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

Right-sorted Bongard Problems have the keyword "finished" on the OEBP.

Users are not able to add or remove examples from Problems tagged "finished." (This is unusual; most Bongard Problems on the OEBP can be expanded indefinitely by users.)

A "finished" Bongard Problem will always admit the alternate, convoluted solution "is [left example 1] OR is [left example 2] OR . . . OR is [last left example] vs. is [right example 1] OR is [right example 2] OR . . . OR is [last right example]".

Bongard's original Problems are tagged "finished."

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP499 BP500 BP501 BP502 BP503  *  BP505 BP506 BP507 BP508 BP509

meta (see left/right), links, keyword, oebp, presentationmatters, left-finite, right-finite, instruction

bppage [smaller | same | bigger]

Aaron David Fairbanks

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 "noisy" on the OEBP. Right-sorted examples have the keyword "minimal."

Noisy Bongard Problems include extra details varying between examples that distract from the solution property; more specifically noise is properties independent of the solution property that vary between examples. Minimalist Bongard Problems only vary details absolutely necessary to communicate the solution.

"Noisy" is different than the kind of distraction mentioned at distractingworld, which means the class of examples is distractingly specific, irrelevant to the solution, rather than that there are extra distracting properties changing between examples.

Bongard Problems have varying degrees of noisiness. Only include here BPs that are very noisy or very minimal.

See BP827 for the version with pictures of Bongard Problems (miniproblems) instead of links to pages on the OEBP.

See BP845 for noise in sequences of quantity increase.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP506 BP507 BP508 BP509 BP510  *  BP512 BP513 BP514 BP515 BP516

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

bp [smaller | same | bigger]

Harry E. Foundalis, 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

This is the keyword "dual" on the OEBP.

Given an example there is some way to "flip sides" by altering it. The left-to-right and right-to-left transformations should be inverses.

It is not required that there only be one such transformation. For example, for many handed Bongard Problem, flipping an example over any axis will reliably switch its sorting.

It is not required that every left example must have its corresponding right example uploaded on the OEBP nor vice versa. See the keyword contributepairs for the BPs the OEBP advises users upload left and right examples for in pairs.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP529 BP530 BP531 BP532 BP533  *  BP535 BP536 BP537 BP538 BP539

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

bp [smaller | same | bigger]

Aaron David Fairbanks

Left-sorted examples have the keyword "blackwhite" on the OEBP.

Right-sorted examples have the keyword "blackwhiteinvariant" on the OEBP.

All examples are visual Bongard Problems that allow black to touch the bounding box (keyword bordercontent).

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP551 BP552 BP553 BP554 BP555  *  BP557 BP558 BP559 BP560 BP561

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

visualbp [smaller | same | bigger]

Leo Crabbe

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

Left-sorted BPs have the keyword "left-full" on the OEBP.

For meta-BPs about solution ideas, left-full only means the BP page hopes to include all fitting BP pages on the OEBP (as opposed to all possible Bongard Problems).

As with applying the keywords left-finite and right-finite, deciding what should count as "different" examples depends on the Bongard Problem.

Note this is not just BP574 (right-full) flipped.

TODO: Maybe this should be changed into two keywords: one for non-meta-BPs and one for meta-BPs. - Aaron David Fairbanks, Feb 11 2021

For non-meta BPs, left-full implies left-finite (at least until the OEBP implements a feature that allows algorithmic generation of infinite examples).

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP568 BP569 BP570 BP571 BP572  *  BP574 BP575 BP576 BP577 BP578

meta (see left/right), links, keyword

bppage [smaller | same | bigger]

Aaron David Fairbanks