77 in particular started that thread, because I (thought I) helped in him the past. I didn't even notice it was him at first. (Hence my edit to my first comment in that thread . . . which was taken as being rude.)
Posted Aug 14, 2025, 12:43 AM UTC