I'm guessing it's kickflip, heelflip, bs shuv, and fs shuv.
Your definition leaves out varial heels and inward heels.
Edit: On second thought I'm still not sure, I saw this in the paper, and I'm guessing they're classifying both direction shuvs as the same, and kick/heelflip as the same
Below we list these four tricks with their corresponding residue class in Z/4Z.
0 ↔ Ollie
1 ↔ 180 Shove-it
2 ↔ 360 Shove-it
3 ↔ 540 Shove-it
Another interesting choice of representatives is given by a combination of the shove-it
and the kickflip.
The main result of the paper seems to be saying that kickflips and heelflips are homotopic, and therefore equivalent. Fs shove it is just the inverse of a pop shove it.
Comments
I'm guessing it's kickflip, heelflip, bs shuv, and fs shuv.
Your definition leaves out varial heels and inward heels.
Edit: On second thought I'm still not sure, I saw this in the paper, and I'm guessing they're classifying both direction shuvs as the same, and kick/heelflip as the same
Below we list these four tricks with their corresponding residue class in Z/4Z.
0 ↔ Ollie
1 ↔ 180 Shove-it
2 ↔ 360 Shove-it
3 ↔ 540 Shove-it
Another interesting choice of representatives is given by a combination of the shove-it and the kickflip.
0 ↔ Ollie
1 ↔ 180 Shove-it
2 ↔ Kickflip
3 ↔ Varial Kickflip
The main result of the paper seems to be saying that kickflips and heelflips are homotopic, and therefore equivalent. Fs shove it is just the inverse of a pop shove it.
How is a 360 shove it not equal to an ollie? and a 540 shuv it equivalent to a 180 shove it?
Maybe the four tricks are:
Ollie
Any Shove it/varial with no flip
Any Flip with no shove it
Any flip + shove it combo
?