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-null" on the OEBP.

Right-sorted BPs have the keyword "right-null" on the OEBP.

See BP796 for the version with pictures of Bongard Problems (miniproblems) instead of links to pages on the OEBP.

See BP1160 for the version about an all-black panel instead of all-white.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP562 BP563 BP564 BP565 BP566  *  BP568 BP569 BP570 BP571 BP572

meta (see left/right), links, keyword, wellfounded

visualbp [smaller | same | bigger]

Aaron David Fairbanks

Right examples have the keyword "number" on the OEBP. The solution must only depend on counting the number of something: no comparison between numbers of different things.

When a "number" Bongard Problem sorts numbers unambiguously (keyword precise), the left side and the right side define disjoint sets of numbers. When a "number" Bongard Problem sorts all numbers (keyword allsorted), the subsets are complements of one another.

Many but not all right examples require nontrivial mathematical knowledge to solve (keyword math).

BP200 is a version of this with sides flipped, sorting pictures of Bongard Problems (miniproblems) instead of links to pages on the OEBP, and with emphasis on feature-based solutions as an alternative to number-based solutions.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP570 BP571 BP572 BP573 BP574  *  BP576 BP577 BP578 BP579 BP580

meta (see left/right), links, keyword, dependence

bp [smaller | same | bigger]

Aaron David Fairbanks

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

BPs should be marked "help" when the OEBP wants most examples (at least on one side) to be helpful (not when just one or two uploaded examples are helpful).

Helpfulness can be a spectrum; most Bongard Problems are helpful to some degree just by not using the most convoluted unintelligible examples possible.

Examples that are helpful to people are often not particularly helpful to computers.

Any helpful Bongard Problem has a harder, not helpful version. For example, BP384 (square number of dots versus non-square number of dots) would be much harder if all examples had hundreds of dots that weren't arranged recognizably. Instead, the dots in the examples are always arranged in shapes that make the square-ness or non-square-ness of the numbers easy to check without brute counting.

When all examples in a Bongard Problem are helpful, it may become unclear whether the helpfulness is part of the Bongard Problem's solution.

E.g.: Is the left-hand side of BP384 "square number of dots", or is it "square number of dots that are arranged in a helpful way so as to communicate the square-ness"?

See seemslike, where examples being helpful is an irremovable aspect of the Bongard Problem's solution.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP925 BP926 BP927 BP928 BP929  *  BP931 BP932 BP933 BP934 BP935

anticomputer, meta (see left/right), links, keyword, oebp, instruction

bppage [smaller | same | bigger]
zoom in left (help_bp)

Aaron David Fairbanks

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP1098 BP1099 BP1100 BP1101 BP1102  *  BP1104 BP1105 BP1106 BP1107 BP1108

meta (see left/right), links, metaconcept

bp [smaller | same | bigger]

Leo Crabbe

Left-sorted Bongard Problems are tagged with the keyword "preciseworld" on the OEBP.

The keyword "preciseworld" basically means: if a new Bongard Problem were created to sort whether or not examples fit in the pool of examples in the original Bongard Problem, it would be tagged precise.

For a Bongard Problem fitting left, the intended class of examples sorted by the Bongard Problem is clear-cut.

For a Bongard Problem fitting right, there isn't any obvious boundary to take as delimiting the pool of potential examples. There is an imprecise fading of relevancy rather than a natural cutoff point.

Sometimes there are specific notable cases of potential examples for which there is ambiguity about whether they belong.

For example, the empty square (zero dots) has been left out of BP989. This is perhaps the only obvious example that is ambiguous as to whether it should be considered as belonging to the pool of examples shown in the Bongard Problem (or any similar dot-counting Bongard Problem).

(There would be no ambiguity if it were actually included in the Bongard Problem.)

(Whether or not zero seems like an obvious example also has a cultural component (see culture); someone who is not accustomed think of zero as a number might not see this as ambiguous at all.)

Larger pools of examples make the absence of notable border cases like this more conspicuous and intentional-seeming. (See also discussion at left-narrow.) But expanding the pool of examples cannot resolve certain border cases: if the rule of the Bongard Problem by nature leaves unsorted a potential example that is a border case for even fitting in with the rest of the examples, its absence doesn't communicate anything; whether it belongs with the pool of examples remains ambiguous.

It is tempting to make another another "allsortedworld" analogous to allsorted. But the pool of relevant examples fitting in a Bongard Problem is like a Bongard Problem with only one side: a collection satisfying some rule. Would there be any difference between precise and allsorted for a Bongard Problem with only one side?

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP1185 BP1186 BP1187 BP1188 BP1189  *  BP1191 BP1192 BP1193 BP1194 BP1195

Bongard Problems featuring generic shapes ( https://oebp.org/search.php?q=world:fill_shape ) have not usually been labelled "preciseworld". (What counts as a "shape"? Can the shapes be fractally complicated, for example? What exactly are the criteria?) Nonetheless, these Bongard Problems are frequently precise.

meta (see left/right), links, keyword

Aaron David Fairbanks