All @meta Bongard Problems are "rules" Bongard Problems.

Many other Bongard-Problem-like structures seen on the OEBP are also about recognizing a pattern. (See keyword @structure.)

"Rules" Bongard Problems are @abstract, although the individual rules in them may not be abstract. "Rules" Bongard Problems also usually have the keyword @creativeexamples.

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

In the typical "rules" Bongard Problem, it is possible to come up with many convoluted rules that fit each example, but the intended interpretation is the only simple and obvious one.

Since it is difficult to communicate a rule with little detail, "rules" Bongard Problems are usually @infodense.

Typically, each example is itself a bunch of smaller examples that all obey the rule. It is the same as how a Bongard Problems relies on many examples to communicate rules; likely just one example wouldn't get the answer across.

On the other hand, in BP1157 for example, each intended rule is communicated by just one example; these rules have to be particularly simple and intuitive, and the individual examples have to be complicated enough to communicate them.

Often, each rule is communicated by showing several examples of things satisfying it. (See keywords @left-narrow and @right-narrow.) Contrast Bongard Problems, which are more communicative, by showing some examples satisfying the rule and some examples NOT satisfying the rule.

A "rules" Bongard Problem is often @collective. Some examples may admit multiple equally plausible rules, and the correct interpretation of each example only becomes clear once the solution is known. The group of examples together improve the solver's confidence about having understood each individual one right.

It is common that there will be one or two examples with multiple reasonable interpretations due to oversight of the author.

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

In the typical "rules" Bongard Problem, it is possible to come up with many convoluted rules that fit each example, but the intended interpretation is the only simple and obvious one.

Since it is difficult to communicate a rule with little detail, "rules" Bongard Problems are usually @infodense.

Typically, each example is itself a bunch of smaller examples that all obey the rule. It is the same as how a Bongard Problems relies on many examples to communicate rules; likely just one example wouldn't get the answer across.

On the other hand, in BP1157 for example, each intended rule is communicated by just one example of its application; these rules have to be particularly simple and intuitive, and the individual examples have to be complicated enough to communicate them.

Often, each rule is communicated by showing several examples of things satisfying it. (See keywords @left-narrow and @right-narrow.) Contrast Bongard Problems, which are more communicative, by showing some examples satisfying the rule and some examples NOT satisfying the rule.

A "rules" Bongard Problem is often @collective. Some examples may admit multiple equally plausible rules, and the correct interpretation of each example only becomes clear once the solution is known. The group of examples together improve the solver's confidence about having understood each individual one right.

It is common that there will be one or two examples with multiple reasonable interpretations due to oversight of the author.

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

In the typical "rules" Bongard Problem, it is possible to come up with many convoluted rules that fit each example, but the intended interpretation is the only simple and obvious one.

Since it is difficult to communicate a rule with little detail, "rules" Bongard Problems are usually @infodense.

Typically, each example is itself a bunch of smaller examples that all obey the rule. It is the same as how a Bongard Problems relies on many examples to communicate rules; likely just one example wouldn't get the answer across.

Often, each rule is communicated just by showing some examples of things satisfying it placed next to each other. (See keywords @left-narrow and @right-narrow.) Contrast Bongard Problems, which are more communicative, by showing some examples satisfying the rule and some examples NOT satisfying the rule.

BP1157 is an example of a "rules" Bongard Problem in which each intended rule is communicated by just one example of its application; these rules have to be particularly simple and intuitive, and the individual examples have to be complicated enough to communicate them.

A "rules" Bongard Problem is often @collective. Some examples may admit multiple equally plausible rules, and the correct interpretation of each example only becomes clear once the solution is known. The group of examples together improve the solver's confidence about having understood each individual one right.

It is common that there will be one or two examples with multiple reasonable interpretations due to oversight of the author.

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

In the typical "rules" Bongard Problem, it is possible to come up with many convoluted rules that fit each example, but the intended interpretation is the only simple and obvious one.

Since it is difficult to communicate a rule with little detail, "rules" Bongard Problems are usually @infodense.

Typically, each example is itself a bunch of smaller examples that all obey the rule. It is the same as how a Bongard Problems relies on many examples to communicate rules; it likely wouldn't get the answer across with just one example.

Often, each rule is communicated just by showing some examples of things satisfying it placed next to each other. (See keywords @left-narrow and @right-narrow.) Contrast Bongard Problems, which are more communicative, by showing some examples satisfying the rule and some examples NOT satisfying the rule.

BP1157 is an example of a "rules" Bongard Problem in which each intended rule is communicated by just one example of its application; these rules have to be particularly simple and intuitive, and the individual examples have to be complicated enough to communicate them.

A "rules" Bongard Problem is often @collective. Some examples may admit multiple equally plausible rules, and the correct interpretation of each example only becomes clear once the solution is known. The group of examples together improve the solver's confidence about having understood each individual one right.

It is common that there will be one or two examples with multiple reasonable interpretations due to oversight of the author.

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

In the typical "rules" Bongard Problem, it is possible to come up with many convoluted rules that fit each example, but the intended interpretation is the only simple and obvious one.

Since it is difficult to communicate a rule with little detail, "rules" Bongard Problems are usually @infodense.

Typically, each example is itself a bunch of smaller examples that all obey the rule. It is the same as how a Bongard Problems relies on many examples to communicate rules; it likely wouldn't get the answer across with just one example.

Often, each rule is communicated just by showing some examples of things satisfying it placed next to each other. (See @left-narrow and @right-narrow.) Contrast Bongard Problems, which are more communicative, by showing some examples satisfying the rule and some examples NOT satisfying the rule.

BP1157 is an example of a "rules" Bongard Problem in which each intended rule is communicated by just one example of its application; these rules have to be particularly simple and intuitive, and the individual examples have to be complicated enough to communicate them.

A "rules" Bongard Problem is often @collective. Some examples may admit multiple equally plausible rules, and the correct interpretation of each example only becomes clear once the solution is known. The group of examples together improve the solver's confidence about having understood each individual one right.

It is common that there will be one or two examples with multiple reasonable interpretations due to oversight of the author.

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

In the typical "rules" Bongard Problem, it is possible to come up with many convoluted rules that fit each example, but the intended interpretation is the only simple and obvious one.

Since it is difficult to communicate a rule with little detail, "rules" Bongard Problems are usually @infodense.

Typically, each example is itself a bunch of smaller examples that all obey the rule. It is the same as how a Bongard Problems relies on many examples to communicate rules; it likely wouldn't get the answer across with just one example.

Often, each rule is communicated just by showing some examples of things satisfying it placed next to each other. (See left-BP513 and left-BP514.) Contrast Bongard Problems, which show some examples satisfying the rule and some examples NOT satisfying the rule.

BP1157 is an example of a "rules" Bongard Problem in which each intended rule is communicated by just one example of its application; these rules have to be particularly simple and intuitive, and the individual examples have to be complicated enough to communicate them.

A "rules" Bongard Problem is often @collective. Some examples may admit multiple equally plausible rules, and the correct interpretation of each example only becomes clear once the solution is known. The group of examples together improve the solver's confidence about having understood each individual one right.

It is common that there will be one or two examples with multiple reasonable interpretations due to oversight of the author.

All @meta Bongard Problems are "rules" Bongard Problems.

Many of the other Bongard-Problem-like structures seen on the OEBP are also about recognizing a pattern. (See keyword @structure.)

"Rules" Bongard Problems are @abstract, although the individual rules in them may not be abstract. "Rules" Bongard Problems also usually have the keyword @creativeexamples.

All meta Bongard Problems (left-BP537) are "rules" Bongard Problems.

Many of the other Bongard-Problem-like structures seen on the OEBP are also about recognizing a pattern. (See keyword "structure" left-BP789.)

"Rules" Bongard Problems are "abstract" (left-BP512), although the individual rules in them may not be abstract. "Rules" Bongard Problems also usually have the keyword "creativeexamples" (left-BP866).

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

In the typical "rules" Bongard Problem, it is possible to come up with many convoluted rules that fit each example, but the intended interpretation is the only simple and obvious one.

Since it is difficult to communicate a rule with little detail, "rules" Bongard Problems are usually "infodense" (left-BP978).

Typically, each example is itself a bunch of smaller examples that all obey the rule. It is the same as how a Bongard Problems relies on many examples to communicate rules; it likely wouldn't get the answer across with just one example.

Often, each rule is communicated just by showing some examples of things satisfying it placed next to each other. (See left-BP513 and left-BP514.) Contrast Bongard Problems, which show some examples satisfying the rule and some examples NOT satisfying the rule.

BP1157 is an example of a "rules" Bongard Problem in which each intended rule is communicated by just one example of its application; these rules have to be particularly simple and intuitive, and the individual examples have to be complicated enough to communicate them.

A "rules" Bongard Problem is often "collective" (left-BP837). Some examples may admit multiple equally plausible rules, and the correct interpretation of each example only becomes clear once the solution is known. The group of examples together improve the solver's confidence about having understood each individual one right.

It is common that there will be one or two examples with multiple reasonable interpretations due to oversight of the author.

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

In the typical "rules" Bongard Problem, it is possible to come up with many convoluted rules that fit each example, but the intended interpretation is the only simple and obvious one.

Since it is difficult to communicate a rule with little detail, "rules" Bongard Problems are usually "infodense" (left-BP978).

Typically, each example is itself a bunch of smaller examples that all obey the rule. It is the same as how a Bongard Problems relies on many examples to communicate rules; it likely wouldn't get the answer across with just one example.

Often, each rule is communicated just by showing some examples of things satisfying it placed next to each other. (See left-BP513 and left-BP514.) Contrast Bongard Problems, which show some examples satisfying the rule and some examples NOT satisfying the rule.

BP1157 is an example of a "rules" Bongard Problem in which each intended rule is communicated by just one example of its application; these rules have to be particularly simple and intuitive, and the individual examples have to be complicated enough to communicate them.

A "rules" Bongard Problem is often "collective" (left-BP837): some examples admit multiple equally plausible rules, and the correct interpretation of each example only becomes clear once the solution is known. The group of examples together improve the solver's confidence about having understood each individual one right.

It is common that there will be one or two examples with multiple reasonable interpretations due to oversight of the author.

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

In the typical "rules" Bongard Problem, it is possible to come up with many convoluted rules that fit each example, but the intended interpretation is the only simple and obvious one.

Since it is difficult to communicate a rule with little detail, "rules" Bongard Problems are usually "infodense" (left-BP978).

Typically, each example is itself a bunch of smaller examples that all obey the rule. It is the same as how a Bongard Problems relies on many examples to communicate rules; it likely wouldn't get the answer across with just one example.

Often, each rule is communicated just by showing some examples of things satisfying it placed next to each other. (See left-BP513 and left-BP514.) Contrast Bongard Problems, which show some examples satisfying the rule and some examples NOT satisfying the rule.

BP1157 is an example of a "rules" Bongard Problem in which each intended rule is communicated by just one example of its application; these rules have to be particularly simple and intuitive, and the individual examples have to be complicated enough to communicate them.

A "rules" Bongard Problem is often "collective" (left-BP837): many examples admit multiple equally plausible rules, and the correct interpretation of each example only becomes clear once the solution is known. The group of examples together improve the solver's confidence about having understood each individual one right.

It is common that there will be one or two examples with multiple reasonable interpretations due to oversight of the author.

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

In the typical "rules" Bongard Problem, it is possible to come up with many convoluted rules that fit each example, but the intended interpretation is the only simple and obvious one.

Since it is difficult to communicate a rule with little detail, "rules" Bongard Problems are usually "infodense" (left-BP978).

Typically, each example is itself a bunch of smaller examples that all obey the rule. It is the same as how a Bongard Problems relies on many examples to communicate rules; it likely wouldn't get the answer across with just one example.

Often, each rule is communicated just by showing some examples of things satisfying it placed next to each other. (See left-BP513 and left-BP514.) Contrast Bongard Problems, which show some examples satisfying the rule and some examples NOT satisfying the rule.

BP1157 is an example of a "rules" Bongard Problem in which each intended rule is communicated by just one example of its application; these rules have to be particularly simple and intuitive, and the individual examples have to be complicated enough to communicate them.

A "rules" Bongard Problem is "collective" (left-BP837) if many examples admit multiple equally plausible interpretations, and the correct interpretation of each example only becomes clear once the solution is known. The group of examples together improve the solver's confidence about having understood each individual one right.

It is common that there will be one or two examples with multiple reasonable interpretations due to oversight of the author.

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

In the typical "rules" Bongard Problem, it is possible to come up with many convoluted rules that fit each example, but the intended interpretation is the only simple and obvious one.

Since it is difficult to communicate a rule with little detail, "rules" Bongard Problems are usually "infodense" (left-BP978).

Typically, each example is itself a bunch of smaller examples that all obey the rule. It is the same as how a Bongard Problems relies on many examples to communicate rules; it likely wouldn't get the answer across with just one example.

Often, each rule is communicated just by showing some examples of things satisfying it placed next to each other. We call rules that can be communicated in this way "narrow" (see left-BP513 and left-BP514). Contrast Bongard Problems, which show some examples satisfying the rule and some examples NOT satisfying the rule.

BP1157 is an example of a "rules" Bongard Problem in which each intended rule is communicated by just one example of its application; these rules have to be particularly simple and intuitive, and the individual examples have to be complicated enough to communicate them.

A "rules" Bongard Problem is "collective" (left-BP837) if many examples admit multiple equally plausible interpretations, and the correct interpretation of each example only becomes clear once the solution is known. The group of examples together improve the solver's confidence about having understood each individual one right.

It is common that there will be one or two examples with multiple reasonable interpretations due to oversight of the author.

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

In the typical "rules" Bongard Problem, it is possible to come up with many convoluted rules that fit each example, but the intended interpretation is the only simple and obvious one.

Since it is difficult to communicate a rule with little detail, "rules" Bongard Problems are usually "infodense" (left-BP978).

Typically, each example is itself a bunch of smaller examples that all obey the rule. It is the same as how a Bongard Problems relies on many examples to communicate rules; it likely wouldn't get the answer across with just one example.

Often, each rule is communicated just by showing some examples of things satisfying it placed next to each other. We call rules that can be communicated in this way "narrow" (see left-BP513 and left-BP514). Contrast Bongard Problems, which show examples satisfying the rule and examples NOT satisfying the rule.

BP1157 is an example of a "rules" Bongard Problem in which each intended rule is communicated by just one example of its application; these rules have to be particularly simple and intuitive, and the individual examples have to be complicated enough to communicate them.

A "rules" Bongard Problem is "collective" (left-BP837) if many examples admit multiple equally plausible interpretations, and the correct interpretation of each example only becomes clear once the solution is known. The group of examples together improve the solver's confidence about having understood each individual one right.

It is common that there will be one or two examples with multiple reasonable interpretations due to oversight of the author.

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

In the typical "rules" Bongard Problem, it is possible to come up with many convoluted rules that fit each example, but the intended interpretation is the only simple and obvious one.

Since it is difficult to communicate a rule with little detail, "rules" Bongard Problems are usually "infodense" (left-BP978).

Typically, each example is itself a bunch of smaller examples that all obey the rule. It is the same as how a Bongard Problems relies on many examples to communicate rules; it likely wouldn't get the answer across with just one example.

Often, each rule is communicated just by showing some examples of things satisfying it placed next to each other. We call rules that can be communicated in this way "narrow" (see left-BP513 and left-BP514). Contrast Bongard Problems, which both show examples satisfying the rule and examples NOT satisfying the rule.

BP1157 is an example of a "rules" Bongard Problem in which each intended rule is communicated by just one example of its application; these rules have to be particularly simple and intuitive, and the individual examples have to be complicated enough to communicate them.

A "rules" Bongard Problem is "collective" (left-BP837) if many examples admit multiple equally plausible interpretations, and the correct interpretation of each example only becomes clear once the solution is known. The group of examples together improve the solver's confidence about having understood each individual one right.

It is common that there will be one or two examples with multiple reasonable interpretations due to oversight of the author.

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

In the typical "rules" Bongard Problem, it is possible to come up with many convoluted rules that fit each example, but the intended interpretation is the only simple and obvious one.

Since it is difficult to communicate a rule with little detail, "rules" Bongard Problems are usually "infodense" (left-BP978).

Typically, each example is itself a bunch of smaller examples that all obey the rule. It is the same as how a Bongard Problems relies on many examples to communicate rules; it likely wouldn't get the answer across with just one example.

BP1157 is an example of a "rules" Bongard Problem in which each intended rule is communicated by just one application; these rules have to be particularly simple and intuitive, and the individual examples have to be complicated enough to communicate them.

If a rule can be communicated by showing some examples of it, without showing any counterexamples, we call it "narrow" (see left-BP513 and left-BP514).

A "rules" Bongard Problem is "collective" (left-BP837) if many examples admit multiple equally plausible interpretations, and the correct interpretation of each example only becomes clear once the solution is known. The group of examples together improve the solver's confidence about having understood each individual one right.

It is common that there will be one or two examples with multiple reasonable interpretations due to oversight of the author.

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

In the typical "rules" Bongard Problem, it is possible to come up with many convoluted rules that fit each example, but the intended interpretation is the only simple and obvious one.

Since it is difficult to communicate a rule with little detail, "rules" Bongard Problems are usually "infodense" (left-BP978).

Typically, each example is itself a bunch of smaller examples that all obey the rule. It is the same as how a Bongard Problems relies on many examples to communicate rules; it likely wouldn't get the answer across with just one example.

BP1157 is an example of a "rules" Bongard Problem in which each intended rule is communicated by just one application; these rules have to be particularly simple and intuitive, and the individual examples have to be complicated enough to communicate them.

If a rule can be communicated by showing examples of it, without counterexamples, we call it "narrow" (see left-BP513 and left-BP514).

A "rules" Bongard Problem is "collective" (left-BP837) if many examples admit multiple equally plausible interpretations, and the correct interpretation of each example only becomes clear once the solution is known. The group of examples together improve the solver's confidence about having understood each individual one right.

It is common that there will be one or two examples with multiple reasonable interpretations due to oversight of the author.

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

In the typical "rules" Bongard Problem, it is possible to come up with many convoluted rules that fit each example, but the intended interpretation is the only simple and obvious one.

Since it is difficult to communicate a rule with little detail, "rules" Bongard Problems are usually "infodense" (left-BP978).

Typically, each example is itself a bunch of smaller examples that all obey the rule. It is the same as how a Bongard Problems relies on many examples to communicate rules; it likely wouldn't get the answer across with just one example.

BP1157 is an example of a "rules" Bongard Problem in which each intended rule is communicated by just one application; the rules have to be particularly simple and intuitive, and the individual examples have to be complicated enough to communicate them.

A "rules" Bongard Problem is "collective" (left-BP837) if many examples admit multiple equally plausible interpretations, and the correct interpretation of each example only becomes clear once the solution is known. The group of examples together improve the solver's confidence about having understood each individual one right.

It is common that there will be one or two examples with multiple reasonable interpretations due to oversight of the author.

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

In the typical "rules" Bongard Problem, although it is possible to come up with many convoluted rules that fit each example, the intended interpretation is the only simple and obvious one.

Since it is difficult to communicate a rule with little detail, "rules" Bongard Problems are usually "infodense" (left-BP978).

Typically, each example is itself a bunch of smaller examples that all obey the rule. It is the same as how a Bongard Problems relies on many examples to communicate rules; it likely wouldn't get the answer across with just one example.

BP1157 is an example of a "rules" Bongard Problem in which each intended rule is communicated by just one application; the rules have to be particularly simple and intuitive, and the individual examples have to be complicated enough to communicate them.

A "rules" Bongard Problem is "collective" (left-BP837) if many examples admit multiple equally plausible interpretations, and the correct interpretation of each example only becomes clear once the solution is known. The group of examples together improve the solver's confidence about having understood each individual one right.

It is common that there will be one or two examples with multiple reasonable interpretations due to oversight of the author.