2023-12-13 15:52 UTC
@stillmoms@mastodon.social @mbonsma@mastodon.social
"Topologically complicated" might be simple as a bunch of long, thin right-angle pieces.
The proof seems to assume that puzzle pieces are neatly bounded by small circles, which is very specific, you can think of all sorts of interesting puzzles where this would not be the case.
If you're going to claim to have a proof, the conditions need to rule any edge cases where it doesn't work, or it isn't a proof.
Replies (1)
-
@stillmoms@mastodon.social 2023-12-13 16:13
@TomSwirly@toot.community @mbonsma@mastodon.social I'm no scientist, nor mathematician, but my impression is that this is not being offered as some sort of rigorous, theoretical mathematical proof applicable to all real or imagined puzzles—it's a study of "typical" jigsaw puzzles in the real world, meant to predict “realistic assembly scenarios”. The word "proof" appears nowhere. Grousing that it doesn't address unrealistic, imaginary puzzles is like complaining that a Klein bottle is a bad vessel for transporting liquids.