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. (Even so, there may still be some of these relevant examples that land ambiguously between the two sides: keyword @fuzzy.)

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 discrete natural cutoff.

Sometimes there are clear-cut cases of potential examples for which there is ambiguity about whether they belong.

For example, it has been left out whether not or an empty square belongs as a relevant example in BP989 (or any similar dot-counting Bongard Problem). 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. (This would no longer be ambiguous if it were actually included in the Bongard Problem.)

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 if a Bongard Problem had only one side?

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. (Even so, there may still be some of these relevant examples that land ambiguously between the two sides: keyword @fuzzy.)

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 discrete natural cutoff.

Sometimes there are clear-cut cases of potential examples for which there is ambiguity about whether they belong.

For example, it has been left out whether not or an empty square belongs as a relevant example in BP989 (or any similar dot-counting Bongard Problem). This is perhaps the only obvious example that is ambiguous as to whether it belongs in the Bongard Problem. (This would no longer be ambiguous if it were actually included in the Bongard Problem.)

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 if a Bongard Problem had only one side?

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. (Even so, there may still be some of these relevant examples that land ambiguously between the two sides: keyword @fuzzy.)

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 discrete natural cutoff.

Sometimes there are clear-cut cases of potential examples for which there is ambiguity about whether they belong.

For example, it has been left out whether not or an empty square belongs as a relevant example in BP989 (or any similar dot-counting Bongard Problem). This is the only obvious example that is ambiguous as to whether it belongs in the Bongard Problem. (This would no longer be ambiguous if it were actually included in the Bongard Problem.)

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 if a Bongard Problem had only one side?

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. (Even so, there may still be some of these relevant examples that land ambiguously between the two sides: keyword @fuzzy.)

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 discrete natural cutoff.

Sometimes there are clear-cut cases of potential examples for which there is ambiguity about whether they belong.

For example, it has been left out whether not or an empty square belongs as a relevant example in BP989 (or any similar dot-counting Bongard Problem). This is the only obvious example that is ambiguous as to whether it belongs in the Bongard Problem. (This would no longer be ambiguous if it were actually included in the Bongard Problem.)

It is tempting to make another another keyword "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 if a Bongard Problem had only one side?

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. (Even so, there may still be some of these relevant examples that land ambiguously between the two sides: keyword @fuzzy.)

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 discrete natural cutoff.

Sometimes there are clear-cut cases of potential examples for which there is ambiguity about whether they belong.

For example, it has been left out whether not or an empty square belongs as a relevant example in BP989 (or any similar dot-counting Bongard Problem). This is the only obvious example that is ambiguous as to whether it belongs in the Bongard Problem. (This would no longer be ambiguous if it were actually included in the Bongard Problem.)

It is tempting to make another another keyword "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 when a Bongard Problem has only one side?

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

The keyword "preciseworld" 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. (Even so, there may still be some of these relevant examples that land ambiguously between the two sides: keyword @fuzzy.)

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 discrete natural cutoff.

There could also be made another keyword "allsortedworld", meaning "preciseworld" plus no clear border cases for belonging, analogous to @allsorted.

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. The same concept can be applied to the Bongard Problem "fits in original BP's pool of examples vs. not". Sometimes there are clear-cut cases of potential examples for which there is ambiguity about whether they belong.

For example, it has been left out whether not or an empty square belongs as a relevant example in BP989 (or any similar dot-counting Bongard Problem). This is the only obvious example that is ambiguous as to whether it belongs in the Bongard Problem. (This would no longer be ambiguous if it were actually included in the Bongard Problem.)

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

The keyword "preciseworld" 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. (Even so, there may still be some of these relevant examples that land ambiguously between the two sides: keyword @fuzzy.)

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 discrete natural cutoff.

There is a distinction to be made between a @fuzzy Bongard Problem that could be made @precise by including more examples (thereby modifying or clarifying the solution of the Bongard Problem) and a one that cannot while maintaining a comparably simple solution. The same concept can be applied to the Bongard Problem "fits in original BP's pool of examples vs. not". Sometimes there are clear-cut cases of potential examples for which there is ambiguity about whether they belong.

For example, it has been left out whether not or an empty square belongs as a relevant example in BP989 (or any similar dot-counting Bongard Problem). This is the only obvious example that is ambiguous as to whether it belongs in the Bongard Problem. (This would no longer be ambiguous if it were actually included in the Bongard Problem.)

There could also be made another keyword "allsortedworld", meaning "preciseworld" plus no clear border cases for belonging, analogous to @allsorted.

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

The keyword "preciseworld" 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. (Even so, there may still be some of these relevant examples that land ambiguously between the two sides: keyword @fuzzy.)

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 discrete natural cutoff.

There is a distinction to be made between a @fuzzy Bongard Problem that could be made @precise by including more examples (thereby modifying or clarifying the solution of the Bongard Problem) and a one that cannot while maintaining a comparably simple solution. The same concept can be applied to the Bongard Problem "fits in original BP's pool of examples vs. not". Sometimes there are clear-cut cases of potential examples for which there is ambiguity about whether they belong.

For example, it has been left out whether not or an empty square belongs as a relevant example in BP989 (or any similar dot-counting Bongard Problem). This is the only obvious example that is ambiguous as to whether it belongs in the Bongard Problem. (This would no longer be ambiguous if it were actually included in the Bongard Problem.)

There could also be made another keyword "allsortedworld", meaning "preciseworld" plus no clear border cases for belonging, analogous to @allsorted.

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

The keyword "preciseworld" 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. (Even so, there may still be some of these relevant examples that land ambiguously between the two sides: keyword @fuzzy.)

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 discrete natural cutoff.

There is a distinction to be made between a @fuzzy Bongard Problem that could be made @precise by including more examples (thereby modifying or clarifying the solution of the Bongard Problem) and a @fuzzy Bongard Problem that cannot while maintaining a comparably simple solution. The same concept can be applied to the Bongard Problem "fits in original BP's pool of examples vs. not". Sometimes there are clear-cut cases of potential examples for which there is ambiguity about whether they belong.

For example, it has been left out whether not or an empty square belongs as a relevant example in BP989 (or any similar dot-counting Bongard Problem). This is the only obvious example that is ambiguous as to whether it belongs in the Bongard Problem. (This would no longer be ambiguous if it were actually included in the Bongard Problem.)

There could also be made another keyword "allsortedworld", meaning "preciseworld" plus no clear border cases for belonging, analogous to @allsorted.

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

The keyword "preciseworld" 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. (Even so, there may still be some of these relevant examples that land ambiguously between the two sides: keyword @fuzzy.)

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 discrete natural cutoff.

There is a distinction to be made between a "fuzzy" Bongard Problem that could be made "precise" by including more examples (thereby modifying or clarifying the solution of the Bongard Problem) and a "fuzzy" Bongard Problem that cannot while maintaining a comparably simple solution. The same concept can be applied to the Bongard Problem "fits in original BP's pool of examples vs. not". Sometimes there are clear-cut cases of potential examples for which there is ambiguity about whether they belong.

For example, it has been left out whether not or an empty square belongs as a relevant example in BP989 (or any similar dot-counting Bongard Problem). This is the only obvious example that is ambiguous as to whether it belongs in the Bongard Problem. (This would no longer be ambiguous if it were actually included in the Bongard Problem.)

There could also be made another keyword "allsortedworld", meaning "preciseworld" plus no clear border cases for belonging, analogous to @allsorted.

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

The keyword "preciseworld" 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. (Even so, there may still be some of these relevant examples that land ambiguously between the two sides: keyword @fuzzy.)

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 discrete natural cutoff.

Considering the examples that would fit in a Bongard Problem's pool of examples but are not included and are ambiguously sorted, there is a distinction to be made between groups of examples that could be included (thereby modifying or clarifying the solution of the Bongard Problem) and groups of examples that cannot be included while maintaining a comparably simple solution. The same concept can be applied to the Bongard Problem "fits in original BP's pool of examples vs. not": sometimes there are clear-cut cases of potential examples for which there is ambiguity about whether they belong.

For example, it has been left out whether not or an empty square belongs as a relevant example in BP989 (or any similar dot-counting Bongard Problem). This is the only such example that is ambiguous as to whether it belongs in the Bongard Problem. (This would no longer be ambiguous if it were actually included in the Bongard Problem.)

There could also be made another keyword "allsortedworld", meaning "preciseworld" plus no clear border cases for belonging, analogous to @allsorted.

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

The keyword "preciseworld" 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. (Even so, there may still be some of these relevant examples that land ambiguously between the two sides: keyword @fuzzy.)

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 discrete natural cutoff.

Considering the examples that would fit in a Bongard Problem's pool of examples but are not included and would be ambiguously sorted, there is a distinction to be made between groups of examples that could be included (thereby modifying or clarifying the solution of the Bongard Problem) and groups of examples that cannot be included while maintaining a comparably simple solution. The same concept can be applied to the Bongard Problem "fits in original BP's pool of examples vs. not": sometimes there are clear-cut cases of potential examples for which there is ambiguity about whether they belong.

For example, it has been left out whether not or an empty square belongs as a relevant example in BP989 (or any similar dot-counting Bongard Problem). This is the only such example that is ambiguous as to whether it belongs in the Bongard Problem. (This would no longer be ambiguous if it were actually included in the Bongard Problem.)

There could also be made another keyword "allsortedworld", meaning "preciseworld" plus no clear border cases for belonging, analogous to @allsorted.

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

The keyword "preciseworld" 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. (Even so, there may still be some of these relevant examples that land ambiguously between the two sides: keyword @fuzzy.)

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 discrete natural cutoff.

Considering the examples that would fit in a Bongard Problem's pool of examples but are not included and would be ambiguously sorted, there is a distinction to be made between those that could be included (thereby modifying or clarifying the solution of the Bongard Problem) and those that cannot be included while maintaining a comparably simple solution. The same concept can be applied to the Bongard Problem "fits in original BP's pool of examples vs. not": sometimes there are clear-cut cases of potential examples for which there is ambiguity about whether they belong.

For example, it has been left out whether not or an empty square belongs as a relevant example in BP989 (or any similar dot-counting Bongard Problem). This is the only such example that is ambiguous as to whether it belongs in the Bongard Problem. (This would no longer be ambiguous if it were actually included in the Bongard Problem.)

There could also be made another keyword "allsortedworld", meaning "preciseworld" plus no clear border cases for belonging, analogous to @allsorted.

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

The keyword "preciseworld" 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. (Even so, there may still be some of these relevant examples that land ambiguously between the two sides: keyword @fuzzy.)

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 discrete natural cutoff.

Considering the examples that would fit in a Bongard Problem's pool of examples but are not included and would be ambiguously sorted, there is a distinction to be made between those that could be included (thereby modifying or clarifying the solution of the Bongard Problem) and those that cannot be included while maintaining a comparably simple solution. The same concept can be applied to the Bongard Problem "fits in pool of examples vs. not": sometimes there are clear-cut cases of potential examples for which there is ambiguity about whether they belong.

For example, it has been left out whether not or an empty square belongs as a relevant example in BP989 (or any similar dot-counting Bongard Problem). This is the only such example that is ambiguous as to whether it belongs in the Bongard Problem. (This would no longer be ambiguous if it were actually included in the Bongard Problem.)

There could also be made another keyword "allsortedworld", meaning "preciseworld" plus no clear border cases for belonging, analogous to @allsorted.

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

The keyword "preciseworld" 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. (Even so, there may still be some of these relevant examples that land ambiguously between the two sides: keyword @fuzzy.)

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 discrete natural cutoff.

Considering the examples that would fit in a Bongard Problem's pool of examples but are not included and would be ambiguously sorted, there is a distinction to be made between those that could be included (thereby modifying or clarifying the solution of the Bongard Problem) and those that cannot be included while maintaining a natural solution. The same concept can be applied to the Bongard Problem "fits in pool of examples vs. not": sometimes there are clear-cut cases of potential examples for which there is ambiguity about whether they belong.

For example, it has been left out whether not or an empty square belongs as a relevant example in BP989 (or any similar dot-counting Bongard Problem). This is the only such example that is ambiguous as to whether it belongs in the Bongard Problem. (This would no longer be ambiguous if it were actually included in the Bongard Problem.)

There could also be made another keyword "allsortedworld", meaning "preciseworld" plus no clear border cases for belonging, analogous to @allsorted.

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

The keyword "preciseworld" 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. (Even so, there may still be some of these relevant examples that land ambiguously between the two sides: keyword @fuzzy.)

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 discrete natural cutoff.

Considering the examples that would fit in a Bongard Problem's pool of examples but are not included and would be ambiguously sorted, there is a distinction to be made between those that could be included (thereby modifying or clarifying the solution of the Bongard Problem) and those that cannot be included while maintaining a natural solution. This concept can also be applied to the Bongard Problem "fits in pool of examples vs. not": sometimes there are clear-cut cases of potential examples for which there is ambiguity about whether they belong.

For example, it has been left out whether not or an empty square belongs as a relevant example in BP989 (or any similar dot-counting Bongard Problem). This is the only such example that is ambiguous as to whether it belongs in the Bongard Problem. (This would no longer be ambiguous if it were actually included in the Bongard Problem.)

There could also be made another keyword "allsortedworld", meaning "preciseworld" plus no clear border cases for belonging, analogous to @allsorted.

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

The keyword "preciseworld" 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. (Even so, there may still be some of these relevant examples that land ambiguously between the two sides: keyword @fuzzy.)

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 discrete natural cutoff.

Considering the examples that would fit in a Bongard Problem's pool of examples but are not included and would be ambiguously sorted, there is a distinction to be made between those that could be included (thereby modifying or clarifying the solution of the Bongard Problem) and those that clearly cannot be included. This concept can also be applied to the Bongard Problem "fits in pool of examples vs. not": sometimes there are clear-cut cases of potential examples for which there is ambiguity about whether they belong.

For example, it has been left out whether not or an empty square belongs as a relevant example in BP989 (or any similar dot-counting Bongard Problem). This is the only such example that is ambiguous as to whether it belongs in the Bongard Problem. (This would no longer be ambiguous if it were actually included in the Bongard Problem.)

There could also be made another keyword "allsortedworld", meaning "preciseworld" plus no clear border cases for belonging, analogous to @allsorted.

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

The keyword "preciseworld" 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. (Even so, there may still be some of these relevant examples that land ambiguously between the two sides: keyword @fuzzy.)

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 discrete natural cutoff.

Considering the examples that would fit in a Bongard Problem's pool of examples but are not included and would be ambiguously sorted, there is a distinction to be made between those that could be included (thereby modifying or clarifying the definition of the Bongard Problem) and those that clearly cannot be included. This concept can also be applied to the Bongard Problem "fits in pool of examples vs. not": sometimes there are clear-cut cases of potential examples for which there is ambiguity about whether they belong.

For example, it has been left out whether not or an empty square belongs as a relevant example in BP989 (or any similar dot-counting Bongard Problem). This is the only such example that is ambiguous as to whether it belongs in the Bongard Problem. (This would no longer be ambiguous if it were actually included in the Bongard Problem.)

There could also be made another keyword "allsortedworld", meaning "preciseworld" plus no clear border cases for belonging, analogous to @allsorted.

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

The keyword "preciseworld" 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. (Even so, there may still be some of these relevant examples that land ambiguously between the two sides: keyword @fuzzy.)

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 discrete natural cutoff.

Considering the examples that would fit in a Bongard Problem's pool of examples, but are not included and would be ambiguously sorted, there is a distinction to be made between those that could be included (thereby modifying or clarifying the definition of the Bongard Problem) and those that clearly cannot be included. This concept can also be applied to the Bongard Problem "fits in pool of examples vs. not": sometimes there are clear-cut cases of potential examples for which there is ambiguity about whether they belong.

For example, it has been left out whether not or an empty square belongs as a relevant example in BP989 (or any similar dot-counting Bongard Problem). This is the only such example that is ambiguous as to whether it belongs in the Bongard Problem. (This would no longer be ambiguous if it were actually included in the Bongard Problem.)

There could also be made another keyword "allsortedworld", meaning "preciseworld" plus no clear border cases for belonging, analogous to @allsorted.

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

The keyword "preciseworld" 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. (Even so, there may still be some of these relevant examples that land ambiguously between the two sides: keyword @fuzzy.)

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 discrete natural cutoff.

Considering the examples that would fit in a Bongard Problem's pool of examples but that are not included and that would be ambiguously sorted, there is a distinction to be made between those that could be included (thereby modifying or clarifying the definition of the Bongard Problem) and those that clearly cannot be included. This concept can also be applied to the Bongard Problem "fits in pool of examples vs. not": sometimes there are clear-cut cases of potential examples for which there is ambiguity about whether they belong.

For example, it has been left out whether not or an empty square belongs as a relevant example in BP989 (or any similar dot-counting Bongard Problem). This is the only such example that is ambiguous as to whether it belongs in the Bongard Problem. (This would no longer be ambiguous if it were actually included in the Bongard Problem.)

There could also be made another keyword "allsortedworld", meaning "preciseworld" plus no clear border cases for belonging, analogous to @allsorted.

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

The keyword "preciseworld" 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. (Even so, there may still be some of these relevant examples that land ambiguously between the two sides: keyword @fuzzy.)

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 discrete natural cutoff.

Sometimes there are clear-cut cases of potential examples for which there is ambiguity about whether they belong.

For example, it has been left out whether not or an empty square belongs as a relevant example in BP989 (or any similar dot-counting Bongard Problem). This is the only such example that is ambiguous as to whether it belongs in the Bongard Problem. (This would no longer be ambiguous if it were actually included in the Bongard Problem.)

This is the distinction between a non-included example that would

There could also be made another keyword "allsortedworld", meaning "preciseworld" plus no clear border cases for belonging, analogous to @allsorted.

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

The keyword "preciseworld" 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. (Even so, there may still be some of these relevant examples that land ambiguously between the two sides: keyword @fuzzy.)

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 discrete natural cutoff.

Sometimes there are clear-cut cases of potential examples for which there is ambiguity about whether they belong.

For example, it has been left out whether not or an empty square belongs as a relevant example in BP989 (or any similar dot-counting Bongard Problem). This is the only such example that is ambiguous as to whether it belongs in the Bongard Problem. (This would no longer be ambiguous if it were actually included in the Bongard Problem.)This is the distinction between a non-included example that would

There could also be made another keyword "allsortedworld", meaning "preciseworld" plus no clear border cases for belonging, analogous to @allsorted.

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

The keyword "preciseworld" 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. (Even so, there may still be some of these relevant examples that land ambiguously between the two sides: keyword @fuzzy.)

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 discrete natural cutoff.

Sometimes there are clear-cut cases of potential examples for which there is ambiguity about whether they belong.

For example, it has been left out whether not or an empty square belongs as a relevant example in BP989 (or any similar dot-counting Bongard Problem). This is the only such example that is ambiguous as to whether it belongs in the Bongard Problem. (This would no longer be ambiguous if it were actually included in the Bongard Problem.)

There could also be made another keyword "allsortedworld", meaning "preciseworld" plus no clear border cases for belonging, analogous to @allsorted.

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

The keyword "preciseworld" means: if a new Bongard Problem were created to sort whether or not examples fit in with 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. (Even so, there may still be some of these relevant examples that land ambiguously between the two sides: keyword @fuzzy.)

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 discrete natural cutoff.

Sometimes there are clear-cut cases of potential examples for which there is ambiguity about whether they belong.

For example, it has been left out whether not or an empty square belongs as a relevant example in BP989 (or any similar dot-counting Bongard Problem). However, that is just a one-off, notable case.

There could also be made another keyword "allsortedworld", meaning "preciseworld" plus no clear border cases for belonging, analogous to @allsorted.

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.