Left examples have the keyword "+narrow" on the OEBP.

"Triangles" will be parsed as the pattern in a huge collection of triangles, so it is a narrow pattern. "Not triangles" can never be parsed as the pattern in a collection of many shapes that are not triangles, so it is not narrow.

The key test is whether it would be possible to see the pattern with a million left examples.

Narrowness is very common.

This relates to the intuitive "size" of the collection of examples satisfying a pattern relative to the collection of objects in the whole world. Usually both are (uncountably) infinite, so it is not really possible to make a size comparison between these. In the case either side is finite it is certainly narrow (assuming the pattern and world are possible to perceive, instead of being horribly convoluted).

This also relates to a bias of which examples are implicitly considered to be "typical" examples for a world of examples. If 90% of the shapes usually included in Bongard Problems were triangles, then "not triangles" would be narrow.

It is possible for both sides of a problem to be narrow; take for example BP6.

It is furthermore possible for a pattern and its negation to be narrow; take for example BP20.

If a pattern is not narrow and its negation (within the BP's world) is narrow it can be called "wide."

Note that this is not just BP514 flipped.

Left examples have the keyword "+narrow" on the OEBP.

"Triangles" will be parsed as the pattern in a huge collection of triangles, so it is a narrow pattern. "Not triangles" can never be parsed as the pattern in a collection of many shapes that are not triangles, so it is not narrow.

The key test is whether it would be possible to see the pattern with a million left examples.

Narrowness is very common.

This relates to the intuitive "size" of the collection of examples satisfying a pattern relative to the collection of objects in the whole world. Usually both are (uncountably) infinite, so it is not really possible to make a size comparison between these. In the case either side is finite it is certainly narrow.

This also relates to a bias of which examples are implicitly considered to be "typical" examples for a world of examples. If 90% of the shapes usually included in Bongard Problems were triangles, then "not triangles" would be narrow.

It is possible for both sides of a problem to be narrow; take for example BP6.

It is furthermore possible for a pattern and its negation to be narrow; take for example BP20.

If a pattern is not narrow and its negation (within the BP's world) is narrow it can be called "wide."

Note that this is not just BP514 flipped.

"Triangles" will be parsed as the pattern in a huge collection of triangles, so it is a narrow pattern. "Not triangles" can never be parsed as the pattern in a collection of many shapes that are not triangles, so it is not narrow.

The key test is whether it would be possible to see the pattern with a million left examples.

Narrowness is very common.

This relates to the intuitive "size" of the collection of examples satisfying a pattern relative to the collection of objects in the whole world. Usually both are (uncountably) infinite, so it is not really possible to make a size comparison between these. In the case either side is finite it is certainly narrow.

This also relates to a bias of which examples are implicitly considered to be "typical" examples for a world of examples. If 90% of the shapes usually included in Bongard Problems were triangles, then "not triangles" would be narrow.

It is possible for both sides of a problem to be narrow; take for example BP6.

It is furthermore possible for a pattern and its negation to be narrow; take for example BP20.

Left examples have the keyword "+narrow" on the OEBP.

Note that this is not just BP514 flipped.

"Triangles" will be parsed as the pattern in a huge collection of triangles, so it is a narrow pattern. "Not triangles" can never be parsed as the pattern in a collection of many shapes that are not triangles, so it is not narrow.

The key test is whether it would be possible to see the pattern with a million left examples.

Narrowness is very common.

This relates to the intuitive "size" of the collection of examples satisfying a pattern relative to the collection of objects in the whole world. Usually both are (uncountably) infinite, so it is not really possible to make a size comparison between these. In the case either side is finite it is certainly narrow.

This also relates to a bias of which examples are implicitly considered to be "typical" examples for a world of examples. If 90% of the shapes usually included in Bongard Problems were triangles, then "not triangles" would be narrow.

It is possible for both sides of a problem to be narrow; take for example BP6.

It is furthermore possible for a pattern and its negation to be narrow; take for example BP20.

Usually means right examples are the norm.

Left examples have the keyword "+narrow" on the OEBP.

Note that this is not just BP514 flipped.

"Triangles" will be parsed as the pattern in a huge collection of triangles, so it is a narrow pattern. "Not triangles" can never be parsed as the pattern in a collection of many shapes that are not triangles, so it is not narrow.

Narrowness is very common.

The key test is whether it would be possible to see the pattern with a million left examples.

This relates to the intuitive "size" of the collection of examples satisfying a pattern relative to the collection of objects in the whole world. Usually both are (uncountably) infinite, so it is not really possible to make a size comparison between these. In the case either side is finite it is certainly narrow.

This also relates to a bias of which examples are implicitly considered to be "typical" examples for a world of examples. If 90% of the shapes usually included in Bongard Problems were triangles, then "not triangles" would be narrow.

It is possible for both sides of a problem to be narrow; take for example BP6.

It is furthermore possible for a pattern and its negation to be narrow; take for example BP20.

Usually means right examples are the norm.

Left examples have the keyword "+narrow" on the OEBP.

Note that this is not just BP514 flipped.

"Triangles" will be parsed as the pattern in a huge collection of triangles, so it is a narrow pattern. "Not triangles" can never be parsed as the pattern in a collection of many shapes that are not triangles, so it is not narrow.

The key test is whether it would be possible to see the pattern with a million left examples.

This relates to the intuitive "size" of the collection of examples satisfying a pattern relative to the collection of objects in the whole world. Usually both are (uncountably) infinite, so it is not really possible to make a size comparison between these. In the case either side is finite it is certainly narrow.

This also relates to a bias of which examples are implicitly considered to be "typical" examples for a world of examples. If 90% of the shapes usually included in Bongard Problems were triangles, then "not triangles" would be narrow.

It is possible for both sides of a problem to be narrow; take for example BP6.

It is furthermore possible for a pattern and its negation to be narrow; take for example BP20.

Usually means right examples are the norm.

Left examples have the keyword "+narrow" on the OEBP.

Note that this is not just BP514 flipped.

Bongard Problems whose positive examples alone could communicate the pattern vs. other Bongard Problems.

"Triangles" will be parsed as the pattern in a huge collection of triangles, so it is a narrow pattern. "Not triangles" can never be parsed as the pattern in a collection of many shapes that are not triangles, so it is not narrow.

The key test is whether it would be possible to see the pattern with a million left examples.

This relates to the intuitive "size" of the collection of objects with the pattern relative to the collection of objects in the world. Usually both are (uncountably) infinite, so it is not really possible to make a size comparison between these. In the case either side is finite it is certainly narrow.

This also relates to a bias of which examples are implicitly considered to be "typical" examples for a world of examples. If 90% of the shapes usually included in Bongard Problems were triangles, then "not triangles" would be narrow.

Usually means right examples are the norm.

Left examples have the keyword "+narrow" on the OEBP.

Note that this is not just BP514 flipped.

Bongard Problems whose positive examples alone communicate the pattern.

Usually means right examples are the norm.

This is the keyword "ex" on the OEBP.

Aaron David Fairbanks

Usually means right examples are the norm.

Left examples have the keyword "+narrow" on the OEBP.

Note that this is not just BP514 flipped.

Usually means right examples are the norm.

Left examples have the keyword "+ex" on the OEBP.

Note that this is not just BP514 flipped.

Bongard Problems whose positive examples alone communicate the pattern vs. other Bongard Problems.

Usually means right examples are the norm.

Left examples have the keyword "+ex" on the OEBP.

Note that this is not the negation of BP514.

Usually means right examples are the norm.

This is the keyword "+ex" on the OEBP.

Note that this is not the negation of BP514.

Usually means right examples are the norm.

This is the keyword "+ex" on the OEBP.