UPSB v4

Research Department Feedback / Fingerswitch as an official trick

1. Ceru Seiyu

   Date: Tue, Jun 18 2013 17:02:36

   I was considering today the usage of 'FL sonic', sonic 0.0 and the fingerswitch. The fingerswitch is where the pen changes from one slot to the other by being grabbed without rotation, by other fingers. A pass consists of fingercross + fingerswitch for example, just to make it clear that the pass is not exactly indifferent from the fingerswitch. I think it's time we had some clarity here, starting with breaking down the sonic itself with fingerswitches. Here the sonic 23-12 broken down: (Fingerswitch[p] 23-13 ~ Fingerswitch[c] 13-12) + Charge[s 1.0] Simple, indeed. However, I used to call a fingerswitch a sonic 0.0, which doesn't add up, because a sonic consists of TWO fingerswitches. Therefore a sonic 0.0 is made of two sonic 0.0s, which are in turn made by two sonic 0.0s and so on and so forth. It creates an infinite loop and is a terrible mistake made by me, and a few others. Another problem I see is the notorious FL sonic, as has been often described as a sonic without a 'middle' finger slot, and makes no sense. This means that you only have a single fingerswitch, so it's not a sonic, which has two. As you only have a single fingerswitch, an 'FL sonic 0.0' is in fact a fingerswitch, and it's silly! I'm a fan of simultaneous notation as I find that when you break things down to their primary components, 'simple' tricks are in fact multiple simpler tricks being performed at the same time. Therefore an FL sonic 1.0 would be FL Fingerswitch + Charge 1.0. As you can see I used 'FL' for the finger switch, as they can be fingerless, particularly with regards to halfspins and another example being vics PD around -> FL sonic, which is actually a PD around -> FL fingerswitch + Charge. I'd also like for the fingerswitch to be accepted as a 'utility' trick, along with the pass and the wiper. To conclude, there is no such thing as an FL sonic, and a sonic 0.0 is not a fingerswitch, instead a Finger Switch (short term 'Switch' or 'FS') should officially be a trick to stop the confusion.

2. RPD

   Date: Tue, Jun 18 2013 17:55:31

   Time ago, hexbinmos developed a notation system (quite complex btw) based in only 6 tricks α = fingerswitch β = half-tipped charge γ = wiper δ = roll ε = slide ζ = stall half-release Just because i dont have greek letters in my keyboard, I use letters from a to f when using this. Most people dont find it really useful, but I think that it is when trying to split tricks into small concepts. Oh, and also, this concepts can also have nor/rev but i dont use that too much.

   The fingerswitch is where the pen changes from one slot to the other by being grabbed without rotation, by other fingers.

   :D

   A pass consists of fingercross + fingerswitch for example, just to make it clear that the pass is not exactly indifferent from the fingerswitch.

   Not really. You can do that fc+fs trick, i do it a lot in my combos, but a pass is not that. In this notation, passes are (A+B)>(A+B) or as it would be in regular notation pass 12-23 = half-tipped charge 12 + fingerswitch 12-123 > half-tipped charge 23 + fingerswitch 123-23 arounds make the same result (curious, isnt it?) (A+B)>(A+B) IA 12 = half-tipped charge 12 + fingerswitch 12-1* > half-tipped charge 12 + fingerswitch 1*-12

   Here the sonic 23-12 broken down: (Fingerswitch[p] 23-13 ~ Fingerswitch[c] 13-12) + Charge[s 1.0] Simple, indeed.

   Hm, kinda. First of all, a charge 1.0 is notated this way (or at least as long as we know) (B+C)>(B+C) The (B+C) particle means half-charge, charge 0.5, whatever. So. How did we deduct sonic notation? In a sonic (23-12 for example) you have 2 fingerswitches, from 23 to 13 and from 13 to 12. As we are doing a charge before and in the middle of that fingerswitches, we get this (B+C)+A>(B+C)+A that is the same as half-charge 23 + fingerswitch 23-13 > half-charge 12 + fingerswitch 13-12

   However, I used to call a fingerswitch a sonic 0.0, which doesn't add up, because a sonic consists of TWO fingerswitches.

   Yep

   Therefore a sonic 0.0 is made of two sonic 0.0s, which are in turn made by two sonic 0.0s and so on and so forth. It creates an infinite loop and is a terrible mistake made by me, and a few others.

   D: Lets deduct this again, with our beloved notation <3 sonic [p] [s 1.0] [c] if we have a sonic 0.0, then the spin modifier is null, we have a tipped sonic. Right? sonic = (B+C)+A>(B+C)+A remove conic motion (not the charge! if we do that the world explodes) tipped sonic = B+A>B+A if the start and end slots of the sonic are different, then that is true. But what if both slots are the same? then its not a sonic, its a charge. Let's remake the proccess: charge = (B+C)>(B+C) remove conic motion tipped charge = B+B Pof! no fingerswitches. So, there is no infinite fingerswitch bucle. Look Sonic 0.0 23-12 =? fingerswitch Sonic 0.0 23-12 = half-tipped charge 23 + fingerswitch 23-13 > half-tipped charge 12 + fingerswitch 13-12 For half-tipped charge 23 + fingerswitch 23-13 and half-tipped charge 12 + fingerswitch 13-12; both equal to only one fingerswitch, not 2. If you try to split that switch, you get a null fingerswitch (switch 23-23 is nothing) and a real fingerswitch. So only 2 FS for each sonic.

   It creates an infinite loop and is a terrible mistake made by me, and a few others.

   I just prefer fingerswitch to sonic 0.0 because all that big paragraph.

   As you can see I used 'FL' for the finger switch, as they can be fingerless

   Yep, fingerswitches can be fingerless, when the push is mods inertia or gravity.

   there is no such thing as an FL sonic

   Swivels are fl sonics...

   instead a Finger Switch (short term 'Switch' or 'FS') should officially be a trick to stop the confusion.

   Most of the people dont want see things they already know, so adding that trick to the basics is hard. New people would see the basic trick list, see fingerswitch videos and be like wtf is this. But I agree that fingerswitch is one of the fundamentals of penspinning. Is everything clear by my side @eurocracy? :D

3. LighT*

   Date: Tue, Jun 18 2013 18:13:59

   i wish i could understand this a bit better, ill do my research but @eurocracy very well put together i really do love seeing articles and threads like this <333.

4. flaming oracle

   Date: Tue, Jun 18 2013 19:16:12

   Or people can be not lazy and actually type everything out in an easy understanding matter... >.> just sayin i mean some abbreviations are fine but if your going to abbreviate every little thing how rediculous would that be? x_x Next thing you know breaking down combos become equations.

5. Ceru Seiyu

   Date: Tue, Jun 18 2013 19:20:42

   RPD;262282]Time ago, hexbinmos developed a notation system (quite complex btw) based in only 6 tricks α = fingerswitch β = half-tipped charge γ = wiper δ = roll ε = slide ζ = stall half-release Just because i dont have greek letters in my keyboard, I use letters from a to f when using this. Most people dont find it really useful, but I think that it is when trying to split tricks into small concepts. Oh, and also, this concepts can also have nor/rev but i dont use that too much. [/QUOTE] You told me about this before, but the article is in french, I don't see how it covers topspins and I'm talking about our current notation system and how it is covered (or rather covered incorrectly) in our system. [QUOTE=RPD;262282]:D Not really. You can do that fc+fs trick, i do it a lot in my combos, but a pass is not that. In this notation, passes are (A+B)>(A+B) or as it would be in regular notation pass 12-23 = half-tipped charge 12 + fingerswitch 12-123 > half-tipped charge 23 + fingerswitch 123-23 arounds make the same result (curious, isnt it?) (A+B)>(A+B) IA 12 = half-tipped charge 12 + fingerswitch 12-1* > half-tipped charge 12 + fingerswitch 1*-12 [/QUOTE] Under my polarised charges explanation, the two different axises of charges are as follows pol y (tipped charge) = Oscillating fingercross motion pol x = oscillating wiping motion You can see this thread in advanced tricks, but this is a better explanation here. I'm very against using the term 'tipped charge', as it hides the fact that the x axis can also be isolated. [pol x] and [pol y] are more advanced, but not completely formal parameters, because a charge is indeed a wiper + fingercross as we can find out by isolating but axises of motion, as I did in my polarised charges videos. Therefore the 'tipped charge' is a fingercrossing motion, yet I have not specified the exact fingercrossing motion as your article is in french and the pictures are not entirely self explanatory and you don't want me to use my finger positioning notation to replace your finger cross notation. (I have also told Fel about this before, that a pass is a fingercross+fingerswitch) [QUOTE=RPD;262282]Hm, kinda. First of all, a charge 1.0 is notated this way (or at least as long as we know) (B+C)>(B+C) The (B+C) particle means half-charge, charge 0.5, whatever. So. How did we deduct sonic notation? In a sonic (23-12 for example) you have 2 fingerswitches, from 23 to 13 and from 13 to 12. As we are doing a charge before and in the middle of that fingerswitches, we get this (B+C)+A>(B+C)+A that is the same as half-charge 23 + fingerswitch 23-13 > half-charge 12 + fingerswitch 13-12 [/QUOTE] Please, stay within our notation system, I am talking about our notation system, not hex's. Also, note how I use brackets to simplify it. It's an informal sort of suggestion I'm making, in that you can add up the total charge and add it to the end to make it simultaneous. ADDITIONALLY, you could also do it like algebra, assuming that you wish for all elements inside the brackets to have the same amount of charge applied, you can put it before, so you get: Charge [s 0.5]+(fingerswitch 23-12 > fingerswitch 12-12) Which gives the same result as what you have put, but slightly more compact. NOTE, the '+' symbol is not ADDITION in pen spinning, it is AND, so treat it like boolean algebra (this is getting a bit complicated, but simply, if something before the bracket is AND with the bracket, all things within the bracket will be done with that section attached. My wording isn't very good, sorry.) Basically, you've said exactly what I have, but in a different notation system and in a more verbose wording. [QUOTE=RPD;262282]Yep[/QUOTE] Yay! :D [QUOTE=RPD;262282]D:[/QUOTE] Oh no! D: [QUOTE=RPD;262282] Lets deduct this again, with our beloved notation <3 sonic [p] [s 1.0] [c] if we have a sonic 0.0, then the spin modifier is null, we have a tipped sonic. Right? sonic = (B+C)+A>(B+C)+A remove conic motion (not the charge! if we do that the world explodes) tipped sonic = B+A>B+A if the start and end slots of the sonic are different, then that is true. But what if both slots are the same? then its not a sonic, its a charge. Let's remake the proccess: charge = (B+C)>(B+C) remove conic motion tipped charge = B+B Pof! no fingerswitches. So, there is no infinite fingerswitch bucle. Look Sonic 0.0 23-12 =? fingerswitch Sonic 0.0 23-12 = half-tipped charge 23 + fingerswitch 23-13 > half-tipped charge 12 + fingerswitch 13-12 For half-tipped charge 23 + fingerswitch 23-13 and half-tipped charge 12 + fingerswitch 13-12; both equal to only one fingerswitch, not 2. If you try to split that switch, you get a null fingerswitch (switch 23-23 is nothing) and a real fingerswitch. So only 2 FS for each sonic. [/QUOTE] Sorry, but you don't seem to have followed with what I was saying. Also, just to clarify, a sonic 0.0 HAS NO CHARGE. Nada. Zilch. None. It has no charge. It couldn't light a lightbulb if it tried. It has no pol y (tipped) charge, it has no pol x charge. It consists of two fingerswitches alone. UNTIL NOW sonic 0.0 was synonymous with fingerswitch, incorrectly. So with the PREVIOUS, WRONG LOGIC: Sonic 0.0 = Fingerswitch Fingerswitch = Sonic 0.0 Problem: Sonic 0.0 = Fingerswitch -> Fingerswitch BAD LOGIC Sonic 0.0 = Fingerswitch THEREFORE Sonic 0.0 = Sonic 0.0 -> Sonic 0.0 Therefore you get the recursion effect. YOU CAN NOT USE SONIC 0.0 TO NOTATE FINGERSWITCHES , result. [QUOTE=RPD;262282]I just prefer fingerswitch to sonic 0.0 because all that big paragraph.[/QUOTE] And with what I said above, it is not preference, using sonic 0.0 is wrong. [QUOTE=RPD;262282]Yep, fingerswitches can be fingerless, when the push is mods inertia or gravity.[/QUOTE] Yep. [QUOTE=RPD;262282]Swivels are fl sonics...[/QUOTE] ACTUALLY, no. A swivel (when held in the palm), does not have two fingerless fingerswitches, it actually does around rev 0.25 ~ FL fingerswitch+charge. This gives it the extra 0.25 rotation, which gets it into an 'imaginary' fingerslot. Imagine you had FIVE fingers, not four. The around moves it into the 'imaginary' fingerslot 45, before a fingerless fingerswitch is performed. Of course, this around is not caught as you see by the squiggle, the fingerslot was merely a thought experiment. You could say the fl fingerswitch +charge is an FL sonic 0.5 and you would be right, but you neglect the around 0.25, which is essential! HOWEVER, you can do an FL sonic in retrospect, and they have been done by Kam, and can be imagined through my 'imaginary fingerslot' thought experiment. You can see the video where he performs them here: [video=youtube;5wu_xag71z0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wu_xag71z0[/video] He does it at 0:02-0:03 It's a FL fingerswitch+charge->FL fingerswitch + charge. Therefore it is an FL sonic. [QUOTE=RPD wrote: Most of the people dont want see things they already know, so adding that trick to the basics is hard. New people would see the basic trick list, see fingerswitch videos and be like wtf is this. But I agree that fingerswitch is one of the fundamentals of penspinning. Is everything clear by my side @eurocracy ? :D

   Fingerswitch is almost certainly something that should be classified utility trick, not a 'fundamental' as we call it, because our 'fundamental' tricks are not actually fundamental from a researcher's view! Some wipers are outrageously hard, some fingerswitches are likewise outrageously hard, but some are easy and simple to understand, so it should be a utility trick, making it the third along with the pass and wiper in our notation system.

6. Ceru Seiyu

   Date: Tue, Jun 18 2013 19:56:50

   flaming oracle wrote: Or people can be not lazy and actually type everything out in an easy understanding matter... >.> just sayin i mean some abbreviations are fine but if your going to abbreviate every little thing how rediculous would that be? x_x Next thing you know breaking down combos become equations.

   Notation started simple, like you said. But it got more and more complicated to allow for more complicated hybrids and tricks, where the current notation system could not suffice. Researchers have massive control over their combos, and for example Fel2Fram and RPD are some of the most advanced spinners in the world as a result.

7. Alvaris

   Date: Tue, Jun 18 2013 20:11:33

   penspinning has become so complicated :| i understand pretty much zero..cbf reading sigh all these are just beyond my understanding lol

8. padrace

   Date: Tue, Jun 18 2013 21:10:07

   @eurocracy you guys are awesome. love this kind of stuff.

9. ChainBreak

   Date: Wed, Jun 19 2013 02:59:17

   Wtf? I just spin my fucking pen. You should do the same. It's not like all that complicated stuff you're babblin about is really necessary.

10. Walkaz

    Date: Wed, Jun 19 2013 03:59:49

    @Alvaris i know how you feel bro I'm done with competitive spinning

11. Akai

    Date: Wed, Jun 19 2013 04:12:44

    This math problem is simply too advanced.

12. DioBrando

    Date: Wed, Jun 19 2013 05:06:53

    fuck this is so technical

13. i.suk

    Date: Wed, Jun 19 2013 07:16:47

    i'm not fit to be a technical spinner since i can't keep up with this brb buying $5 webcam and making 20 more mx jk this discussion is quite interesting, although i'd like to see 'new' tricks/concepts done with it rather than arguing over ways to notate existing commonly used material

14. Ceru Seiyu

    Date: Wed, Jun 19 2013 12:33:37

    i.suk wrote: i'm not fit to be a technical spinner since i can't keep up with this brb buying $5 webcam and making 20 more mx jk this discussion is quite interesting, although i'd like to see 'new' tricks/concepts done with it rather than arguing over ways to notate existing commonly used material

    Well i.suk, if we know exactly what is happening, we can find it easier to make variants of these tricks. And with the small components broken down, we can devise new tricks. The more accurate and correct our notation is, the wider variety of tricks we can create. And another reason is because we have the same name for multiple tricks! Sonic 0.0 for fingerswitch, FL sonic 0.0 for FL fingerswitch, etc, it's silly and confusing!

15. neoknux_009

    Date: Fri, Jun 21 2013 10:25:58

    i know about 0.0% of notation. D; its like playing guitar but not being able to read very well. SUX

16. Zkhan

    Date: Fri, Jun 21 2013 15:35:24

    I have a feeling this is getting way more complicated than it actually needs to be.

17. Ceru Seiyu

    Date: Fri, Jun 21 2013 18:37:04

    Zkhan wrote: I have a feeling this is getting way more complicated than it actually needs to be.

    Not at all, the explanation is complicated but the implementation is overwhelmingly simple. Fingerswitch is the most simple trick in existence.

18. Tommy

    Date: Fri, Jun 21 2013 22:12:22

    http://i.imgur.com/h3uKbSn.png is how i feel