Search posts


Nikita -

Hey guys!

I just recently joined the forum and I have few questions about record logging.
Hope you can help me :)

So the thing I'm confused with, is order of throws in siteswap notation.

Lets say I want to record 56 throws of 12345 (we all know this trick, and there is no questions that it is called 12345)
So I record 56 3b 12345.
My actual throws started with 3. Like 3451234512... So why do I record 12345 instead of 34512 then ?
12345 and 34512 considered different tricks by site engine, but they actually are the same one.
And how would I record this trick with additional 6 throw ? Is it 1234560 or 0123456 ?
Do we have any rules of resolving situations like this ?

Also, do you count 2 and 0 as a catch ?
And is there a way to tag people in posts ?

lukeburrage - - Parent

The convention among jugglers is to typically write down or say a siteswap starting with the highest value. Sure, you might get into the pattern with different throws, or start the loop at a different place, but for clear and easy communication, it's nice if everyone sticks to the same order for the same pattern.

This means 97531 is always easy to recognise, rather than each time the reader having to decode that 31975 and 19753 and 75319 are all the same pattern.

In your case, you are wrong that there is no question that your pattern is called 12345, as you yourself then explain. The convention is to call it 51234.

As for counting catches, with running a siteswap pattern it's often easier to count the cycles of the pattern. For example, here is a video of the b97531 record. Catches aren't mentioned, but "151 rounds" is:

Daniel Simu - - Parent

I've never heard of this convention. 51234 sounds strange. Why not start a siteswap at its easiest point of entry? If it is a ground state siteswap, it's always obvious. 45123 makes much more sense to me than 51234. Obviously it's going to be 97531 and not 19753
Besides, how do you solve for siteswaps with recurring high numbers? 777171 could be written in 4 correct ways then?

I'm not an expert on states, but the excited state pattern 891 doesn't start with the highest number either. I believe that the easiest entry is 778, wheras the easiest entry for 918 is 7788?

"and there is no questions that it is called 12345" I think siteswap wise it should be called 45123, but 12345 is the obvious style choice. Which indeed makes counting tricky. You could link 45123 to the 12345 trick in the record section, claim that your version is the correct one and ask the current record holders for clarification of their counting method.
For myself I would also count cycles, not catches, but I understand that in the record section that doesn't work... I'm sure someone who uses the record section actively can comment on this?

peterbone - - Parent

The convention is actually to write the siteswap in numerical order. So 777171 would be the only correct way to write it. I assume that the reason is that it was convenient for early siteswap generators to write them in that format without having to work out the states. Writing them with highest values first is most likely to result in a low state start, unless you work out the states.

lukeburrage - - Parent

Well, Peter already answered this. It's the highest numerical value if converted into a single number. 777171 starts with 777 which is higher than 771, 717, 171 or 717.

As for this: "I'm not an expert on states, but the excited state pattern 891 doesn't start with the highest number either. I believe that the easiest entry is 778, wheras the easiest entry for 918 is 7788?"

Let's write those down.

Into 891 is 778? So that's 778891891891...

Into 918 is 7788? So that's 778891891891...

Yeah, you've just come up with the same thing!

Daniel Simu - - Parent

Of course they're both the same thing! But that still doesn't tell you whether you should write 891 or 918, right? And my generator & jugglewiki do call it 891, not 918...

Orinoco - - Parent

I've never heard of that convention either. I've only ever heard 12345 called 12345. Searching for 12345 vs the other permutations on rec.juggling & the Edge (both the forum & the records section), 12345 is by far the most prevalent.

If two siteswap records are entered into the Edge records system that are a rotation of each other & provided you have built up enough 'experience' by entering records you will have the option to merge those two tricks together. Once merged you can enter the trick whichever way you like but they will be listed & compared together.

At present no-one has entered a permutation of 12345 to link to.

Maria - - Parent

I have heard of that convention, and I would certainly write any 4-handed siteswaps that way (I believe that most of the passers do that).

When logging my juggling practice, however, I usually write ground-state siteswaps in the order I do them, so 51234 would be written as 45123, since that way I can say that I did 4 rounds and back to cascade or something like that. (While if I wrote it as 12345 or 51234, the same number of actual throws and catches would only contain 3 rounds and the first and last throws would count as transition throws...).

I don't log siteswap records so it doesn't matter in that case, but if I did, I'd feel that doing for example ...3333345123451234512333333.... would be 15 catches of 45123, but only 13 catches of 12345. (If I do active 2s, otherwise I would not count them.)

Someone might also have noticed that I sometimes log both 55050 and 50505 in the same practice session... Or 552 and 525. In that case, it's just different starts and has little to do with how to write siteswaps and more to do with me wanting to see in my log entry that I actually did two different starts, but being too lazy to use a lot of words. (55050 would be starting with one club in one hand and two in the other, and throwing from the hand with one club first. 50505 would be starting with 3 in the same hand.)

7b_wizard - - Parent

Same here .. heard of that convention and use it for logging records, but in a given context write them as then makes more sense.

The Void - - Parent

I've heard of that convention and yet also commonly heard patterns referred to in ascending order, eg 12345. (Also the convention for writing multiplex throws also follows the "highest possible number" convention. eg [543], not [345]. I learned that from Sean Gandini.)

lukeburrage - - Parent

In the single case of the pattern 12345, yes, that order is the most common by far. It feels like the natural way of saying it. However, it's in a class of patterns where throw values increase by one until it drops to the first number again, and in most other cases, the higher number is said first. Examples:

423 not 234
534 not 345
645 not 456

It's only because it feels natural to say the number 1 first that people do so! And it *is* so satisfying to say it that way! In conversation, I've no problem with saying 12345. I think it's more important to have clear communication between two people than to follow strict rules.

But in the case of making a list or database entry, I think it's best to stick with the convention. And if there's any confusion, explain the convention, not make exceptions for something that just happens to scratch a weird cognitive itch.

The Void - - Parent


Kelhoon - - Parent

What if others (like me) find it easier to start it with the 3 ? i.e. 34512

There are many patterns that people don't start the same way, so the easy way for you isn't necessarily the easy way for others, hence the need for the convention as discussed by Peter and Luke to help everyone recognise a given siteswap from all it's possible cycles.

lukeburrage - - Parent

Yes, this is the whole point. When ordering lists, the person reading it should know where to look, and also not think they are missing anything, and also not worrying that two things in different places are duplicates. This is why bookshops and libraries have settled on (within sections) ordering books by the author's second name, and then the first name, and then by book title/series title and number. If you went into a bookshop, and some books were ordered by the title, and some by the author name, and some by the colour of the spine, everyone would be super annoyed.

In the case of siteswaps in a list, or in a database like the records section, the obvious thing to do is order them by A: object number and then by B: numerical value.

This is important because, just looking at the siteswap out of context, it's impossible for most people to know the state of the pattern, or how they would transition into it from the cascade or fountain, or any number of other things.

And it's really important not to have 777171, 771717, 717177, 171777, 717771 an 177717 ALL listed in different places, or else the list would be unmanageable! You'd also have to have 441, 414 and 144 listed. And every other iteration of every other pattern, just in case another juggler liked starting on a different beat or had a different transition into the patter,

If someone is confused, it's much better to explain the convention to that person (eg. "in the book shop we order by author surname") than it is to accommodate their preference at the expense of making the system more complicated and confusing for everyone else.

Orinoco - - Parent

With regards to counting numbers. Don't count 0s, & only count 2s if they are active (thrown); if you are just holding the prop don't count it as a catch.

There currently isn't a way to tag people in a post, I don't think traffic is really high enough to warrant the feature? If you just type someone's name in all capitals I'm sure they'll get the message.

Nikita - - Parent

Thank you, Orinoco.

Not counting 0 makes and passive 2's makes sense. I just realized than I counted number of cycles and multiplied it by number of digits in siteswap. But it turned out to be wrong.

Taging people look nice. As I see it. Just Highlighted name makes it clear to random reader that message has direct recipient. It also would allow to send emails to tagged people if they want it, for example. I don't think everyone read forum from end to end. But it is minor.

I'm much more interested in resolving my siteswap issue.
You mentioned an option to merge two tricks together. I have not found info about it anywhere, could you please comment on it ?
If there is a possibility to merge tricks and make two different entries behave like one trick would really solve it.
But also may be i't is possible to pre process siteswaps programmatically to make all versions of one trick recorded with same string. (like if you enter 315 it is still shows up as 531)
I'm not sure if it is a right way.

peterbone - - Parent

Go to any trick in the records section and look at the bottom of the page for "Is this trick the same as another? Link them together". However, based on what Orin said earlier it may not be available unless you've added a lot of records.

Orinoco - - Parent

...& that link will appear if you've logged more than 10 records. This is just an arbitrary threshold so that linking is only handled by people who are at least a little familiar with the records system. I couldn't remember what the threshold was when I posted earlier so just had to look up the code!

Nikita - - Parent

Okay, that explains why I have not found it :)


Subscribe to this forum via RSS
1 article per branch
1 article per post

Green Eggs reports