Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's been some years, but I think it boils down to the definition of when you are _considering_ some part of the game state. Right off the bat, I cannot agree that abc must contain exactly 2 mines. From what we can see, abc contains _at most_ 2 mines. There may or may not be mines in what you have left out, and we cannot know without considering what's there. I haven't written a formal proof for that statement, but I…
Sorry, I left out some bits of the game state for conciseness - perhaps this is a better way of displaying it .--- a--- .2-- bX-- .22- as cYZ- .... defg Where: . means unknown - means clear (and in a real game would reveal a number and therefore a constraint, but we don't need to consider those numbers for this solution) a number means clear and producing a constraint that we want to use This mirrors the game state i…
This is in contrast to the local rules I first describe that consider only a very limited part of the board, and there is a pre-determined hard limit for how much would ever need to be considered for these rules.