See "left-noticed" (left-BP1126).

"Left-unknowable" Bongard Problems (left-BP1124) are "right-noticed".

The keyword "creativeexamples" (left-BP866) is related.

"Noticed" Bongard Problems are also "hardsort" (right-BP864).

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

"Right-noticed" means examples are understood to fit right using ingenuity, case-by-case. There is no (obvious) general method to determine a right-fitting example fits right.

There is a related idea in computability theory: a "non recursively enumerable" property is one that cannot in general be checked by a computer algorithm.

Here, "noticed" is supposed to mean something less formal. For example, it is easy for a human being to check when a simple shape is convex or concave (so BP4 is not labelled "right-noticed"). However, it is not as if we use an algorithm to do this, like a computer. (It is not even clear what an "algorithm" would mean in this context, since it is ambiguous both what class of shapes the Bongard Problem sorts and how that would be encoded into a computer program's input. There are usually many options and ambiguities like this whenever one tries to formalize the content of a Bongard Problem.)

See "left-noticed" (left-BP1126).

"Left-unknowable" Bongard Problems (left-BP1124) are "right-noticed".

"Noticed" Bongard Problems are also "hardsort" (right-BP864).

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

"Right-noticed" means there is no (obvious) general method to determine a right-fitting example fits right, although some examples can indeed be seen to fit right.

There is a related idea in computability theory: a "non recursively enumerable" property is one that cannot in general be checked by a computer algorithm.

Here, "noticed" is supposed to mean something less formal. For example, it is easy for a human being to check when a simple shape is convex or concave (so BP4 is not labelled "right-noticed"). However, it is not as if we use an algorithm to do this, like a computer. (It is not even clear what an "algorithm" would mean in this context, since it is ambiguous both what class of shapes the Bongard Problem sorts and how that would be encoded into a computer program's input. There are usually many options and ambiguities like this whenever one tries to formalize the content of a Bongard Problem.)

See "left-noticed" (left-BP1126).

"Noticed" Bongard Problems are also "hardsort" (right-BP864).

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

Another way of phrasing "right-noticed" is there is no (obvious) general method to determine a right-fitting example fits right, although some examples can indeed be seen to fit right.

There is a related idea in computability theory: a "non recursively enumerable" property is one that cannot in general be checked by a computer algorithm.

Here, "noticed" is supposed to mean something less formal. For example, it is easy for a human being to check when a simple shape is convex or concave (so BP4 is not labelled "right-noticed"). However, it is not as if we use an algorithm to do this, like a computer. (It is not even clear what an "algorithm" would mean in this context, since it is ambiguous both what class of shapes the Bongard Problem sorts and how that would be encoded into a computer program's input. There are usually many options and ambiguities like this whenever one tries to formalize the content of a Bongard Problem.)

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

Another way of phrasing "right-noticed" is there is no (obvious) general method to determine a right-fitting example fits right, although some examples can indeed be seen to fit right.

There is a related idea in computability theory: a "non recursively enumerable" property is one that cannot in general be checked by a computer algorithm.

Here, "noticed" is supposed to mean something less formal. For example, it is easy for a human being to check when a simple shape is convex or concave (so BP4 is not labelled "right-noticed"). However, it is not as if we use an algorithm to do this, like a computer. (It is not even clear what an "algorithm" would mean in this context, since it is it is ambiguous both what class of shapes the Bongard Problem sorts and how that would be encoded into a computer program's input. There are usually many options and ambiguities like this whenever one tries to formalize the content of a Bongard Problem.)

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

Another way of phrasing "right-noticed" is there is no (obvious) general method to determine a right-fitting example fits right, although some examples can indeed be seen to fit right.

There is a related idea in computability theory: a "non recursively enumerable" property is one that cannot in general be checked by a computer algorithm.

Here, "noticed" is supposed to mean something less formal. For example, it is easy for a human being to check when a simple shape is convex or concave, so BP4 is not labelled "right-noticed". However, it is not as if we use an algorithm to do this, like a computer. (It is not even clear what an "algorithm" would mean in this context, since it is it is ambiguous both what class of shapes the Bongard Problem sorts and how that would be encoded into a computer program's input. There are usually many options and ambiguities like this whenever one tries to formalize the content of a Bongard Problem.)

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

Another way of phrasing "right-noticed" that there is no (obvious) general method to determine a right-fitting example fits right, although some examples can indeed be seen to fit right.

There is a related idea in computability theory: a "non recursively enumerable" property is one that cannot in general be checked by a computer algorithm.

Here, "noticed" is supposed to mean something less formal. For example, it is easy for a human being to check when a simple shape is convex or concave, so BP4 is not labelled "right-noticed". However, it is not as if we use an algorithm to do this, like a computer. (It is not even clear what an "algorithm" would mean in this context, since it is it is ambiguous both what class of shapes the Bongard Problem sorts and how that would be encoded into a computer program's input. There are usually many options and ambiguities like this whenever one tries to formalize the content of a Bongard Problem.)

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

Another way of phrasing "right-noticed" that there is no (obvious) general method to determine a right-fitting example fits right, although some examples can indeed be seen to fit right.

There is a related idea in computability theory: a "non recursively enumerable" property is one that cannot in general be checked by a computer algorithm.

Here, "noticed" is supposed to mean something less formal. For example, it is easy for a human being to check when a simple shape is convex or concave, so BP4 is not labelled "right-noticed". However, it is not as if we use an algorithm to do this, like a computer. (It is not even clear what sort of algorithm we would be looking for, since it is it is ambiguous both what class of shapes the Bongard Problem sorts and how that would be encoded into a computer program's input. There are usually many options and ambiguities like this whenever one tries to formalize the content of a Bongard Problem.)

Given a new unsorted example, there is no universal way of finding out which side it fits on, yet, although one does not know where to look, noticing something new may show the example fits right vs. not so.

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

Another way of phrasing "right-noticed" that there is no (obvious) general method to determine a right-fitting example fits right, although some examples can indeed be seen to fit right.

There is a related idea in computability theory: a "non recursively enumerable" property is one that cannot be checked in general by a computer algorithm.

Here, "noticed" is supposed to mean something less formal. For example, it is easy for a human being to check when a simple shape is convex or concave, so BP4 is not labelled "right-noticed". However, it is not as if we use an algorithm to do this, like a computer. (It is not even clear what sort of algorithm we would be looking for, since it is it is ambiguous both what class of shapes the Bongard Problem sorts and how that would be encoded into a computer program's input. There are usually many options and ambiguities like this whenever one tries to formalize the content of a Bongard Problem.)

Given a new unsorted example, there is no universal way of finding out which side an example fits on, yet, although one does not know where to look, noticing something new may show the example fits right vs. not so.

Given a new unsorted example, there is no universal way of finding out an example fits right, yet, although one does not know where to look, noticing something new may show the example fits right vs. not so.

Given a new unsorted example, there is no universal way of finding out which side it fits on, yet, although one does not know where to look, noticing something new may show the example fits right vs. not so.

A person (who knows the solution) might be given a new unsorted example such that there is no clear way of finding out which side it fits on, and, although they do not know where to look, perhaps noticing some new aspect will show the example fits right vs. other Bongard Problems.

Bongard Problems such that a person (who knows the solution) might be given a new unsorted example and have no clear way of finding out which side it should go on, and although they do not know where to look, perhaps noticing some new thing will show the example fits right vs. other Bongard Problems.

Bongard Problems such that a person (who knows the solution) might be given a new unsorted example and have no clear way of finding out how it should be sorted, and although they do not know where to look, perhaps noticing some new thing will show the example fits right vs. other Bongard Problems.

Bongard Problems such that a person (who knows the solution) might be given a new unsorted example and have no clear way of finding out how it should be sorted; although they do not know where to look, perhaps noticing some new thing will show the example fits right vs. other Bongard Problems.

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

Another way of phrasing "right-noticed" that there is no (obvious) general method to determine a right-fitting example fits right, although some examples can indeed be seen to fit right.

There is a similar idea in computability theory: a "non recursively enumerable" property is one that cannot be checked in general by a computer algorithm.

Here, "noticed" is supposed to mean something less formal. For example, it is easy for a human being to check when a simple shape is convex or concave, so BP4 is not labelled "right-noticed". However, it is not as if we use an algorithm to do this, like a computer. (It is not even clear what sort of algorithm we would be looking for, since it is it is ambiguous both what class of shapes the Bongard Problem sorts and how that would be encoded into a computer program's input. There are usually many options and ambiguities like this whenever one tries to formalize the content of a Bongard Problem.)

See "left-noticed" (left-BP1126).

"Noticed" Bongard Problems are also "hardsort" (right-BP864).

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

Another way of phrasing "right-noticed" that there is no (obvious) general method to determine a right-fitting example fits right, although some examples can indeed be seen to fit right.

There is a similar idea in computability theory: a "non recursively enumerable" property is one that cannot be checked in general by a computer algorithm.

Here, "noticeable" is supposed to mean something less formal. For example, it is easy for a human being to check when a simple shape is convex or concave, so BP4 is not labelled "right-noticed". However, it is not as if we use an algorithm to do this, like a computer. (It is not even clear what sort of algorithm we would be looking for, since it is it is ambiguous both what class of shapes the Bongard Problem sorts and how that would be encoded into a computer program's input. There are usually many options and ambiguities like this whenever one tries to formalize the content of a Bongard Problem.)