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

A Bongard Problem is labelled "allsorted" when its pool of relevant examples 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.

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

A Bongard Problem is labelled "allsorted" when its pool of relevant examples 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.

Consulting as a group is similar to thinking for a long time. 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 its pool of relevant examples 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.

Consulting as a group is similar to thinking for a long time. 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). The difference is that 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 its pool of relevant examples 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.

Consulting as a group is very similar to thinking for a long time. 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). The difference is that 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 its pool of relevant examples 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.

Consulting as a group is very similar to thinking for a long time. 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). The difference is that 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 its pool of relevant examples 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.

For example, if there were multiple valid perspectives, then different people might have differing opinions about whether to mark the Bongard Problem "allsorted". (Each confident person marks the Bongard Problem "allsorted", whereas someone who notices the differing viewpoints does not.) In this sense, it is itself "ambiguously clear" whether or not that Bongard Problem is "allsorted". But if we consult together, we will see that the Bongard Problem is not "allsorted". It is analogous to the case of a common "wrong" answer.

Consulting as a group is very similar to thinking for a long time. 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). The difference is that 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 its pool of relevant examples 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 were missing something. (It seems somewhat inappropriate to even call such a situation "ambiguous".)

Alternatively, people consulting together might converge to the conclusion that the situation is ambiguous. Perhaps both sides were missing the other viewpoint, and they see it is just as 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.

For example, if there were multiple valid perspectives on a particular example, then different people might have differing opinions about whether to mark the Bongard Problem "allsorted". (Each confident person marks the Bongard Problem "allsorted", whereas someone who notices the differing viewpoints does not.) In this sense, it is itself "ambiguously clear" whether or not that Bongard Problem is "allsorted". But if we consult together, we will see that the Bongard Problem is not "allsorted". It is analogous to the case of a common "wrong" answer.

Consulting as a group is very similar to thinking for a long time. 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). The difference is that 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 its pool of relevant examples 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 as soon as 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 were missing something. (It seems somewhat inappropriate to even call such a situation "ambiguous".)

Alternatively, people consulting together might converge to the conclusion that the situation is ambiguous. Perhaps both sides were missing the other viewpoint, and they see it is just as 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.

For example, if there were multiple valid perspectives on a particular example, then different people might have differing opinions about whether to mark the Bongard Problem "allsorted". (Each confident person marks the Bongard Problem "allsorted", whereas someone who notices the differing viewpoints does not.) In this sense, it is itself "ambiguously clear" whether or not that Bongard Problem is "allsorted". But if we consult together, we will see that the Bongard Problem is not "allsorted". It is analogous to the case of a common "wrong" answer.

Consulting as a group is very similar to thinking for a long time. 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). The difference is that 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 its pool of relevant examples 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. This happens when there is a common "wrong" answer reasonable people convince themselves of; individual responses show multiple differing answers, but that is only because some of them were missing something. It seems somewhat inappropriate to even call such a situation "ambiguous".

Alternatively, people consulting together might converge to the conclusion that the situation is ambiguous. Perhaps both sides were missing the other viewpoint, and they will decide it is just as 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.

For example, if there is an example that is "ambiguously clear" because of multiple perspectives that are all valid, different people might have differing opinions about whether to mark the Bongard Problem "allsorted". (Each confident person marks the Bongard Problem "allsorted", whereas someone who notices the differing viewpoints does not.) In this sense, it is itself "ambiguously clear" whether or not that Bongard Problem is "allsorted". On the other hand, the more of a divide there is in a group of people consulting together about where an example belongs, the more confident they can be that the Bongard Problem is not "allsorted".

Monitoring individuals' responses separately, we will see that the issue of the Bongard Problem being "allsorted" is ambiguous. If we consult together, we will see that the Bongard Problem is not "allsorted". This is analogous to the case of there being a common "wrong" answer.

Consulting as a group is very similar to thinking for a long time. 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). The difference is that 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 its pool of relevant examples 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.

As a thought experiment, consider what happens in the latter situation ("ambiguously clear"). Then, different people might have differing opinions about whether to mark the Bongard Problem "allsorted". (Each confident person marks the Bongard Problem "allsorted", whereas someone who notices the differing viewpoints and considers them both valid does not.) In this sense, it is itself "ambiguously clear" whether or not that Bongard Problem is "allsorted". On the other hand, the more of a divide there is in a group of people consulting together about where an example belongs, the more confident they can be that the Bongard Problem is not "allsorted". (Anyone who notices a situation is "ambiguously clear" and considers both viewpoints valid should themselves mark it as ambiguous. Thus, something "ambiguously clear" with respect to responses of separate individuals may no longer be with respect to just the responses of those who have access to others' answers.)

Imagine we are trying to decide whether to mark a Bongard Problem as "allsorted" by consensus. Monitoring individuals' responses separately, we will see that the issue of the Bongard Problem being "allsorted" is ambiguous. If we consult together, we will see that the Bongard Problem is not "allsorted".

(This is what happens when there is a common "wrong" answer reasonable people convince themselves of: individual responses will show multiple differing answers, but a group consulting together will converge to one answer.)

Consulting as a group is very similar to thinking for a long time. 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). The difference is that 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 its pool of relevant examples 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.

As a thought experiment, consider what happens in the latter situation ("ambiguously clear"). Then, different people might have differing opinions about whether to mark the Bongard Problem "allsorted". (Each confident person marks the Bongard Problem "allsorted", whereas someone who notices the differing viewpoints does not.) In this sense, it is itself "ambiguously clear" whether or not that Bongard Problem is "allsorted". On the other hand, the more of a divide there is in a group of people about where the example belongs, the more confident they can be that the Bongard Problem is not "allsorted". (Anyone who notices a situation is "ambiguously clear" should themselves mark it as ambiguous. Something "ambiguously clear" with respect to responses of separate individuals is "clearly ambiguous" with respect to just the responses of those who have access to others' answers.)

Imagine we are trying to decide whether to mark a Bongard Problem as "allsorted" by consensus. Monitoring individuals' responses separately, we will see that the issue of the Bongard Problem being "allsorted" is ambiguous. If we consult together, we will see that the Bongard Problem is not "allsorted".

(This is what happens when there is a common "wrong" answer reasonable people convince themselves of: individual responses will show multiple differing answers, but a group consulting together will converge to one answer.)

Consulting as a group is very similar to thinking for a long time. 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). The difference is that 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 its pool of relevant examples 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.") Of course, there is no sharp division between these two cases.

As a thought experiment, consider what happens in the latter situation ("ambiguously clear"). Then, different people might have differing opinions about whether to mark the Bongard Problem "allsorted". (Each confident person marks the Bongard Problem "allsorted", whereas someone who notices the differing viewpoints does not.) In this sense, it is itself "ambiguously clear" whether or not that Bongard Problem is "allsorted". On the other hand, the more of a divide there is in a group of people about where the example belongs, the more confident they can be that the Bongard Problem is not "allsorted". (Anyone who notices a situation is "ambiguously clear" should themselves mark it as ambiguous. Something "ambiguously clear" with respect to responses of separate individuals is "clearly ambiguous" with respect to just the responses of those who have access to others' answers.)

Imagine we are trying to decide whether to mark a Bongard Problem as "allsorted" by consensus. Monitoring individuals' responses separately, we will see that the issue of the Bongard Problem being "allsorted" is ambiguous. If we consult together, we will see that the Bongard Problem is not "allsorted".

(This is what happens when there is a common "wrong" answer reasonable people convince themselves of: individual responses will show multiple differing answers, but a group consulting together will converge to one answer.)

Consulting as a group is very similar to thinking for a long time. 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). The difference is that 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 its pool of relevant examples 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.")

As a thought experiment, consider what happens in the latter situation ("ambiguously clear"). Then, different people might have differing opinions about whether to mark the Bongard Problem "allsorted". (Each confident person marks the Bongard Problem "allsorted", whereas someone who notices the differing viewpoints does not.) In this sense, it is itself "ambiguously clear" whether or not that Bongard Problem is "allsorted". On the other hand, the more of a divide there is in a group of people about where the example belongs, the more confident they can be that the Bongard Problem is not "allsorted". (Anyone who notices a situation is "ambiguously clear" should themselves mark it as ambiguous. Something "ambiguously clear" with respect to responses of separate individuals is "clearly ambiguous" with respect to just the responses of those who have access to others' answers.)

Imagine we are trying to decide whether to mark a Bongard Problem as "allsorted" by consensus. Monitoring individuals' responses separately, we will see that the issue of the Bongard Problem being "allsorted" is ambiguous. If we consult together, we will see that the Bongard Problem is not "allsorted".

(This is what happens when there is a common "wrong" answer reasonable people convince themselves of: individual responses will show multiple differing answers, but a group consulting together will converge to one answer.)

Consulting as a group is very similar to thinking for a long time. 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). The difference is that 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 its pool of relevant examples 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, all reasonable people would consider a certain example ambiguous. ("Clearly ambiguous.") Other times, different people would confidently sort a certain example differently. ("Ambiguously clear.")

As a thought experiment, consider what happens in the latter situation ("ambiguously clear"). Then, different people might have differing opinions about whether to mark the Bongard Problem "allsorted". (Each confident person marks the Bongard Problem "allsorted", whereas someone who notices the differing viewpoints does not.) In this sense, it is itself "ambiguously clear" whether or not that Bongard Problem is "allsorted". On the other hand, the more of a divide there is in a group of people about where the example belongs, the more confident they can be that the Bongard Problem is not "allsorted". (Anyone who notices a situation is "ambiguously clear" should themselves mark it as ambiguous. Something "ambiguously clear" with respect to responses of separate individuals is "clearly ambiguous" with respect to just the responses of those who have access to others' answers.)

Imagine we are trying to decide whether to mark a Bongard Problem as "allsorted" by consensus. Monitoring individuals' responses separately, we will see that the issue of the Bongard Problem being "allsorted" is ambiguous. If we consult together, we will see that the Bongard Problem is not "allsorted".

(This is what happens when there is a common "wrong" answer reasonable people convince themselves of: individual responses will show multiple differing answers, but a group consulting together will converge to one answer.)

Consulting as a group is very similar to thinking for a long time. 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). The difference is that 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 its pool of relevant examples 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, all reasonable people would consider a certain example ambiguous. ("Clearly ambiguous.") Other times, different people would confidently sort a certain example differently. ("Ambiguously clear.")

As a thought experiment, consider what happens in the latter situation ("ambiguously clear"). Then, different people might have differing opinions about whether to mark the Bongard Problem "allsorted". (Each confident person marks the Bongard Problem "allsorted", whereas someone who notices the differing viewpoints does not.) In this sense, it is itself "ambiguously clear" whether or not that Bongard Problem is "allsorted". On the other hand, the more of a divide there is in a group of people about where the example belongs, the more confident they can be that the Bongard Problem is not "allsorted". (Anyone who notices a situation is "ambiguously clear" will themselves mark it as ambiguous. Something "ambiguously clear" with respect to responses of separate individuals is "clearly ambiguous" with respect to just the responses of those who have access to others' answers.)

Imagine we are trying to decide whether to mark a Bongard Problem as "allsorted" by consensus. Monitoring individuals' responses separately, we will see that the issue of the Bongard Problem being "allsorted" is ambiguous. If we consult together, we will see that the Bongard Problem is not "allsorted".

(This is what happens when there is a common "wrong" answer reasonable people convince themselves of: individual responses will show multiple differing answers, but a group consulting together will converge to one answer.)

Consulting as a group is very similar to thinking for a long time. 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). The difference is that 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 its pool of relevant examples 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, all reasonable people would consider a certain example ambiguous. ("Clearly ambiguous.") Other times, different people would confidently sort a certain example differently. ("Ambiguously clear.")

As a thought experiment, consider what happens in the latter situation ("ambiguously clear"). Then, different people might have differing opinions about whether to mark the Bongard Problem "allsorted". (Each confident person marks the Bongard Problem "allsorted", whereas someone who notices the differing viewpoints does not.) In this sense, it is "ambiguously clear" whether or not that Bongard Problem is "allsorted". On the other hand, the more of a divide there is in a group of people about where the example belongs, the more confident they can be that the Bongard Problem is not "allsorted". (Anyone who notices a situation is "ambiguously clear" will themselves mark it as ambiguous. Something "ambiguously clear" with respect to responses of separate individuals is "clearly ambiguous" with respect to just the responses of those who have access to others' answers.)

Imagine we are trying to decide whether to mark a Bongard Problem as "allsorted" by consensus. Monitoring individuals' responses separately, we will see that the issue of the Bongard Problem being "allsorted" is ambiguous. But if we consult together, we will see that the Bongard Problem is not "allsorted".

(This is what happens when there is a common "wrong" answer reasonable people convince themselves of: individual responses will show multiple differing answers, but a group consulting together will converge to one answer.)

Consulting as a group is very similar to thinking for a long time. 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). The difference is that 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 its pool of relevant examples 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, all reasonable people would consider a certain example ambiguous. ("Clearly ambiguous.") Other times, different people would confidently sort a certain example differently. ("Ambiguously clear.")

As a thought experiment, consider what happens in the latter situation ("ambiguously clear"). Then, different people might have differing opinions about whether to mark the Bongard Problem "allsorted". (Each confident person marks the Bongard Problem "allsorted", whereas someone who notices the differing viewpoints does not.) In this sense, it is "ambiguously clear" whether or not that Bongard Problem is "allsorted". On the other hand, the more of a divide there is in a group of people about where the example belongs, the more confident they can be that the Bongard Problem is not "allsorted". (Anyone who notices a situation is "ambiguously clear" will themselves mark it as ambiguous. Something "ambiguously clear" with respect to responses of separate individuals is "clearly ambiguous" with respect to just the responses of those individuals who have access to others' answers.)

Imagine we are trying to decide whether to mark a Bongard Problem as "allsorted" by consensus. Monitoring individuals' responses separately, we will see that the issue of the Bongard Problem being "allsorted" is ambiguous. But if we consult together, we will see that the Bongard Problem is not "allsorted".

(This is what happens when there is a common "wrong" answer reasonable people convince themselves of: individual responses will show multiple differing answers, but a group consulting together will converge to one answer.)

Consulting as a group is very similar to thinking for a long time. 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). The difference is that 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 its pool of relevant examples 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, all reasonable people would consider a certain example ambiguous. ("Clearly ambiguous.") Other times, different people would confidently sort a certain example differently. ("Ambiguously clear.")

As a thought experiment, consider what happens in the latter situation ("ambiguously clear"). Then, different people might have differing opinions about whether to mark the Bongard Problem "allsorted". (Each confident person marks the Bongard Problem "allsorted", whereas someone who notices the differing viewpoints does not.) In this sense, it is "ambiguously clear" whether or not that Bongard Problem is "allsorted". On the other hand, the more of a divide there is in a group of people about where the example belongs, the more confident they can be that the Bongard Problem is not "allsorted". (Anyone who notices a situation is "ambiguously clear" will themselves mark it as ambiguous. Something "ambiguously clear" with respect to responses of separate individuals is "clearly ambiguous" with respect to just the responses of those individuals who have access to others' answers.)

Imagine we are trying to decide whether to mark a Bongard Problem as "allsorted" by consensus. Monitoring individuals' responses separately, we will see that the issue of the Bongard Problem being "allsorted" is ambiguous. If we consult together, we will see that the Bongard Problem is not "allsorted".

(This is what happens when there is a common "wrong" answer reasonable people convince themselves of: individual responses will show multiple differing answers, but a group consulting together will converge to one answer.)

Consulting as a group is very similar to thinking for a long time. 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). The difference is that 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 its pool of relevant examples 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, all reasonable people would consider a certain example ambiguous. ("Clearly ambiguous.") Other times, different people would confidently sort a certain example differently. ("Ambiguously clear.")

As a thought experiment, consider what happens in the latter situation ("ambiguously clear"). Then, different people might have differing opinions about whether to mark the Bongard Problem "allsorted". (Each confident person marks the Bongard Problem "allsorted", whereas someone who notices the differing viewpoints does not.) In this sense, it is "ambiguously clear" whether or not that Bongard Problem is "allsorted". On the other hand, the more of a divide there is in a group of people about where the example belongs, the more confident they can be that the Bongard Problem is not "allsorted". (Anyone who notices a situation is "ambiguously clear" will themselves mark it as ambiguous. Something "ambiguously clear" with respect to responses of separate individuals is "clearly ambiguous" with respect to just the responses of those individuals who have access to others' answers.)

Imagine we are trying to decide whether to mark a Bongard Problem as "allsorted" by consensus. Monitoring individuals' responses separately, we will see that the issue of the Bongard Problem being "allsorted" is ambiguous. If we consult together, we will see that the Bongard Problem is not "allsorted".

This is what happens when there is a "wrong" answer reasonable people commonly convince themselves of. Individual responses will show "ambiguously clear", but a group consulting together will converge to one answer.

Consulting as a group is very similar to thinking for a long time. 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). The difference is that 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 its pool of relevant examples 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, all reasonable people would consider a certain example ambiguous. ("Clearly ambiguous.") Other times, different people would confidently sort a certain example differently. ("Ambiguously clear.")

As a thought experiment, consider what happens in the latter situation ("ambiguously clear"). Different people might have differing opinions about whether to mark the Bongard Problem "allsorted" or not. (Each confident person marks the Bongard Problem "allsorted", whereas someone who notices the differing viewpoints does not.) In that sense, it is "ambiguously clear" whether or not that Bongard Problem is "allsorted". On the other hand, the more of a divide there is in a group of people about where the example belongs, the more confident they can be that the Bongard Problem is not "allsorted". (Anyone who notices a situation is "ambiguously clear" will themselves mark it as ambiguous. Thus, something "ambiguously clear" with respect to responses of individuals becomes "clearly ambiguous" with respect to responses of large groups consulting together.)

If we monitor individuals separately we will see that the issue of the Bongard Problem being "allsorted" is ambiguous; if we always consult together, we will see that the Bongard Problem is clearly not "allstorted".

Consulting as a group is very similar to thinking for a long time. In deciding where to sort an example, we think about it until we come to a conclusion; we don't consider an example ambiguous just because someone might have a hard time with it (keyword "hardsort" right-BP864). The difference is that in an "ambiguously clear" situation, a reasonable person 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 its pool of relevant examples 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, all reasonable people would consider a certain example ambiguous. ("Clearly ambiguous.") Other times, different people would confidently sort a certain example differently. ("Ambiguously clear.")

As a thought experiment, consider what happens in the latter situation ("ambiguously clear"). Different people might have differing opinions about whether to mark the Bongard Problem "allsorted" or not. (Each confident person marks the Bongard Problem "allsorted", whereas someone who notices the differing viewpoints does not.) In that sense, it is "ambiguously clear" whether or not that Bongard Problem is "allsorted". On the other hand, the more of a divide there is in a group of people about where the example belongs, the more confident they can be that the Bongard Problem is not "allsorted". (Anyone who notices a situation is "ambiguously clear" will themselves mark it as ambiguous. Something "ambiguously clear" with respect to responses of individuals becomes "clearly ambiguous" with respect to responses of large groups.)

If we monitor individuals separately we will see that the issue of the Bongard Problem being "allsorted" is ambiguous; if we always consult together, we will see that the Bongard Problem is clearly not "allstorted".

Consulting as a group is very similar to thinking for a long time. In deciding where to sort an example, we think about it until we come to a conclusion; we don't consider an example ambiguous just because someone might have a hard time with it (keyword "hardsort" right-BP864). The difference is that in an "ambiguously clear" situation, a reasonable person 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 its pool of relevant examples 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, all reasonable people would consider a certain example ambiguous. ("Clearly ambiguous.") Other times, different people would confidently sort a certain example differently. ("Ambiguously clear.")

As a thought experiment, consider what happens in the latter situation ("ambiguously clear"). Different people might have differing opinions about whether to mark the Bongard Problem "allsorted" or not. (Each confident person marks the Bongard Problem "allsorted", whereas someone who notices the differing viewpoints does not.) In that sense, it is "ambiguously clear" whether or not that Bongard Problem is "allsorted". On the other hand, the more of a divide there is in a group of people about where the example belongs, the more confident they can be that the Bongard Problem is not "allsorted". ("Ambiguously clear" for individuals becomes "clearly ambiguous" for large groups of people.)

If we monitor individuals separately we will see that the issue of the Bongard Problem being "allsorted" is ambiguous; if we always consult together, we will see that the Bongard Problem is clearly not "allstorted".

(On the OEBP we mark the ambiguity of examples as a community.)

Consulting as a group is very similar to thinking for a long time. In deciding where to sort an example, we think about it until we come to a conclusion; we don't consider an example ambiguous just because someone might have a hard time with it (keyword "hardsort" right-BP864). The difference is that in an "ambiguously clear" situation, a reasonable person 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 its pool of relevant examples 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, all reasonable people would consider a certain example ambiguous. ("Clearly ambiguous.") Other times, different people would confidently sort a certain example differently. ("Ambiguously clear.")

As a thought experiment, consider what happens in the latter situation ("ambiguously clear"). Different people might have differing opinions about whether to mark the Bongard Problem "allsorted" or not. (Each confident person marks the Bongard Problem "allsorted", whereas someone who notices the differing viewpoints does not.) In that sense, it is "ambiguously clear" whether or not that Bongard Problem is "allsorted". On the other hand, the more of a divide there is in a group of people about where the example belongs, the more confident they can be that the Bongard Problem is not "allsorted". ("Ambiguously clear" for individuals becomes "clearly ambiguous" for large groups of people.)

If we monitor individuals separately we will see that the issue of the Bongard Problem being "allsorted" is ambiguous; if we always consult together, we will see that the Bongard Problem is clearly not "allstorted".

Consulting as a group is very similar to thinking for a long time. In deciding where to sort an example, we think about it until we come to a conclusion; we don't consider an example ambiguous just because someone might have a hard time with it (keyword "hardsort" right-BP864). The difference is that in an "ambiguously clear" situation, a reasonable person 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 its pool of relevant examples 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, all reasonable people would consider a certain example ambiguous. ("Clearly ambiguous.") Other times, different people would confidently sort a certain example differently. ("Ambiguously clear.")

As a thought experiment, consider what happens in the latter situation ("ambiguously clear"). Different people might have differing opinions about whether to mark the Bongard Problem "allsorted" or not. (Each confident person marks the Bongard Problem "allsorted", whereas someone who notices the differing viewpoints does not.) In that sense, it is "ambiguously clear" whether or not that Bongard Problem is "allsorted". On the other hand, the more of a divide there is in a group of people about where the example belongs, the more confident they can be that the Bongard Problem is not "allsorted". ("Ambiguously clear" for individuals becomes "clearly ambiguous" for large groups of people.)

If we monitor individuals separately we will see that the issue of the Bongard Problem being "allsorted" is "clearly ambiguous"; if we always consult together, we will see that the Bongard Problem is clearly not "allstorted".

Consulting as a group is very similar to only considering people who have thought about the Bongard Problem long enough. In deciding where to sort an example, we think about it until we come to a conclusion; we don't consider an example ambiguous just because someone might have a hard time with it (keyword "hardsort" right-BP864). The main difference is that in a "clearly ambiguous" situation, a reasonable person can become totally convinced a particular way of sorting is correct 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 its pool of relevant examples 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, all reasonable people would consider a certain example ambiguous. ("Clearly ambiguous.") Other times, different people would confidently sort a certain example differently. ("Ambiguously clear.")

As a thought experiment, consider what happens in the latter situation ("ambiguously clear"). Different people might have differing opinions about whether to mark the Bongard Problem "allsorted" or not. (Each confident person marks the Bongard Problem "allsorted", whereas someone who notices the differing viewpoints does not.) In that sense, it is "ambiguously clear" whether or not that Bongard Problem is "allsorted". On the other hand, the more of a divide there is in a group of people about where the example belongs, the more confident they can be that the Bongard Problem is not "allsorted". ("Ambiguously clear" for individuals becomes "clearly ambiguous" for large groups of people.)

If we monitor individuals separately we will see that the issue of the Bongard Problem being "allsorted" is "clearly ambiguous"; if we always consult together, we will see that the Bongard Problem is clearly not "allstorted".