Post History
Answer
#2: Post edited
by
Olin Lathrop
·
2024-08-09T11:48:22Z (3 months ago)
- <blockquote>Is there a way we can "remedy" this</blockquote>
No, not without additional information. If you truly do not know anything about the location of the lost object other than it is not in any of the squares you searched, then there is always an equal chance of it being in each of the unsearched squares.
- <blockquote>Is there a way we can "remedy" this</blockquote>
- No, not without additional information. If you truly do not know anything about the location of the lost object other than it is not in any of the squares you searched, then there is always an equal chance of it being in each of the unsearched squares.
- <blockquote>How about if I randomly (???) sweep sections of the squares left. Divide the 3 remaining squares into equal parts and conduct variable searches in these parts.</blockquote>
- You are trying to get something from nothing. You have no information about the location of the object, so the only way to get information is to search. Every place you look has the same chance of having the object in it as any other place of the same size.
- If you break up the 3 remaining squares into 3 equal boxes each, then you now have 9 boxes the object could be in. Each box is 3x easier to search, but also with 3x less chance the object is there.
#1: Initial revision
by
Olin Lathrop
·
2024-08-08T12:09:16Z (3 months ago)
<blockquote>Is there a way we can "remedy" this</blockquote> No, not without additional information. If you truly do not know anything about the location of the lost object other than it is not in any of the squares you searched, then there is always an equal chance of it being in each of the unsearched squares.