Left-sorted Bongard Problems have the keyword "consistentsymbols" on the OEBP.

A most extreme "consistentsymbols" Bongard Problem is BP121: the solution is about codes consistently symbolizing objects. However, "consistentsymbols" Bongard Problems may have solution unrelated to the symbolism; the symbolism may just be implicit, e.g. always meaning dots as numbers, always meaning stacked dots as fractions, repeatedly using the same simple drawings as shorthand to represent platonic solids. Most BPs have some symbolism in this sense; a Bongard Problem should only be labelled "consistentsymbols" if there is a relatively high amount of varied symbolism, particularly if it is visual symbolism not all people would naturally understand.

A Bongard Problem featuring a real language would be another extreme example of "consistentsymbols".

A Bongard Problem with many varied images meant to be interpreted in unique ways is not necessarily "consistentsymbols," since there is no specific-to-this-Bongard-Problem vocabulary of symbols that must be known to understand it. (Even so, some might say that how people intuitively interpret images is a vocabulary on its own.)

Sometimes, the symbolism isn't an important part of the Bongard Problem, and it just helps make the Bongard Problem easier to read (see the @help keyword). For example, a Bongard Problem may include many clumps of dots, and the solution of the Problem may have to do with counting the number of dots in each clump; the Bongard Problem might build up a symbolic context by always arranging each number of dots in a consistent way (e.g. how they conventionally appear on dice faces).

"Consistentsymbols" is related to the keyword @structure, a format that all examples fit that the solver needs to know how to read. In "consistentsymbols" Bongard Problems, not all examples need to fit a rigid format; instead there may be various smaller structures of meaning that only appear in some examples.

"Consistentsymbols" is related to @assumesfamiliarity, BPs that require the solver to take certain assumptions about what the examples are for the solution to seem simple. A "consistentsymbols" Bongard Problem may have a very convoluted solution that involves explaining the meaning of each appearing object; however, the solution can become simple given correct interpretations of all objects. This effect works best when each object must be interpreted the same way across all boxes in order for the simple solution to fit. The comments sections of "consistentsymbols" BP pages on the OEBP ought to explain the symbolism used.

"Consistentsymbols" is related to "structure" (left-BP789), a format that all examples fit that the solver needs to know how to read. In "consistentsymbols" Bongard Problems, not all examples need to fit a rigid format; instead there may be various smaller structures of meaning that only appear in some examples.

"Consistentsymbols" is related to "assumesfamiliarity" (left-BP1111), BPs that require the solver to take certain assumptions about what the examples are for the solution to seem simple. A "consistentsymbols" Bongard Problem may have a very convoluted solution that involves explaining the meaning of each appearing object; however, the solution can become simple given correct interpretations of all objects. This effect works best when each object must be interpreted the same way across all boxes in order for the simple solution to fit. The comments sections of "consistentsymbols" BP pages on the OEBP ought to explain the symbolism used.

"Consistentsymbols" is related to "structure" (left-BP789), a format that all examples fit that the solver needs to know how to read. In "consistentsymbols" Problems, not all examples need to fit a rigid format; instead there may be various smaller structures of meaning that only appear in some examples.

"Consistentsymbols" is related to "assumesfamiliarity" (left-BP1111), BPs that require the solver to take certain assumptions about what the examples are for the solution to seem simple. A "consistentsymbols" Bongard Problem may have a very convoluted solution that involves explaining the meaning of each appearing object; however, the solution can become simple given correct interpretations of all objects. This effect works best when each object must be interpreted the same way across all boxes in order for the simple solution to fit. The comments sections of "consistentsymbols" BP pages on the OEBP ought to explain the symbolism used.

Visual Bongard Problems that through many examples build up consistent interpretations of objects (a language of symbolism) vs. other visual Bongard Problems.

"Consistentsymbols" is related to "structure" (left-BP789), a format that all examples fit that the solver needs to know how to read. In "consistentsymbols" Problems, not all examples need to fit a rigid format; instead there may be various smaller structures of meaning that only appear in some examples.

"Consistentsymbols" is related to "assumesfamiliarity" (left-BP1111), BPs that require the solver to take certain assumptions about what the examples are for the solution to seem simple. A "consistentsymbols" Bongard Problem may have a very convoluted solution that involves explaining the meaning of each appearing object; however, the solution can become simple given correct interpretations of all objects. This effect works best when each object must be interpreted the same way across all boxes in order for the simple solution to fit. The comments sections of "consistentsymbols" BP Pages ought to explain the symbolism used.

Left-sorted Bongard Problems have the keyword "consistentsymbols" on the OEBP.

A most extreme "consistentsymbols" Bongard Problem is BP121: the solution is about codes consistently symbolizing objects. However, "consistentsymbols" Bongard Problems may have solution unrelated to the symbolism; the symbolism may just be implicit, e.g. always meaning dots as numbers, always meaning stacked dots as fractions, repeatedly using the same simple drawings as shorthand to represent platonic solids. Most BPs have some symbolism in this sense; a Bongard Problem should only be labelled "consistentsymbols" if there is a relatively high amount of varied symbolism, particularly if it is visual symbolism not all people would naturally understand.

A Bongard Problem featuring a real language would be another extreme example of "consistentsymbols".

A Bongard Problem with many varied images meant to be interpreted in unique ways is not necessarily "consistentsymbols," since there is no specific-to-this-Bongard-Problem vocabulary of symbols that must be known to understand it. (Even so, some might say that how people intuitively interpret images is a vocabulary on its own.)

Sometimes, the symbolism isn't an important part of the Bongard Problem, and it just helps make the Bongard Problem easier to read (see the "help" keyword left-BP930). For example, a Bongard Problem may include many clumps of dots, and the solution of the Problem may have to do with counting the number of dots in each clump; the Bongard Problem might build up a symbolic context by always arranging each number of dots in a consistent way (e.g. how they conventionally appear on dice faces).

Left-sorted Bongard Problems have the keyword "consistentsymbols" on the OEBP.

A most extreme "consistentsymbols" Bongard Problem is BP121: the solution is about codes consistently symbolizing objects. However, "consistentsymbols" Bongard Problems may have solution unrelated to the symbolism; the symbolism may just be implicit, e.g. always meaning dots as numbers, always meaning stacked dots as fractions, repeatedly using the same simple drawings as shorthand to represent platonic solids. Most BPs have some symbolism in this sense; a Bongard Problem should only be labelled "consistentsymbols" if there is a relatively high amount of varied symbolism, particularly if it is visual symbolism not all people would naturally understand.

A Bongard Problem featuring a real language would be another extreme example of "consistentsymbols".

A Bongard Problem with many varied images meant to be interpreted in unique ways is not necessarily "consistentsymbols," since there is no specific-to-this-Bongard-Problem vocabulary of symbols that must be known to understand it. (Even so, some might say that how people intuitively interpret images is a vocabulary on its own.)

Sometimes, the symbolism isn't an important part of the Problem, and it just helps make the Problem easier to read (see the "help" keyword left-BP930). For example, a Bongard Problem may include many clumps of dots, and the solution of the Problem may have to do with counting the number of dots in each clump; the Bongard Problem might build up a symbolic context by always arranging each number of dots in a consistent way (e.g. how they conventionally appear on dice faces).

Left-sorted Bongard Problems have the keyword "consistentsymbols" on the OEBP.

A most extreme "consistentsymbols" Bongard Problem is BP121: the solution is about codes consistently symbolizing objects. However, "consistentsymbols" Bongard Problems may have solution unrelated to the symbolism; the symbolism may just be implicit, e.g. always meaning dots as numbers, always meaning stacked dots as fractions, repeatedly using the same simple drawings as shorthand to represent platonic solids. Most BPs have some symbolism in this sense; a Bongard Problem should only be labelled "consistentsymbols" if there is a relatively high amount of varied symbolism, particularly if it is visual symbolism not all people would naturally understand.

A Bongard Problem featuring a real language would be another extreme example of "consistentsymbols".

A Bongard Problem with many varied images meant to be interpreted in unique ways is not necessarily "consistentsymbols," since there is no specific-to-this-Bongard-Problem vocabulary of symbols that must be known to understand it. (Even so, some might argue that how people intuitively interpret images is a vocabulary on its own.)

Sometimes, the symbolism isn't an important part of the Problem, and it just helps make the Problem easier to read (see the "help" keyword left-BP930). For example, a Bongard Problem may include many clumps of dots, and the solution of the Problem may have to do with counting the number of dots in each clump; the Bongard Problem might build up a symbolic context by always arranging each number of dots in a consistent way (e.g. how they conventionally appear on dice faces).

Left-sorted Bongard Problems have the keyword "consistentsymbols" on the OEBP.

A most extreme "consistentsymbols" Bongard Problem is BP121: the solution is about codes consistently symbolizing objects. However, "consistentsymbols" Bongard Problems may have solution unrelated to the symbolism; the symbolism may just be implicit, e.g. always meaning dots as numbers, always meaning stacked dots as fractions, repeatedly using the same simple drawings as shorthand to represent platonic solids. Most BPs have some symbolism in this sense; a Bongard Problem should only be labelled "consistentsymbols" if there is a relatively high amount of varied symbolism, particularly if it is visual symbolism not all people would naturally understand.

A Bongard Problem featuring a real language would be another extreme example of "consistentsymbols".

A Bongard Problem with many varied images meant to be interpreted in unique ways is not necessarily "consistentsymbols," since there is no specific-to-this-Bongard-Problem vocabulary of symbols that must be known to understand it. (Even so, some might say that how humans intuitively interpret images is a vocabulary on its own.)

Sometimes, the symbolism isn't an important part of the Problem, and it just helps make the Problem easier to read (see the "help" keyword left-BP930). For example, a Bongard Problem may include many clumps of dots, and the solution of the Problem may have to do with counting the number of dots in each clump; the Bongard Problem might build up a symbolic context by always arranging each number of dots in a consistent way (e.g. how they conventionally appear on dice faces).

Left-sorted Bongard Problems have the keyword "consistentsymbols" on the OEBP.

A most extreme "consistentsymbols" Bongard Problem is BP121: the solution is about codes consistently symbolizing objects. However, "consistentsymbols" Bongard Problems may have solution unrelated to the symbolism; the symbolism may just be implicit, e.g. always meaning dots as numbers, always meaning stacked dots as fractions, repeatedly using the same simple drawings as shorthand to represent platonic solids. Most BPs have some symbolism in this sense; a Bongard Problem should only be labelled "consistentsymbols" if there is a relatively high amount of varied symbolism, particularly if it is visual symbolism not all people would naturally understand.

A Bongard Problem featuring a real language would be another extreme example of "consistentsymbols".

A Bongard Problem with many varied images meant to be interpreted differently is not necessarily "consistentsymbols," since there is no specific-to-this-Bongard-Problem vocabulary of symbols that must be known to understand it. (Even so, some might say that how humans intuitively interpret images is a vocabulary on its own.)

Sometimes, the symbolism isn't an important part of the Problem, and it just helps make the Problem easier to read (see the "help" keyword left-BP930). For example, a Bongard Problem may include many clumps of dots, and the solution of the Problem may have to do with counting the number of dots in each clump; the Bongard Problem might build up a symbolic context by always arranging each number of dots in a consistent way (e.g. how they conventionally appear on dice faces).

"Consistentsymbols" is related to "structure" (left-BP789), a format that all examples fit that the solver needs to know how to read. In "consistentsymbols" Problems, not all examples need to fit a rigid format; instead there may be various smaller structures of meaning that only appear in some examples.

"Consistentsymbols" is related to "assumesfamiliarity" (left-BP1111), BPs that require the solver to take certain assumptions about what the examples are for the solution to seem simple. A "consistentsymbols" Bongard Problem may have a very convoluted solution that involves explaining the meaning of each appearing object; however, the solution can become simple given correct interpretations of all objects. This effect works best when only one consistent interpretation of what objects across various boxes are allows a simple solution. The comments sections of "consistentsymbols" BP Pages ought to explain the symbolism used.

Visual Bongard Problems that through various examples build up consistent interpretations of objects (a language of symbolism) vs. other visual Bongard Problems.

Left-sorted Bongard Problems have the keyword "consistentsymbols" on the OEBP.

A most extreme "consistentsymbols" Bongard Problem is BP121: the solution is about codes consistently symbolizing objects. However, "consistentsymbols" Bongard Problems may have solution unrelated to the symbolism; the symbolism may just be implicit, e.g. always meaning dots as numbers, always meaning stacked dots as fractions, repeatedly using the same simple drawings as shorthand to represent platonic solids. Most BPs have some symbolism in this sense; a Bongard Problem should only be labelled "consistentsymbols" if there is a relatively high amount of varied symbolism, particularly if it is visual symbolism not all humans would naturally parse.

A Bongard Problem featuring a real language would be another extreme example of "consistentsymbols".

A Bongard Problem with many varied images meant to be interpreted differently is not necessarily "consistentsymbols," since there is no specific-to-this-Bongard-Problem vocabulary of symbols that must be known to understand it. (Even so, some might say that how humans intuitively interpret images is a vocabulary on its own.)

Sometimes, the symbolism isn't an important part of the Problem, and it just helps make the Problem easier to read (see the "help" keyword left-BP930). For example, a Bongard Problem may include many clumps of dots, and the solution of the Problem may have to do with counting the number of dots in each clump; the Bongard Problem might build up a symbolic context by always arranging each number of dots in a consistent way (e.g. how they conventionally appear on dice faces).

"Consistentsymbols" is related to "structure" (left-BP789), a format that all examples fit that the solver needs to know how to read. In "consistentsymbols" Problems, not all examples need to fit a rigid format; instead there may be various smaller structures of meaning that only appear in some examples.

"Consistentsymbols" is related to "assuming" (left-BP1111), BPs that require the solver to take certain assumptions about what the examples are for the solution to seem simple. A "consistentsymbols" Bongard Problem may have a very convoluted solution that involves explaining the meaning of each appearing object; however, the solution can become simple given correct interpretations of all objects. This effect works best when only one consistent interpretation of what objects across various boxes are allows a simple solution. The comments sections of "consistentsymbols" BP Pages ought to explain the symbolism used.

Left-sorted Bongard Problems have the keyword "consistentlanguage" on the OEBP.

A most extreme "consistentlanguage" Bongard Problem is BP121: the solution is about codes consistently symbolizing objects. However, "consistentlanguage" Bongard Problems may have solution unrelated to the symbolism; the symbolism may just be implicit, e.g. always meaning dots as numbers, always meaning stacked dots as fractions, repeatedly using the same simple drawings as shorthand to represent platonic solids. Most BPs have some symbolism in this sense; a Bongard Problem should only be labelled "consistentlanguage" if there is a relatively high amount of varied symbolism, particularly if it is visual symbolism not all humans would naturally parse.

A Bongard Problem featuring a real language would be another extreme example of "consistentlanguage".

A Bongard Problem with many varied images meant to be interpreted differently is not necessarily "consistentlanguage," since there is no specific-to-this-Bongard-Problem vocabulary of symbols that must be known to understand it. (Even so, some might say that how humans intuitively interpret images is a vocabulary on its own.)

Sometimes, the symbolism isn't an important part of the Problem, and it just helps make the Problem easier to read (see the "help" keyword left-BP930). For example, a Bongard Problem may include many clumps of dots, and the solution of the Problem may have to do with counting the number of dots in each clump; the Bongard Problem might build up a symbolic context by always arranging each number of dots in a consistent way (e.g. how they conventionally appear on dice faces).

Left-sorted Bongard Problems have the keyword "consistentlanguage" on the OEBP.

A most extreme "consistentlanguage" Bongard Problem is BP121: the solution is about codes consistently symbolizing objects. However, many "consistentlanguage" Problems may have solution unrelated to the symbolism; the symbolism may be implicit, e.g. always meaning dots as numbers, always meaning stacked dots as fractions, repeatedly using the same simple drawings as shorthand to represent platonic solids. Most BPs have some symbolism in this sense; a Bongard Problem should only be labelled "consistentlanguage" if there is a relatively high amount of varied symbolism, and particularly if it is visual symbolism not all humans would naturally parse.

A Bongard Problem featuring language would be another extreme example of "consistentlanguage".

A Bongard Problem with many varied images meant to be interpreted differently is not necessarily "consistentlanguage," since there is no Problem-specific vocabulary of symbols that must be known to understand it. (One could argue how humans intuitively interpret images is a vocabulary on its own.)

Sometimes, the symbolism isn't an important part of the Problem, and it just helps make the Problem easier to read (see the "help" keyword left-BP930). For example, a Bongard Problem may include many clumps of dots, and the solution of the Problem may have to do with counting the number of dots in each clump; the Bongard Problem might build up a symbolic context by always arranging each number in a consistent way, e.g. how they conventionally appear on dice faces.

Left-sorted Bongard Problems have the keyword "consistentlanguage" on the OEBP.

A most extreme "consistentlanguage" Problem is BP121, in which the symbolism is very literal; the solution is about codes consistently symbolizing objects. However, many "consistentlanguage" Problems may have solution unrelated to the symbolism; the symbolism may be implicit, e.g. always meaning dots as numbers, always meaning stacked dots as fractions, repeatedly using the same simple drawings as shorthand to represent platonic solids. Most BPs have some symbolism in this sense; a Bongard Problem should only be labelled "consistentlanguage" if there is a relatively high amount of varied symbolism, and particularly if it is visual symbolism not all humans would naturally parse.

A Bongard Problem featuring language would be another extreme example of "consistentlanguage".

A Bongard Problem with many varied images meant to be interpreted differently is not necessarily "consistentlanguage," since there is no Problem-specific vocabulary of symbols that must be known to understand it. (One could argue how humans intuitively interpret images is a vocabulary on its own.)

Sometimes, the symbolism isn't an important part of the Problem, and it just helps make the Problem easier to read (see the "help" keyword left-BP930). For example, a Bongard Problem may include many clumps of dots, and the solution of the Problem may have to do with counting the number of dots in each clump; the Bongard Problem might build up a symbolic context by always arranging each number in a consistent way, e.g. how they conventionally appear on dice faces.

"Consistentlanguage" is related to "structure" (left-BP789), a format that all examples fit that the solver needs to know how to read. In "consistentlanguage" Problems, not all examples need to fit a rigid format; instead there may be various smaller structures of meaning that only appear in some examples.

"Consistentlanguage" is related to "assuming" (left-BP1111), BPs that require the solver to take certain assumptions about what the examples are for the solution to seem simple. A "consistentlanguage" Bongard Problem may have a very convoluted solution that involves explaining the meaning of each appearing object; however, the solution can become simple given correct interpretations of all objects. This effect works best when only one consistent interpretation of what objects across various boxes are allows a simple solution. The comments sections of "consistentlanguage" BP Pages ought to explain the symbolism used.

Left-sorted Bongard Problems have the keyword "symboliccontext" on the OEBP.

A most extreme "symboliccontext" Problem is BP121, in which the symbolism is very literal; the solution is about codes consistently symbolizing objects. However, many "symboliccontext" Problems may have solution unrelated to the symbolism; the symbolism may be implicit, e.g. always meaning dots as numbers, always meaning stacked dots as fractions, repeatedly using the same simple drawings as shorthand to represent platonic solids. Most BPs have some symbolism in this sense; a Bongard Problem should only be labelled "symboliccontext" if there is a relatively high amount of varied symbolism, and particularly if it is visual symbolism not all humans would naturally parse.

A Bongard Problem featuring language would be another extreme example of "symboliccontext".

A Bongard Problem with many varied images meant to be interpreted differently is not necessarily "symboliccontext," since there is no Problem-specific vocabulary of symbols that must be known to understand it. (One could argue how humans intuitively interpret images is a vocabulary on its own.)

Sometimes, the symbolism isn't an important part of the Problem, and it just helps make the Problem easier to read (see the "help" keyword left-BP930). For example, a Bongard Problem may include many clumps of dots, and the solution of the Problem may have to do with counting the number of dots in each clump; the Bongard Problem might build up a symbolic context by always arranging each number in a consistent way, e.g. how they conventionally appear on dice faces.

Left-sorted Bongard Problems have the keyword "symboliccontext" on the OEBP.

A most extreme "symboliccontext" Problem is BP121, in which the symbolism is very literal; the solution is about codes consistently symbolizing objects. However, many "symboliccontext" Problems may have solution unrelated to the symbolism; the symbolism may be implicit, e.g. always meaning dots as numbers, always meaning stacked dots as fractions, repeatedly using the same simple drawings as shorthand to represent platonic solids. Most BPs have some symbolism in this sense; a Bongard Problem should only be labelled "symboliccontext" if there is a relatively high amount of varied symbolism, and particularly if it is visual symbolism humans do not naturally parse.

A Bongard Problem with many varied images meant to be interpreted differently is not necessarily "symboliccontext," since there is no Problem-specific vocabulary of symbols that must be known to understand it. (One could argue how humans intuitively interpret images is a vocabulary on its own.)

Sometimes, the symbolism isn't an important part of the Problem, and it just helps make the Problem easier to read (see the "help" keyword left-BP930). For example, a Bongard Problem may include many clumps of dots, and the solution of the Problem may have to do with counting the number of dots in each clump; the Bongard Problem might build up a symbolic context by always arranging each number in a consistent way, e.g. how they conventionally appear on dice faces.

Left-sorted Bongard Problems have the keyword "symboliccontext" on the OEBP.

A most extreme "symboliccontext" Problem is BP121, in which the symbolism is very literal; the solution is about codes consistently symbolizing objects. However, many "symboliccontext" Problems may have solution unrelated to the symbolism; the symbolism may be implicit, e.g. always meaning dots as numbers, always meaning stacked dots as fractions, repeatedly using the same simple drawings as shorthand to represent platonic solids. Most BPs have some symbolism in this sense; a Bongard Problem should only be labelled "symboliccontext" if there is a relatively high amount of varied symbolism, and particularly if that symbolism is not common in other Bongard Problems.

A Bongard Problem with many varied images meant to be interpreted differently is not necessarily "symboliccontext," since there is no Problem-specific vocabulary of symbols that must be known to understand it. (One could argue how humans intuitively interpret images is a vocabulary on its own.)

Sometimes, the symbolism isn't an important part of the Problem, and it just helps make the Problem easier to read (see the "help" keyword left-BP930). For example, a Bongard Problem may include many clumps of dots, and the solution of the Problem may have to do with counting the number of dots in each clump; the Bongard Problem might build up a symbolic context by always arranging each number in a consistent way, e.g. how they conventionally appear on dice faces.

Visual Bongard Problems that through various examples build up consistent interpretations of objects (language of symbolism) vs. other visual Bongard Problems.

Left-sorted Bongard Problems have the keyword "symboliccontext" on the OEBP.

A most extreme "symboliccontext" Problem is BP121, in which the symbolism is very literal; the solution is about codes consistently symbolizing objects. However, many "symboliccontext" Problems may have solution unrelated to the symbolism; the symbolism may be implicit, e.g. always meaning dots as numbers, always meaning stacked dots as fractions, repeatedly using the same simple drawings as shorthand to represent platonic solids. Most BPs have some symbolism in this sense; a Bongard Problem should only be given the keyword "symboliccontext" if there is a relatively high amount of varied symbolism, and particularly if that symbolism is not common in other Bongard Problems.

A Bongard Problem with many varied images meant to be interpreted differently is not necessarily "symboliccontext," since there is no Problem-specific vocabulary of symbols that must be known to understand it. (One could argue how humans intuitively interpret images is a vocabulary on its own.)

Sometimes, the symbolism isn't an important part of the Problem, and it just helps make the Problem easier to read (see the "help" keyword left-BP930). For example, a Bongard Problem may include many clumps of dots, and the solution of the Problem may have to do with counting the number of dots in each clump; the Bongard Problem might build up a symbolic context by always arranging each number in a consistent way, e.g. how they conventionally appear on dice faces.

Left-sorted Bongard Problems have the keyword "symboliccontext" on the OEBP.

A most extreme "symboliccontext" Problem is BP121, in which the symbolism is very literal; the solution is about codes consistently symbolizing objects. However, many "symboliccontext" Problems may have solution unrelated to the symbolism; the symbolism may be implicit, e.g. always meaning dots as numbers, always meaning stacked dots as fractions, repeatedly using the same simple drawings as shorthand to represent platonic solids. Most BPs have some symbolism in this sense; a Bongard Problem should only be given the keyword "symboliccontext" if there is a relatively high amount of varied symbolism, and particularly if that symbolism is not common in other Bongard Problems.

A Bongard Problem with many varied images meant to be interpreted differently is not necessarily "symboliccontext," since there is no Problem-specific vocabulary of symbols that must be known to understand it. (One could argue how humans intuitively interpret images is a vocabulary on its own.)

Sometimes, the symbolism isn't an important part of the Problem, and it just helps make the Problem easier to read (see the "help" keyword left-BP930). For example, a Bongard Problem may include many clumps of dots, and the solution of the Problem may have to do with counting the number of dots in each clump; the Bongard Problem might build up a symbolic context by always arranging each number in a consistent way, e.g. how they conventionally appear on dice faces.

"Symboliccontext" is related to "structure" (left-BP789), a format that all examples fit that the solver needs to know how to read. In "symboliccontext" Problems, not all examples need to fit a rigid format; instead there may be various smaller structures of meaning that only appear in some examples.

"Symboliccontext" is related to "assuming" (left-BP1111), BPs that require the solver to take certain assumptions about what the examples are for the solution to seem simple. A "symboliccontext" Bongard Problem may have a very convoluted solution that involves explaining the meaning of each appearing object; however, the solution can become simple given correct interpretations of all objects. This effect works best when only one consistent interpretation of what objects across various boxes are allows a simple solution. The comments sections of "symboliccontext" BP Pages ought to explain the symbolism used.

Left examples have the keyword "symboliccontext" on the OEBP.

A "symboliccontext" Bongard Problem may have a very convoluted solution that involves explaining the meaning of each appearing object. However, the solution can become simple given correct interpretations of all objects. It is often the case that only one consistent interpretation of what objects across various boxes are allows a simple solution. The comments sections of "symboliccontext" BP Pages should explain the symbolism used.

"Symboliccontext" is related to "structure" (left-BP789), a format that all examples fit that the solver needs to know how to read. In "symboliccontext" Problems, not all examples need to fit a rigid format; instead there may be various smaller structures of meaning that only appear in some examples.

A most extreme "symboliccontext" Problem is BP121, in which the symbolism is very literal; the solution is about codes consistently symbolizing objects. However, many "symboliccontext" Problems may have solution unrelated to the symbolism; the symbolism may be implicit, e.g. always meaning dots as numbers, always meaning stacked dots as fractions, repeatedly using the same simple drawings as shorthand to represent platonic solids. Most BPs have some symbolism in this sense; a Bongard Problem should only be given the keyword "symboliccontext" if there is a relatively high amount of varied symbolism, and particularly if that symbolism is not common in other Bongard Problems.

A Bongard Problem with many varied images meant to be interpreted differently is not necessarily "symboliccontext," since there is no Problem-specific vocabulary of symbols that must be known to understand it. (One could argue how humans intuitively interpret images is a vocabulary on its own.)

Sometimes, the symbolism isn't an important part of the Problem, and it just helps make the Problem easier to read (see the "help" keyword left-BP930). For example, a Bongard Problem may include many clumps of dots, and the solution of the Problem may have to do with counting the number of dots in each clump; the Bongard Problem might build up a symbolic context by always arranging each number in a consistent way, e.g. how they conventionally appear on dice faces.

Left examples have the keyword "symboliccontext" on the OEBP.

A "symboliccontext" Bongard Problem may have a very convoluted solution explaining the meaning of each appearing object. However, the solution can become simple given correct interpretations of all objects. It is often the case that only one consistent interpretation of what objects across various boxes are allows a simple solution. The comments sections of "symboliccontext" BP Pages should explain the symbolism used.

"Symboliccontext" is related to "structure" (left-BP789), a complex format that all examples fit that when parsed correctly simplifies the solution. In "symboliccontext" Problems, not all examples need to fit a rigid format; instead there may be various smaller structures of meaning that only appear in some examples.

A most extreme "symboliccontext" Problem is BP121, in which the symbolism is very literal; the Problem's solution is about consistent codes for objects. However, many "symboliccontext" Problems may have solution unrelated to the symbolism; the symbolism may be implicit, such as always interpreting dots as numbers, always interpreting stacked dots as fractions, or always interpreting each in a collection of repeatedly used drawings as the Platonic solid it looks like the most. All Problems have at least minor symbolism in this sense; a Problem should only be given this keyword if there is a relatively high amount of varied symbolism, and particularly if that symbolism does not naturally arise as a common technique in Bongard Problems for communicating the ideas symbolized.

A Problem with a solution like "the most intuitive interpretation of the panel is conceptually related to ___" is not necessarily "symboliccontext," since there is no Problem-specific vocabulary of symbols that must be known to understand it. (Still, arguably, how humans intuitively interpret images is a vocabulary on its own.) When one of these Problems makes assumptions about how specific classes of objects are meant to be intuitively parsed, it becomes "symboliccontext."

Sometimes, the symbolism isn't an important part of the Problem, and it just helps make the Problem easier to solve (see BP930). For example, a Problem may include many clumps of dots, and the solution of the Problem may have to do with counting the number of dots in each clump; the Problem might build up a symbolic context by always arranging each number of dots in a consistent way, e.g. how they conventionally appear on dice faces.

Left examples have the keyword "symboliccontext" on the OEBP.

A "symboliccontext" Bongard Problem may have a very convoluted solution explaining the meaning of each appearing object. However, the solution can become simple given correct interpretations of all objects. It is often the case that only one consistent interpretation of what objects across various boxes are allows a simple solution. The comments sections of "symboliccontext" BP Pages should explain the symbolism used.

"Symboliccontext" is related to "structure" (left-BP789), a complex format that all examples fit that when parsed correctly simplifies the solution. In "symboliccontext" Problems, not all examples need to fit a rigid format; instead there may be various smaller structures of meaning that only appear in some examples.

A most extreme "symboliccontext" Problem is BP121, in which the symbolism is very literal; the Problem's solution is about consistent codes for objects. However, many "symboliccontext" Problems may have solution unrelated to the symbolism; the symbolism may be implicit, such as always interpreting dots as numbers, always interpreting stacked dots as fractions, or always interpreting each in a collection of repeatedly used drawings as the Platonic solid it looks like the most. All Problems have at least minor symbolism in this sense; a Problem should only be given this keyword if there is a relatively high amount of varied symbolism, and particularly if that symbolism does not naturally arise as a common technique in Bongard Problems for communicating the ideas symbolized.

A Problem with a solution like "the most intuitive interpretation of the panel is conceptually related to ___" is not necessarily "symboliccontext," since there is no Problem-specific vocabulary of symbols that must be known to understand it. (Still, arguably, how humans intuitively interpret images is a vocabulary on its own.) When one of these Problems makes assumptions about how specific classes of objects are meant to be intuitively parsed, it becomes "symboliccontext."

Sometimes, the symbolism isn't a necessary part of the Problem, and it just helps make the Problem easier to solve (see BP930). For example, a Problem may include many clumps of dots, and the solution of the Problem may have to do with counting the number of dots in each clump; the Problem might build up a symbolic context by always arranging each number of dots in a consistent way, e.g. how they conventionally appear on dice faces.