Left examples have the keyword "exact" on the OEBP.

Right examples have the keyword "fuzzy" on the OEBP.

In exact Bongard Problems, it is always clear where each relevant example should be sorted. Ambiguity is allowed, but only if it is clear precisely which cases are ambiguous.

For quantity-based BPs, this usually means it is possible to calculate exactly the values of the examples (when the examples are themselves specified exactly enough).

IMPORTANT: For Bongard Problems based on images we assume the intended geometry represented by the image is understood before we sort. The case of a "poorly drawn square" is not here considered an ambiguous case for BP6 triangles vs. squares; a shape is either a square or it isn't.

However, for Bongard Problems specifically about approximation (e.g. BP10 approximately triangular outline vs. approximately convex quadrilateral outline) even in the pure geometry there is a spectrum of how closely a shape approximates something; there are ambiguous cases here.

For Bongard Problems in which fine subtleties of drawings, including small imperfections, are meant to be considered, use the keyword "literalgeometry" (BP913).

Left examples have the keyword "exact" on the OEBP.

In exact Bongard Problems, it is always clear where each relevant example should be sorted. Ambiguity is allowed, but only if it is clear precisely which cases are ambiguous.

For quantity-based BPs, this usually means it is possible to calculate exactly the values of the examples (when the examples are themselves specified exactly enough).

IMPORTANT: For Bongard Problems based on images we assume the intended geometry represented by the image is understood before we sort. The case of a "poorly drawn square" is not here considered an ambiguous case for BP6 triangles vs. squares; a shape is either a square or it isn't.

However, for Bongard Problems specifically about approximation (e.g. BP10 approximately triangular outline vs. approximately convex quadrilateral outline) even in the pure geometry there is a spectrum of how closely a shape approximates something; there are ambiguous cases here.

For Bongard Problems in which fine subtleties of drawings, including small imperfections, are meant to be considered, use the keyword "literalgeometry" (BP913).

Left examples have the keyword "exact" on the OEBP.

In exact Bongard Problems, it is always clear where each relevant example should be sorted. Ambiguity is allowed, but only if it is clear precisely which cases are ambiguous.

For quantity-based BPs, this usually means it is possible to calculate exactly the values of the examples (when the examples are themselves specified exactly enough).

For Bongard Problems based on images we assume the pure intented geometry represented by the image is understood before we sort. The case of a "poorly drawn square" is not here considered an ambiguous case for BP6 triangles vs. squares; a shape is either a square or it isn't.

However, for Bongard Problems specifically about approximation (e.g. BP10 approximately triangular outline vs. approximately convex quadrilateral outline) even in the pure geometry there is a spectrum of how closely a shape approximates something; there are ambiguous cases here.

Precise Bongard Problems.

Bongard Problems that with precise definitions. For quantity-based BPs, this means it is possible to calculate precisely the values of the examples.

This is the keyword "precise" on the OEBP.

Aaron David Fairbanks

Left examples have the keyword "exact" on the OEBP.

In exact Bongard Problems, it is always clear where each relevant example should be sorted. Ambiguity is allowed, but only if it is clear precisely which cases are ambiguous.

For quantity-based BPs, this usually means it is possible to calculate exactly the values of the examples (when the examples are themselves specified exactly enough).

For Bongard Problems based on images we assume the pure intented geometry represented by the image is magically understood by us before we sort. The case of a "poorly drawn square" is not here considered an ambiguous case for BP6 triangles vs. squares.

However, for Bongard Problems specifically about approximation, e.g. BP10 approximately triangular outline vs. approximately convex quadrilateral outline, even in the pure geometry there is a spectrum of how closely a shape approximates a quadrilateral; there are ambiguous cases here.

Left examples have the keyword "exact" on the OEBP.

In exact Bongard Problems, it is always clear where each relevant example should be sorted. Ambiguity is allowed, but only if it is clear precisely which cases are ambiguous.

For quantity-based BPs, this usually means it is possible to calculate exactly the values of the examples (when the examples are themselves specified exactly enough).

For Bongard Problems based on images we assume the pure intented geometry represented by the image is magically understood by us before we sort. The case of a "poorly drawn square" is not here considered an ambiguous case for triangles vs. squares.

However, for Bongard Problems specifically about approximation, e.g. BP10 "Approximately triangular outline vs. approximately convex quadrilateral outline," even in the pure geometry there is a spectrum of closely approximating a quadrilateral; there are ambiguous cases.

Left examples have the keyword "exact" on the OEBP.

In exact Bongard Problems, it is always clear where each relevant example should be sorted. Ambiguity is allowed, but only if it is clear precisely which cases are ambiguous.

For quantity-based BPs, this usually means it is possible to calculate exactly the values of the examples (when the examples are themselves specified exactly enough).

Bongard Problems with exact sorting vs. Bongard Problems with vagueness in definition.

Bongard Problems with exact sorting vs. Bongard Problems with vague definition.