Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Post History

33%
+0 −2
Q&A Search & Probability

posted 4mo ago by Hudjefa‭  ·  edited 4mo ago by Hudjefa‭

Answer
#3: Post edited by user avatar Hudjefa‭ · 2024-08-09T11:27:18Z (4 months ago)
  • Firstly, gracias for the answer.
  • What kind of *additional information* would be required? Is there some way to reduce the number of steps (the lost object *is* in one of the $4$ squares) to discovery of the lost object?
  • How about if I *randomly* (???) sweep sections of the $3$ squares left. Divide the $3$ remaining squares into equal parts and conduct variable searches in these parts. For example I now subdivide each of the remaining $3$ squares into thirds, giving us a total of $9$ smaller rectangles. After that I could *vary* (advisable?) how many of the rectangles/square I search: I could search $2$ of the rectangles in one square, $1$ each for the other $2$ squares. Does this "technique" reduce the number of steps relative to the brute search method we were using?
  • ![Like this](https://math.codidact.com/uploads/n360q6fg2erisd6u3oxj2z6hcdjd)
  • ![Like this](https://math.codidact.com/uploads/n360q6fg2erisd6u3oxj2z6hcdjd)
#2: Post edited by user avatar Hudjefa‭ · 2024-08-09T11:26:01Z (4 months ago)
#1: Initial revision by user avatar Hudjefa‭ · 2024-08-09T11:25:27Z (4 months ago)
Firstly, gracias for the answer.

What kind of *additional information* would be required? Is there some way to reduce the number of steps (the lost object *is* in one of the $4$ squares) to discovery of the lost object?

How about if I *randomly* (???) sweep sections of the $3$ squares left. Divide the $3$ remaining squares into equal parts and conduct variable searches in these parts. For example I now subdivide each of the remaining $3$ squares into thirds, giving us a total of $9$ smaller rectangles. After that I could *vary* (advisable?) how many of the rectangles/square I search: I could search $2$ of the rectangles in one square, $1$ each for the other $2$ squares. Does this "technique" reduce the number of steps relative to the brute search method we were using?

![Like this](https://math.codidact.com/uploads/n360q6fg2erisd6u3oxj2z6hcdjd)