Bongard Problems sorted left have the keyword "precise" on the OEBP.

Bongard Problems sorted right have the keyword "fuzzy" on the OEBP.

In an precise Bongard Problem, any relevant example is either clearly sorted left, clearly sorted right, or clearly not sorted.

(All relevant examples clearly sorted either left or right is the keyword allsorted.)

How can it be decided whether or not a rule is precise? How can it be decided whether or not a rule classifies all "examples that are relevant"? There needs to be another rule to determine which examples the original rule intends to sort. Bongard Problems by design communicate ideas without fixing that context ahead of time. The label "precise" can only mean a Bongard Problem's rule seems precise to people who see it. (This "precise vs. fuzzy" Bongard Problem is fuzzy.)

In an precise "less than ___ vs. greater than ___" Bongard Problem (keyword spectrum), the division between the sides is usually an apparent threshold. For example, there is an intuitive threshold between acute and obtuse angles (see e.g. BP292).

As a rule of thumb, do not consider imperfections of hand drawn images (keyword ignoreimperfections) when deciding whether a Bongard Problem is precise or fuzzy. Just because one can draw a square badly does not mean "triangle vs. quadrilateral" (BP6) should be labelled fuzzy; similar vagueness arises in all hand-drawn Bongard Problems. (For Bongard Problems in which fine subtleties of drawings, including small imperfections, are meant to be considered, use the keyword perfect.)

Sometimes the way a Bongard Problem would sort certain examples is an unsolved problem in mathematics. (See e.g. BP820.) There is a precise criterion that has been used to verify each sorted example fits where it fits (some kind of mathematical proof); however, where some examples fit is still unknown. Whether or not such a Bongard Problem should be labelled "precise" might be debated.

(Technical note: some properties are known to be undecidable, and sometimes the decidability itself is unknown. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem .)

(See the keyword proofsrequired.)

One way to resolve this ambiguity is to define "precise" as meaning that once people decide where an example belongs for a reason, they will all agree about it.

Sometimes the class of all examples in a Bongard Problem is imprecise, but, despite that, the rule sorting those examples is precise. Say, for some potential new example, it is unclear whether it should be included in the Bongard Problem at all, but, if it were included, it would be clear where it should be sorted (or that it should be left unsorted). A Bongard Problem like this can still be tagged "precise".

(If all examples are clearly sorted except for some example for which it is unclear whether it belongs to the class of relevant examples, the situation becomes ambiguous.)

On the other hand, sometimes the class of all examples is very clear, with an obvious boundary. (Keyword preciseworld.)

There is a subtle distinction to draw between Bongard Problems that are precise to the people making them and Bongard Problems that are precise to the people solving them. A Bongard Problem (particularly a non-allsorted one) might be labeled "precise" on the OEBP because the description and the listed ambiguous examples explicitly forbid sorting certain border cases; however, someone looking at the Bongard Problem without access to the OEBP page containing the definition would not be aware of this. It may or may not be obvious that certain examples were intentionally left out of the Bongard Problem. A larger collection of examples may make it more clear that a particularly blatant potential border case was left out intentionally.

See BP876 for the version with pictures of Bongard Problems instead of links to pages on the OEBP.

See both and neither for specific ways an example can be classified as unsorted in an "precise" Bongard Problem.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP503 BP504 BP505 BP506 BP507  *  BP509 BP510 BP511 BP512 BP513

fuzzy, meta (see left/right), links, keyword, right-self, sideless

bp [smaller | same | bigger]

Aaron David Fairbanks

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

A Bongard Problem is labelled "allsorted" when the type of thing it sorts is partitioned unambiguously and without exception into two groups.

Similarly to using the precise and fuzzy keywords, calling a Bongard Problem "allsorted" is a subjective/intuitive judgment. The collection of all relevant potential examples is not clearly delineated anywhere.

(Sometimes it's ambiguous whether to consider certain examples that are ambiguously sorted relevant.)

The solution to an "allsorted" Bongard Problem can usually be re-phrased as "___ vs. not so" (see the keyword notso).

But not every "___ vs. not so" Bongard Problem should be labelled "allsorted"; there could be ambiguous border cases in a "___ vs. not so" Bongard Problem.

Bongard Problems in which the two sides are so different that there is no middle ground between them (keyword gap) are sometimes still labelled "allsorted", since the intuitive pool of all relevant examples just amounts to the two unrelated sides. But some "gap" Bongard Problems are not like that; for example sometimes there are more related classes of examples besides the two shown.

Sometimes the class of all examples in a Bongard Problem is imprecise, but, despite that, the rule sorting those examples is precise. Say, for some potential new example, it is unclear whether it should be included in the Bongard Problem at all, but, if it were included, it would be clear where it should be sorted. A Bongard Problem like this can still be tagged "allsorted".

On the other hand, sometimes the class of all examples is very clear, with an obvious boundary. (Keyword preciseworld.)

In deciding where to sort an example, we think about it until we come to a conclusion; an example isn't here considered ambiguous just because someone might have a hard time with it (keyword hardsort).

However, sometimes the way a Bongard Problem would sort certain examples is an unsolved problem in mathematics, and it may be unknown whether there is even a solution. Whether or not such a Bongard Problem should be labelled "allsorted" might be debated.

(See the keyword proofsrequired.)

One way to resolve this ambiguity is to redefine "allsorted" as meaning that once people decide where an example belongs, it will be on one of the two sides, and they will all agree about it.

There is a distinction to be made between a non-"allsorted" Bongard Problem that could be made "allsorted" by making (finitely many) more examples sorted (thereby modifying or clarifying the solution of the Bongard Problem) and one such that this is not possible while maintaining a comparably simple solution. The former kind would often be labelled precise, in particular when these border cases have been explicitly forbidden from being sorted in the Bongard Problem's definition.

For instance, discrete Bongard Problems that are not allsorted usually fall into the former category.

See BP875 for the version with pictures of Bongard Problems instead of links to pages on the OEBP.

"Allsorted" implies precise.

"Allsorted" and both are mutually exclusive.

"Allsorted" and neither are mutually exclusive.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP504 BP505 BP506 BP507 BP508  *  BP510 BP511 BP512 BP513 BP514

fuzzy, meta (see left/right), links, keyword, right-self, sideless, right-it, feedback

bp [smaller | same | bigger]

Aaron David Fairbanks

Left-sorted BPs have the keyword "left-finite" in the OEBP.

How to distinguish between different examples depends on the Bongard Problem. For example, in BPs about little black dots, examples may be considered the same when they have the same number of dots in all the same positions.

Note that this is not just BP516 (right-finite) flipped.

"Left-finite" implies left-narrow.

See left-listable, which is about an infinite left side that can be organized into a neverending list versus infinite left side that cannot be organized into a neverending list.

"Left-finite" BPs are typically precise.

See BP1032 for a version that sorts images of Bongard Problems (miniproblems) instead of links, and which only sorts images of Bongard Problems about numbers.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP510 BP511 BP512 BP513 BP514  *  BP516 BP517 BP518 BP519 BP520

notso, dual, meta (see left/right), links, keyword, side

bp [smaller | same | bigger]
zoom in right (bp_infinite_left_examples)

Aaron David Fairbanks

Left-sorted BPs have the keyword "right-finite" in the OEBP.

BPs are sorted based on how BP515 (left-finite) would sort them were they flipped; see that page for a description.

"Right-finite" implies right-narrow.

See right-listable, which is about an infinite right side that can be organized into a neverending list versus infinite right side that cannot be organized into a neverending list.

"Right-finite" BPs are typically precise.

See BP1041 for a version that sorts images of Bongard Problems (miniproblems) instead of links, and which only sorts images of Bongard Problems about numbers.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP511 BP512 BP513 BP514 BP515  *  BP517 BP518 BP519 BP520 BP521

notso, dual, meta (see left/right), links, keyword, side

bp [smaller | same | bigger]
zoom in right (bp_infinite_right_examples )

Aaron David Fairbanks

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP583 BP584 BP585 BP586 BP587  *  BP589 BP590 BP591 BP592 BP593

meta (see left/right), links, metaconcept, primitive

bp [smaller | same | bigger]

Harry E. Foundalis

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP594 BP595 BP596 BP597 BP598  *  BP600 BP601 BP602 BP603 BP604

meta (see left/right), links, metaconcept

bp [smaller | same | bigger]

Harry E. Foundalis

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP737 BP738 BP739 BP740 BP741  *  BP743 BP744 BP745 BP746 BP747

meta (see left/right), links, metaconcept

bp [smaller | same | bigger]

Harry E. Foundalis

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP739 BP740 BP741 BP742 BP743  *  BP745 BP746 BP747 BP748 BP749

meta (see left/right), links, metaconcept, primitive

bp [smaller | same | bigger]

Harry E. Foundalis

Left-sorted BPs have the keyword "notso" on the OEBP.

This meta Bongard Problem is about Bongard Problems featuring two rules that are conceptual opposites.

Sometimes both sides could be seen as the "not" side: consider, for example, two definitions of the same Bongard Problem, "shape has hole vs. does not" and "shape is not filled vs. is". It is possible (albeit perhaps unnatural) to phrase the solution either way when the left and right sides partition all possible relevant examples cleanly into two groups (see the allsorted keyword).

When one property is "positive-seeming" and its opposite is "negative-seeming", it usually means the positive property would be recognized without counter-examples (e.g. a collection of triangles will be seen as such), while the negative property wouldn't be recognized without counter-examples (e.g. a collection of "non-triangle shapes" will just be interpreted as "shapes" unless triangles are shown opposite them).

BP513 (keyword left-narrow) is about Bongard Problems whose left side can be recognized without the right side. When a Bongard Problem is left-narrow and not "right-narrow that usually makes the property on the left seem positive and the property on the right seem negative.

The OEBP by convention has preferred the "positive-seeming" property (when there is one) to be on the left side.

All in all, the keyword "notso" should mean:

1) If the Bongard Problem is "narrow" on at least one side, then it is left-narrow.

2) The right side is the conceptual negation of the left side.

If a Bongard Problem's solution is "[Property A] vs. not so", the "not so" side is everything without [Property A] within some suitable context. A Bongard Problem "triangles vs. not so" might only include simple shapes as non-triangles; it need not include images of boats as non-triangles. It is not necessary for all the kitchen sink to be thrown on the "not so" side (although it is here).

See BP1001 for a version sorting pictures of Bongard Problems (miniproblems) instead of links to pages on the OEBP. (This version is a little different. In BP1001, the kitchen sink of all other possible images is always included on the right "not so" side, rather than a context-dependent conceptual negation.)

Contrast keyword viceversa.

"[Property A] vs. not so" Bongard Problems are often allsorted, meaning they sort all relevant examples--but not always, because sometimes there exist ambiguous border cases, unclear whether they fit [Property A] or not.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP862 BP863 BP864 BP865 BP866  *  BP868 BP869 BP870 BP871 BP872

notso, meta (see left/right), links, keyword, left-self, funny

everything [smaller | same]
zoom in left

Aaron David Fairbanks

Any miniproblems BP with all examples in the same format will be sorted left.

See also the keyword structure.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP1160 BP1161 BP1162 BP1163 BP1164  *  BP1166 BP1167 BP1168 BP1169 BP1170

notso, meta (see left/right), links

visualbp [smaller | same | bigger]

Aaron David Fairbanks