I'll stick with strip/branch mining long 2x1 tunnels 3 spaces apart.
I like getting all the lapis, gold, redstone, iron, and coal with the diamonds for what ever I might need them for later.
Besides, an average of 3 per chunk doesn't mean you should abandon that chunk after you find a vein, as people have stated already here.
Though this was quiet the interesting read through.
I'll stick with strip/branch mining long 2x1 tunnels 3 spaces apart.
I like getting all the lapis, gold, redstone, iron, and coal with the diamonds for what ever I might need them for later.
Besides, an average of 3 per chunk doesn't mean you should abandon that chunk after you find a vein, as people have stated already here.
Though this was quiet the interesting read through.
the idea is to show new potentially more beneficial ideas
Please don't take this as "just another hate post flaming on your idea" or whatever. If you take the time to read it, I'm sure you will be enlightened. If you don't understand, or don't agree with, anything I say here, then say so, and let's have an open and mature discussion about it.
the idea is to show new potentially more beneficial ideas
You keep saying that, but we keep telling you it's not more beneficial, and you keep ignoring us. Please understand that we are not ignoring you. We have heard your ideas, and we have told you why they are incorrect. In case you missed it amidst all the "hate" you claim to be receiving, let me reiterate our position.
Unless I'm misunderstanding, your argument is this:
Once you have extracted the average number of diamonds from a chunk, that chunk becomes "used up" and has a reduced probability to yield further diamonds. Therefore you should abandon that chunk and move on to a new one with "fresh odds."
This seems like a logical conclusion; the human mind is wired to be attracted to these sorts of concepts, and so we don't think any less of you for falling prey to this gambler's fallacy, but in reality it is just that: a fallacy, a faulty line of reasoning which leads to incorrect conclusions. It may seem logical on the surface, but there are underlying flaws that make it invalid.
Yes, I'm saying your technique is invalid. No, that's not meant to be an insult, it's just the honest truth. That's not to say you won't still find some diamonds using this way; just about any method of going underground and digging up blocks will yield diamonds eventually. Some methods are more efficient, and some are less; this method is no more efficient than what we've been doing already and, since that seems to be what you had set out to do initially, that's why I say it is invalid. Having an invalid idea isn't a bad thing, in and of itself, but when you refuse to abandon that idea, even when faced with facts showing the reality of its invalidity, that's bordering on the psychotic.
Finding diamonds somewhere in chunk A doesn't make the rest of chunk A any less likely to produce diamonds than it does an equally-sized piece of chunk B, or any other same-sized, arbitrarily-chosen group of blocks which may span across several other chunks C, D, and E. Diamond ore occurs in roughly 0.846% of stone from levels 2-15 (per the wiki.) So say you pick a block, any block, at random from within this range. Before you look at it and find out what it is, the chance of that particular block being diamond is 0.846%. After you look at it, it's either a diamond or it's not, and you know which one it is with absolute certainty, so the chance is either 100% or it's zero. But before looking, you don't know for sure, you can only know the probability.
Let's say you look at it, and it turns out to be a diamond. What is the chance, then, that the next, randomly-selected block will also be a diamond? HOMEWORK: Try to answer this question yourself, before opening up the spoiler and revealing the correct answer.
It's exactly the same, 0.846%! It doesn't matter if that other block is immediately adjacent* to the first one, or several chunks over, the chance is still the same! The chance of any block being diamond is this same 0.846%, regardless of whatever the other blocks around it are.
(*)Actually, when talking about individual blocks, the chance is actually higher for those directly adjacent to an already-discovered diamond, but this is just because of how they generate, clumped together in veins as they are. If you find one diamond, chances are high, much higher than normal, that any of the adjacent blocks are also diamonds. But on scales larger than the size of a single vein, the odds go back to normal. Finding a vein in one "quadrant" of a chunk, for example, does not rule out, or affect in any way the probability of finding more in any of the other three quadrants.
I've said this before, and I'll probably say it again: efficiency in mining is all about being able to view the highest number of blocks in the least amount of time and with the least wear on your tools. Since breaking a block takes both time and tool wear, this boils down to blocks exposed vs. blocks mined. Technically, caving is superior to any form of mining, in that there are already hundreds, perhaps thousands of blocks exposed in the cave walls, and you didn't have to break anything to find them. This works fine for coal, iron, and even gold if you can find a cave that goes deep enough. But for diamond, redstone, and lapis, these ores only occur in the deepest levels of the map, and it's difficult to find a cave that goes just deep enough to reach these layers, without also going so deep that it's filled with lava. For this reason, branch mining is the fastest and best method of acquiring these resources.
A 1-wide, 2-high tunnel exposes six new blocks for every two blocks mined (technically eight, but the two directly behind it, you were going to mine out next, anyway, so they don't really count) for an efficiency of 3:1 (or 4:1 if you want to count those ones. You do see them, you'll mine them and if they're diamond, you'll get diamonds from them. It's just that you'll still have to mine them anyway, even if they aren't something good.) For every two blocks you break, you get to look at six more, and see if they're diamonds. When your tunnel is 150 blocks long, you will have exposed 900 additional blocks (plus the 300 you mined along the way, for a total of 1200 blocks.) 0.0846% of 1200 is just over 1, so statistically, you would expect to have found about one diamond by this time. In practice, because they form in veins, if you find one diamond you'll probably find more, and you may also go long periods without seeing any (because the clumping does mean that the voids between clumps will be larger than if the diamonds were scattered individually.) But if you extend this by a factor of a hundred, then after mining 15,000 blocks worth of tunnel (whether in one long strip or appropriately-spaced branches), you can reasonably expect to have found, roughly, about a hundred diamonds. Whether these were in a few large veins, or several smaller ones, you can't say, but the total number of diamonds should roughly match up.
Technically, the best way to do it is just to dig in a straight line for infinity, but as your mine gets larger and larger (read: longer and longer), this makes for a very long and tedious walk back home. This is why people mine in "branches" of a certain length (or just until they hit lava), then go back to a "main" tunnel and start a new branch a few spaces over. The optimal spacing for these branches has been shown to be about six. Any closer than that, and you're losing efficiency by running into the same vein from both sides, "discovering" something you already knew about. Any farther, and there's little or no added benefit; you don't gain any added efficiency, you just have to walk farther to the next branch, so there's no reason to do so.
Be aware that it is wrong, your tools will degrade even faster doing it this way.
Eh on servers where you have access to easy commands and xp farms and mcmmo (mining skill boosts drops as level gets higher) then degrading of tools shouldn't be too much of an issue, although it is both boring and tedious to mine so many blocks XD.
Eh on servers where you have access to easy commands and xp farms and mcmmo (mining skill boosts drops as level gets higher) then degrading of tools shouldn't be too much of an issue, although it is both boring and tedious to mine so many blocks XD.
Please don't take this as "just another hate post flaming on your idea" or whatever. If you take the time to read it, I'm sure you will be enlightened. If you don't understand, or don't agree with, anything I say here, then say so, and let's have an open and mature discussion about it.
You keep saying that, but we keep telling you it's not more beneficial, and you keep ignoring us. Please understand that we are not ignoring you. We have heard your ideas, and we have told you why they are incorrect. In case you missed it amidst all the "hate" you claim to be receiving, let me reiterate our position.
Unless I'm misunderstanding, your argument is this:
Once you have extracted the average number of diamonds from a chunk, that chunk becomes "used up" and has a reduced probability to yield further diamonds. Therefore you should abandon that chunk and move on to a new one with "fresh odds."
This seems like a logical conclusion; the human mind is wired to be attracted to these sorts of concepts, and so we don't think any less of you for falling prey to this gambler's fallacy, but in reality it is just that: a fallacy, a faulty line of reasoning which leads to incorrect conclusions. It may seem logical on the surface, but there are underlying flaws that make it invalid.
Yes, I'm saying your technique is invalid. No, that's not meant to be an insult, it's just the honest truth. That's not to say you won't still find some diamonds using this way; just about any method of going underground and digging up blocks will yield diamonds eventually. Some methods are more efficient, and some are less; this method is no more efficient than what we've been doing already and, since that seems to be what you had set out to do initially, that's why I say it is invalid. Having an invalid idea isn't a bad thing, in and of itself, but when you refuse to abandon that idea, even when faced with facts showing the reality of its invalidity, that's bordering on the psychotic.
Finding diamonds somewhere in chunk A doesn't make the rest of chunk A any less likely to produce diamonds than it does an equally-sized piece of chunk B, or any other same-sized, arbitrarily-chosen group of blocks which may span across several other chunks C, D, and E. Diamond ore occurs in roughly 0.846% of stone from levels 2-15 (per the wiki.) So say you pick a block, any block, at random from within this range. Before you look at it and find out what it is, the chance of that particular block being diamond is 0.846%. After you look at it, it's either a diamond or it's not, and you know which one it is with absolute certainty, so the chance is either 100% or it's zero. But before looking, you don't know for sure, you can only know the probability.
Let's say you look at it, and it turns out to be a diamond. What is the chance, then, that the next, randomly-selected block will also be a diamond? HOMEWORK: Try to answer this question yourself, before opening up the spoiler and revealing the correct answer.
It's exactly the same, 0.846%! It doesn't matter if that other block is immediately adjacent* to the first one, or several chunks over, the chance is still the same! The chance of any block being diamond is this same 0.846%, regardless of whatever the other blocks around it are.
(*)Actually, when talking about individual blocks, the chance is actually higher for those directly adjacent to an already-discovered diamond, but this is just because of how they generate, clumped together in veins as they are. If you find one diamond, chances are high, much higher than normal, that any of the adjacent blocks are also diamonds. But on scales larger than the size of a single vein, the odds go back to normal. Finding a vein in one "quadrant" of a chunk, for example, does not rule out, or affect in any way the probability of finding more in any of the other three quadrants.
I've said this before, and I'll probably say it again: efficiency in mining is all about being able to view the highest number of blocks in the least amount of time and with the least wear on your tools. Since breaking a block takes both time and tool wear, this boils down to blocks exposed vs. blocks mined. Technically, caving is superior to any form of mining, in that there are already hundreds, perhaps thousands of blocks exposed in the cave walls, and you didn't have to break anything to find them. This works fine for coal, iron, and even gold if you can find a cave that goes deep enough. But for diamond, redstone, and lapis, these ores only occur in the deepest levels of the map, and it's difficult to find a cave that goes just deep enough to reach these layers, without also going so deep that it's filled with lava. For this reason, branch mining is the fastest and best method of acquiring these resources.
A 1-wide, 2-high tunnel exposes six new blocks for every two blocks mined (technically eight, but the two directly behind it, you were going to mine out next, anyway, so they don't really count) for an efficiency of 3:1 (or 4:1 if you want to count those ones. You do see them, you'll mine them and if they're diamond, you'll get diamonds from them. It's just that you'll still have to mine them anyway, even if they aren't something good.) For every two blocks you break, you get to look at six more, and see if they're diamonds. When your tunnel is 150 blocks long, you will have exposed 900 additional blocks (plus the 300 you mined along the way, for a total of 1200 blocks.) 0.0846% of 1200 is just over 1, so statistically, you would expect to have found about one diamond by this time. In practice, because they form in veins, if you find one diamond you'll probably find more, and you may also go long periods without seeing any (because the clumping does mean that the voids between clumps will be larger than if the diamonds were scattered individually.) But if you extend this by a factor of a hundred, then after mining 15,000 blocks worth of tunnel (whether in one long strip or appropriately-spaced branches), you can reasonably expect to have found, roughly, about a hundred diamonds. Whether these were in a few large veins, or several smaller ones, you can't say, but the total number of diamonds should roughly match up.
Technically, the best way to do it is just to dig in a straight line for infinity, but as your mine gets larger and larger (read: longer and longer), this makes for a very long and tedious walk back home. This is why people mine in "branches" of a certain length (or just until they hit lava), then go back to a "main" tunnel and start a new branch a few spaces over. The optimal spacing for these branches has been shown to be about six. Any closer than that, and you're losing efficiency by running into the same vein from both sides, "discovering" something you already knew about. Any farther, and there's little or no added benefit; you don't gain any added efficiency, you just have to walk farther to the next branch, so there's no reason to do so.
I did read into this and take it into consideration. My further thought behind this is that by moving to the next chunk you are slightly putting the odds in your favor due to several things. (My logic is based on everything spawning per chunk, to maintain my average. nobody seems sure if generation is per chunk, per bloc, or just with the entire world)
you are exposing around 33% of where the diamonds could be in the chunk. with the blocks you are exposing being 4/13 layers and not counting the corner pieces that aren't uncovered in the layers immediately above and below you. I figure that with the distribution of diamonds balances that out by mining in the most crowded layers makes it somewhere around 30-40% of the potential diamonds in a chunk are uncovered on one branch mine layer in a chunk. with the average of 3-4 diamonds in a chunk, im going to use experience, X-ray observations, and odds to say there is about 1 vein per chunk on average, this could be more or less.
Taking in that you are exposing roughly 1/3 of where the diamonds could be any diamonds found had a 1 in 3 chance of being found and the same odds apply to any subsequent finds. taking the average of 1 vein in a chunk, you already had losing odds to find it then its further losing odds that there is even another vein and then more losing odds that you will even uncover it. its more playing the odds . sure its a gambler's fallacy but in terms of odds less than 1/1000, it would take a lot of coin flips or dice rolls to average that out.
Generation and ore placement is per world. After all, it's all based on a world's seed. When the world generator receives the seed, it uses that as the blueprint, or DNA, for what the entire world will look like, this includes places you are never going to visit. Then, as you approach a chunk it gets loaded and, even if it gets loaded for the first time, its contents were already set when the seed was known.
The "3 diamonds per chunk" is in deed an average. Of an entire Minecraft world, which is several times larger than the Earth. Mojang made the world generator in such a way that, when you look at an entire world (or, even better, several of them) it will in the end all even out to about that much. Compared to how big a MC world is, by comparison what you mine out is TINY, and by no means a valid sample to base statistics on. You could be in a rich area or a barren area and, after your mining trip, come out respectively above or below that average.
I think it has been said before, but what you do is also branchmining. It's just a different technique on how to do it but it's based on the same principle of exposing locations where diamonds are most likely to be found. And if you look at it that way, what do you think is faster? Digging a series of straight tunnels or irregularly snaking your way through chunks?
On a side note: you posted a concept video, can you make a video of it in actual action? Just generate a new world in creative, dig yourself a way down, give yourself a silk touch diamond pickace and some supplies then switch to survival mode and let the camera run for 15 minutes while you chunkmine?
I was planning on doing a comparison soon, been a bit busy. The Overall reaction to this is a lot more controversial than I had anticipated
no, if anything im mining less
I was planning on doing a comparison soon, been a bit busy. The Overall reaction to this is a lot more controversial than I had anticipated
Just note that you are also exposing less as well. (expose/mine less = smaller chance to find anything.
I find it interesting, but I can't really see anything that proves your theory to be more efficient, so a comparison would be great.
you already had losing odds to find it then its further losing odds that there is even another vein and then more losing odds that you will even uncover it. its more playing the odds . sure its a gambler's fallacy but in terms of odds less than 1/1000, it would take a lot of coin flips or dice rolls to average that out.
See, but you've just restated the fallacy, in a nutshell. That's the point, you see; there is no "averag[ing] that out." If you flip a coin, and get 100 heads in a row, there aren't 100 tails waiting in "future-world" to come save the day and "restore balance to the universe." Even after getting heads 100 times in a row, the odds of getting heads on the 101st flip are still exactly 50%. With a large enough sample size, the ratio of heads to tails should get closer and closer to 50:50, but the difference between them does not systematically approach zero, necessarily.
If, indeed, diamond generation is world-based rather than chunk-based (and, staring at some of my word with MCedit, it appears that is the case -- I found a spot where there were two large diamond veins a couple of blocks apart, in the same chunk) then the presence of diamonds in one block does not affect the presence of diamonds in another block.
I should point out that while chance has no memory, hardware can. If you're into that sort of thing, it's actually productive to play a slot machine that someone else has been playing and losing at for an extended period of time, because they're required to pay off within a certain number of plays. But that's not just random chance -- that's a system that's set up to look random, but not actually be random.
Taking in that you are exposing roughly 1/3 of where the diamonds could be, any diamonds found had a 1 in 3 chance of being found and the same odds apply to any subsequent finds.
You... just...blew your own theory out of the water.But that's what intelligent discourse is all about, to get us all thinking about what actually happens (and maybe firm up our understanding of probabilities)!
When I'm mining, i don't JUST collect diamonds, the other ores are just as useful. Also, about what Akynth said; depends on the slot machine type, mechanical ones are "truly" random but electronic ones probably are not.
When I'm mining, i don't JUST collect diamonds, the other ores are just as useful. Also, about what Akynth said; depends on the slot machine type, mechanical ones are "truly" random but electronic ones probably are not.
This is when you just want diamonds, if you have stacks of iron, redstone, lapis, coal, this is get diamonds and get out
The best way to mine for diamonds is using the method that you have most fun doing so. Let's not forget that this is a game. I don't believe there right or wrong way to do anything. It's all subjective.
Finding diamonds does not mean you are less likely to find more diamonds nearby, in the same way flipping a heads on a coin does not mean you're less likely to flip a heads the next time.
After some research, I have to say that I agree with colorfusion.
I couldn't find any specific information, on the Minecraft wiki or elsewhere, that specifically stated a minimum and maximum amount of diamonds per chunk. If it's between 0% and 100% yield (with the average obviously being at 0.0846%, since that's the chance for a diamond vein to spawn instead of stone), then diamond veins are unbound and thus could (at an astronomically low probability) saturate an entire chunk or (at a vastly higher probability, but still low) not be found at all.
I'd like to know if there's a maximum number of veins per chunk (lower than 100% saturation), because that's what the math requires for CraftAllTheThings to be correct. If there isn't, then I'm afraid it's colorfusion that is correct.
Bound probability is when a probability is measured from a set sample, like a deck of cards. In these situations, the probability will increase or decrease based on the underlying sample values (e.g. total cards left).
Unbound probability is when a probability is defined by complete randomness (i.e. a percentage or a fraction of a continuously "reset" sample (like a coin toss).
I like getting all the lapis, gold, redstone, iron, and coal with the diamonds for what ever I might need them for later.
Besides, an average of 3 per chunk doesn't mean you should abandon that chunk after you find a vein, as people have stated already here.
Though this was quiet the interesting read through.
the idea is to show new potentially more beneficial ideas
You keep saying that, but we keep telling you it's not more beneficial, and you keep ignoring us. Please understand that we are not ignoring you. We have heard your ideas, and we have told you why they are incorrect. In case you missed it amidst all the "hate" you claim to be receiving, let me reiterate our position.
Unless I'm misunderstanding, your argument is this:
Once you have extracted the average number of diamonds from a chunk, that chunk becomes "used up" and has a reduced probability to yield further diamonds. Therefore you should abandon that chunk and move on to a new one with "fresh odds."
This seems like a logical conclusion; the human mind is wired to be attracted to these sorts of concepts, and so we don't think any less of you for falling prey to this gambler's fallacy, but in reality it is just that: a fallacy, a faulty line of reasoning which leads to incorrect conclusions. It may seem logical on the surface, but there are underlying flaws that make it invalid.
Yes, I'm saying your technique is invalid. No, that's not meant to be an insult, it's just the honest truth. That's not to say you won't still find some diamonds using this way; just about any method of going underground and digging up blocks will yield diamonds eventually. Some methods are more efficient, and some are less; this method is no more efficient than what we've been doing already and, since that seems to be what you had set out to do initially, that's why I say it is invalid. Having an invalid idea isn't a bad thing, in and of itself, but when you refuse to abandon that idea, even when faced with facts showing the reality of its invalidity, that's bordering on the psychotic.
Finding diamonds somewhere in chunk A doesn't make the rest of chunk A any less likely to produce diamonds than it does an equally-sized piece of chunk B, or any other same-sized, arbitrarily-chosen group of blocks which may span across several other chunks C, D, and E. Diamond ore occurs in roughly 0.846% of stone from levels 2-15 (per the wiki.) So say you pick a block, any block, at random from within this range. Before you look at it and find out what it is, the chance of that particular block being diamond is 0.846%. After you look at it, it's either a diamond or it's not, and you know which one it is with absolute certainty, so the chance is either 100% or it's zero. But before looking, you don't know for sure, you can only know the probability.
Let's say you look at it, and it turns out to be a diamond. What is the chance, then, that the next, randomly-selected block will also be a diamond? HOMEWORK: Try to answer this question yourself, before opening up the spoiler and revealing the correct answer.
It's exactly the same, 0.846%! It doesn't matter if that other block is immediately adjacent* to the first one, or several chunks over, the chance is still the same! The chance of any block being diamond is this same 0.846%, regardless of whatever the other blocks around it are.
(*)Actually, when talking about individual blocks, the chance is actually higher for those directly adjacent to an already-discovered diamond, but this is just because of how they generate, clumped together in veins as they are. If you find one diamond, chances are high, much higher than normal, that any of the adjacent blocks are also diamonds. But on scales larger than the size of a single vein, the odds go back to normal. Finding a vein in one "quadrant" of a chunk, for example, does not rule out, or affect in any way the probability of finding more in any of the other three quadrants.
I've said this before, and I'll probably say it again: efficiency in mining is all about being able to view the highest number of blocks in the least amount of time and with the least wear on your tools. Since breaking a block takes both time and tool wear, this boils down to blocks exposed vs. blocks mined. Technically, caving is superior to any form of mining, in that there are already hundreds, perhaps thousands of blocks exposed in the cave walls, and you didn't have to break anything to find them. This works fine for coal, iron, and even gold if you can find a cave that goes deep enough. But for diamond, redstone, and lapis, these ores only occur in the deepest levels of the map, and it's difficult to find a cave that goes just deep enough to reach these layers, without also going so deep that it's filled with lava. For this reason, branch mining is the fastest and best method of acquiring these resources.
A 1-wide, 2-high tunnel exposes six new blocks for every two blocks mined (technically eight, but the two directly behind it, you were going to mine out next, anyway, so they don't really count) for an efficiency of 3:1 (or 4:1 if you want to count those ones. You do see them, you'll mine them and if they're diamond, you'll get diamonds from them. It's just that you'll still have to mine them anyway, even if they aren't something good.) For every two blocks you break, you get to look at six more, and see if they're diamonds. When your tunnel is 150 blocks long, you will have exposed 900 additional blocks (plus the 300 you mined along the way, for a total of 1200 blocks.) 0.0846% of 1200 is just over 1, so statistically, you would expect to have found about one diamond by this time. In practice, because they form in veins, if you find one diamond you'll probably find more, and you may also go long periods without seeing any (because the clumping does mean that the voids between clumps will be larger than if the diamonds were scattered individually.) But if you extend this by a factor of a hundred, then after mining 15,000 blocks worth of tunnel (whether in one long strip or appropriately-spaced branches), you can reasonably expect to have found, roughly, about a hundred diamonds. Whether these were in a few large veins, or several smaller ones, you can't say, but the total number of diamonds should roughly match up.
Technically, the best way to do it is just to dig in a straight line for infinity, but as your mine gets larger and larger (read: longer and longer), this makes for a very long and tedious walk back home. This is why people mine in "branches" of a certain length (or just until they hit lava), then go back to a "main" tunnel and start a new branch a few spaces over. The optimal spacing for these branches has been shown to be about six. Any closer than that, and you're losing efficiency by running into the same vein from both sides, "discovering" something you already knew about. Any farther, and there's little or no added benefit; you don't gain any added efficiency, you just have to walk farther to the next branch, so there's no reason to do so.
Village Mechanics: A not-so-brief guide - Update 2017! Now with 1.8 breeding mechanics! Long-overdue trading info, coming soon!
You think magic isn't real? Consider this: for every person, there is a sentence -- a series of words -- which has the power to destroy them.
Eh on servers where you have access to easy commands and xp farms and mcmmo (mining skill boosts drops as level gets higher) then degrading of tools shouldn't be too much of an issue, although it is both boring and tedious to mine so many blocks XD.
I did read into this and take it into consideration. My further thought behind this is that by moving to the next chunk you are slightly putting the odds in your favor due to several things. (My logic is based on everything spawning per chunk, to maintain my average. nobody seems sure if generation is per chunk, per bloc, or just with the entire world)
you are exposing around 33% of where the diamonds could be in the chunk. with the blocks you are exposing being 4/13 layers and not counting the corner pieces that aren't uncovered in the layers immediately above and below you. I figure that with the distribution of diamonds balances that out by mining in the most crowded layers makes it somewhere around 30-40% of the potential diamonds in a chunk are uncovered on one branch mine layer in a chunk. with the average of 3-4 diamonds in a chunk, im going to use experience, X-ray observations, and odds to say there is about 1 vein per chunk on average, this could be more or less.
Taking in that you are exposing roughly 1/3 of where the diamonds could be any diamonds found had a 1 in 3 chance of being found and the same odds apply to any subsequent finds. taking the average of 1 vein in a chunk, you already had losing odds to find it then its further losing odds that there is even another vein and then more losing odds that you will even uncover it. its more playing the odds . sure its a gambler's fallacy but in terms of odds less than 1/1000, it would take a lot of coin flips or dice rolls to average that out.
hows that even possible?
www.youtube.com/machineinput
no, if anything im mining less
I was planning on doing a comparison soon, been a bit busy. The Overall reaction to this is a lot more controversial than I had anticipated
Just note that you are also exposing less as well. (expose/mine less = smaller chance to find anything.
I find it interesting, but I can't really see anything that proves your theory to be more efficient, so a comparison would be great.
Just have to love it when someone changes the specs when comparing with and without optifine..
See, but you've just restated the fallacy, in a nutshell. That's the point, you see; there is no "averag[ing] that out." If you flip a coin, and get 100 heads in a row, there aren't 100 tails waiting in "future-world" to come save the day and "restore balance to the universe." Even after getting heads 100 times in a row, the odds of getting heads on the 101st flip are still exactly 50%. With a large enough sample size, the ratio of heads to tails should get closer and closer to 50:50, but the difference between them does not systematically approach zero, necessarily.
Village Mechanics: A not-so-brief guide - Update 2017! Now with 1.8 breeding mechanics! Long-overdue trading info, coming soon!
You think magic isn't real? Consider this: for every person, there is a sentence -- a series of words -- which has the power to destroy them.
If, indeed, diamond generation is world-based rather than chunk-based (and, staring at some of my word with MCedit, it appears that is the case -- I found a spot where there were two large diamond veins a couple of blocks apart, in the same chunk) then the presence of diamonds in one block does not affect the presence of diamonds in another block.
I should point out that while chance has no memory, hardware can. If you're into that sort of thing, it's actually productive to play a slot machine that someone else has been playing and losing at for an extended period of time, because they're required to pay off within a certain number of plays. But that's not just random chance -- that's a system that's set up to look random, but not actually be random.
The golden age: it's not the game, it's you ⋆ Why Minecraft should not be harder ⋆ Spelling hints
This is when you just want diamonds, if you have stacks of iron, redstone, lapis, coal, this is get diamonds and get out
May the force be without you.
After some research, I have to say that I agree with colorfusion.
I couldn't find any specific information, on the Minecraft wiki or elsewhere, that specifically stated a minimum and maximum amount of diamonds per chunk. If it's between 0% and 100% yield (with the average obviously being at 0.0846%, since that's the chance for a diamond vein to spawn instead of stone), then diamond veins are unbound and thus could (at an astronomically low probability) saturate an entire chunk or (at a vastly higher probability, but still low) not be found at all.
I'd like to know if there's a maximum number of veins per chunk (lower than 100% saturation), because that's what the math requires for CraftAllTheThings to be correct. If there isn't, then I'm afraid it's colorfusion that is correct.
May the force be without you.
Unbound probability is when a probability is defined by complete randomness (i.e. a percentage or a fraction of a continuously "reset" sample (like a coin toss).
May the force be without you.