"Imperfectionscanmatter" (left-BP913) AND "continuous" implies "pixelperfect" (left-BP947).

Although NOT "imperfectionscanmatter" (right-BP913) means little pixel-based changes should not change an example's sorting, it does not imply "continuous", because other changes (more conceptual, besides just changing pixels) may be considered small also (depending on the Bongard Problem).

"Imperfectionscanmatter" (left-BP913) AND "continuous" implies "pixelperfect" (left-BP947).

Although NOT "imperfectionscanmatter" (right-BP913) means tiny pixel-based changes do not change an example's sorting, it does not imply "continuous", because other changes (more conceptual, besides just changing pixels) may too be considered small (depending on the Bongard Problem).

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

A "small change" would be intuitively defined differently depending on the Bongard Problem, but, in general, modifying only a few pixels should always be considered a small change.

Continuous Bongard Problems tend to either be "fuzzy" (right-BP508), otherwise not be "allsorted" (right-BP509), or have a "gap" (left-BP964). No small change should outright flip an example's sorting. It IS allowed for a small change to make an example sorted slightly more ambiguously.

BP1, for example, fails this because it's possible to change nothing slightly by adding a pixel to end up with something.

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

A "small change" would be intuitively defined differently depending on the world of the Bongard Problem, but, in general, modifying only a few pixels should always be considered a small change.

Continuous Bongard Problems tend to either be "fuzzy" (right-BP508), otherwise not be "allsorted" (right-BP509), or have a "gap" (left-BP964). No small change should outright flip an example's sorting. It IS allowed for a small change to make an example sorted slightly more ambiguously.

BP1, for example, fails this because it's possible to change nothing slightly by adding a pixel to end up with something.

"Imperfectionscanmatter" (left-BP913) AND "continuous" implies "pixelperfect" (left-BP947).

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

A "small change" would be intuitively defined differently depending on the world of the Bongard Problem, but, in general, modifying only a few pixels should always be considered a small change.

Continuous Bongard Problems tend to either be "fuzzy" (right-BP508), otherwise not be "wholesort" (right-BP509), or have a "gap" (left-BP964). No small change should outright flip an example's sorting. It IS allowed for a small change to make an example sorted slightly more ambiguously.

BP1, for example, fails this because it's possible to change nothing slightly by adding a pixel to end up with something.

"Imperfectionsmatter" (left-BP913) AND "continuous" implies "pixelperfect" (left-BP947).

"Imperfectionsmatter" (left-BP913) AND "continuous" implies "pixelperfect" (left-BP947).

Bongard Problems in which small changes to examples never switch their sorting vs. other Bongard Problems.

"Literalgeometry" (left-BP913) AND "continuous" implies "pixelperfect" (left-BP947).

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

A "small change" would be intuitively defined differently depending on the world of the Bongard Problem, but, in general, modifying only a few pixels should always be considered a small change.

Continuous Bongard Problems tend to either be "fuzzy" (right-BP508), otherwise not be "whole" (right-BP509), or have a "gap" (left-BP964). No small change should outright flip an example's sorting. It IS allowed for a small change to make an example sorted slightly more ambiguously.

BP1, for example, fails this because it's possible to change nothing slightly by adding a pixel to end up with something.

Bongard Problems in which small changes to examples never affect their sorting vs. other Bongard Problems.

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

A "small change" would be intuitively defined differently depending on the world of the Bongard Problem, but, in general, modifying only a few pixels should always be considered a small change.

Continuous Bongard Problems tend to either be "fuzzy" (right-BP508), otherwise not "whole" (right-BP509), or have the two sides in totally different formats. No small change should outright flip an example's sorting. It IS allowed for a small change to make an example sorted slightly more ambiguously.

BP1, for example, fails this because it's possible to change nothing slightly by adding a pixel to end up with something.

Bongard Problems in which small changes to examples do not affect their sorting vs. other Bongard Problems.

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

A "small change" would be intuitively defined differently depending on the world of the Bongard Problem, but, in general, modifying only a few pixels should always be considered a small change.

Continuous Bongard Problems tend to either be "fuzzy" (right-BP508), otherwise not "whole" (right-BP509), or have the two sides in totally different formats. No small change should outright flip an example's sorting.

BP1, for example, fails this because it's possible to change nothing slightly by adding a pixel to end up with something.

Aaron David Fairbanks