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

The keyword "exactworld" 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 "exact" (left-BP508).

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", right-BP508.)

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 "exactworld" plus no clear border cases for belonging, analogous to "allsorted" (left-BP509).

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

The keyword "exactworld" means: if a Bongard Problem were created to sort whether or not examples fit in with the original Bongard Problem, it would be tagged "exact" (left-BP508).

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", right-BP508.)

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 "exactworld" plus no clear border cases for belonging, analogous to "allsorted" (left-BP509).

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

The keyword "exactworld" means: if a Bongard Problem were created to sort whether or not examples fit in with the original Bongard Problem, it would be tagged "exact" (left-BP508).

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", right-BP508.)

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 "exactworld" plus no clear border cases for relevancy, analogous to "allsorted" (left-BP509).

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

The keyword "exactworld" means: if a Bongard Problem were created to sort whether or not examples fit in with the original Bongard Problem, it would be tagged "exact" (left-BP508).

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", right-BP508.)

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 is not determined 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 "exactworld" plus no clear border cases for relevancy, analogous to "allsorted" (left-BP509).

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

The keyword "exactworld" means: if a Bongard Problem were created sorting whether or not examples fit in with the original Bongard Problem, it would be tagged "exact" (left-BP508).

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", right-BP508.)

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 is not determined 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 "exactworld" plus no clear border cases for relevancy, analogous to "allsorted" (left-BP509).

Bongard Problems featuring generic shapes ( https://oebp.org/search.php?q=world:fill_shape ) have not usually been labelled "exactworld". (What counts as a "shape"? Can the shapes be fractally complicated, for example? What exactly are the criteria?) Nonetheless, these Bongard Problems are frequently "exact" (left-BP508).

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

The keyword "exactworld" means: if a Bongard Problem were created that sorts whether or not examples fit in with the original Bongard Problem, it would be tagged "exact" (left-BP508).

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", right-BP508.)

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 is not determined 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 "exactworld" plus no clear border cases for relevancy, analogous to "allsorted" (left-BP509).

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

The keyword "exactworld" means: if a Bongard Problem were created that sorts whether or not examples fit in with the original Bongard Problem, it would be tagged "exact" (left-BP508).

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 a person might reasonably classify on either one of the two sides: keyword "fuzzy", right-BP508.)

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 is not determined 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 "exactworld" plus no clear border cases for relevancy, analogous to "allsorted" (left-BP509).

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

The keyword "exactworld" means: if a Bongard Problem were created that sorts whether or not examples fit in with the original Bongard Problem, it would be tagged "exact".

Similarly to using the "exact" and "fuzzy" keywords (BP508), calling a Bongard Problem "exactworld" is a subjective/intuitive judgment.

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 a person might reasonably classify on either one of 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 is not determined 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 "exactworld" plus no clear border cases for relevancy, analogous to "allsorted" (left-BP509).

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

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 a person might reasonably classify on either one of 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.

Similarly to using the "exact" and "fuzzy" keywords (BP508), calling a Bongard Problem "exactworld" is a subjective/intuitive judgment.

The keyword "exactworld" means: if a Bongard Problem were created that sorts whether or not examples fit in with the original Bongard Problem, it would be tagged "exact".

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

For example, it is not determined 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 "exactworld" plus no clear border cases for relevancy, analogous to "allsorted" (left-BP509).

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

For a Bongard Problem fitting left, the intended class of examples sorted by the Bongard Problem is clear. (Even so, there may still be some of these relevant examples that a person might reasonably classify on either one of 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.

Similarly to using the "exact" and "fuzzy" keywords (BP508), calling a Bongard Problem "exactworld" is a subjective/intuitive judgment.

The keyword "exactworld" means: if a Bongard Problem were created that sorts whether or not examples fit in with the original Bongard Problem, it would be tagged "exact".

It may seem unclear whether to label a Bongard Problem "exactworld" when there are clear-cut cases of potential examples for which there is ambiguity about whether they belong.

For example, it is not determined 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.

To resolve this, there could also be made another keyword "allsortedworld", meaning "exactworld" plus no clear border cases for relevancy, analogous to "allsorted" (left-BP509).

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

For a Bongard Problem fitting left, the intended class of examples sorted by the Bongard Problem is clear. (Even so, there may still be some of these relevant examples that a person might reasonably classify on either one of 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.

Similarly to using the "exact" and "fuzzy" keywords (BP508), calling a Bongard Problem "exactworld" is a subjective/intuitive judgment.

The keyword "exactworld" means: if a Bongard Problem were created that sorts whether or not examples fit in with the original Bongard Problem, it would be tagged "exact".

It may seem unclear whether to label a Bongard Problem "exactworld" when there are clear-cut cases of potential examples for which there is ambiguity about whether they belong.

For example, it is not determined 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.

To resolve this, there could also be made another keyword "allsortedworld", meaning "exactworld" plus no clear border cases for relevancy, analogous to "allsorted" (left-BP509).

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

For a Bongard Problem fitting left, the intended class of examples sorted by the Bongard Problem is clear. (Even so, there may still be some of these relevant examples that a person might reasonably classify on either one of 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.

Similarly to using the "exact" and "fuzzy" keywords (BP508), calling a Bongard Problem "exactworld" is a subjective/intuitive judgment.

The keyword "exactworld" means that a newly created Bongard Problem -- that sorts whether or not examples fit in with the original Bongard Problem -- would be tagged "exact".

It may seem unclear whether to label a Bongard Problem "exactworld" when there are clear-cut cases of potential examples for which there is ambiguity about whether they belong.

For example, it is not determined 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.

To resolve this, there could also be made another keyword "allsortedworld", meaning "exactworld" plus no clear border cases for relevancy, analogous to "allsorted" (left-BP509).

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

Similarly to using the "exact" and "fuzzy" keywords (BP508), calling a Bongard Problem "exactworld" is a subjective/intuitive judgment.

For a Bongard Problem fitting left, the intended class of examples sorted by the Bongard Problem is clear. (Even so, there may still be some of these relevant examples that a person might reasonably classify on either one of 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.

It may be unclear whether to label a Bongard Problem "exactworld" when there are clear-cut cases of potential examples for which there is ambiguity about whether they belong.

For example, it is not determined 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.

To resolve this, there could also be made another keyword "allsortedworld", meaning "exactworld" plus no clear border cases for relevancy, analogous to "allsorted" (left-BP509).

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

Similarly to using the "exact" and "fuzzy" keywords (BP508), calling a Bongard Problem "exactworld" is a subjective/intuitive judgment.

For a Bongard Problem fitting left, the intended class of relevant examples is clear. (Even so, there may still be some of these relevant examples that a person might reasonably classify on either one of 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.

It may be unclear whether to label a Bongard Problem "exactworld" when there are clear-cut cases of potential examples for which there is ambiguity about whether they belong.

For example, it is not determined 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.

To resolve this, there could also be made another keyword "allsortedworld", meaning "exactworld" plus no clear border cases for relevancy, analogous to "allsorted" (left-BP509).

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

Similarly to using the "exact" and "fuzzy" keywords (BP508), calling a Bongard Problem "exactworld" is a subjective/intuitive judgment.

For a Bongard Problem fitting left, the intended class of relevant examples is clear. (Even so, there may still be some of these relevant examples that a person might reasonably classify on either one of 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.

It may be unclear whether to label a Bongard Problem "exactworld" when there are clear-cut cases of potential examples for which there is ambiguity about whether they belong.

For example, it is not determined 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 "exactworld" plus no clear border cases for relevancy, analogous to "allsorted" (left-BP509).

It may make it simpler to decide whether to tag BPs as "exactworld" if we always consider relevant any small number of notable ambiguous cases. - Aaron David Fairbanks, Apr 16 2022

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

Similarly to using the "exact" and "fuzzy" keywords (BP508), calling a Bongard Problem "exactworld" is a subjective/intuitive judgment.

For a Bongard Problem fitting left, the intended class of relevant examples is clear. (Even so, there may still be some of these relevant examples that a person might reasonably classify on either one of 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.

It may be unclear whether to label a Bongard Problem "exactworld" when there are clear-cut cases of potential examples for which there is ambiguity about whether to consider them relevant. ("Clearly ambiguous.")

For example, it is not specified 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 "exactworld" plus no clear border cases for relevancy, analogous to "allsorted" (left-BP509).

It may make it simpler to decide whether to tag BPs as "exactworld" if we always consider relevant any small number of notable ambiguous cases. - Aaron David Fairbanks, Apr 16 2022

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

Similarly to using the "exact" and "fuzzy" keywords (BP508), calling a Bongard Problem "exactworld" is a subjective/intuitive judgment.

For a Bongard Problem fitting left, the intended class of relevant examples is clear. (Even so, there may still be some of these relevant examples that a person might reasonably classify on either one of 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.

It may be unclear whether to label a Bongard Problem "exactworld" when there are clear-cut cases of potential examples for which there is ambiguity about whether to consider them relevant. ("Clearly ambiguous.")

For example, it is not specified 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 "exactworld" plus no clear border cases for relevancy, analogous to "allsorted" (left-BP509).

It may make the process of deciding whether to tag BPs as "exactworld" simplest if we always consider relevant any small number of notable ambiguous cases. - Aaron David Fairbanks, Apr 16 2022

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

Similarly to using the "exact" and "fuzzy" keywords (BP508), calling a Bongard Problem "exactworld" is a subjective/intuitive judgment.

For a Bongard Problem fitting left, the intended class of relevant examples is clear. (Even so, there may still be some of these relevant examples that a person might reasonably classify on either one of 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.

It may be unclear whether to label a Bongard Problem "exactworld" when there are clear-cut cases of potential examples for which there is ambiguity about whether to consider them relevant. ("Clearly ambiguous.")

For example, it is not specified 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. Should this Bongard Problem be tagged "exactworld"?

There could also be made another keyword "allsortedworld", meaning "exactworld" plus no clear border cases for relevancy, analogous to "allsorted" (left-BP509).

It may make the process of deciding whether to tag BPs as "exactworld" simplest if we always consider relevant any small number of notable ambiguous cases. - Aaron David Fairbanks, Apr 16 2022

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

Similarly to using the "exact" and "fuzzy" keywords (BP508), calling a Bongard Problem "exactworld" is a subjective/intuitive judgment.

For a Bongard Problem fitting left, the intended class of relevant examples is clear. (Even so, there may still be some of these relevant examples that a person might reasonably classify on either side: 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.

A Bongard Problem may be a border case here when there are certain clear-cut cases of potential examples for which there is obviously some ambiguity about whether to consider them relevant. ("Clearly ambiguous.")

For example, it is not specified 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. Should this Bongard Problem be tagged "exactworld"?

Perhaps it will make the process of deciding whether to tag BPs as "exactworld" simplest if we always consider relevant any small number of notable ambiguous cases. - Aaron David Fairbanks, Apr 16 2022

"Clearly ambiguous" versus "ambiguously ambiguous" is analogous to the distinction between the keywords "exact" and "fuzzy" (BP508). We could make another keyword for "exactworld" plus no clear border cases for relevancy, analogous to "allsorted" (left-BP509).

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

Similarly to using the "exact" and "fuzzy" keywords (BP508), calling a Bongard Problem "exactworld" is a subjective/intuitive judgment.

For a Bongard Problem fitting left, the intended class of relevant examples is clear. (Even so, there may still be some of these relevant examples that a person might reasonably classify on either side: 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.

A Bongard Problem may be a border case here when there are certain clear-cut cases of potential examples for which there is obviously some ambiguity about whether to consider them relevant. ("Clearly ambiguous.")

For example, it is not specified 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. Should this Bongard Problem be tagged "exactworld"?

Perhaps it will make the process of deciding whether to tag BPs as "exactworld" simplest if we always consider relevant any small number of notable ambiguous cases. - Aaron David Fairbanks, Apr 16 2022

"Clearly ambiguous" versus "ambiguously ambiguous" is analogous to the distinction between the keywords "exact" and "fuzzy" (BP508). We could make another keyword for "exactworld" plus no clear border cases for relevancy, analogous to "allsorted" (%allsorted).

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

Similarly to using the "exact" and "fuzzy" keywords (BP508), calling a Bongard Problem "exactworld" is a subjective/intuitive judgment.

For a Bongard Problem fitting left, the intended class of relevant examples is clear. (Even so, there may still be some of these relevant examples that a person might reasonably classify on either side: 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.

A Bongard Problem may be a border case here when there are certain clear-cut cases of potential examples for which there is obviously some ambiguity about whether to consider them relevant. ("Clearly ambiguous.")

For example, it is not specified 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. Should this Bongard Problem be tagged "exactworld"?

Perhaps it will make the process of deciding whether to tag BPs as "exactworld" simplest if we always consider relevant any small number of notable ambiguous cases. - Aaron David Fairbanks, Apr 16 2022

"Clearly ambiguous" versus "ambiguously ambiguous" is analogous to the distinction between the keywords "exact" and "fuzzy" (BP508). We could make another keyword for "exactworld" plus no clear border cases for the world, analogous to "allsorted" (%allsorted).

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

Similarly to using the "exact" and "fuzzy" keywords (BP508), calling a Bongard Problem "exactworld" is a subjective/intuitive judgment.

For a Bongard Problem fitting left, the intended class of relevant examples is clear. (Even so, there may still be some of these relevant examples that a person might reasonably classify on either side: 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.

A Bongard Problem may be a border case here when there are certain clear-cut cases of potential examples for which there is obviously some ambiguity about whether to consider them relevant. ("Clearly ambiguous.")

For example, it is not specified 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. Should this Bongard Problem be tagged "exactworld"?

Perhaps it will make the process of deciding whether to tag BPs as "exactworld" simplest if we always consider relevant any small number of notable ambiguous cases. - Aaron David Fairbanks, Apr 16 2022

"Clearly ambiguous" versus "ambiguously ambiguous" is analogous to the distinction between the keywords "exact" and "fuzzy" (BP508). We could make another keyword for "exactworld" plus no clearly border cases on the edge of the world, analogous to "allsorted" (%allsorted).

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

Similarly to using the "exact" and "fuzzy" keywords (BP508), calling a Bongard Problem "exactworld" is a subjective/intuitive judgment.

For a Bongard Problem fitting left, the intended class of relevant examples is clear. (Even so, there may still be some of these relevant examples that a person might reasonably classify on either side: 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.

A Bongard Problem may be a border case here when there are certain clear-cut cases of potential examples for which there is obviously some ambiguity about whether to consider them relevant. ("Clearly ambiguous.")

For example, it is not specified 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. Should this Bongard Problem be tagged "exactworld"?

Perhaps it will make the process of deciding whether to tag BPs as "exactworld" simplest if we always consider relevant any small number of notable ambiguous cases. - Aaron David Fairbanks, Apr 16 2022

"Clearly ambiguous" versus "ambiguously ambiguous" is analogous to the distinction between the keywords "exact" and "fuzzy" (BP508). We could make another keyword for "exactworld" plus no clearly ambiguous border cases for the world, analogous to "allsorted" (%allsorted).

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

Similarly to using the "exact" and "fuzzy" keywords (BP508), calling a Bongard Problem "exactworld" is a subjective/intuitive judgment.

For a Bongard Problem fitting left, the intended class of relevant examples is clear. (Even so, there may still be some of these relevant examples that a person might reasonably classify on either side: 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.

A Bongard Problem may be a border case here when there are certain clear-cut cases of potential examples for which there is obviously some ambiguity about whether to consider them relevant. ("Clearly ambiguous.")

For example, it is not specified 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. Should this Bongard Problem be tagged "exactworld"?

Perhaps it will make the process of deciding whether to tag BPs as "exactworld" simplest if we always consider relevant any small number of notable ambiguous cases. - Aaron David Fairbanks, Apr 16 2022