Rhetorical question: Where would the collection of left examples of this Bongard Problem be sorted by this Bongard Problem? (The question is whether these examples considered together satisfy the pattern that all the parts do, namely that the whole satisfies the pattern that all the parts do.)

See BP793 and BP1004 for similar paradoxes.

See BP1005 for the version about only numerical properties; examples in that BP would be sorted the same way here that they are there.

See BP1003 for a similar idea. Rather than the collection of collections imitating the individual collections, BP1003 is about the total combined collection imitating the individual collections. A picture showing (for example) an odd number of even-numbered groups would be sorted differently by these two BPs.

Also see BP1004, which is likewise about the whole satisfying the same rule as its parts, but there the parts don't themselves have to be collections; there the parts are just plain individual objects. The panels in BP999 (this BP) should be sorted the same way in BP1004.

See BP1002, which is about only visual self-similarity instead of more general conceptual "self-similarity".

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP994 BP995 BP996 BP997 BP998  *  BP1000 BP1001 BP1002 BP1003 BP1004

nice, abstract, creativeexamples, left-narrow, rules, miniworlds

[smaller | same | bigger]
zoom in left | zoom in right

Aaron David Fairbanks

Right:

All are "all but one are ___"; all but one are black.

All are "every other is ___"; every other is solid polygons.

All are "gradually becoming ___"; gradually becoming thickly outlined.

Left:

All but one are "all but one are ___".

Every other is "every other is ___".

Gradually becoming "gradually becoming ___".

Here is another way of putting it:

Call it "meta" when the whole imitates its parts, and call it "doubly-meta" when the whole imitates its parts with respect to the way it imitates its parts. Left are doubly-meta, while right are just meta.

Here is a more belabored way of putting it:

Call something like "is star-shaped" a "rule". An object can satisfy a rule.

Call something like "all but one are ___" a "rule-parametrized rule". A collection of objects can satisfy a rule-parametrized rule with respect to a particular rule.

On the right: every collection fits the same rule-parametrized rule (with respect to various rules); furthermore the collection of collections fits that same rule-parametrized rule (with respect to some unrelated rule that collections can satisfy).

On the left: The collection of collections fits a rule-parametrized rule with respect to the rule of fitting that rule-parametrized rule (with respect to various rules).

Previously, an unintended solution to this BP was "not all groups share some noticeable property vs. all do." It is hard to come up with examples foiling this alternative solution because the rule-parametrized rule (see explanation above) usually has to do with not all objects in the collection fitting the rule. (See BP568, which is about BP ideas that are always overridden by a simpler solution.) The example EX10108 "all five are 'all five are ___'" was added, foiling the alternative solution.

The right side of this Problem is a subset of BP999^left.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP993 BP994 BP995 BP996 BP997  *  BP999 BP1000 BP1001 BP1002 BP1003

"Odd one out with respect to what property is the odd one out" would not fit left: even though this example does seem doubly-meta, it is not doubly-meta in the right way. There is no odd one out with respect to the property of having an odd one out.

Similarly, consider "gradual transition with respect to what the gradual transition is between", etc. Instead of having the form "X 'X __' ", this is more like "X [the __ appearing in 'X __']". Examples like these two could make for a different Bongard Problem.

hard, less, unwordable, challenge, overriddensolution, infodense, contributepairs, funny, rules, miniworlds

zoom in right

Aaron David Fairbanks

Zero is intentionally left out to avoid confusion (although it would fit right).

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP984 BP985 BP986 BP987 BP988  *  BP990 BP991 BP992 BP993 BP994

stub, precise, number, math, left-narrow, right-null, help, preciseworld

dots [smaller | same | bigger]

Aaron David Fairbanks

Numbers of dots on the left can be obtained by repeatedly doubling 1 dot.

Numbers of dots on the left are the number of corners of a cube in some dimension.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP983 BP984 BP985 BP986 BP987  *  BP989 BP990 BP991 BP992 BP993

stub, precise, allsorted, number, left-narrow, right-null, help, preciseworld

dots [smaller | same | bigger]

Aaron David Fairbanks

On the left, each row and column could be labeled by a certain object or concept; on the right this is not so.

More specifically: on the left, each row and each column is associated with a certain object or concept; there is a rule for combining rows and columns to give images; it would be possible without changing the rule to extend with new rows/columns or delete/reorder any existing columns. On the right, this is not so; the rule might be about how the images must relate to their neighbors, for example.

All examples show grids of squares with an image in each square, such that there is some "rule" the images within the grid obey.

Left examples are a generalized version of the analogy grids seen in BP361. Any analogy a : b :: c : d shown in a 2x2 grid will fit on the left here.

To word the solution with mathematical jargon, "defines a (simply described) map from the Cartesian product of two sets vs. not so." Another equivalent solution is "columns (alternatively, rows) illustrate a consistent set of one-input operations." It is always possible to imagine the columns as inputs and the rows as operations and vice versa.

There is a trivial way in which any example can be interpreted so that it fits on the left side: imagine each row is assigned the list of all the squares in that row and each column is assigned its number, counting from the left. But each grid has a clear rule that is simpler than this.

BP1258 is a similar idea: "any square removed could be reconstructed vs. not." Examples included left here usually fit left there, but some do not e.g. EX9998.

See BP979 for use of similar structures but with one square removed from the grid.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP976 BP977 BP978 BP979 BP980  *  BP982 BP983 BP984 BP985 BP986

nice, convoluted, unwordable, notso, teach, structure, rules, grid, miniworlds

grid_of_images_with_rule [smaller | same | bigger]
zoom in left (grid_of_analogies)

Aaron David Fairbanks

All examples show grids of squares with an image in each square, such that there is some "rule" the images within the grid obey. The "rule" can be about how the images relate to their neighbors, it can involve the position of the images in the grid, and it can involve properties of the grid considered as a whole. One square from somewhere along the edge of the grid is removed.

Intentionally left out of this Bongard Problem (or left as sorted ambiguously) are cases in which there is no clear rule, or it is not possible to deduce what the intended rule is without seeing more squares (e.g. EX8097). Due to this choice to omit those kinds of examples from the right, another acceptable solution is "it is possible to deduce the contents of the missing square once the underlying rule is understood vs. not so."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices

BP1258 is very similar: whether ALL squares can be deduced from the rest.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP974 BP975 BP976 BP977 BP978  *  BP980 BP981 BP982 BP983 BP984

nice, notso, structure, rules, miniworlds

grid_of_images_with_rule_one_on_edge_missing [smaller | same | bigger]

Aaron David Fairbanks

An "object" is everything within some black boundary.

See BP1071 for a version with only squares and with infinite nesting allowed.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP972 BP973 BP974 BP975 BP976  *  BP978 BP979 BP980 BP981 BP982

nice, precise, allsorted, creativeexamples, traditional

Aaron David Fairbanks

A similar, but different, solution is "center of mass is above the horizontal vs. center of mass is below the horizontal."

See BP971 for the version with examples rotated a quarter-turn.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP967 BP968 BP969 BP970 BP971  *  BP973 BP974 BP975 BP976 BP977

precise, spectrum, dual, handed, updown, boundingbox, blackwhite, traditional, viceversa, absoluteposition, bordercontent

Aaron David Fairbanks

A similar, but different, solution is "center of mass is on the left half vs. center of mass is on the right half."

See BP972 for the version with examples rotated a quarter-turn.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP966 BP967 BP968 BP969 BP970  *  BP972 BP973 BP974 BP975 BP976

nice, precise, spectrum, dual, handed, leftright, rotate, boundingbox, blackwhite, traditional, viceversa, absoluteposition, bordercontent

Aaron David Fairbanks

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP965 BP966 BP967 BP968 BP969  *  BP971 BP972 BP973 BP974 BP975

stub

Aaron David Fairbanks