Search: +ex:BP894
|
Displaying 1-9 of 9 results found.
|
page 1
|
|
Sort:
id
Format:
long
Filter:
(all | no meta | meta)
Mode:
(words | no words)
|
|
|
|
|
BP512 |
| Abstract Bongard Problems vs. concrete visual Bongard Problems. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
BP520 |
| Bongard Problems whose sorting of examples depends on subjective opinion vs. not so. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
BP537 |
| Meta Bongard Problems vs. other Bongard Problems. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
BP789 |
| Bongard Problems in which all examples have the same format, a specific multi-part structure vs. other Bongard Problems. |
|
| |
|
|
COMMENTS
|
Left examples have the keyword "structure" on the OEBP.
Examples of "structures": Bongard Problem, Bongard Problem with extra unsorted panel ("Bongard's Dozen"), 4-panel analogy grid, sequence of objects with a quantity changing by a constant amount.
If the solver hasn't become familiar with the featured structure, the Bongard Problem's solution may seem convoluted or inelegant. (See keyword assumesfamiliarity.) Once the solver gets used to seeing a particular structure it becomes easier to read that structure and solve Bongard Problems featuring it.
A Bongard Problem can non-verbally teach someone how a particular structure works, showing valid examples of that structure versus non-examples. E.g., BP968 for the structure of Bongard Problems and BP981 for the structure of analogy grids. |
|
CROSSREFS
|
Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP784 BP785 BP786 BP787 BP788  *  BP790 BP791 BP792 BP793 BP794
|
|
KEYWORD
|
meta (see left/right), links, keyword
|
|
WORLD
|
bp [smaller | same | bigger]
|
|
AUTHOR
|
Aaron David Fairbanks
|
|
|
|
|
BP866 |
| Bongard Problems that admit examples fitting the solution in various creative ways vs. not so. |
|
| |
|
|
COMMENTS
|
Left-sorted Bongard Problems have the keyword "creativeexamples" on the OEBP.
Be encouraged to contribute new interesting examples to Bongard Problems with this keyword.
There is much overlap with the keyword hardsort.
This is what it usually means to say examples fit on (e.g.) the left of a Bongard Problem in various creative ways: there is no (obvious) general method to determine a left-fitting example fits left.
There is a related idea in computability theory: a "non recursively enumerable" property is one that cannot in general be checked by a computer algorithm.
But keep in mind the tag "creativeexamples" is supposed to mean something less formal. For example, it requires no ingenuity for a human being to check when a simple shape is convex or concave (so BP4 is not labelled "creativeexamples"). However, it is not as if we use an algorithm to do this, like a computer. (It is not even clear what an "algorithm" would mean in this context, since it is ambiguous both what class of shapes the Bongard Problem sorts and how that would be encoded into a computer program's input. There are usually many options and ambiguities like this whenever one tries to formalize the content of a Bongard Problem.) |
|
CROSSREFS
|
Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP861 BP862 BP863 BP864 BP865  *  BP867 BP868 BP869 BP870 BP871
|
|
KEYWORD
|
notso, meta (see left/right), links, keyword
|
|
WORLD
|
bp [smaller | same | bigger]
|
|
AUTHOR
|
Aaron David Fairbanks
|
|
|
|
|
BP867 |
| Bongard Problem with solution that can be naturally expressed as "___ vs. not so" vs. not so. |
|
| | | BP6
| | Qat | blimp | notso |
|
|
|
COMMENTS
|
Left-sorted BPs have the keyword "notso" on the OEBP.
This meta Bongard Problem is about Bongard Problems featuring two rules that are conceptual opposites.
Sometimes both sides could be seen as the "not" side: consider, for example, two definitions of the same Bongard Problem, "shape has hole vs. does not" and "shape is not filled vs. is". It is possible (albeit perhaps unnatural) to phrase the solution either way when the left and right sides partition all possible relevant examples cleanly into two groups (see the allsorted keyword).
When one property is "positive-seeming" and its opposite is "negative-seeming", it usually means the positive property would be recognized without counter-examples (e.g. a collection of triangles will be seen as such), while the negative property wouldn't be recognized without counter-examples (e.g. a collection of "non-triangle shapes" will just be interpreted as "shapes" unless triangles are shown opposite them).
BP513 (keyword left-narrow) is about Bongard Problems whose left side can be recognized without the right side. When a Bongard Problem is left-narrow and not "right-narrow that usually makes the property on the left seem positive and the property on the right seem negative.
The OEBP by convention has preferred the "positive-seeming" property (when there is one) to be on the left side.
All in all, the keyword "notso" should mean:
1) If the Bongard Problem is "narrow" on at least one side, then it is left-narrow.
2) The right side is the conceptual negation of the left side.
If a Bongard Problem's solution is "[Property A] vs. not so", the "not so" side is everything without [Property A] within some suitable context. A Bongard Problem "triangles vs. not so" might only include simple shapes as non-triangles; it need not include images of boats as non-triangles. It is not necessary for all the kitchen sink to be thrown on the "not so" side (although it is here). |
|
CROSSREFS
|
See BP1001 for a version sorting pictures of Bongard Problems (miniproblems) instead of links to pages on the OEBP. (This version is a little different. In BP1001, the kitchen sink of all other possible images is always included on the right "not so" side, rather than a context-dependent conceptual negation.)
Contrast keyword viceversa.
"[Property A] vs. not so" Bongard Problems are often allsorted, meaning they sort all relevant examples--but not always, because sometimes there exist ambiguous border cases, unclear whether they fit [Property A] or not.
Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP862 BP863 BP864 BP865 BP866  *  BP868 BP869 BP870 BP871 BP872
|
|
KEYWORD
|
notso, meta (see left/right), links, keyword, left-self, funny
|
|
WORLD
|
everything [smaller | same] zoom in left
|
|
AUTHOR
|
Aaron David Fairbanks
|
|
|
|
|
BP895 |
| Meta Bongard Problems that sort Bongard Problems based on other information than just their solutions (e.g. what format the Bongard Problem is, or what specific examples are shown in it) vs. Meta Bongard Problems that sort Bongard Problems purely based on solution. |
|
| |
|
|
COMMENTS
|
Left-sorted Bongard Problems have the keyword "presentationmatters" on the OEBP.
Right-sorted Bongard Problems have the keyword "presentationinvariant" on the OEBP.
Meta Bongard problems that sort Bongard Problems purely based on their solutions usually have two versions in the database: one that sorts images of Bongard Problems and one that sorts links to pages on the OEBP. If both versions exist, users should make them cross-reference one another. (Meta Bongard Problems that sort images of Bongard Problems have the keyword miniproblems, whereas meta Bongard Problems that sort links to OEBP pages have the keyword links.)
For meta-pages on the OEBP that sort other pages on the OEBP (keyword links), "presentationmatters" means factoring in content like the BP number, the currently uploaded examples, the wording of the title, the description, and so on, rather than just the solution (that is, how the page would sort all potential examples). This is unusual.
"One solution vs. multiple solutions" (BP828) seems like a border-case. - Aaron David Fairbanks, Aug 01 2020 |
|
CROSSREFS
|
See BP1010 (projectionmatters versus 3d) for a similar idea: there 2D representations are to 3D objects as here Bongard Problems are to Bongard Problem solutions.
Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP890 BP891 BP892 BP893 BP894  *  BP896 BP897 BP898 BP899 BP900
|
|
KEYWORD
|
fuzzy, meta (see left/right), links, keyword, right-self, sideless, metameta, right-it, dependence, presentationinvariant
|
|
WORLD
|
metabp [smaller | same | bigger]
|
|
AUTHOR
|
Jago Collins
|
|
|
|
|
BP919 |
| BP Pages on the OEBP where users are advised to upload left examples and right examples in pairs vs. other BP Pages. |
|
| |
|
|
COMMENTS
|
Left examples have the keyword "contributepairs" on the OEBP.
When this keyword is added to a Problem, OEBP users are advised to add a corresponding right example for every left example they add and vice versa.
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 (see keyword help).
This is common in more abstract Bongard Problems that admit a wide range of examples, a variety of different styles or types (e.g. 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 in the context of the Bongard Problem; whatever qualities vary between the two in the pair must be relevant.
If a person cannot sort an example according to the solution property without seeing its corresponding opposite example, the Bongard Problem is invalid (see https://www.oebp.org/invalid.php ). There is no one rule dividing the sides; the solution is not a method to determine whether an arbitrary example fits left or right. See also Bongard Problems with the keyword collective, which are similarly borderline-invalid.
A BP in which each left example corresponds to a right example and vice versa could be remade as a Bongard Problem in which the left examples are the 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 process would turn a Bongard Problem that is invalid in the sense described above into a valid one.
(See keyword orderedpair.)
In some "contributepairs" Bongard Problems there really is a natural choice of left version for every right example and vice versa (see keyword dual); in others the choice is artificially imposed by the Bongard Problem creator.
When "contributepairs" Bongard Problems are laid out in the format with a grid of boxes on either side of a dividing line, the boxes may be 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. |
|
CROSSREFS
|
Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP914 BP915 BP916 BP917 BP918  *  BP920 BP921 BP922 BP923 BP924
|
|
KEYWORD
|
meta (see left/right), links, keyword, oebp, right-self, instruction
|
|
WORLD
|
bppage [smaller | same | bigger] zoom in left (correspondence_bp)
|
|
AUTHOR
|
Aaron David Fairbanks
|
|
|
|
|
BP1111 |
| Bongard Problem requires solver to already be interpreting all examples in a specific way for the answer to seem simple vs. not so. |
|
| |
|
|
COMMENTS
|
Left-sorted Bongard Problems have the keyword "assumesfamiliarity" on the OEBP.
Sometimes all the examples in a Bongard Problem need to be interpreted a certain way for the Bongard Problem to make sense. Only once the representation is understood, the idea seems simple.
For example, all meta Bongard Problems (Bongard Problems sorting other Bongard Problems) assume the solver interprets the examples as Bongard Problems.
TO DO: Maybe it is best to stop putting the label "assumesfamiliarity" on all meta-Bongard Problems. There are so many of them. It may be better to only use the "assumesfamiliarity" keyword on meta-BPs for a further assumption than just that all examples are interpreted as Bongard Problems. - Aaron David Fairbanks, Feb 11 2021 |
|
CROSSREFS
|
Many Bongard Problems in which all examples take the same format (keyword structure) assume the solver already knows how to read that format.
Some Bongard Problems assume the solver will be able to understand symbolism that is consistent between examples (keyword consistentsymbols).
Bongard Problems tagged math often assume the solver is familiar with a certain representation of a math idea.
Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP1106 BP1107 BP1108 BP1109 BP1110  *  BP1112 BP1113 BP1114 BP1115 BP1116
|
|
EXAMPLE
|
BP1032: The solution should really read "Assuming all images are Bongard Problems sorting each natural number left or right ..." This Bongard Problem makes sense to someone who has been solving a series of similar BPs, but otherwise there is no reason to automatically read a collection of numbers as standing for a larger collection of numbers. |
|
KEYWORD
|
fuzzy, meta (see left/right), links, keyword
|
|
WORLD
|
bp [smaller | same | bigger]
|
|
AUTHOR
|
Aaron David Fairbanks
|
|
|
|
Welcome |
Solve |
Browse |
Lookup |
Recent |
Links |
Register |
Contact
Contribute |
Keywords |
Concepts |
Worlds |
Ambiguities |
Transformations |
Invalid Problems |
Style Guide |
Goals |
Glossary
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|