The problem is that what you're saying is contradictory to itself. You're conveniently ignoring all of the flaws being pointed out, and instead reiterating the same argument ad nauseam, while also moving goal posts and morphing qualifiers as needed.
> but only when you are able to reduce the problem space from the full set of combinations would I say you are picking a lock. Which means that a lock with 100 combinations, and you try all 100 of them, you are not lock picking, but if you reduce that to trying out 50 combinations, then you are
The fundamental concept which you keep acknowledging but refuse to accept, is that brute force is a reduction of the problem space. In fact, it's a >99% guarantee to be reduced. Whereas the other lockpicking methods with a reduced space are not actually guaranteed to defeat the lock in a shorter amount of time, if at all.
You even acknowledged in your first comment that brute-forcing a limited set will, on average, require half as many attempts. Since your qualification for being pickable is that the problem space is reduced by half, then brute-forcing meets your definition of lockpicking half of the time. At that point, it's irrefutably classifiable as lockpicking, with the understanding that other methods may be more (or less) effective.
And you're still ignoring that the entire point of the lock being discussed is that traditional lockpicking methods wouldn't work. At all. Yet, when presented with an option to defeat the lock in less than 4 hours, your reaction was to repeatedly state that it doesn't even count as lockpicking. I don't know what else to say.