Consider jigsaw puzzle P. If its pieces are identically-shaped, is the difficulty of the puzzle greater or smaller than with a puzzle where pieces can only be fit into some of the others?

Claim. Differently-shaped pieces make a puzzle easier to solve.










Proof.

Consider a box P, where every piece pi has an exact match with either two (for corner pieces), three (edge pieces), or four (internal pieces) other pieces Pmatch,i = {pm} (so 2 ≤ |Pmatch,i| ≤ 4). Consider also those pieces Pimp,i = {pj}, for which an imperfect match exists with pi. There is a tolerance ti ∈ T associated with each pi, where ti > z for some lower bound z. This tolerance expresses the probability of a piece matching any other piece, and is a function of the shape of its teeth and concavities.

The tolerance for any pi in a puzzle with identically-shaped pieces is the limit as ti → 1, since any piece can fit into any other piece. The size of the set of pieces with which pi fits (|Pfit,i| = |Pmatch,i| + |Pimp,i|) is directly proportional to the tolerance for that piece, or |Pfit,i| = x|1 - ti|, for some x ∈ ℜ: the lower the tolerance, the less likely pi is to fit with any pj, and thus there are fewer pieces with which it can have an imperfect fit. Note that Pimp,i varies with ti, but Pmatch,i does not. Thus, as ti → 0, |Pimp,i| → 0. If |Pimp,i| = 0, then the only pm which fit pi are the 2-4 pieces which are the correct neighbors.

Thus, the more similarly-shaped the pieces of a puzzle are, the more possible matches there are for any given piece, and the harder it is to find its correct neighboring pieces. QED.


Now, you may have noticed that this is not the most elegant proof out there. So I challenge you to write me a proof worth of the Book.

1/15/08: We have a winner! DTal, as you can see, has responded. Of course, there's still space for a runner-up if you can write a better mathematical proof than mine.