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

As a default, it is assumed on the OEBP that submitted examples are imperfect drawings. A problem about circles may only feature what are approximately circles in all the examples. Thus, most solutions to Bongard Problems have the implicit caveat "...if shapes in drawings are parsed as what they most intuitively approximate." In literalgeometry problems, this caveat is unnecessary; the solution is based on the literal geometry of the drawings used as examples, including all subtle imperfections.

However, regardless of context, .svg scalable vector graphics files are always assumed to be parsed as their literal geometry. Do not upload .svg files with imperfections, unless the BP solution is explicitly about those imperfections.

Most Bongard Problems involving properties of curves are about the literal geometry of the drawn curves. On the other hand, Bongard Problems involving, say, polygons, often use approximate drawings of those polygons.

Just because a Problem involves small details does not make it about "literalgeometry." It is possible for a Problem to involve small imperfections, but still be about the intuitive parsings of drawings rather than the literal geometry in the drawings, e.g. BP148 or BP119.

See BP508 for more discussion of this.

Bongard Problems in which all fine subtleties of images may be considered with respect to the solution (no slightly wrong hand-drawings!) vs. other visual Bongard Problems.

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

As a default, it is assumed on the OEBP that submitted examples are imperfect drawings. A problem about circles may only feature what are approximately circles in all the examples. Thus, most solutions to Bongard Problems have the implicit caveat "...if shapes in drawings are parsed as what they most intuitively approximate." In literalgeometry problems, this caveat is unnecessary; the solution is based on the literal geometry of the drawings used as examples, including all subtle imperfections.

However, regardless of context, .svg scalable vector graphics files are always assumed to be parsed as their literal geometry. Do not upload .svg files with imperfections, unless the BP solution is explicitly about those imperfections.

Most Bongard Problems involving properties of curves are about the literal geometry of the drawn curves. On the other hand, Bongard Problems involving, say, polygons, usually use approximate drawings of those polygons.

Just because a Problem involves small details does not make it about "literalgeometry." It is possible for a Problem to involve small imperfections, but still be about the intuitive parsings of drawings rather than the literal geometry in the drawings, e.g. BP148 or BP119.

See BP508 for more discussion of this.

Bongard Problems in which all fine subtleties of images may be considered with respect to the solution (no slightly misshapen hand-drawings!) vs. other visual Bongard Problems.

Bongard Problems in which all fine subtleties of images are intentional (no slightly misshapen hand-drawings!) vs. other visual Bongard Problems.

Bongard Problems in which all fine subtleties of images should be understood precisely (no slightly misshapen hand-drawings!) vs. other visual Bongard Problems.

Bongard Problems in which all fine subtleties of images should be understood precisely (no approximate drawings!) vs. other visual Bongard Problems.

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

As a default, it is assumed on the OEBP that submitted examples are imperfect drawings. A problem about circles may only feature what are approximately circles in all the examples. Thus, most solutions to Bongard Problems have the implicit caveat "...if shapes in drawings are parsed as what they most intuitively approximate." In literalgeometry problems, this caveat is unnecessary; the solution is based on the literal geometry of the drawings used as examples, including all subtle imperfections.

However, regardless of context, .svg scalable vector graphics files are always assumed to be parsed as their literal geometry. Do not upload .svg files with imperfections, unless the BP solution is explicitly about those imperfections.

Just because a Problem involves small details does not make it about "literalgeometry." It is possible for a Problem to involve small imperfections, but still be about the intuitive parsings of drawings rather than the literal geometry in the drawings, e.g. BP148 or BP119.

See BP508 for more discussion of this.

Bongard Problems in which all fine subtleties of images, including those barely-noticeable, should be understood precisely (no approximate drawings) vs. other visual Bongard Problems.

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

As a default, it is assumed on the OEBP that submitted examples are imperfect drawings. A problem about circles may only feature what are approximately circles in all the examples. Thus, most solutions to Bongard Problems have the implicit caveat "...if shapes in drawings are parsed as what they most intuitively approximate." In literalgeometry problems, this caveat is unnecessary; the solution is based on the literal geometry of the drawings used as examples, including all subtle imperfections.

However, regardless of context, .svg scalable vector graphics files are always assumed to be parsed as their literal geometry. Do not upload .svg files with imperfections, unless the BP solution is explicitly about those imperfections.

Just because a Problem involves small details does not make it about "literalgeometry." It is possible for a Problem to involve small imperfections, but still be about intuitive parsings of shape drawings, e.g. BP148 or BP119.

See BP508 for more discussion of this.

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

As a default, it is assumed on the OEBP that submitted examples are imperfect drawings. A problem about circles may only feature what are approximately circles in all the examples. Thus, most solutions to Bongard Problems have the implicit caveat "...if shapes in drawings are parsed as what they most intuitively approximate." In literalgeometry problems, this caveat is unnecessary; the solution is based on the literal geometry of the drawings used as examples, including all subtle imperfections.

However, regardless of context, .svg scalable vector graphics files are always assumed to be parsed as their literal geometry. Do not upload .svg files with imperfections, unless the BP solution is explicitly about those imperfections.

See BP508 for more discussion of this.

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

As a default, it is assumed on the OEBP that submitted examples are imperfect drawings. A problem about circles may only feature what are approximately circles in all the examples. Thus, most solutions to Bongard Problems have the implicit caveat "...if shapes in drawings are parsed as what they most intuitively approximate." In literalgeometry problems, this caveat is unnecessary; the solution is based on the literal geometry of the drawings used as examples, including all subtle imperfections.

However, .svg scalable vector graphics files are automatically assumed to be parsed as their literal geometry, in all problems. Do not upload .svg files with imperfections, unless the BP solution is explicitly about those imperfections.

See BP508 for more discussion of this.

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

As a default, it is assumed on the OEBP that submitted examples are imperfect drawings. A problem about circles may only feature what are approximately circles in all the examples. Thus, most solutions to Bongard Problems have the implicit caveat "...if shapes in drawings are parsed as what they most intuitively approximate." In literalgeometry problems, this caveat is unnecessary; the solution is based on the literal geometry of the drawings used as examples, including all subtle imperfections.

However, .svg scalable vector graphics files are automatically assumed to be parsed as exactly what they are in all problems. Do not upload .svg files with imperfections, unless the BP solution is explicitly about those imperfections.

See BP508 for more discussion of this.

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

As a default, it is assumed on the OEBP that submitted examples are imperfect drawings. A problem about circles may only feature what are approximately circles in all the examples. Thus, most solutions to Bongard Problems have the implicit caveat "...if shapes in drawings are parsed as what they most intuitively approximate." In literalgeometry problems, this caveat is unnecessary; the solution is based on the literal geometry of the drawings used as examples, including all subtle imperfections.

However, .svg scalable vector graphics files are automatically assumed to be exactly what they show, in all problems. Do not upload .svg files with imperfections, unless the BP solution is explicitly about those imperfections.

See BP508 for more discussion of this.

Bongard Problems in which fine subtleties of drawings, including small imperfections, may be considered vs. other visual Bongard Problems.

Bongard Problems in which fine subtleties of drawings, including small imperfections, may be considered vs. other Bongard Problems.

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

As a default, it is assumed on the OEBP that submitted examples are imperfect drawings. A problem about circles may only feature what are approximately circles in all the examples. Thus, most solutions to Bongard Problems have the implicit caveat "...if shapes in drawings are parsed as what they most intuitively approximate." In literalgeometry problems, this caveat is unnecessary; the solution is based on the literal geometry of the drawings used as examples, including all subtle imperfections.

See BP508 for more discussion of this.

Aaron David Fairbanks