Yeah, it seems that the problem may be poorly thought out or stated. If there are extra pieces to the puzzle that are not needed then (ignoring the 10 piece "minimum") isn't one single piece a solution to the puzzle? Or as a correlary, if I have a 48 piece solution, doesn't this include 48 different 47 piece solutions (if I throw out one of the 48 pieces)? And each or those include 47 different 46 piece solutions?
I am curious to the actual nature of the problem, though. Zach adak wrote: > By definition, your problem is impossible. > > You state that each piece is unique, and there are 8 million pieces. > > A puzzle is solved only when all the pieces are fitting together, > properly. You have an impossibility, not a problem, and it can't be > solved. > > Not to mention that a minimum is a minimum, the lowest number of pieces > can not "rarely" be lower than the minimum, or it is not a minimum. > > > adak
