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

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

Similarly to 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

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

Similarly to 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 obvious whether not or an empty square belongs as a relevant example for us to consider where it would be sorted 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

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

Similarly to 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 obvious whether not or an empty square belongs as a relevant example for us to consider where it would be sorted 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

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

Similarly to 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 will be a border case here when there is ambiguity about whether to even consider certain examples relevant.

For example, it is not obvious whether not or an empty square belongs in BP989 (or any similar dot-counting Bongard Problem) as a relevant example for us to consider where it would be sorted. 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

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

Similarly to 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; however, 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 the pool of potential examples.

A Bongard Problem will be a border case here when there is ambiguity about whether to even consider certain examples relevant.

For example, it is not obvious whether not or an empty square belongs in BP989 (or any similar dot-counting Bongard Problem) as a relevant example for us to consider where it would be sorted. 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

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

Similarly to 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; however, 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 the pool of potential examples.

A Bongard Problem will be a border case here when there is ambiguity about whether to even consider certain examples relevant.

For example, it is not obvious whether not or an empty square belongs as a relevant example for us to consider where it would be sorted 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

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

Similarly to 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; however, 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 the pool of potential examples.

A Bongard Problem will be a border case here when there is ambiguity about whether to even consider certain examples relevant.

For example, it is not obvious whether not or an empty square belongs as a relevant example to consider where it would be sorted 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

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

Similarly to 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; however, 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 the pool of potential examples.

A Bongard Problem will be a border case here when there is ambiguity about whether to even consider certain examples relevant.

For example, it is not obvious whether not or an empty square belongs as a relevant example to consider where it would be sorted in BP989 (or any dot-counting Bongard Problem like it). 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

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

Similarly to 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; however, 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 the pool of potential examples.

A Bongard Problem will be a border case here when there is ambiguity about whether to even consider certain examples relevant.

For example, it is not obvious whether not or an "empty square" belongs as a relevant example to consider where it would be sorted in BP989. 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

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

Similarly to 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; however, 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 the pool of potential examples.

A Bongard Problem will be a border case here when there is ambiguity about whether to even consider certain examples relevant.

For example, it is not obvious whether not or an "empty square" fits in as a relevant example for BP989. 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

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

Similarly to 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; however, 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 the pool of potential examples.

A Bongard Problem will be a border case here when there is ambiguity about whether to even consider certain examples relevant.

For example, it is not obvious whether not or an "empty square" fits in as a relevant example for BP989. However, that is just a one-off, notable case. Should this Bongard Problem be tagged "exactworld"? It seems rather ambiguous.

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

Bongard Problems featuring generic shapes ( https://oebp.org/search.php?q=world:fill_shape ) are not usually 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.

Similarly to 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; however, 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 the pool of potential examples.

A Bongard Problem will be a border case here when it's ambiguous whether to even consider certain examples relevant.

For example, it is not obvious whether not or an "empty square" fits in as a relevant example for BP989. However, that is just a one-off, notable case. Should this Bongard Problem be tagged "exactworld"? It seems rather ambiguous.

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

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

Similarly to 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; however, 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 the pool of potential examples.

It will be a border case when it's ambiguous whether to even consider certain examples relevant.

Perhaps it will make the process of deciding whether to tag BPs as "exactworld" simplest if we always consider a small number of notable ambiguous cases to be "relevant".

For example, it is not obvious whether not or an "empty square" fits in with the class of relevant examples for BP989, but that is just a one-off, notable case. Should this Bongard Problem be tagged "exactworld"? It seems rather ambiguous. - Aaron David Fairbanks, Apr 16 2022

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

Similarly to 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; however, 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 the pool of potential examples.

Do not sort a Bongard Problem right just because it has some small number of ambiguous cases. (It would usually make sense to consider a small number of notable ambiguous cases "relevant examples".)

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

Similarly to 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; however, 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 the pool of potential examples.

Bongard Problems featuring generic shapes ( https://oebp.org/search.php?q=world:fill_shape ) are not usually labelled "exactworld". (Exactly how detailed or jagged are the edges allowed to be? Can the shapes be fractal?) Nonetheless, these Bongard Problems are frequently "exact" (left-BP508).

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

See keyword "exact" (left-BP508).

For a Bongard Problem fitting left, the intended class of relevant examples is clear; however, there may still be some potential 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 the pool of potential examples.