Talk:Tutorials/Diamonds

Tutorials/Diamonds: Talk
I created the page,dont merge it,Turtle5204 17:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC) I agree with not merging it, this is about finding diamonds with any method, not a method with diamonds as a side-gain EmanP

"Chunk Mining" myth
A single user, "CraftAllTheThings", thought he had made a major breakthrough in mining after 4 years of people trying, and posted it on Reddit, Youtube, and the Minecraft Forums, and apparently here too, in an attempt to get attention.

It's wrong. Falling to the appealing but incorrect thinking of the gambler's fallacy. Finding diamonds does not mean that you are any less likely to find more in the nearby area, in the same way that flipping a heads does not mean you are any less likely to flip a heads the next time. Chunks do not care about how many diamonds they have already generated, another user has already shown this in the code. Chance has no memory.

The suggestion that you should move onto another chunk after finding a diamond is like saying you should move onto another coin after getting a heads because you're more likely to get another heads on a new coin.

Another basic misunderstanding it makes is that "2: If you find diamond, then you know that there is no other diamond in the chunk and don't need to mine there anymore." which can be very easily proven wrong by something like this gif: http://imageshack.us/a/img560/430/yag.gif There are sometimes no diamonds, and there are sometimes many diamonds. He mistakes an average provided elsewhere on the wiki as a "there will definitely and only ever be 1 diamond vein per chunk".

I'd suggest reading through the full thread here, taking note of Akynth, IronMagus, and colorfusion's post: http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/1986896-diamond-guides-are-wrong/

I'd also recommend reading up on the gambler's fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy

The user himself eventually admits that it's a fallacy and goes on to argue that it's subjective and just about having fun. This is clearly not what should be stated as the "superior method" in a mining guide, and should be removed. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.128.103.64 (talk)&#32;20:32, 18 March 2014(UTC). Please sign your posts with


 * Your conclusion is correct, but not entirely for the reasons that you think. During world generation, each chunk attempts to produce exactly one vein of diamonds, which is where the 'chunk mining' method comes from. If that vein was located entirely within the chunk, the method would work. However, the position of ore veins is randomized within the chunk, then offset by 8 blocks in the x and z directions, which effectively decouples the distribution of ores from chunk boundaries. A given chunk can contain anywhere from 0 to 4 veins of diamond ore. -- Orthotopetalk 01:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Major overhaul, work still needed.
Just rewrote the entire article to make it more in-line with the wiki style and provide more up-to-date and thorough information, but it still needs some work. Mercilessly edit at will! Marksmanship 19:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Aack, it's the lava myth again!
I don't have time to rewrite it right now, but we should not be telling people "dig until you reach lava". You need to dig until you get down to and below level 15, which can be verified with the debug screen. Lava is not only a hazard in its own right, it's Something Besides Rock, and like gravel and dirt it can replace ores to leave undersized veins. If possible, you want to avoid lava, and dig elsewhere at those levels! --Mental Mouse 13:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

How do you find the level that diamonds are on?
I am aware that you press F3 but then where do you find the layer you are on? A: Check your y axis. Creeperlunatic 18:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Duping diamonds
In the Console Edition, there are 2 methods for obtaining infinite diamonds (and as such making them renewable) which both involve duplicating glitches. Shall it be added, or not? --ToonLucas22 (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * No, bugs shouldn't be documented in normal articles. – LauraFi ·  talk  19:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)