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

It is common for Bongard Problems to present left examples on the left side and corresponding altered versions of those examples on the right side, tweaked only slightly, to highlight the difference and make the solution easier to see (would fit on right-BP565).

On the other hand, the same technique is also very common in more abstract problems, that would admit a wide range of possible examples in different contexts, for example BP360. Showing two versions of the same thing, one on the left and one on the right, helps a person interpret what that thing is meant to be; whatever qualities vary between the two in the pair must be relevant. This leads to invalid Problems if one could not sort an example according to the solution property without seeing its corresponding counter-example. Most very abstract Problems toe the borderline of being invalid.

Any of these Problems could be remade as a Bongard Problem in which left examples are the shown pairs. For example BP360 would turn into "a pair consisting of the ordered version of something and the chaotic version of the same thing vs. a pair of things not satisfying this relationship." This would turn any invalid Problem, in the way described above, into a valid one. (See BP563.)

Correspondence is considered part of a Bongard Problem idea on the OEBP. See BP930 for more discussion about what is "part of a BP idea."

When correspondence Bongard Problems are laid out in six boxes versus six boxes format, usually the boxes are arranged so as to highlight the correspondence; either

A B | A B

E F | E F

G H | G H

or

A B | B A

E F | F E

G H | H G.

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

It is common for Bongard Problems to present left examples on the left side and corresponding altered versions of those examples on the right side, tweaked only slightly, to highlight the difference and make the solution easier to see (would fit on right-BP565).

On the other hand, the same technique is also very common in more abstract problems, that would admit a wide range of possible examples in different contexts, for example BP360. Showing two versions of the same thing, one on the left and one on the right, helps a person interpret what that thing is meant to be; whatever qualities vary between the two in the pair must be relevant. This leads to invalid Problems if one could not sort an example according to the solution property without seeing its corresponding counter-example. Most very abstract Problems toe the borderline of being invalid.

Any of these Problems could be remade as a Bongard Problem in which left examples are the shown pairs. For example BP360 would turn into "a pair consisting of the ordered version of something and the chaotic version of the same thing vs. a pair of things not satisfying this relationship." This would turn any invalid Problem, in the way described above, into a valid one. (See BP563.)

When these Bongard Problems are laid out in six boxes versus six boxes format, usually the boxes are arranged so as to highlight the correspondence; either

A B | A B

E F | E F

G H | G H

or

A B | B A

E F | F E

G H | H G.

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

It is common for Bongard Problems to present left examples on the left side and corresponding altered versions of those examples on the right side, tweaked only slightly, to highlight the difference and make the solution easier to see (would fit on right-BP565).

On the other hand, the same technique is also very common in more abstract problems, that would admit a wide range of possible examples in different contexts, for example BP360. Showing two versions of the same thing, one on the left and one on the right, helps a person interpret what that thing is meant to be; whatever qualities vary between the two in the pair must be relevant. This leads to invalid Problems if one could not sort an example according to the solution property without seeing its corresponding counter-example. Most very abstract Problems toe the borderline of being invalid.

Any of these Problems could be remade as a Bongard Problem in which left examples are the shown pairs. For example BP360 would turn into "a pair consisting of the ordered version of something and the chaotic version of the same thing vs. a pair of things not satisfying this relationship." This would turn any invalid Problem, in the way described above, into a valid one.

When these Bongard Problems are laid out in six boxes versus six boxes format, usually the boxes are arranged so as to highlight the correspondence; either

A B | A B

E F | E F

G H | G H

or

A B | B A

E F | F E

G H | H G.

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

It is common for Bongard Problems to present left examples on the left side and corresponding altered versions of those examples on the right side, tweaked only slightly, to highlight the difference and make the solution easier to see (would fit on right-BP565).

On the other hand, the same technique is also very common in more abstract problems, that would admit a wide range of possible examples in different contexts, for example BP360. Showing two versions of the same thing, one on the left and one on the right, helps a person interpret what that thing is meant to be; whatever qualities vary between the two in the pair must be relevant. This leads to invalid Problems if one could not sort an example according to the solution property without seeing its corresponding counter-example. Most very abstract Problems toe the borderline of being invalid.

Any of these Problems could be remade as a Bongard Problem in which left examples are the shown pairs. For example BP360 would turn into "a pair consisting of the ordered version of something and the chaotic version of the same thing vs. a pair of things not satisfying this relationship." This would turn any invalid Problem, in the way described above, into a valid one.

When these Bongard Problems are laid out in six boxes versus six boxes format, usually the boxes are arranged so as to highlight this correspondence; either

A B | A B

E F | E F

G H | G H

or

A B | B A

E F | F E

G H | H G.

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

It is common for Bongard Problems to present left examples on the left side and corresponding altered versions of those examples on the right side, tweaked only slightly, to highlight the difference and make the solution easier to see (would fit on right-BP565).

On the other hand, the same technique is also very common in more abstract problems, that would admit a wide range of possible examples in different contexts, for example BP360. Showing two versions of the same thing, one on the left and one on the right, helps a person interpret what that thing is meant to be; whatever qualities vary between the two in the pair must be relevant. This leads to invalid Problems if one could not sort an example according to the solution property without seeing its corresponding counter-example. Most very abstract Problems run along the borderline of being invalid.

Any of these Problems could be remade as a Bongard Problem in which left examples are the shown pairs. For example BP360 would turn into "a pair consisting of the ordered version of something and the chaotic version of the same thing vs. a pair of things not satisfying this relationship." This would turn any invalid Problem, in the way described above, into a valid one.

When these Bongard Problems are laid out in six boxes versus six boxes format, usually the boxes are arranged so as to highlight this correspondence; either

A B | A B

E F | E F

G H | G H

or

A B | B A

E F | F E

G H | H G.

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

It is common for Bongard Problems to present left examples on the left side and corresponding altered versions of those examples on the right side, tweaked only slightly, to highlight the difference and make the solution easier to see (would fit on right-BP565).

On the other hand, the same technique is also very common in more abstract problems, that would admit a wide range of possible examples in different contexts, for example BP360. Showing two versions of the same thing, one on the left and one on the right, helps a person interpret what that thing is meant to be; whatever qualities vary between the two in the pair must be relevant. This leads to arguably invalid Problems; if one could not sort an example according to the solution property without seeing its corresponding counter-example, the BP is not actually valid. Most very abstract Problems run on the borderline of being invalid.

Any of these Problems could be remade as a Bongard Problem in which left examples are the shown pairs. For example BP360 would turn into "a pair consisting of the ordered version of something and the chaotic version of the same thing vs. a pair of things not satisfying this relationship." This would turn any invalid Problem, in the way described above, into a valid one.

When these Bongard Problems are laid out in six boxes versus six boxes format, usually the boxes are arranged so as to highlight this correspondence; either

A B | A B

E F | E F

G H | G H

or

A B | B A

E F | F E

G H | H G.

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

It is common for Bongard Problems to present left examples on the left side and corresponding altered versions of those examples on the right side, tweaked only slightly, to highlight the difference and make the solution easier to see (would fit on right-BP565).

This is very common for more abstract problems, with a wide range of possible examples in different contexts, for example BP360. Showing two versions of the same thing, one on the left and one on the right, helps a person interpret what that thing is meant to be; whatever qualities vary between the two in the pair must be relevant. This leads to arguably invalid Problems; if one could not sort an example according to the solution property without seeing its corresponding counter-example, the BP is not actually valid. Most very abstract Problems run on the borderline of being invalid.

Any of these Problems could be remade as a Bongard Problem in which left examples are the shown pairs. For example BP360 would turn into "a pair consisting of the ordered version of something and the chaotic version of the same thing vs. a pair of things not satisfying this relationship." This would turn any invalid Problem, in the way described above, into a valid one.

When these Bongard Problems are laid out in six boxes versus six boxes format, usually the boxes are arranged so as to highlight this correspondence; either

A B | A B

E F | E F

G H | G H

or

A B | B A

E F | F E

G H | H G.

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

It is common for Bongard Problems to present left examples on the left side and corresponding altered versions of those examples on the right side, tweaked only slightly, to highlight the difference and make the solution easier to see (BP565).

This is very common for more abstract problems, with a wide range of possible examples in different contexts, for example BP360. Showing two versions of the same thing, one on the left and one on the right, helps a person interpret what that thing is meant to be; whatever qualities vary between the two in the pair must be relevant. This leads to arguably invalid Problems; if one could not sort an example according to the solution property without seeing its corresponding counter-example, the BP is not actually valid. Most very abstract Problems run on the borderline of being invalid.

Any of these Problems could be remade as a Bongard Problem in which left examples are the shown pairs. For example BP360 would turn into "a pair consisting of the ordered version of something and the chaotic version of the same thing vs. a pair of things not satisfying this relationship." This would turn any invalid Problem, in the way described above, into a valid one.

When these Bongard Problems are laid out in six boxes versus six boxes format, usually the boxes are arranged so as to highlight this correspondence; either

A B | A B

E F | E F

G H | G H

or

A B | B A

E F | F E

G H | H G.

Bongard Problems such that each positive example corresponds to a negative example version (and vice versa).

Bongard Problems such that each positive example corresponds to a negative example version of itself (and vice versa).

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

It is common for Bongard Problems to present left examples on the left side and corresponding versions of those examples on the right side, only slightly tweaked, to highlight the difference and make the solution easier to see (BP565).

This is very common for more abstract problems, with a wide range of possible examples in different contexts, for example BP360. Showing two versions of the same thing, one on the left and one on the right, helps a person interpret what that thing is meant to be; whatever qualities vary between the two in the pair must be relevant. This leads to arguably invalid Problems; if one could not sort an example according to the solution property without seeing its corresponding counter-example, the BP is not actually valid. Most very abstract Problems run on the borderline of being invalid.

Any of these Problems could be remade as a Bongard Problem in which left examples are the shown pairs. For example BP360 would turn into "a pair consisting of the ordered version of something and the chaotic version of the same thing vs. a pair of things not satisfying this relationship." This would turn any invalid Problem, in the way described above, into a valid one.

When these Bongard Problems are laid out in six boxes versus six boxes format, usually the boxes are arranged so as to highlight this correspondence; either

A B | A B

E F | E F

G H | G H

or

A B | B A

E F | F E

G H | H G.

Aaron David Fairbanks

BPs with "world" some drawing made out of line segments (crossings allowed) vs. other Bongard Problems.

BPs with "world" some drawing made out of line segments vs. other Bongard Problems.

Aaron David Fairbanks