I'm no mathematician, but I wanted to see how you guys would solve this problem. Also there are 24 bombs left, Idk how useful the last information is.
also here is the full game
These are all consistent. You need more info
>>16548320so no guess?
>>16548318You can start solving that from top right of the unsolved area. The unsolved 3 has to be in one position.
>>16548324That's all it would be, a guess.
>>16548330I think that's a bad move. The possibilities of location of the bomb are pretty symmetric so it's about 50-50 you get the choice wrong. Since there are only 24 bombs left and well over 48 tiles, you can find a better spot to guess.
>>16548336Not a 50/50, it's 100% in one spot. Please this is not a dumb zone no dumb here.
All I could come up with was this
and this (also the flag under the 2 was supposed to be a question mark)
>>16548340It could also be to the right of the bottom 4. The 2 could be fulfilled by the space to the left of the ?.>>16548339I don't see how it's 100% and it's certainly not obvious. See above
>>16548344Because in 2 more moves one leads to contradiction while the other doesn't
>>16548344well that would be the second image that I have posted. But now I fixed the flag
>>16548348so it's a 100% that I would hit or miss?
>>16548351I won't be answering further questions
>>16548351No, he realized he was wrong
>>16548362I have been exposed, it's not a solvable puzzle without guessing at least one more time. A good place to go at it is at the top 2 below either of the 4's
What makes you think all grids are solvable?
>>16548369OP never made this claim.
>>16548369Of course they are.
well what if we focus on the probability of the two squares that the number 5 is touching, and then try to tell which one is less likely to have a bomb?
made a guess and it worked, now we have this.
I would write a computer program that brute forces the answer processing time is cheaper than man hours
>>16548417
>>16548465Minesweeper is actually NP-complete. Write some efficient code to solve it and you win $1M.
>>16548547>efficient codeok so most efficient way is to read minesweeper memory and see the grid then simply reveal all of it, where's my $1M.
>>16548318In this situation, a random click in the center of the enclosed blue area would yield a better outcome than a 1/3 mine.
>>16550136brilliant. now try submitting that as your solution and see how far it gets you.
>>16550714technically mathematics is like hacking the code of the universe. So he isn't that far from the correct solution. He gets a nobel, but like one of those not serious ones like obama got.
>>16548544huh?
>>16548318You have 8 mines certain which makes 16 total minesThere is a chance that you are at 9 certain mainly the 2-1-2 one where the middle is the one, that would make the 'big grid' 9/44 or 8/44 which are better choices than average chances which are 1/3.When you are trying to solve it from the opposite blind end the best choice would be the topright 4 just because the opens 'within the 44 grid' are 1/3 that would make you have 1/122 chances to get it right, so you would pick the middle one as colored.
>>16551007Sorry not 1/122 but 1/58.6
Sorry im drunk, 16/44 would make 36% and 15/44 34% which both are better than 33%There
>>16551007suppose the 4 surrounded by question marks was a three, would your odds increase, decrease, or remain that same that the question mark in the 2-3-4 corner was a mine?
>working on the same board for 2 hoursBro if it's been more than 2 minutes just give up and reroll. You don't get faster by trying to make 300 IQ deductions which are almost certainly impossible anyway.Also don't use the garbage nuversions with blue squares. Either use minesweeper.online or if you want an .exe then a competitive-focused clone like Minesweeper X.
>>16550736the numbers are only a suggestion
>>16554888checkedHowever the point of playing minesweeper is not, for most people, to be a speedtranny.
>>16548314it could be one in the middle or two outside of the middle. solve the rest of the puzzle and maybe then you know more
