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

Be encouraged to contribute new interesting examples to Bongard Problems with this keyword.

There is much overlap with the keyword @hardsort.

This is what it usually means to say examples fit on (e.g.) the left of a Bongard Problem in various creative ways: there is no (obvious) general method to determine a left-fitting example fits left.

There is a related idea in computability theory: a "non recursively enumerable" property is one that cannot in general be checked by a computer algorithm.

But keep in mind the tag "creativeexamples" is supposed to mean something less formal. For example, it requires no ingenuity for a human being to check when a simple shape is convex or concave (so BP4 is not labelled "creativeexamples"). However, it is not as if we use an algorithm to do this, like a computer. (It is not even clear what an "algorithm" would mean in this context, since it is ambiguous both what class of shapes the Bongard Problem sorts and how that would be encoded into a computer program's input. There are usually many options and ambiguities like this whenever one tries to formalize the content of a Bongard Problem.)

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

Be encouraged to contribute new interesting examples to Bongard Problems with this keyword.

There is much overlap with the keywordd @hardsort.

This is what it usually means to say examples fit on (e.g.) the left of a Bongard Problem in various creative ways: there is no (obvious) general method to determine a left-fitting example fits left.

There is a related idea in computability theory: a "non recursively enumerable" property is one that cannot in general be checked by a computer algorithm.

But keep in mind the tag "creativeexamples" is supposed to mean something less formal. For example, it requires no ingenuity for a human being to check when a simple shape is convex or concave (so BP4 is not labelled "creativeexamples"). However, it is not as if we use an algorithm to do this, like a computer. (It is not even clear what an "algorithm" would mean in this context, since it is ambiguous both what class of shapes the Bongard Problem sorts and how that would be encoded into a computer program's input. There are usually many options and ambiguities like this whenever one tries to formalize the content of a Bongard Problem.)

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

Be encouraged to contribute new interesting examples to Bongard Problems with this keyword.

There is much overlap with right-BP864 ("hardsort").

This is what it usually means to say examples fit on (e.g.) the left of a Bongard Problem in various creative ways: there is no (obvious) general method to determine a left-fitting example fits left.

There is a related idea in computability theory: a "non recursively enumerable" property is one that cannot in general be checked by a computer algorithm.

But keep in mind the tag "creativeexamples" is supposed to mean something less formal. For example, it requires no ingenuity for a human being to check when a simple shape is convex or concave (so BP4 is not labelled "creativeexamples"). However, it is not as if we use an algorithm to do this, like a computer. (It is not even clear what an "algorithm" would mean in this context, since it is ambiguous both what class of shapes the Bongard Problem sorts and how that would be encoded into a computer program's input. There are usually many options and ambiguities like this whenever one tries to formalize the content of a Bongard Problem.)

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

Be encouraged to contribute new interesting examples to Bongard Problems with this keyword.

There is much overlap with right-BP864 ("hardsort").

Usually this is what it means to say examples fit on (e.g.) the left of a Bongard Problem in various creative ways: there is no (obvious) general method to determine a left-fitting example fits left.

There is a related idea in computability theory: a "non recursively enumerable" property is one that cannot in general be checked by a computer algorithm.

But "creativeexamples" is supposed to mean something less formal. For example, it requires no ingenuity for a human being to check when a simple shape is convex or concave (so BP4 is not labelled "creativeexamples"). However, it is not as if we use an algorithm to do this, like a computer. (It is not even clear what an "algorithm" would mean in this context, since it is ambiguous both what class of shapes the Bongard Problem sorts and how that would be encoded into a computer program's input. There are usually many options and ambiguities like this whenever one tries to formalize the content of a Bongard Problem.)

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

Be encouraged to contribute new interesting examples to Bongard Problems with this keyword.

There is much overlap with right-BP864 ("hardsort").

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

Users are encouraged to contribute new interesting examples to Bongard Problems with this keyword.

There is much overlap with right-BP864 ("hardsort").

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

Users are encouraged to contribute new interesting examples to Problems with this keyword.

There is much overlap with right-BP864 ("hardsort").

Left examples have keyword "creativeexamples" on the OEBP.

Users are encouraged to contribute new interesting examples to Problems with this keyword.

There is much overlap with right-BP864 ("hardsort").