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".

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 all consult together the whole time, we will see that the Bongard Problem is clearly not "allstorted".

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 all consult together, we will see that the Bongard Problem is clearly not "allstorted".

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 belongs on the right here. ("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 all consult together, we will see that the Bongard Problem is clearly not "allstorted".

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 belongs on the right here. ("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 all consult together, we will see that the Bongard Problem is clearly not "allstorted".

(And on the OEBP we mark BPs as a community.)

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 belongs on the right here. ("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 all consult together, we will see that the Bongard Problem is clearly not "allstorted".

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 might happen 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 belongs on the right here. ("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 all consult together, we will see that the Bongard Problem is clearly not "allstorted".

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 might happen 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". But in another sense, 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 belongs on the right here. ("Ambiguously clear" for individuals becomes "clearly ambiguous" for large groups of people.)

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

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.")

In the latter situation, 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 that Bongard Problem is "allsorted". But in another sense, 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 belongs on the right here. ("Ambiguously clear" for individuals becomes "clearly ambiguous" for large groups of people.)

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

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.

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

"Allsorted" implies "exact" (left-BP508).

"Allsorted" and "both" (left-BP1188) are mutually exclusive.

"Allsorted" and "neither" (left-BP1189) are mutually exclusive.

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 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.

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 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. See the keyword "exactworld" (left-BP1190).

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

"Allsorted" implies "exact" (left-BP508).

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

Allsorted implies exact (left-BP508).

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 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". (See also the keyword "exactdivide" right-BP1190.)

Left examples 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 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". (See also the keyword "exactdivide" right-BP1190.)

Left examples 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 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.

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.

NOTE: 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". (See also the keyword "exactdivide" right-BP1190.)

Left examples 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 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.

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.

NOTE: 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".

(See also the keyword "exactdivide" right-BP1190.)

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

Allsorted implies exactdivide (right-BP1190).