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

A Bongard Problem is labelled "allsorted" when the type of thing it sorts is partitioned unambiguously and without exception into two groups.

Similarly to using the @precise and @fuzzy keywords, calling a Bongard Problem "allsorted" is a subjective/intuitive judgment. The space of relevant examples for a BP is not clearly delineated anywhere.

(Sometimes it's ambiguous whether to consider certain examples that are ambiguously sorted relevant.)

The solution to an "allsorted" Bongard Problem can usually be re-phrased as "___ vs. not so" (see the keyword @notso).

But not every "___ vs. not so" Bongard Problem should be labelled "allsorted"; there could be ambiguous border cases in a "___ vs. not so" Bongard Problem.

Bongard Problems in which the two sides are so different that there is no middle ground between them (keyword @gap) are sometimes still labelled "allsorted", since the intuitive pool of all relevant examples just amounts to the two unrelated sides. But some "gap" Bongard Problems are not like that; for example sometimes there are more related classes of examples besides the two shown.

Sometimes the class of all examples in a Bongard Problem is imprecise, but, despite that, the rule sorting those examples is precise. Say, for some potential new example, it is unclear whether it should be included in the Bongard Problem at all, but, if it were included, it would be clear where it should be sorted. A Bongard Problem like this can still be tagged "allsorted".

On the other hand, sometimes the class of all examples is very clear, with an obvious boundary. (Keyword @preciseworld.)

In deciding where to sort an example, we think about it until we come to a conclusion; an example isn't considered ambiguous just because someone might have a hard time with it (keyword @hardsort).

However, sometimes the way a Bongard Problem would sort certain examples is an unsolved problem in mathematics, and it may be unknown whether there is even a solution. Whether or not such a Bongard Problem should be labelled "allsorted" might be debated.

(See the keyword @proofsrequired.)

One way to resolve this ambiguity is to redefine "allsorted" as meaning that once people decide where an example belongs, it will be on one of the two sides, and they will all agree about it.

There is a distinction to be made between a non-"allsorted" Bongard Problem that could be made "allsorted" by making more examples sorted (thereby modifying or clarifying the solution of the Bongard Problem) and one that cannot while maintaining a comparably simple solution. The former kind would often be labelled @precise, in particular when these border cases have been explicitly forbidden from being sorted in the Bongard Problem's definition.

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

A Bongard Problem is labelled "allsorted" when the type of thing it sorts is partitioned unambiguously and without exception into two groups.

Similarly to using the @precise and @fuzzy keywords, calling a Bongard Problem "allsorted" is a subjective/intuitive judgment. The space of relevant examples for a BP is not clearly delineated anywhere.

(Sometimes it's ambiguous whether to consider certain examples that are ambiguously sorted relevant.)

The solution to an "allsorted" Bongard Problem can usually be re-phrased as "___ vs. not so" (see the keyword @notso).

But not every "___ vs. not so" Bongard Problem should be labelled "allsorted"; there could be ambiguous border cases in a "___ vs. not so" Bongard Problem.

Bongard Problems in which the two sides are so different that there is no middle ground between them (keyword @gap) are sometimes still labelled "allsorted", since the intuitive pool of all relevant examples just amounts to the two unrelated sides. But some "gap" Bongard Problems are not like that; for example sometimes there are more related classes of examples besides the two shown.

Sometimes the class of all examples in a Bongard Problem is imprecise, but, despite that, the rule sorting those examples is precise. Say, for some potential new example, it is unclear whether it should be included in the Bongard Problem at all, but, if it were included, it would be clear where it should be sorted. A Bongard Problem like this can still be tagged "allsorted".

On the other hand, sometimes the class of all examples is very clear, with an obvious boundary. (Keyword @preciseworld.)

In deciding where to sort an example, we think about it until we come to a conclusion; an example isn't considered ambiguous just because someone might have a hard time with it (keyword @hardsort).

However, sometimes the way a Bongard Problem would sort certain examples is an unsolved problem in mathematics, and it may be unknown whether there is even a solution. Whether or not such a Bongard Problem should be labelled "allsorted" might be debated.

(See the keyword @proofsrequired.)

One way to resolve this ambiguity is to redefine "allsorted" as meaning that once people decide where an example belongs, it will be on one of the two sides, and they will all agree about it.

There is a distinction to be made between a non-"allsorted" Bongard Problem that could be made "allsorted" by including more sorted examples (thereby modifying or clarifying the solution of the Bongard Problem) and one that cannot while maintaining a comparably simple solution. The former kind would often be labelled @precise, in particular when these border cases have been explicitly forbidden from being sorted in the Bongard Problem's definition.

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

A Bongard Problem is labelled "allsorted" when the type of thing it sorts is partitioned unambiguously and without exception into two groups.

Similarly to using the @precise and @fuzzy keywords, calling a Bongard Problem "allsorted" is a subjective/intuitive judgment. The space of relevant examples for a BP is not clearly delineated anywhere.

(Sometimes it's ambiguous whether to consider certain examples that are ambiguously sorted relevant.)

The solution to an "allsorted" Bongard Problem can usually be re-phrased as "___ vs. not so" (see the keyword @notso).

But not every "___ vs. not so" Bongard Problem should be labelled "allsorted"; there could be ambiguous border cases in a "___ vs. not so" Bongard Problem.

Bongard Problems in which the two sides are so different that there is no middle ground between them (keyword @gap) are sometimes still labelled "allsorted", since the intuitive pool of all relevant examples just amounts to the two unrelated sides. But some "gap" Bongard Problems are not like that; for example sometimes there are more related classes of examples besides the two shown.

Sometimes the class of all examples in a Bongard Problem is imprecise, but, despite that, the rule sorting those examples is precise. Say, for some potential new example, it is unclear whether it should be included in the Bongard Problem at all, but, if it were included, it would be clear where it should be sorted. A Bongard Problem like this can still be tagged "allsorted".

On the other hand, sometimes the class of all examples is very clear, with an obvious boundary. (Keyword @preciseworld.)

In deciding where to sort an example, we think about it until we come to a conclusion; an example isn't considered ambiguous just because someone might have a hard time with it (keyword @hardsort).

However, sometimes the way a Bongard Problem would sort certain examples is an unsolved problem in mathematics, and it may be unknown whether there is even a solution. Whether or not such a Bongard Problem should be labelled "allsorted" might be debated.

(See the keyword @proofsrequired.)

One way to resolve this ambiguity is to redefine "allsorted" as meaning that once people decide where an example belongs, it will be on one of the two sides, and they will all agree about it.

There is a distinction to be made between a non-"allsorted" Bongard Problem that could be made "allsorted" by including more examples (thereby modifying or clarifying the solution of the Bongard Problem) and one that cannot while maintaining a comparably simple solution. The former kind would often be labelled @precise, in particular when these border cases have been explicitly forbidden from being sorted in the Bongard Problem's definition.

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

A Bongard Problem is labelled "allsorted" when the type of thing it sorts is partitioned unambiguously and without exception into two groups.

Similarly to using the @precise and @fuzzy keywords, calling a Bongard Problem "allsorted" is a subjective/intuitive judgment. The space of relevant examples for a BP is not clearly delineated anywhere.

(Sometimes it's ambiguous whether to consider certain examples that are ambiguously sorted relevant.)

The solution to an "allsorted" Bongard Problem can usually be re-phrased as "___ vs. not so" (see the keyword @notso).

But not every "___ vs. not so" Bongard Problem should be labelled "allsorted"; there could be ambiguous border cases in a "___ vs. not so" Bongard Problem.

Bongard Problems in which the two sides are so different that there is no middle ground between them (keyword @gap) are sometimes still labelled "allsorted", since the intuitive pool of all relevant examples just amounts to the two unrelated sides. But some "gap" Bongard Problems are not like that; for example sometimes there are more related classes of examples besides the two shown.

Sometimes the class of all examples in a Bongard Problem is imprecise, but, despite that, the rule sorting those examples is precise. Say, for some potential new example, it is unclear whether it should be included in the Bongard Problem at all, but, if it were included, it would be clear where it should be sorted. A Bongard Problem like this can still be tagged "allsorted".

On the other hand, sometimes the class of all examples is very clear, with an obvious boundary. (Keyword @preciseworld.)

In deciding where to sort an example, we think about it until we come to a conclusion; an example isn't considered ambiguous just because someone might have a hard time with it (keyword @hardsort).

However, sometimes the way a Bongard Problem would sort certain examples is an unsolved problem in mathematics, and it may be unknown whether there is even a solution. Whether or not such a Bongard Problem should be labelled "allsorted" might be debated.

(See the keyword @proofsrequired.)

One way to resolve this ambiguity is to redefine "allsorted" as meaning that once people decide where an example belongs, it will be on one of the two sides, and they will all agree about it.

There is a distinction to be made between a non-"allsorted" Bongard Problem that could be made "allsorted" by including more examples (thereby modifying or clarifying the solution of the Bongard Problem) and one that cannot while maintaining a comparably simple solution. The former kind would often be labelled @precise, in particular when these border cases have been explicitly forbidden from being sorted in the definition.

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

A Bongard Problem is labelled "allsorted" when the type of thing it sorts is partitioned unambiguously and without exception into two groups.

Similarly to using the @precise and @fuzzy keywords, calling a Bongard Problem "allsorted" is a subjective/intuitive judgment. The space of relevant examples for a BP is not clearly delineated anywhere.

(Sometimes it's ambiguous whether to consider certain examples that are ambiguously sorted relevant.)

The solution to an "allsorted" Bongard Problem can usually be re-phrased as "___ vs. not so" (see the keyword @notso).

But not every "___ vs. not so" Bongard Problem should be labelled "allsorted"; there could be ambiguous border cases in a "___ vs. not so" Bongard Problem.

Bongard Problems in which the two sides are so different that there is no middle ground between them (keyword @gap) are sometimes still labelled "allsorted", since the intuitive pool of all relevant examples just amounts to the two unrelated sides. But some "gap" Bongard Problems are not like that; for example sometimes there are more related classes of examples besides the two shown.

Sometimes the class of all examples in a Bongard Problem is imprecise, but, despite that, the rule sorting those examples is precise. Say, for some potential new example, it is unclear whether it should be included in the Bongard Problem at all, but, if it were included, it would be clear where it should be sorted. A Bongard Problem like this can still be tagged "allsorted".

On the other hand, sometimes the class of all examples is very clear, with an obvious boundary. (Keyword @preciseworld.)

In deciding where to sort an example, we think about it until we come to a conclusion; an example isn't considered ambiguous just because someone might have a hard time with it (keyword @hardsort).

However, sometimes the way a Bongard Problem would sort certain examples is an unsolved problem in mathematics, and it may be unknown whether there is even a solution. Whether or not such a Bongard Problem should be labelled "allsorted" might be debated.

(See the keyword @proofsrequired.)

One way to resolve this ambiguity is to redefine "allsorted" as meaning that once people decide where an example belongs, it will be on one of the two sides, and they will all agree about it.

See BP875 for the version with pictures of Bongard Problems instead of links to pages on the OEBP.

"Allsorted" implies @precise.

"Allsorted" and @both are mutually exclusive.

"Allsorted" and @neither are mutually exclusive.

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

A Bongard Problem is labelled "allsorted" when the type of thing it sorts is partitioned unambiguously and without exception into two groups.

Similarly to using the @exact and @fuzzy keywords, calling a Bongard Problem "allsorted" is a subjective/intuitive judgment. The space of relevant examples for a BP is not clearly delineated anywhere.

(Sometimes it's ambiguous whether to consider certain examples that are ambiguously sorted relevant.)

The solution to an "allsorted" Bongard Problem can usually be re-phrased as "___ vs. not so" (see the keyword @notso).

But not every "___ vs. not so" Bongard Problem should be labelled "allsorted"; there could be ambiguous border cases in a "___ vs. not so" Bongard Problem.

Bongard Problems in which the two sides are so different that there is no middle ground between them (keyword @gap) are sometimes still labelled "allsorted", since the intuitive pool of all relevant examples just amounts to the two unrelated sides. But some "gap" Bongard Problems are not like that; for example sometimes there are more related classes of examples besides the two shown.

Sometimes the class of all examples in a Bongard Problem is imprecise, but, despite that, the rule sorting those examples is precise. Say, for some potential new example, it is unclear whether it should be included in the Bongard Problem at all, but, if it were included, it would be clear where it should be sorted. A Bongard Problem like this can still be tagged "allsorted".

On the other hand, sometimes the class of all examples is very clear, with an obvious boundary. (Keyword @exactworld.)

In deciding where to sort an example, we think about it until we come to a conclusion; an example isn't considered ambiguous just because someone might have a hard time with it (keyword @hardsort).

However, sometimes the way a Bongard Problem would sort certain examples is an unsolved problem in mathematics, and it may be unknown whether there is even a solution. Whether or not such a Bongard Problem should be labelled "allsorted" might be debated.

(See the keyword @proofsrequired.)

One way to resolve this ambiguity is to redefine "allsorted" as meaning that once people decide where an example belongs, it will be on one of the two sides, and they will all agree about it.

See BP875 for the version with pictures of Bongard Problems instead of links to pages on the OEBP.

"Allsorted" implies @exact.

"Allsorted" and @both are mutually exclusive.

"Allsorted" and @neither are mutually exclusive.

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

A Bongard Problem is labelled "allsorted" when the type of thing it sorts is partitioned unambiguously and without exception into two groups.

Similarly to using the "exact" and "fuzzy" keywords (BP508), calling a Bongard Problem "allsorted" is a subjective/intuitive judgment. The space of relevant examples for a BP is not clearly delineated anywhere.

(Sometimes it's ambiguous whether to consider certain examples that are ambiguously sorted relevant.)

The solution to an "allsorted" Bongard Problem can usually be re-phrased as "___ vs. not so" (see the keyword "notso", left-BP867).

But not every "___ vs. not so" Bongard Problem should be labelled "allsorted"; there could be ambiguous border cases in a "___ vs. not so" Bongard Problem.

Bongard Problems in which the two sides are so different that there is no middle ground between them (keyword "gap" right-BP964) are sometimes still labelled "allsorted", since the intuitive pool of all relevant examples just amounts to the two unrelated sides. But some "gap" Bongard Problems are not like that; for example sometimes there are more related classes of examples besides the two shown.

Sometimes the class of all examples in a Bongard Problem is imprecise, but, despite that, the rule sorting those examples is precise. Say, for some potential new example, it is unclear whether it should be included in the Bongard Problem at all, but, if it were included, it would be clear where it should be sorted. A Bongard Problem like this can still be tagged "allsorted".

On the other hand, sometimes the class of all examples is very clear, with an obvious boundary. (Keyword "exactworld" left-BP1190.)

In deciding where to sort an example, we think about it until we come to a conclusion; an example isn't considered ambiguous just because someone might have a hard time with it (keyword "hardsort" right-BP864).

However, sometimes the way a Bongard Problem would sort certain examples is an unsolved problem in mathematics, and it may be unknown whether there is even a solution. Whether or not such a Bongard Problem should be labelled "allsorted" might be debated.

(See the keyword "proofsrequired", left-BP1125.)

One way to resolve this ambiguity is to redefine "allsorted" as meaning that once people decide where an example belongs, it will be on one of the two sides, and they will all agree about it.

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

A Bongard Problem is labelled "allsorted" when the type of thing it sorts is partitioned unambiguously and without exception into two groups.

Similarly to using the "exact" and "fuzzy" keywords (BP508), calling a Bongard Problem "allsorted" is a subjective/intuitive judgment. The space of relevant examples for a BP is not clearly delineated anywhere.

(Sometimes it's ambiguous whether to consider certain examples that are ambiguously sorted relevant.)

The solution to an "allsorted" Bongard Problem can usually be re-phrased as "___ vs. not so" (see the keyword "notso", left-BP867).

But not every "___ vs. not so" Bongard Problem should be labelled "allsorted"; there could be ambiguous border cases in a "___ vs. not so" Bongard Problem.

Bongard Problems in which the two sides are so different that there is no middle ground between them (keyword "gap" right-BP964) are sometimes still labelled "allsorted", since the intuitive pool of all relevant examples just amounts to the two unrelated sides. But some "gap" Bongard Problems are not like that; for example sometimes there are more related classes of examples besides the two shown.

Sometimes the class of all examples in a Bongard Problem is imprecise, but, despite that, the rule sorting those examples is precise. Say, for some potential new example, it is unclear whether it should be included in the Bongard Problem at all, but, if it were included, it would be clear where it should be sorted. A Bongard Problem like this can still be tagged "allsorted".

On the other hand, sometimes the class of all examples is very clear, with an obvious boundary. (Keyword "exactworld" left-BP1190.)

In deciding where to sort an example, we think about it until we come to a conclusion; an example isn't considered ambiguous just because someone might have a hard time with it (keyword "hardsort" right-BP864).

However, sometimes the way a Bongard Problem would sort certain examples is an unsolved problem in mathematics, and it may be unknown whether there is even a solution. Whether or not such a Bongard Problem should be labelled "allsorted" might be debated.

One way to resolve this ambiguity is to redefine "allsorted" as meaning that once people decide where an example belongs, it will be on one of the two sides, and they will all agree about it.

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

A Bongard Problem is labelled "allsorted" when the type of thing it sorts is partitioned unambiguously and without exception into two groups.

Similarly to using the "exact" and "fuzzy" keywords (BP508), calling a Bongard Problem "allsorted" is a subjective/intuitive judgment. The space of relevant examples for a BP is not clearly delineated anywhere.

(Sometimes it's ambiguous whether to consider certain examples that are ambiguously sorted relevant.)

The solution to an "allsorted" Bongard Problem can usually be re-phrased as "___ vs. not so" (see the keyword "notso", left-BP867).

But not every "___ vs. not so" Bongard Problem should be labelled "allsorted"; there could be ambiguous border cases in a "___ vs. not so" Bongard Problem.

Bongard Problems in which the two sides are so different that there is no middle ground between them (keyword "gap" right-BP964) are sometimes still labelled "allsorted", since the intuitive pool of all relevant examples just amounts to the two unrelated sides. But some "gap" Bongard Problems are not like that; for example sometimes there are more related classes of examples besides the two shown.

Sometimes the class of all examples in a Bongard Problem is imprecise, but, despite that, the rule sorting those examples is precise. Say, for some potential new example, it is unclear whether it should be included in the Bongard Problem at all, but, if it were included, it would be clear where it should be sorted. A Bongard Problem like this can still be tagged "allsorted".

On the other hand, sometimes the class of all examples is very clear, with an obvious boundary. (Keyword "exactworld" left-BP1190.)

In deciding where to sort an example, we think about it until we come to a conclusion; an example isn't considered ambiguous just because someone might have a hard time with it (keyword "hardsort" right-BP864).

However, sometimes the way a Bongard Problem would sort certain examples is an unsolved problem in mathematics, and it may be unknown whether there is even a solution. Whether or not such a BP should be labelled "allsorted" might be debated.

One way to resolve this ambiguity is to redefine "allsorted" as meaning that once people decide where an example belongs, it will be on one of the two sides, and they will all agree about it.

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

A Bongard Problem is labelled "allsorted" when the type of thing it sorts is partitioned unambiguously and without exception into two groups.

Similarly to using the "exact" and "fuzzy" keywords (BP508), calling a Bongard Problem "allsorted" is a subjective/intuitive judgment. The space of relevant examples for a BP is not clearly delineated anywhere.

(Sometimes it's ambiguous whether to consider certain examples that are ambiguously sorted relevant.)

The solution to an "allsorted" Bongard Problem can usually be re-phrased as "___ vs. not so" (see the keyword "notso", left-BP867).

But not every "___ vs. not so" Bongard Problem should be labelled "allsorted"; there could be ambiguous border cases in a "___ vs. not so" Bongard Problem.

Bongard Problems in which the two sides are so different that there is no middle ground between them (keyword "gap" right-BP964) are sometimes still labelled "allsorted", since the intuitive pool of all relevant examples just amounts to the two unrelated sides. But some "gap" Bongard Problems are not like that; for example sometimes there are more related classes of examples besides the two shown.

Sometimes the class of all examples in a Bongard Problem is imprecise, but, despite that, the rule sorting those examples is precise. Say, for some potential new example, it is unclear whether it should be included in the Bongard Problem at all, but, if it were included, it would be clear where it should be sorted. A Bongard Problem like this can still be tagged "allsorted".

On the other hand, sometimes the class of all examples is very clear, with an obvious boundary. (Keyword "exactworld" left-BP1190.)

In deciding where to sort an example, we think about it until we come to a conclusion; an example isn't considered ambiguous just because someone might have a hard time with it (keyword "hardsort" right-BP864).

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

A Bongard Problem is labelled "allsorted" when the type of thing it sorts is partitioned unambiguously and without exception into two groups.

Similarly to using the "exact" and "fuzzy" keywords (BP508), calling a Bongard Problem "allsorted" is a subjective/intuitive judgment. The space of relevant examples for a BP is not clearly delineated anywhere.

The solution to an "allsorted" BP can usually be re-phrased as "___ vs. not so" (see the keyword "notso", left-BP867).

But not every "___ vs. not so" BP should be labelled "allsorted"; there could be ambiguous border cases.

Bongard Problems in which the two sides are so different that there is no middle ground between them (keyword "gap" right-BP964) are sometimes still labelled "allsorted", since the intuitive pool of all relevant examples just amounts to the two unrelated sides. But some "gap" Bongard Problems are not like that; for example sometimes there are more related classes of examples besides the two shown.

Sometimes the class of all examples in a Bongard Problem is imprecise, but, despite that, the rule sorting those examples is precise. Say, for some potential new example, it is unclear whether it should be included in the Bongard Problem at all, but, if it were included, it would be clear where it should be sorted. A Bongard Problem like this can still be tagged "allsorted".

On the other hand, sometimes the class of all examples is very clear, with an obvious boundary. (Keyword "exactworld" left-BP1190.)

A Bongard Problem will be a border case here when it's ambiguous whether to even consider certain examples that can't be sorted relevant.

Also note there are different ways an example can fail to be clearly sorted by a Bongard Problem. Sometimes, any reasonable person would consider a certain example ambiguous. ("Clearly ambiguous.") Other times, different people would confidently sort a certain example differently. ("Ambiguously clear.") There is no sharp division between these two cases.

In the latter situation ("ambiguously clear"), it might still be the case that people converge to one answer once they are allowed to consult with one another. For example, there may be a common "wrong" answer; individual responses differ, but that is only because some of them missed something. (It seems somewhat inappropriate to even call such a situation "ambiguous".)

Alternatively, upon consulting together people might converge to the conclusion that the situation is clearly ambiguous. Perhaps both sides were missing the other viewpoint, and they see it is valid once they consider it.

Another possibility is that people continue to disagree even after consulting. In this case, everyone becomes aware there is no group consensus.

As a thought experiment, imagine we are trying to decide whether to mark a Bongard Problem as "allsorted" by consensus in each of these cases.

In deciding where to sort an example, we think about it until we come to a conclusion; an example isn't considered ambiguous just because someone might have a hard time with it (keyword "hardsort" right-BP864). But in an "ambiguously clear" situation, a reasonable person alone can become convinced they are done thinking without knowing they are missing another perspective.

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

A Bongard Problem is labelled "allsorted" when the type of thing it sorts is partitioned unambiguously and without exception into two groups.

Similarly to using the "exact" and "fuzzy" keywords (BP508), calling a Bongard Problem "allsorted" is a subjective/intuitive judgment. The space of relevant examples for a BP is not clearly delineated anywhere.

The solution to an "allsorted" BP can usually be re-phrased as "___ vs. not so" (see the keyword "notso", left-BP867).

But not every "___ vs. not so" BP should be labelled "allsorted"; there could be ambiguous border cases.

Bongard Problems in which the two sides are so different that there is no middle ground between them (keyword "gap" right-BP964) are sometimes still labelled "allsorted", since the intuitive pool of all relevant examples just amounts to the two unrelated sides. But some "gap" Bongard Problems are not like that; for example sometimes there are more related classes of examples besides the two shown.

Sometimes the class of all examples in a Bongard Problem is imprecise, but, despite that, the rule sorting those examples is precise. Say, for some potential new example, it is unclear whether it should be included in the Bongard Problem at all, but, if it were included, it would be clear where it should be sorted. A Bongard Problem like this can still be tagged "allsorted".

On the other hand, sometimes the class of all examples is very clear, with an obvious boundary. (Keyword "exactworld" left-BP1190.)

A Bongard Problem will be a border case here when it's ambiguous whether to even consider certain examples that can't be sorted relevant.

Also note there are different ways an example can fail to be clearly sorted by a Bongard Problem. Sometimes, any reasonable person would consider a certain example ambiguous. ("Clearly ambiguous.") Other times, different people would confidently sort a certain example differently. ("Ambiguously clear.") There is no sharp division between these two cases.

In the latter situation ("ambiguously clear"), it might still be the case that people converge to one answer once they are allowed to consult with one another. For example, there may be a common "wrong" answer; individual responses differ, but that is only because some of them missed something. (It seems somewhat inappropriate to even call such a situation "ambiguous".)

Alternatively, upon consulting together people might converge to the conclusion that the situation is clearly ambiguous. Perhaps both sides were missing the other viewpoint, and they see it is valid once they consider it.

Another possibility is that people continue to disagree even after consulting. In this case, everyone becomes aware there is no group consensus.

As a thought experiment, imagine we are trying to decide whether to mark a Bongard Problem as "allsorted" by consensus in each of these cases.

In deciding where to sort an example, we think about it until we come to a conclusion; an example isn't considered ambiguous just because someone might have a hard time with it (keyword "hardsort" right-BP864). But in an "ambiguously clear" situation, a reasonable person alone can become totally convinced they are done thinking without knowing they are missing another perspective.

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

A Bongard Problem is labelled "allsorted" when the type of thing it sorts is partitioned unambiguously and without exception into two groups.

Similarly to using the "exact" and "fuzzy" keywords (BP508), calling a Bongard Problem "allsorted" is a subjective/intuitive judgment. The space of relevant examples for a BP is not clearly delineated anywhere.

The solution to an "allsorted" BP can usually be re-phrased as "___ vs. not so" (see the keyword "notso", left-BP867).

But not every "___ vs. not so" BP should be labelled "allsorted"; there could be ambiguous border cases.

Bongard Problems in which the two sides are so different that there is no middle ground between them (keyword "gap" right-BP964) are sometimes still labelled "allsorted", since the intuitive pool of all relevant examples just amounts to the two unrelated sides. But some "gap" Bongard Problems are not like that; for example sometimes there are more related classes of examples besides the two shown.

Sometimes the class of all examples in a Bongard Problem is imprecise, but, despite that, the rule sorting those examples is precise. Say, for some potential new example, it is unclear whether it should be included in the Bongard Problem at all, but, if it were included, it would be clear where it should be sorted. A Bongard Problem like this can still be tagged "allsorted".

On the other hand, sometimes the class of all examples is very clear, with an obvious boundary. (Keyword "exactworld" left-BP1190.)

A Bongard Problem will be a border case here when it's ambiguous whether to even consider certain examples that can't be sorted relevant.

Also note there are different ways an example can fail to be clearly sorted by a Bongard Problem. Sometimes, any reasonable person would consider a certain example ambiguous. ("Clearly ambiguous.") Other times, different people would confidently sort a certain example differently. ("Ambiguously clear.") Naturally, there is no sharp division between these two cases.

In the latter situation ("ambiguously clear"), it might still be the case that people converge to one answer once they are allowed to consult with one another. For example, there may be a common "wrong" answer; individual responses differ, but that is only because some of them missed something. (It seems somewhat inappropriate to even call such a situation "ambiguous".)

Alternatively, upon consulting together people might converge to the conclusion that the situation is clearly ambiguous. Perhaps both sides were missing the other viewpoint, and they see it is valid once they consider it.

Another possibility is that people continue to disagree even after consulting. In this case, everyone becomes aware there is no group consensus.

As a thought experiment, imagine we are trying to decide whether to mark a Bongard Problem as "allsorted" by consensus in each of these cases.

In deciding where to sort an example, we think about it until we come to a conclusion; an example isn't considered ambiguous just because someone might have a hard time with it (keyword "hardsort" right-BP864). But in an "ambiguously clear" situation, a reasonable person alone can become totally convinced they are done thinking without knowing they are missing another perspective.

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

A Bongard Problem is labelled "allsorted" when the type of thing it sorts is partitioned unambiguously and without exception into two groups.

Similarly to using the "exact" and "fuzzy" keywords (BP508), calling a Bongard Problem "allsorted" is a subjective/intuitive judgment. The space of relevant examples for a BP is not clearly delineated anywhere.

The solution to an "allsorted" BP can usually be re-phrased as "___ vs. not so" (see the keyword "notso", left-BP867).

But not every "___ vs. not so" BP should be labelled "allsorted"; there could be ambiguous border cases.

Bongard Problems in which the two sides are so different that there is no middle ground between them (keyword "gap" right-BP964) can often be labelled "allsorted", since the pool of all relevant examples just amounts to the two unrelated sides. But some "gap" Bongard Problems are not like that; for example sometimes there are more related classes of examples besides the two shown.

Sometimes the class of all examples in a Bongard Problem is imprecise, but, despite that, the rule sorting those examples is precise. Say, for some potential new example, it is unclear whether it should be included in the Bongard Problem at all, but, if it were included, it would be clear where it should be sorted. A Bongard Problem like this can still be tagged "allsorted".

On the other hand, sometimes the class of all examples is very clear, with an obvious boundary. (Keyword "exactworld" left-BP1190.)

A Bongard Problem will be a border case here when it's ambiguous whether to even consider certain examples that can't be sorted relevant.

Also note there are different ways an example can fail to be clearly sorted by a Bongard Problem. Sometimes, any reasonable person would consider a certain example ambiguous. ("Clearly ambiguous.") Other times, different people would confidently sort a certain example differently. ("Ambiguously clear.") Naturally, there is no sharp division between these two cases.

In the latter situation ("ambiguously clear"), it might still be the case that people converge to one answer once they are allowed to consult with one another. For example, there may be a common "wrong" answer; individual responses differ, but that is only because some of them missed something. (It seems somewhat inappropriate to even call such a situation "ambiguous".)

Alternatively, upon consulting together people might converge to the conclusion that the situation is clearly ambiguous. Perhaps both sides were missing the other viewpoint, and they see it is valid once they consider it.

Another possibility is that people continue to disagree even after consulting. In this case, everyone becomes aware there is no group consensus.

As a thought experiment, imagine we are trying to decide whether to mark a Bongard Problem as "allsorted" by consensus in each of these cases.

In deciding where to sort an example, we think about it until we come to a conclusion; an example isn't considered ambiguous just because someone might have a hard time with it (keyword "hardsort" right-BP864). But in an "ambiguously clear" situation, a reasonable person alone can become totally convinced they are done thinking without knowing they are missing another perspective.

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

A Bongard Problem is labelled "allsorted" when the type of thing it sorts is partitioned unambiguously and without exception into two groups.

Similarly to using the "exact" and "fuzzy" keywords (BP508), calling a Bongard Problem "allsorted" is a subjective/intuitive judgment. The space of relevant examples for a BP is not clearly delineated anywhere.

The solution to an "allsorted" BP can usually be re-phrased as "___ vs. not so" (see the keyword "notso", left-BP867).

But not every "___ vs. not so" BP should be labelled "allsorted"; there could be ambiguous border cases.

Bongard Problems in which the two sides are so different that there is no middle ground between them (keyword "gap" right-BP964) can often be labelled "allsorted", since the pool of all relevant examples just amounts to the two unrelated sides. But some "gap" Bongard Problems are not like that; for example sometimes there are more related classes of examples besides the two shown.

Sometimes the class of all examples in a Bongard Problem is imprecise, but, despite that, the sorting rule is precise. Say, for some potential new example, it is unclear whether it should be included in the Bongard Problem at all, but, if it were included, it would be clear where it should be sorted. A Bongard Problem like this can still be tagged "allsorted".

On the other hand, sometimes the class of all examples is very clear, with an obvious boundary. (Keyword "exactworld" left-BP1190.)

A Bongard Problem will be a border case here when it's ambiguous whether to even consider certain examples that can't be sorted relevant.

Also note there are different ways an example can fail to be clearly sorted by a Bongard Problem. Sometimes, any reasonable person would consider a certain example ambiguous. ("Clearly ambiguous.") Other times, different people would confidently sort a certain example differently. ("Ambiguously clear.") Naturally, there is no sharp division between these two cases.

In the latter situation ("ambiguously clear"), it might still be the case that people converge to one answer once they are allowed to consult with one another. For example, there may be a common "wrong" answer; individual responses differ, but that is only because some of them missed something. (It seems somewhat inappropriate to even call such a situation "ambiguous".)

Alternatively, upon consulting together people might converge to the conclusion that the situation is clearly ambiguous. Perhaps both sides were missing the other viewpoint, and they see it is valid once they consider it.

Another possibility is that people continue to disagree even after consulting. In this case, everyone becomes aware there is no group consensus.

As a thought experiment, imagine we are trying to decide whether to mark a Bongard Problem as "allsorted" by consensus in each of these cases.

In deciding where to sort an example, we think about it until we come to a conclusion; an example isn't considered ambiguous just because someone might have a hard time with it (keyword "hardsort" right-BP864). But in an "ambiguously clear" situation, a reasonable person alone can become totally convinced they are done thinking without knowing they are missing another perspective.

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

A Bongard Problem is labelled "allsorted" when the type of thing it sorts is partitioned unambiguously and without exception into two groups.

Similarly to using the "exact" and "fuzzy" keywords (BP508), calling a Bongard Problem "allsorted" is a subjective/intuitive judgment. The space of relevant examples for a BP is not clearly delineated anywhere.

The solution to an "allsorted" BP can usually be re-phrased as "___ vs. not so" (see the keyword "notso", left-BP867).

But not every "___ vs. not so" BP should be labelled "allsorted"; there could be ambiguous border cases.

Bongard Problems in which the two sides are so different that there is no middle ground between them (keyword "gap" right-BP964) can often be labelled "allsorted", since the pool of all relevant examples just amounts to the two unrelated sides. But some "gap" Bongard Problems are not like that; for example sometimes there are more related classes of examples besides the two shown.

Sometimes the class of all examples in a Bongard Problem is imprecise, but, despite that, the underlying rule is precise. Say, for some potential new example, it is unclear whether it should be included in the Bongard Problem at all, but, if it were included, it would be clear where it should be sorted. A Bongard Problem like this can still be tagged "allsorted".

On the other hand, sometimes the class of all examples is very clear, with an obvious boundary. (Keyword "exactworld" left-BP1190.)

A Bongard Problem will be a border case here when it's ambiguous whether to even consider certain examples that can't be sorted relevant.

Also note there are different ways an example can fail to be clearly sorted by a Bongard Problem. Sometimes, any reasonable person would consider a certain example ambiguous. ("Clearly ambiguous.") Other times, different people would confidently sort a certain example differently. ("Ambiguously clear.") Naturally, there is no sharp division between these two cases.

In the latter situation ("ambiguously clear"), it might still be the case that people converge to one answer once they are allowed to consult with one another. For example, there may be a common "wrong" answer; individual responses differ, but that is only because some of them missed something. (It seems somewhat inappropriate to even call such a situation "ambiguous".)

Alternatively, upon consulting together people might converge to the conclusion that the situation is clearly ambiguous. Perhaps both sides were missing the other viewpoint, and they see it is valid once they consider it.

Another possibility is that people continue to disagree even after consulting. In this case, everyone becomes aware there is no group consensus.

As a thought experiment, imagine we are trying to decide whether to mark a Bongard Problem as "allsorted" by consensus in each of these cases.

In deciding where to sort an example, we think about it until we come to a conclusion; an example isn't considered ambiguous just because someone might have a hard time with it (keyword "hardsort" right-BP864). But in an "ambiguously clear" situation, a reasonable person alone can become totally convinced they are done thinking without knowing they are missing another perspective.

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

A Bongard Problem is labelled "allsorted" when the type of thing it sorts is partitioned unambiguously and without exception into two groups.

Similarly to using the "exact" and "fuzzy" keywords (BP508), calling a Bongard Problem "allsorted" is a subjective/intuitive judgment. The space of relevant examples for a BP is not clearly delineated anywhere.

The solution to an "allsorted" BP can usually be re-phrased as "___ vs. not so" (see the keyword "notso", left-BP867).

But not every "___ vs. not so" BP should be labelled "allsorted"; there could be ambiguous border cases.

Bongard Problems in which the two sides are so different that there is no middle ground between them (keyword "gap" right-BP964) can often be labelled "allsorted", since the pool of all relevant examples just amounts to the two unrelated sides. But some "gap" Bongard Problems are not like that; for example sometimes there are more related classes of examples besides the two shown that have been left unsorted.

Sometimes the class of all examples in a Bongard Problem is imprecise, but, despite that, the underlying rule is precise. Say, for some potential new example, it is unclear whether it should be included in the Bongard Problem at all, but, if it were included, it would be clear where it should be sorted. A Bongard Problem like this can still be tagged "allsorted".

On the other hand, sometimes the class of all examples is very clear, with an obvious boundary. (Keyword "exactworld" left-BP1190.)

A Bongard Problem will be a border case here when it's ambiguous whether to even consider certain examples that can't be sorted relevant.

Also note there are different ways an example can fail to be clearly sorted by a Bongard Problem. Sometimes, any reasonable person would consider a certain example ambiguous. ("Clearly ambiguous.") Other times, different people would confidently sort a certain example differently. ("Ambiguously clear.") Naturally, there is no sharp division between these two cases.

In the latter situation ("ambiguously clear"), it might still be the case that people converge to one answer once they are allowed to consult with one another. For example, there may be a common "wrong" answer; individual responses differ, but that is only because some of them missed something. (It seems somewhat inappropriate to even call such a situation "ambiguous".)

Alternatively, upon consulting together people might converge to the conclusion that the situation is clearly ambiguous. Perhaps both sides were missing the other viewpoint, and they see it is valid once they consider it.

Another possibility is that people continue to disagree even after consulting. In this case, everyone becomes aware there is no group consensus.

As a thought experiment, imagine we are trying to decide whether to mark a Bongard Problem as "allsorted" by consensus in each of these cases.

In deciding where to sort an example, we think about it until we come to a conclusion; an example isn't considered ambiguous just because someone might have a hard time with it (keyword "hardsort" right-BP864). But in an "ambiguously clear" situation, a reasonable person alone can become totally convinced they are done thinking without knowing they are missing another perspective.