🏅 Top traders

What is the current progress? Did you already find a hole in the complete section?

@NayutaIto yes, several

but the progress is slow, i'm maybe 10% of the way through. I may give up, which makes resolution probably N/A?

@Bayesian That doesn't seem logical to me, provided you have shown numerous proof that you might be missing some piece indeed, which goes beyond finishing the puzzle.

But thank you very much for announcing this could resolve in N/A.

Alternatively, in the event of non-completion, what information would be necessary in order to make the resolution resolve YES?

yeah ok im sorry for the resolution ambiguity but ive reread the resolution criteria and it seems to make more sense to resolve based on the missing piece than to resolve n/a based on non completion. There are definitely several missing pieces, some of them are not particularly subtle

@Bayesian Do you think the aspect ratio of the completed puzzle is roughly square or is it more landscape?

@PlasmaPower quite landscape

update: on the box there are dimensions,
28.75in x 19.125in
73cm x 48.57cm

claude says this strongly indicates a 26 rows x 39 columns puzzle for 1,014 pieces.
Piece width: 28.75 / 39 = 0.7372" Piece height: 19.125 / 26 = 0.7356"

so I would therefore be short 22 pieces. it recommends that i count edge pieces, as there should be 126. i suspect there is at least one missing

@Bayesian Couldn't you probably just find the specific row x column dimensions for the puzzle online?

@Bayesian I still say no, as pieces can have a small gap

@Dssc i will try but it looks pretty old and niche so far from confident in this

@Bayesian It's a Sure-lox 2008 puzzle correct?

@Dssc no it's a canvas collection jigsaw puzzle that seems to have been made by the canadian group, based on a painting by jim hansel in 2011

Update: i counted the pieces and there are 992. Supposed to be 1000. Unless i counted wrong. In my mind i am pretty certain that it is missing pieces

@Bayesian Puzzles usually miscount the number pieces slightly to make it a proper square. The fact that that factorizes to 32 x 31 makes me feel that its more likely it isn't missing a piece

@AshDorsey woaw good point i had forgotten about this

@Bayesian @AshDorsey 85 of the numbers between 900 and 1000 factorize so this is fun observation respectfully but not that relevant

@XCorporation factorizes as a near square?

Will the market resolve NO immediately upon almost-completion if you think theirs is a missing piece, or will you wait until the 2 weeks are up in case you were the one that lost the piece and find said missing piece?

@Dssc i’ll resolve early when i consider it certain that it’s missing pieces, and will reresolve in cases where that ended up being wrong

do you think there's a chance your friend found the pieces first and hid them from you as a joke

@jim no basically none