Chippys_mittens@lemmy.world to memes@lemmy.world · 2 days agoGenies hate this one simple tricklemmy.worldimagemessage-square114fedilinkarrow-up1854arrow-down113
arrow-up1841arrow-down1imageGenies hate this one simple tricklemmy.worldChippys_mittens@lemmy.world to memes@lemmy.world · 2 days agomessage-square114fedilink
minus-squarettyybb@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·edit-221 hours agoYour poorly optimizing. With a linear search, you only need 9 per digit, a binary search will get it all done in like 4 or 5 guesses
minus-squareBatman@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·15 hours agoI like your thinking, but a binary search would require us to know whether our guess is too high or low, no?
minus-squaregroet@feddit.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up3·14 hours agoWhich you can easily do. just try to say “The winning number ist lower than x”
minus-squareBatman@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·14 hours agoNow thats some prompt engineering I can get behind! Feel the real bottle neck in both our explanations is explaining to the cops how you win so many lotteries though. That will be difficult without lying.
Your poorly optimizing. With a linear search, you only need 9 per digit, a binary search will get it all done in like 4 or 5 guesses
I like your thinking, but a binary search would require us to know whether our guess is too high or low, no?
Which you can easily do. just try to say “The winning number ist lower than x”
Now thats some prompt engineering I can get behind! Feel the real bottle neck in both our explanations is explaining to the cops how you win so many lotteries though. That will be difficult without lying.