48 ms·
The mines are uniformly distributed, yes, but the numbers are not. In a relatively sparse minefield, how likely is to find a 4? Of course depending on the "shap
by tydok 10y ago
The mines are uniformly distributed, yes, but the numbers are not. In a relatively sparse minefield, how likely is to find a 4? Of course depending on the "shape" of a cluster, chances can be 50%. The mines influence the distribution of numbers, not the other way around.
Try to apply the tactic I mentioned to solve the minefield in the article.
- Retr0spectrum 10y agoYour logic is faulty, but it's hard to explain why. I think this might be variation of the Monty Hall Problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem Or more likely, just the Gambler's fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy
- tydok 10y agoIt's not based on math, it's empirical. In practice seems to work. I applied it on the minefield in the article and I solved it. To put it another way, on two adjacent tiles where there's one mine, if you had the choice to reveal a 2 or a 6, which one would you choose?
- WmyEE0UsWAwC2i 10y agoI think the parent's argument could rewriten as: The numbers induce a probability distribution in the adjacent tiles. But you also should take into account that the remaining mines are uniformily distributed. In other words, consider the prior. I couldn't write math neither in favor nor against this claim. 1. Maybe for uniformly distributed mines the numbers have all the information you need. or 2. Maybe using the fact the the mines are uniformily distributed, in addition to the numbers, has impact on the probabilities distributions EDIT: you play a 10x10 game with 20 mines. your initial move in a non-border tile reveals a `1`. you now know that around that `1` there is a 1/8=0.125 chance of hitting a mine. ITOH there is a 19/91 = 0.20879 chance to find a mine in a tile not adjacent to the `1`