Post History
Answer
#3: Post edited
by
Hudjefa
·
2024-08-09T11:27:18Z (3 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?- 
- 
#2: Post edited
by
Hudjefa
·
2024-08-09T11:26:01Z (3 months ago)
#1: Initial revision
by
Hudjefa
·
2024-08-09T11:25:27Z (3 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? 