Left examples have the keyword "perfect" on the OEBP.

Right examples have the keyword "ignoreimperfections".

Consider the difference in style between BP344 and BP24.

Hand-drawn figures in BPs are typically imperfect. A "circles vs. squares" BP may only show what are approximately circles and approximately squares. A pedant might append to the solutions of all Bongard Problems the caveat "...when figures are interpreted as the most obvious shapes they approximate."

This is the meaning of the label "ignoreimperfections". On the other hand, the label "perfect" means even the pedant would drop this caveat; either all the images are precise, or precision doesn't matter (see also keyword @stable).

Even in BPs tagged "perfect", the tiny rough edges caused by image pixelation are not expected to matter. If the OEBP would indeed prefer users only upload pixel-perfect examples, a BP can be tagged with the stricter keyword @pixelperfect.

E.g., for BPs having to do with smooth curves and lines, "perfect" only requires images offer the best possible approximation of those intended shapes given the resolution.

Most Bongard Problems involving small details at all would be tagged "perfect". However, this is not always so; sometimes the small details are intended to be noticed, but certain imperfections are still intended to be overlooked.

BP119 ("small correction results in circle vs. not") is an interesting example: imperfections matter with respect to the outline being closed, but imperfections do not matter with respect to circular-ness.

If a Bongard Problem on the OEBP is tagged "ignoreimperfections" -- i.e., it has imperfect hand drawings -- then other keywords are generally applied relative to the intended idea, a corrected version sans imperfect hand drawings. (For example, this is how the keywords @precise and @stable are applied. Alternative versions of these keywords, which factor in imperfect hand drawings, could be made instead, but that would be less useful.)

It may be better to change the definition of "perfect" so it only applies to Bongard Problems such that small changes can potentially switch an example's side / remove it from the Bongard Problem. That would cut down on the number of Bongard Problems to label "perfect" and lower redundancy of keywords. There isn't currently a single keyword for "small changes can potentially switch an example's side / remove it from the Bongard Problem", but this is basically captured by @unstable OR @unstableworld. - Aaron David Fairbanks, Jun 16 2023

Left examples have the keyword "perfect" on the OEBP.

Right examples have the keyword "ignoreimperfections".

Consider the difference in style between BP344 and BP24.

Hand-drawn figures in BPs are typically imperfect. A "circles vs. squares" BP may only show what are approximately circles and approximately squares. A pedant might append to the solutions of all Bongard Problems the caveat "...when figures are interpreted as the most obvious shapes they approximate."

This is the meaning of the label "ignoreimperfections". On the other hand, the label "perfect" means even the pedant would drop this caveat; either all the images are precise, or precision doesn't matter (see also keyword @stable).

Even in BPs tagged "perfect", the tiny rough edges caused by image pixelation are not expected to matter. If the OEBP would indeed prefer users only upload pixel-perfect examples, a BP can be tagged with the stricter keyword @pixelperfect.

E.g., for BPs having to do with smooth curves and lines, "perfect" only requires images offer the best possible approximation of those intended shapes given the resolution.

Most Bongard Problems involving small details at all would be tagged "perfect". However, this is not always so; sometimes the small details are intended to be noticed, but certain imperfections are still intended to be overlooked.

BP119 ("small correction results in circle vs. not") is an interesting example: imperfections matter with respect to the outline being closed, but imperfections do not matter with respect to circular-ness.

If a Bongard Problem on the OEBP is tagged "ignoreimperfections" -- i.e., it has imperfect hand drawings -- then other keywords are generally applied relative to the intended idea, a corrected version sans imperfect hand drawings. (For example, this is how the keywords @precise and @stable are applied. Alternative versions of these keywords, which factor in imperfect hand drawings, could be made instead, but that would be less useful.)

It may be better to change the definition of "perfect" so it only applies to Bongard Problems such that small changes can potentially switch an example's side / remove it from the Bongard Problem. That would cut down on the Bongard Problems to label "perfect" and remove redundancy of keywords. There isn't currently a single keyword for "small changes can potentially switch an example's side / remove it from the Bongard Problem", but this is basically captured by @unstable OR @unstableworld. - Aaron David Fairbanks, Jun 16 2023

Left examples have the keyword "perfect" on the OEBP.

Right examples have the keyword "ignoreimperfections".

Consider the difference in style between BP344 and BP24.

Hand-drawn figures in BPs are typically imperfect. A "circles vs. squares" BP may only show what are approximately circles and approximately squares. A pedant might append to the solutions of all Bongard Problems the caveat "...when figures are interpreted as the most obvious shapes they approximate."

This is the meaning of the label "ignoreimperfections". On the other hand, the label "perfect" means even the pedant would drop this caveat; either all the images are precise, or precision doesn't matter (see also keyword @stable).

Even in BPs tagged "perfect", the tiny rough edges caused by image pixelation are not expected to matter. If the OEBP would indeed prefer users only upload pixel-perfect examples, a BP can be tagged with the stricter keyword @pixelperfect.

E.g., for BPs having to do with smooth curves and lines, "perfect" only requires images offer the best possible approximation of those intended shapes given the resolution.

Most Bongard Problems involving small details at all would be tagged "perfect". However, this is not always so; sometimes the small details are intended to be noticed, but certain imperfections are still intended to be overlooked.

BP119 ("small correction results in circle vs. not") is an interesting example: imperfections matter with respect to the outline being closed, but imperfections do not matter with respect to circular-ness.

If a Bongard Problem on the OEBP is tagged "ignoreimperfections" -- i.e., it has imperfect hand drawings -- then other keywords are generally applied relative to the intended idea, a corrected version sans imperfect hand drawings. (For example, this is how the keywords @precise and @stable are applied. Alternative versions of these keywords, which factor in imperfect hand drawings, could be made instead, but that would be less useful.)

Left examples have the keyword "perfectignoringpixels" on the OEBP.

Right examples have the keyword "ignoreimperfections".

Consider the difference in style between BP344 and BP24.

Hand-drawn figures in BPs are typically imperfect. A "circles vs. squares" BP may only show what are approximately circles and approximately squares. A pedant might append to the solutions of all Bongard Problems the caveat "...when figures are interpreted as the most obvious shapes they approximate."

This is the meaning of the label "ignoreimperfections". On the other hand, the label "perfect" means even the pedant would drop this caveat; either all the images are precise, or precision doesn't matter (see also keyword @stable).

Even in BPs tagged "perfect", the tiny rough edges caused by image pixelation are not expected to matter. If the OEBP would indeed prefer users only upload pixel-perfect examples, a BP can be tagged with the stricter keyword @pixelperfect.

E.g., for BPs having to do with smooth curves and lines, "perfect" only requires images offer the best possible approximation of those intended shapes given the resolution.

Most Bongard Problems involving small details at all would be tagged "perfect". However, this is not always so; sometimes the small details are intended to be noticed, but certain imperfections are still intended to be overlooked.

BP119 ("small correction results in circle vs. not") is an interesting example: imperfections matter with respect to the outline being closed, but imperfections do not matter with respect to circular-ness.

If a Bongard Problem on the OEBP is tagged "ignoreimperfections" -- i.e., it has imperfect hand drawings -- then other keywords are generally applied relative to the intended idea, a corrected version sans imperfect hand drawings. (For example, this is how the keywords @precise and @stable are applied. Alternative versions of these keywords, which factor in imperfect hand drawings, could be made instead, but that would be less useful.)

Left examples have the keyword "perfect" on the OEBP.

Right examples have the keyword "ignoreimperfections".

Consider the difference in style between BP344 and BP24.

Hand-drawn figures in BPs are typically imperfect. A "circles vs. squares" BP may only show what are approximately circles and approximately squares. A pedant might append to the solutions of all Bongard Problems the caveat "...when figures are interpreted as the most obvious shapes they approximate."

This is the meaning of the label "ignoreimperfections". On the other hand, the label "perfect" means even the pedant would drop this caveat; either all the images are precise, or precision doesn't matter (see also keyword @stable).

Even in BPs tagged "perfect", the tiny rough edges caused by image pixelation are not expected to matter. If the OEBP would indeed prefer users only upload pixel-perfect examples, a BP can be tagged with the stricter keyword @pixelperfect.

E.g., for BPs having to do with smooth curves and lines, "perfect" only requires images offer the best possible approximation of those intended shapes given the resolution.

Most Bongard Problems involving small details at all would be tagged "perfect". However, this is not always so; sometimes the small details are intended to be noticed, but certain imperfections are still intended to be overlooked.

BP119 ("small correction results in circle vs. not") is an interesting example: imperfections matter with respect to the outline being closed, but imperfections do not matter with respect to circular-ness.

If a Bongard Problem on the OEBP is tagged "ignoreimperfections" -- i.e., it has imperfect hand drawings -- then other keywords are generally applied relative to the intended idea, a corrected version sans imperfect hand drawings. (For example, this is how the keywords @precise and @stable are applied. Alternative versions of these keywords, which factor in imperfect hand drawings, could be made instead, but that would be less useful.)

Left examples have the keyword "perfect" on the OEBP.

Right examples have the keyword "ignoreimperfections".

Consider the difference in style between BP344 and BP24.

Hand-drawn figures in BPs are typically imperfect. A "circles vs. squares" BP may only show what are approximately circles and approximately squares. A pedant might append to the solutions of all Bongard Problems the caveat "...when figures are interpreted as the most obvious shapes they approximate."

The label "ignoreimperfections" means this pedantic caveat is appropriate. The label "perfect" means even the pedant would drop this caveat; either all the images are precise, or precision doesn't matter (see also keyword @stable).

Even in BPs tagged "perfect", the tiny rough edges caused by image pixelation are not expected to matter. If the OEBP would indeed prefer users only upload pixel-perfect examples, a BP can be tagged with the stricter keyword @pixelperfect.

E.g., for BPs having to do with smooth curves and lines, "perfect" only requires images offer the best possible approximation of those intended shapes given the resolution.

Most Bongard Problems involving small details at all would be tagged "perfect". However, this is not always so; sometimes the small details are intended to be noticed, but certain imperfections are still intended to be overlooked.

BP119 ("small correction results in circle vs. not") is an interesting example: imperfections matter with respect to the outline being closed, but imperfections do not matter with respect to circular-ness.

If a Bongard Problem on the OEBP is tagged "ignoreimperfections" -- i.e., it has imperfect hand drawings -- then other keywords are generally applied relative to the intended idea, a corrected version sans imperfect hand drawings. (For example, this is how the keywords @precise and @stable are applied. Alternative versions of these keywords, which factor in imperfect hand drawings, could be made instead, but that would be less useful.)

Left examples have the keyword "perfect" on the OEBP.

Right examples have the keyword "ignoreimperfections".

Consider the difference in style between BP344 and BP24.

Hand-drawn figures in BPs are typically imperfect. A "circles vs. squares" BP may only show what are approximately circles and approximately squares. A pedant might append to the solutions of all Bongard Problems the caveat "...when figures are interpreted as the most obvious shapes they approximate."

The label "ignoreimperfections" means this pedantic caveat is appropriate. The label "perfect" means even the pedant would drop this caveat; either all the images are precise, or precision doesn't matter (see also keyword @stable).

Even in BPs tagged "perfect", the tiny rough edges caused by image pixelation are not expected to matter. If the OEBP would indeed prefer users only upload pixel-perfect examples, a BP can be tagged with the stricter keyword @pixelperfect.

E.g., for BPs having to do with smooth curves and lines, "perfect" only requires images offer the best possible approximation of those intended shapes given the resolution.

Most Bongard Problems involving small details at all would be tagged "perfect". However, this is not always so; sometimes the small details are intended to be noticed, but certain imperfections are still intended to be overlooked.

BP119 ("small correction results in circle vs. not") is an interesting example: imperfections matter with respect to the outline being closed, but imperfections do not matter with respect to circular-ness.

If a Bongard Problem on the OEBP is tagged "ignoreimperfections" -- i.e., it has imperfect hand drawings -- then other keywords are generally applied relative to the intended idea, a corrected version sans imperfect hand drawings. (For example, this is how the keywords @precise and @stable are applied.)

Alternative versions of these keywords, which did take into account imperfect hand drawings, could be made instead, but that would be less useful.

Left examples have the keyword "perfect" on the OEBP.

Right examples have the keyword "ignoreimperfections".

Consider the difference in style between BP344 and BP24.

Hand-drawn figures in BPs are typically imperfect. A "circles vs. squares" BP may only show what are approximately circles and approximately squares. A pedant might append to the solutions of all Bongard Problems the caveat "...when figures are interpreted as the most obvious shapes they approximate."

The label "ignoreimperfections" means this pedantic caveat is appropriate. The label "perfect" means even the pedant would drop this caveat; either all the images are precise, or precision doesn't matter (see also keyword @stable).

Even in BPs tagged "perfect", the tiny rough edges caused by image pixelation are not expected to matter. If the OEBP would indeed prefer users only upload pixel-perfect examples, a BP can be tagged with the stricter keyword @pixelperfect.

E.g., for BPs having to do with smooth curves and lines, "perfect" only requires images offer the best possible approximation of those intended shapes given the resolution.

Most Bongard Problems involving small details at all would be tagged "perfect". However, this is not always so; sometimes the small details are intended to be noticed, but certain imperfections are still intended to be overlooked.

BP119 ("small correction results in circle vs. not") is an interesting example: imperfections matter with respect to the outline being closed, but imperfections do not matter with respect to circular-ness.

If a Bongard Problem on the OEBP is tagged "ignoreimperfections" -- i.e., it has imperfect hand drawings -- then other keywords are generally applied relative to the intended idea, a corrected version sans imperfect hand drawings. (For example, this is how the keywords @precise and @stable are applied.)

Alternate versions of these keywords, which did take into account imperfect hand drawings, could be made instead, but that would be less useful.

Left examples have the keyword "perfect" on the OEBP.

Right examples have the keyword "ignoreimperfections".

Consider the difference in style between BP344 and BP24.

Hand-drawn figures in BPs are typically imperfect. A "circles vs. squares" BP may only show what are approximately circles and approximately squares. A pedant might append to the solutions of all Bongard Problems the caveat "...when figures are interpreted as the most obvious shapes they approximate."

The label "ignoreimperfections" means this pedantic caveat is appropriate. The label "perfect" means even the pedant would drop this caveat; either all the images are precise, or precision doesn't matter (see also keyword @stable).

Even in BPs tagged "perfect", the tiny rough edges caused by image pixelation are not expected to matter. If the OEBP would indeed prefer users only upload pixel-perfect examples, a BP can be tagged with the stricter keyword @pixelperfect.

E.g., for BPs having to do with smooth curves and lines, "perfect" only requires images offer the best possible approximation of those intended shapes given the resolution.

Most Bongard Problems involving small details at all would be tagged "perfect". However, this is not always so; sometimes the small details are intended to be noticed, but certain imperfections are still intended to be overlooked.

BP119 ("small correction results in circle vs. not") is an interesting example: imperfections matter with respect to the outline being closed, but imperfections do not matter with respect to circular-ness.

If a Bongard Problem on the OEBP is tagged "ignoreimperfections" -- i.e., it has imperfect hand drawings -- then other keywords are generally applied relative to the intended idea, a corrected version sans imperfect hand drawings. (For example, this is how the keywords @precise and @stable work.)

Alternate versions of these keywords, which did take into account imperfect hand drawings, could be made instead, but that would be less useful.

Left examples have the keyword "perfect" on the OEBP.

Right examples have the keyword "ignoreimperfections".

Consider the difference in style between BP344 and BP24.

Hand-drawn figures in BPs are typically imperfect. A "circles vs. squares" BP may only show what are approximately circles and approximately squares. A pedant might append to the solutions of all Bongard Problems the caveat "...when figures are interpreted as the most obvious shapes they approximate."

The label "ignoreimperfections" means this pedantic caveat is appropriate. The label "perfect" means even the pedant would drop this caveat; either all the images are precise, or precision doesn't matter (see also keyword @stable).

Even in BPs tagged "perfect", the tiny rough edges caused by image pixelation are not expected to matter. If the OEBP would indeed prefer users only upload pixel-perfect examples, a BP can be tagged with the stricter keyword @pixelperfect.

E.g., for BPs having to do with smooth curves and lines, "perfect" only requires images offer the best possible approximation of those intended shapes given the resolution.

Most Bongard Problems involving small details at all would be tagged "perfect". However, this is not always so; sometimes the small details are intended to be noticed, but certain imperfections are still intended to be overlooked.

BP119 ("small correction results in circle vs. not") is an interesting example: imperfections matter with respect to the outline being closed, but imperfections do not matter with respect to circular-ness.

If a Bongard Problem on the OEBP is tagged "ignoreimperfections" -- i.e., it has imperfect hand drawings -- then other keywords are generally applied relative to the underlying idea of it, a corrected version sans imperfect hand drawings. (For example, this is how the keywords @precise and @stable work.)

Alternate versions of these keywords, which did take into account imperfect hand drawings, could be made instead, but that would be less useful.

Left examples have the keyword "perfect" on the OEBP.

Right examples have the keyword "ignoreimperfections".

Consider the difference in style between BP344 and BP24.

Hand-drawn figures in BPs are typically imperfect. A "circles vs. squares" BP may only show what are approximately circles and approximately squares. A pedant might append to the solutions of all Bongard Problems the caveat "...when figures are interpreted as the most obvious shapes they approximate."

The label "ignoreimperfections" means this pedantic caveat is appropriate. The label "perfect" means even the pedant would drop this caveat; either all the images are precise, or precision doesn't matter (see also keyword @stable).

Even in BPs tagged "perfect", the tiny rough edges caused by image pixelation are not expected to matter. If the OEBP would indeed prefer users only upload pixel-perfect examples, a BP can be tagged with the stricter keyword @pixelperfect.

E.g., for BPs having to do with smooth curves and lines, "perfect" only requires images offer the best possible approximation of those intended shapes given the resolution.

Most Bongard Problems involving small details at all would be tagged "perfect". However, this is not always so; sometimes the small details are intended to be noticed, but certain imperfections are still intended to be overlooked.

BP119 ("small correction results in circle vs. not") is an interesting example: imperfections matter with respect to the outline being closed, but imperfections do not matter with respect to circular-ness.

If a Bongard Problem on the OEBP is tagged "ignoreimperfections" -- i.e. it has imperfect hand drawings -- then other keywords are generally applied relative to the underlying idea of it, a corrected version sans imperfect hand drawings. (For example, this is how the keywords @precise and @stable work.)

Alternate versions of these keywords, which did take into account imperfect hand drawings, could be made instead, but that would be less useful.

Left examples have the keyword "perfect" on the OEBP.

Right examples have the keyword "ignoreimperfections".

Consider the difference in style between BP344 and BP24.

Hand-drawn figures in BPs are typically imperfect. A "circles vs. squares" BP may only show what are approximately circles and approximately squares. A pedant might append to the solutions of all Bongard Problems the caveat "...when figures are interpreted as the most obvious shapes they approximate."

The label "ignoreimperfections" means this pedantic caveat is appropriate. The label "perfect" means even the pedant would drop this caveat; either all the images are precise, or precision doesn't matter (see also keyword @stable).

Even in BPs tagged "perfect", the tiny rough edges caused by image pixelation are not expected to matter. If the OEBP would indeed prefer users only upload pixel-perfect examples, a BP can be tagged with the stricter keyword @pixelperfect.

E.g., for BPs having to do with smooth curves and lines, "perfect" only requires images offer the best possible approximation of those intended shapes given the resolution.

Most Bongard Problems involving small details at all would be tagged "perfect". However, this is not always so; sometimes the small details are intended to be noticed, but certain imperfections are still intended to be overlooked.

BP119 ("small correction results in circle vs. not") is an interesting example: imperfections matter with respect to the outline being closed, but imperfections do not matter with respect to circularness.

If a Bongard Problem on the OEBP is tagged "ignoreimperfections" -- i.e. it has imperfect hand drawings -- then other keywords are generally applied relative to the underlying idea of it, a corrected version sans imperfect hand drawings. (For example, this is how the keywords @precise and @stable work.)

Alternate versions of these keywords, which did take into account imperfect hand drawings, could be made instead, but that would be less useful.

Left examples have the keyword "perfect" on the OEBP.

Right examples have the keyword "ignoreimperfections".

Consider the difference in style between BP344 and BP24.

Hand-drawn figures in BPs are typically imperfect. A "circles vs. squares" BP may only show what are approximately circles and approximately squares. A pedant might append to the solutions of all Bongard Problems the caveat "...when figures are interpreted as the most obvious shapes they approximate."

The label "ignoreimperfections" means this pedantic caveat is appropriate. The label "perfect" means even the pedant would drop this caveat; either all the images are precise, or precision doesn't matter (see also keyword @stable).

Even in BPs tagged "perfect", the tiny rough edges caused by image pixelation are not expected to matter. If the OEBP would indeed prefer users only upload pixel-perfect examples, a BP can be tagged with the stricter keyword @pixelperfect.

E.g., for BPs having to do with smooth curves and lines, "perfect" only requires images offer the best possible approximation of those intended shapes given the resolution.

Usually a Bongard Problem involving small details at all would be tagged "perfect". However, sometimes the small details are intended to be noticed, but certain imperfections are still intended to be overlooked.

BP119 ("small correction results in circle vs. not") is an interesting example: imperfections matter with respect to the outline being closed, but imperfections do not matter with respect to circularness.

If a Bongard Problem on the OEBP is tagged "ignoreimperfections" -- i.e. it has imperfect hand drawings -- then other keywords are generally applied relative to the underlying idea of it, a corrected version sans imperfect hand drawings. (For example, this is how the keywords @precise and @stable work.)

Alternate versions of these keywords, which did take into account imperfect hand drawings, could be made instead, but that would be less useful.

Left examples have the keyword "perfect" on the OEBP.

Right examples have the keyword "ignoreimperfections".

Consider the difference in style between BP344 and BP24.

Hand-drawn figures in BPs are typically imperfect. A "circles vs. squares" BP may only show what are approximately circles and approximately squares. A pedant might append to the solutions of all Bongard Problems the caveat "...when figures are interpreted as the most obvious shapes they approximate."

The label "ignoreimperfections" means this caveat, while pedantic, is appropriate. The label "perfect" means even the pedant would drop this caveat; images are meant to be precise, or precision doesn't matter (see also keyword @stable).

Even in BPs tagged "perfect", the tiny rough edges caused by image pixelation are not expected to matter. If the OEBP would indeed prefer users only upload pixel-perfect examples, a BP can be tagged with the stricter keyword @pixelperfect.

E.g., for BPs having to do with smooth curves and lines, "perfect" only requires images offer the best possible approximation of those intended shapes given the resolution.

Usually a Bongard Problem involving small details at all would be tagged "perfect". However, sometimes the small details are intended to be noticed, but certain imperfections are still intended to be overlooked.

BP119 ("small correction results in circle vs. not") is an interesting example: imperfections matter with respect to the outline being closed, but imperfections do not matter with respect to circularness.

If a Bongard Problem on the OEBP is tagged "ignoreimperfections" -- i.e. it has imperfect hand drawings -- then other keywords are generally applied relative to the underlying idea of it, a corrected version sans imperfect hand drawings. (For example, this is how the keywords @precise and @stable work.)

Alternate versions of these keywords, which did take into account imperfect hand drawings, could be made instead, but that would be less useful.

Left examples have the keyword "perfect" on the OEBP.

Right examples have the keyword "ignoreimperfections".

Consider the difference in style between BP344 and BP24.

Hand-drawn figures in BPs are typically imperfect. A "circles vs. squares" BP may only show what are approximately circles and approximately squares. A pedant might append to the solutions of all Bongard Problems the caveat "...when figures are interpreted as the most obvious shapes they approximate."

The label "ignoreimperfections" means this caveat is indeed required. The label "perfect" means even the pedant would drop this caveat; images are meant to be precise, or precision doesn't matter (see also keyword @stable).

Even in BPs tagged "perfect", the tiny rough edges caused by image pixelation are not expected to matter. If the OEBP would indeed prefer users only upload pixel-perfect examples, a BP can be tagged with the stricter keyword @pixelperfect.

E.g., for BPs having to do with smooth curves and lines, "perfect" only requires images offer the best possible approximation of those intended shapes given the resolution.

Usually a Bongard Problem involving small details at all would be tagged "perfect". However, sometimes the small details are intended to be noticed, but certain imperfections are still intended to be overlooked.

BP119 ("small correction results in circle vs. not") is an interesting example: imperfections matter with respect to the outline being closed, but imperfections do not matter with respect to circularness.

If a Bongard Problem on the OEBP is tagged "ignoreimperfections" -- i.e. it has imperfect hand drawings -- then other keywords are generally applied relative to the underlying idea of it, a corrected version sans imperfect hand drawings. (For example, this is how the keywords @precise and @stable work.)

Alternate versions of these keywords, which did take into account imperfect hand drawings, could be made instead, but that would be less useful.

Left examples have the keyword "perfect" on the OEBP.

Right examples have the keyword "ignoreimperfections".

Consider the difference in style between BP344 and BP24; the former shapes show significant subtleties in the edges, while the latter are sketches of circles, squares, and triangles, just approximate enough to tell which are which.

Hand-drawn figures in BPs are typically imperfect. A "circles vs. squares" BP may only show what are approximately circles and approximately squares. A pedant might append to the solutions of all Bongard Problems the caveat "...when figures are interpreted as the most obvious shapes they approximate."

The label "ignoreimperfections" means this caveat is indeed required. The label "perfect" means even the pedant would drop this caveat; images are meant to be precise, or precision doesn't matter (see also keyword @stable).

Even in BPs tagged "perfect", the tiny rough edges caused by image pixelation are not expected to matter. If the OEBP would indeed prefer users only upload pixel-perfect examples, a BP can be tagged with the stricter keyword @pixelperfect.

E.g., for BPs having to do with smooth curves and lines, "perfect" only requires images offer the best possible approximation of those intended shapes given the resolution.

Usually a Bongard Problem involving small details at all would be tagged "perfect". However, sometimes the small details are intended to be noticed, but certain imperfections are still intended to be overlooked.

BP119 ("small correction results in circle vs. not") is an interesting example: imperfections matter with respect to the outline being closed, but imperfections do not matter with respect to circularness.

If a Bongard Problem on the OEBP is tagged "ignoreimperfections" -- i.e. it has imperfect hand drawings -- then other keywords are generally applied relative to the underlying idea of it, a corrected version sans imperfect hand drawings. (For example, this is how the keywords @precise and @stable work.)

Alternate versions of these keywords, which did take into account imperfect hand drawings, could be made instead, but that would be less useful.

See BP508 for discussion of this topic in relation to Bongard Problems tagged @precise.

@Stable implies "perfect".

@Pixelperfect implies "perfect".

The keywords @proofsrequired and @noproofs (BP1125) have a similar relationship: "noproofs" indicates a lenience for a certain kind of imperfection.

Left examples have the keyword "perfect" on the OEBP.

Right examples have the keyword "ignoreimperfections".

Consider the difference in style between BP344 and BP24; the former shapes show significant subtleties in the edges, while the latter are sketches of circles, squares, and triangles, just approximate enough to tell which are which.

Hand-drawn figures in BPs are typically imperfect. A "circles vs. squares" BP may only show what are approximately circles and approximately squares. A pedant might append to the solutions of all Bongard Problems the caveat "...when figures are interpreted as the most obvious shapes they approximate."

The label "ignoreimperfections" means this caveat is indeed required. The label "perfect" means even the pedant would drop this caveat; images are meant to be precise, or precision doesn't matter (see also keyword @stable).

Even in BPs tagged "perfect", the tiny rough edges caused by image pixelation are not expected to matter. If the OEBP would indeed prefer users only upload pixel-perfect examples, a BP can be tagged with the stricter keyword @pixelperfect.

E.g., for BPs having to do with smooth curves and lines, "perfect" only requires images offer the best possible approximation of those intended shapes given the resolution.

Usually a Bongard Problem involving small details at all would be tagged "perfect". However, sometimes the small details are intended to be noticed, but certain imperfections are still intended to be overlooked.

BP119 ("small correction results in circle vs. not") is an interesting example: imperfections matter with respect to the outline being closed, but imperfections do not matter with respect to circularness.

If a Bongard Problem on the OEBP is tagged "ignoreimperfections" -- i.e. it has imperfect hand drawings -- then other keywords are generally applied relative to the underlying idea of it, a corrected version sans imperfect hand drawings. (For example, this is how the keywords @exact and @stable work.)

Alternate versions of these keywords, which did take into account imperfect hand drawings, could be made instead, but that would be less useful.

See BP508 for discussion of this topic in relation to Bongard Problems tagged @exact.

@Stable implies "perfect".

@Pixelperfect implies "perfect".

The keywords @proofsrequired and @noproofs (BP1125) have a similar relationship: "noproofs" indicates a lenience for a certain kind of imperfection.

Left examples have the keyword "perfect" on the OEBP.

Right examples have the keyword "ignoreimperfections".

Consider the difference in style between BP344 and BP24; the former shapes show significant subtleties in the edges, while the latter are sketches of circles, squares, and triangles, just approximate enough to tell which are which.

Hand-drawn figures in BPs are typically imperfect. A "circles vs. squares" BP may only show what are approximately circles and approximately squares. A pedant might append to the solutions of all Bongard Problems the caveat "...when figures are interpreted as the most obvious shapes they approximate."

The label "ignoreimperfections" means this caveat is indeed required. The label "perfect" means even the pedant would drop this caveat; images are meant to be precise, or precision doesn't matter (see also keyword @continuous).

Even in BPs tagged "perfect", the tiny rough edges caused by image pixelation are not expected to matter. If the OEBP would indeed prefer users only upload pixel-perfect examples, a BP can be tagged with the stricter keyword @pixelperfect.

E.g., for BPs having to do with smooth curves and lines, "perfect" only requires images offer the best possible approximation of those intended shapes given the resolution.

Usually a Bongard Problem involving small details at all would be tagged "perfect". However, sometimes the small details are intended to be noticed, but certain imperfections are still intended to be overlooked.

BP119 ("small correction results in circle vs. not") is an interesting example: imperfections matter with respect to the outline being closed, but imperfections do not matter with respect to circularness.

If a Bongard Problem on the OEBP is tagged "ignoreimperfections" -- i.e. it has imperfect hand drawings -- then other keywords are generally applied relative to the underlying idea of it, a corrected version sans imperfect hand drawings. (For example, this is how the keywords @exact and @continuous work.)

Alternate versions of these keywords, which did take into account imperfect hand drawings, could be made instead, but that would be less useful.

Left examples have the keyword "perfect" on the OEBP.

Right examples have the keyword "ignoreimperfections".

Consider the difference in style between BP344 and BP24; the former shapes show significant subtleties in the edges, while the latter are sketches of circles, squares, and triangles, just approximate enough to tell which are which.

Hand-drawn figures in BPs are typically imperfect. A "circles vs. squares" BP may only show what are approximately circles and approximately squares. A pedant might append to the solutions of all Bongard Problems the caveat "...when figures are interpreted as the most obvious shapes they approximate."

The label "ignoreimperfections" means this caveat is indeed required. The label "perfect" means even the pedant would drop this caveat; images are meant to be precise, or precision doesn't matter (keyword @continuous).

Even in BPs tagged "perfect", the tiny rough edges caused by image pixelation are not expected to matter. If the OEBP would indeed prefer users only upload pixel-perfect examples, a BP can be tagged with the stricter keyword @pixelperfect.

E.g., for BPs having to do with smooth curves and lines, "perfect" only requires images offer the best possible approximation of those intended shapes given the resolution.

Usually a Bongard Problem involving small details at all would be tagged "perfect". However, sometimes the small details are intended to be noticed, but certain imperfections are still intended to be overlooked.

BP119 ("small correction results in circle vs. not") is an interesting example: imperfections matter with respect to the outline being closed, but imperfections do not matter with respect to circularness.

If a Bongard Problem on the OEBP is tagged "ignoreimperfections" -- i.e. it has imperfect hand drawings -- then other keywords are generally applied relative to the underlying idea of it, a corrected version sans imperfect hand drawings. (For example, this is how the keywords @exact and @continuous work.)

Alternate versions of these keywords, which did take into account imperfect hand drawings, could be made instead, but that would be less useful.

Left examples have the keyword "perfect" on the OEBP.

Right examples have the keyword "ignoreimperfections".

Consider the difference in style between BP344 and BP24; the former shapes show significant subtleties in the edges, while the latter are sketches of circles, squares, and triangles, just approximate enough to tell which are which.

Hand-drawn figures in BPs are typically imperfect. A "circles vs. squares" BP may only show what are approximately circles and approximately squares. A pedant might append to the solutions of all Bongard Problems the caveat "...when figures are interpreted as the most obvious shapes they approximate."

The label "ignoreimperfections" means this caveat is indeed required. The label "perfect" means even the pedant would drop this caveat; images are meant to be precise, or precision doesn't matter (keyword "continuous" right-BP963).

Even in BPs tagged "perfect", the tiny rough edges caused by image pixelation are not expected to matter. If the OEBP would indeed prefer users only upload pixel-perfect examples, a BP can be tagged with the stricter keyword @pixelperfect.

E.g., for BPs having to do with smooth curves and lines, "perfect" only requires images offer the best possible approximation of those intended shapes given the resolution.

Usually a Bongard Problem involving small details at all would be tagged "perfect". However, sometimes the small details are intended to be noticed, but certain imperfections are still intended to be overlooked.

BP119 ("small correction results in circle vs. not") is an interesting example: imperfections matter with respect to the outline being closed, but imperfections do not matter with respect to circularness.

If a Bongard Problem on the OEBP is tagged "ignoreimperfections" -- i.e. it has imperfect hand drawings -- then other keywords are generally applied relative to the underlying idea of it, a corrected version sans imperfect hand drawings. (For example, this is how the keywords @exact and @continuous work.)

Alternate versions of these keywords, which did take into account imperfect hand drawings, could be made instead, but that would be less useful.

See BP508 for discussion of this topic in relation to Bongard Problems tagged @exact.

@Continuous implies "perfect".

@Pixelperfect implies "perfect".

The keywords @proofsrequired and @noproofs (BP1125) have a similar relationship: "noproofs" indicates a lenience for a certain kind of imperfection.

Left examples have the keyword "perfect" on the OEBP.

Right examples have the keyword "ignoreimperfections".

Consider the difference in style between BP344 and BP24; the former shapes show significant subtleties in the edges, while the latter are sketches of circles, squares, and triangles, just approximate enough to tell which are which.

Hand-drawn figures in BPs are typically imperfect. A "circles vs. squares" BP may only show what are approximately circles and approximately squares. A pedant might append to the solutions of all Bongard Problems the caveat "...when figures are interpreted as the most obvious shapes they approximate."

The label "ignoreimperfections" means this caveat is indeed required. The label "perfect" means even the pedant would drop this caveat; images are meant to be precise, or precision doesn't matter (keyword "continuous" right-BP963).

Even in BPs tagged "perfect", the tiny rough edges caused by image pixelation are not expected to matter. If the OEBP would indeed prefer users only upload pixel-perfect examples, a BP can be tagged with the stricter keyword "pixelperfect" (left-BP947).

E.g., for BPs having to do with smooth curves and lines, "perfect" only requires images offer the best possible approximation of those intended shapes given the resolution.

Usually a Bongard Problem involving small details at all would be tagged "perfect". However, sometimes the small details are intended to be noticed, but certain imperfections are still intended to be overlooked.

BP119 ("small correction results in circle vs. not") is an interesting example: imperfections matter with respect to the outline being closed, but imperfections do not matter with respect to circularness.

If a Bongard Problem on the OEBP is tagged "ignoreimperfections" -- i.e. it has imperfect hand drawings -- then other keywords are generally applied relative to the underlying idea of it, a corrected version sans imperfect hand drawings. (For example, this is how the keywords "exact" left-BP508 and "continuous" right-BP963 work.)

Alternate versions of these keywords, which did take into account imperfect hand drawings, could be made instead, but that would be less useful.

Left examples have the keyword "perfect" on the OEBP.

Right examples have the keyword "ignoreimperfections".

Consider the difference in style between BP344 and BP24; the former shapes show significant subtleties in the edges, while the latter are sketches of circles, squares, and triangles, just approximate enough to tell which are which.

Hand-drawn figures in BPs are typically imperfect. A "circles vs. squares" BP may only show what are approximately circles and approximately squares. A pedant might append to the solutions of all Bongard Problems the caveat "...when figures are interpreted as the most obvious shapes they approximate."

The label "ignoreimperfections" means this caveat is indeed required. The label "perfect" means even the pedant would drop this caveat; images are meant to be precise, or precision doesn't matter (keyword "continuous" right-BP963).

Even in BPs tagged "perfect", the tiny rough edges caused by image pixelation are not expected to matter. If the OEBP would indeed prefer users only upload pixel-perfect examples, a BP can be tagged with the stricter keyword "pixelperfect" (left-BP947).

E.g., for BPs having to do with smooth curves and lines, "perfect" only requires images offer the best possible approximation of those intended shapes given the resolution.

Usually a Bongard Problem involving small details at all would be tagged "perfect". However, sometimes the small details are intended to be noticed, but certain imperfections are still intended to be overlooked.

BP119 ("small correction results in circle vs. not") is an interesting example: imperfections matter with respect to the outline being closed, but imperfections do not matter with respect to circularness.

If a Bongard Problem on the OEBP is "ignoreimperfections" -- i.e. shown with imperfect hand drawings -- other keywords are generally applied relative to the underlying idea, a corrected version sans imperfect hand drawings. (For example, this is how the keywords "exact" left-BP508 and "continuous" right-BP963 work.)

Alternate versions of these keywords, which did take into account imperfect hand drawings, could be made instead, but that would be less useful.