|
|
JBSmith1978 Veteran user NY 389 Posts |
Which properties can coexist in a stack? Which can't?
Cyclical(BCS, Quickerstack) vs Mirror (color/number/pointer/oneway). Barry Richardson has an effect, in Theater of the Mind, that requires a certain color sequence. Many popular mem'stacks will meet the requirements if a few cards are cut. |
ddyment Inner circle Gibsons, BC, Canada 2499 Posts |
A correction: QuickerStack is not a cyclic stack (making it simple to determine the following and preceding cards in a deck); it is an algorithmic stack used for memorized deck work.
The DAO Stack, found in my Tricyclic book, is my contribution to the field of cyclic stacks.
The Deceptionary :: Elegant, Literate, Contemporary Mentalism ... and More :: (order "Calculated Thoughts" from Vanishing Inc.)
|
JBSmith1978 Veteran user NY 389 Posts |
Thanks for clarifying Doug. I was combining the ideas of sequential and tetradistic into a general category. Perhaps there is an appropriate term?
|
Shikanominarazu Loyal user 259 Posts |
I'm a little confused. What makes a stack "cyclical"? Is it specifically that some relation between position and card value exists and can be applied to the jump from 52 to 1 (like in Stebbins)? Because I've always thought of any memorized stack as "cyclical" to the extent that if you cut the deck you still always know what card comes after the current one (or x cards down) even though first card is different (which is I suppose a rather broad definition, but the only one I have at the moment).
|
JBSmith1978 Veteran user NY 389 Posts |
I was looking for less meta qualities. For instance all memdecks are broadly a staystack, yet there are staystack effects that rely on suit/ value/ color stays.
In the OP I meant cyclical in the sense that some property follows a regular rotation. Clearly a little too vague/ used the wrong terminology. Some effects use the mathematical properties of Stebbins. A variant of Stebbins in some cases won't be suitable for particular Stebbins effects. |
Shikanominarazu Loyal user 259 Posts |
Nothing wrong with your terminology, and certainly your answer was much clearer than my question (my apologies). And Doug's response, which I didn't read well the first time around, also helps.
It's an interesting question, which I sadly don't have the math skills to answer with any detail. I'd be curious to the answer as well. |
JBSmith1978 Veteran user NY 389 Posts |
De Bruijn sequences, afore mentioned matrices, eight chains within faro work,Aragons concepts in A Book In English. I'm sure some of the concepts still have synergies left unexplored. I'd be handy to have a heuristic or chart to help navigate the aesthetics of properties of the pasteboard orderings.
|
Xpilot Elite user Florida 464 Posts |
Quote:
On 2014-02-21 01:33, Shikanominarazu wrote: A stack that is cyclic is one where the card sequence(s) repeats. For example, Si Stebbins is cyclic because the sequence Ace-4-7-10-King... repeats in a continuous cycle. Most people would not want a memorized deck to be cyclical. One reason is that a cyclical stack has a obvious pattern that a spectator might be able to identify. |
ddyment Inner circle Gibsons, BC, Canada 2499 Posts |
Xpilot claimed:
Quote:
A stack that is cyclic is one where the card sequence(s) repeats. For example, Si Stebbins is cyclic because the sequence Ace-4-7-10-King... repeats in a continuous cycle. I disagree (I would term this a repeating stack). In stack terminology, a cyclic (aka "circular", aka "rosary") stack is commonly considered to be one that is relative (not absolute) in nature. That is, the stack may be given complete cuts, and the primary function of the stack (typically, determining the previous and following cards) is not impaired. Of the most popular cyclic stacks, Si Stebbins and Eight Kings are both cyclic and repeating, while DAO and BCS are cyclic but not repeating. Quote:
Most people would not want a memorized deck to be [repeating]. One reason is that a [repeating] stack has a[n] obvious pattern that a spectator might be able to identify. And yet many of the top card artists of all time have chosen to memorize repeating stacks. For one, noted practitioner Alan Ackerman has written, "I personally feel the tetradistic stack is the strongest of all stacks." And a tetradistic stack is a repeating one. So these issues are not as simplistic as some choose to think.
The Deceptionary :: Elegant, Literate, Contemporary Mentalism ... and More :: (order "Calculated Thoughts" from Vanishing Inc.)
|
Xpilot Elite user Florida 464 Posts |
Quote:
On Feb 22, 2014, ddyment wrote: Given that there is no definitive dictionary of stack terms I suppose we could define a cyclic stack as anything we want. Unfortunately, using your definition makes the term meaningless (or useless) since 'cyclic' stack now refers to any deck of cards shuffled or NDO, stacked in a set-up sequence or randomly shuffled. A partial or complete deck or even 10 random cards pulled out of a deck and put in a pile is now a cyclic stack. Personally if I'm going to use a term to refer to a set-up deck I'd prefer it mean something different than "any pile of two or more cards". Quote:
I suppose you're right. If "many" of the "top card artists" (and you even named one) choose to memorize repeating stacks then what "most people" want is meaningless, right? Or should I just be thankful I wrote "most" and not "all". Maybe you can check my spelling now. ETA: I say there is no 'definitive' dictionary of stack terms. That doesn't mean you can't find anything. For one example we could look here http://web.magicana.com/exhibitions/stew......ack.html and find one definition which happens to agree with mine. But maybe we shouldn't consider Stewart James a "top card artist": Quote:
The stack is a “cyclic” one, because both values and suits repeat the same cycle multiple times |
JanForster Inner circle Germany ... when not traveling... 4190 Posts |
Which is my understanding too ... and I belong in the group of "most people" . Jan
Jan Forster
www.janforster.de |
ddyment Inner circle Gibsons, BC, Canada 2499 Posts |
Clearly Xpilot and my understandings differ. The article on Stewart James to which he refers does not include a definition of "cyclic stack" that I can see; it merely gives an example of one (The 8 Kings stack), one that agrees with my definition. (Incidentally, Stewart James himself preferred the term "rosary stack" for these types of stacks.)
Xpilot also makes the strange claim that my definition covers any sequence of more than 2 cards, which is simply nonsense. Clearly he did not read (or did not understand) what I wrote. And attributing claims to me that I would never make, such as the ridiculous notion that "what 'most' people want is meaningless", is a rather puerile way of conducting an argument. Note that 8 Kings satisfies both Xpilot's and my definitions of a cyclic/circular/rosary stack", so it's not very helpful in an understanding of this issue. Better examples would be stacks like DAO (Dyment) or BCS (Osterlind), which by my definition are circular in nature, though by Xpilot's are not. I stand by what I wrote.
The Deceptionary :: Elegant, Literate, Contemporary Mentalism ... and More :: (order "Calculated Thoughts" from Vanishing Inc.)
|
Xpilot Elite user Florida 464 Posts |
Quote:
On Mar 6, 2014, ddyment wrote: Guess you didn't read this sentence in that article: Quote:
The stack is a “cyclic” one, because both values and suits repeat the same cycle multiple times. Of course he doesn't write "this is the definition of cyclic', but he clearly says that that stack is cyclic BECAUSE it repeats the same cycle. Quote:
Xpilot also makes the strange claim that my definition covers any sequence of more than 2 cards, which is simply nonsense. Clearly he did not read (or did not understand) what I wrote. Your definition: Quote:
In stack terminology, a cyclic (aka "circular", aka "rosary") stack is commonly considered to be one that is relative (not absolute) in nature. That is, the stack may be given complete cuts, and the primary function of the stack (typically, determining the previous and following cards) is not impaired. Of the most popular cyclic stacks, Si Stebbins and Eight Kings are both cyclic and repeating, while DAO and BCS are cyclic but not repeating. No, "cyclic" is not aka as "circular". Now that we have the internet you don't even need a dictionary to google definitions of the words. Cyclic means "occurring in cycles; regularly repeated" and circular means "having the form of a circle". The word 'cyclic' means that something regularly repeats, so your claim that a stack can be "cyclic, but not repeating" is absurd. Quote:
And attributing claims to me that I would never make, such as the ridiculous notion that "what 'most' people want is meaningless", is a rather puerile way of conducting an argument. Sort of like writing "yet many of the top card artists of all time have chosen to memorize repeating stacks" in reference to my writing "most people"? I guess by your definition "most people" are "top card artists". Quote:
Note that 8 Kings satisfies both Xpilot's and my definitions of a cyclic/circular/rosary stack", so it's not very helpful in an understanding of this issue. Better examples would be stacks like DAO (Dyment) or BCS (Osterlind), which by my definition are circular in nature, though by Xpilot's are not. Very clever, if you keep changing the meaning or words then no one but you can ever be right about what they mean. In the first post you claimed that 'cyclic' and 'circular' are the same thing Quote:
In stack terminology, a cyclic (aka "circular", aka "rosary") stack Now you want to claim that 8 kings is cyclic and circular but DAO is circular but not cyclic. So we can sum up your side of the issue by saying "cyclic and circular both have the same meaning but cyclic and circular mean different things". Quote:
I stand by what I wrote. I don't care where you stand, you're still wrong. |
ddyment Inner circle Gibsons, BC, Canada 2499 Posts |
I do not intend to prolong this rather silly "argument", as Xpilot continues to ascribe claims to me that I never made, and then argues against them. S/he even does this ineffectively; for example, by selectively stating one definition of "cyclic" as "regularly repeated" (disingenuously omitting the other common definition of "cyclic", which is "of or relating to a circle or other closed curve").
I have made my points, which (as I noted) disagree with Xpilot's. I will mention that the use of terminology within a craft often differs from its dictionary meaning (cf. "branching anagrams" and the like). There are obviously dictionary differences among "cyclic", "circular", and "rosary", but all three terms have been used in the literature to describe stacks (of arbitrary size) that have been designed to serve some purpose, which purpose is unaffected by the number of times the stack is given complete cuts. Such stacks may, or may not, contain repeated sequences. As I believe I made clear.
The Deceptionary :: Elegant, Literate, Contemporary Mentalism ... and More :: (order "Calculated Thoughts" from Vanishing Inc.)
|
Xpilot Elite user Florida 464 Posts |
I'm sorry. Among the claims you think you never made seem to be your statements that cyclic and circular are the same followed a few days later by your claim that a stack can be circular but not cyclic. This argument is rather silly because you continue to claim that words mean what ddyment claims they mean today but could mean something different tomorrow if ddyment so decrees.
The use of terminology within a craft is not established by one person claiming they are the final authority. You do seem to think that whining "I'm right, I'm right" is all it takes to prove you're right. I've provided dictionary definitions, Stewart James writing and common sense use saying that if cyclic and circular are the same then they can't change later and become different. You've done nothing but continue to claim that you never made the statements I quoted from your posts and whine "wa, wa because I said so". Of course we weren't discussing branching anagrams or any words other than 'cyclic' (to which you added circular)so bringing branching anagrams into the discussion is nothing but a red herring. There may be literature that uses 'cyclic', 'circular' and 'rosary' all to mean the same thing. I haven't read everything. But since you fail to produce a single example it's just another baseless claim. So you remain with a single argument consisting of "wa, wa, because I said so. The only thing you've made clear is that you think you're right but are unable to produce anything supporting your view or to even remain consistent in your claims. |
JBSmith1978 Veteran user NY 389 Posts |
I stand by my initial post.
I think it would be handy to bracket traits and explore the how and why those features are compatible/ incompatibile, |
JBSmith1978 Veteran user NY 389 Posts |
Are there any works that basically function as a study of stacks to start list building?
|
Xpilot Elite user Florida 464 Posts |
Probably not (but I haven't read everything so ddyment may disagree again). Most works that discuss stacks focus on a particular stack although there are some that get into more than one. None that would work as a sole source to build much of a list. If you're not limiting it to full deck stacks that there are probably thousands of stacks only referenced once in relation to a specific trick they're use for- but in those cases they'd mostly they'd be referred to a setups rather than stacks (once again, some may disagree if they want).
|
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Shuffled not Stirred » » Considerations. (0 Likes) |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.05 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |