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

Right examples have the keyword "ignoreimperfections".

Consider the difference in style between BP344 and BP24.

Hand-drawn figures in BPs are typically imperfect. A "circles vs. squares" BP may only show what are approximately circles and approximately squares. A pedant might append to the solutions of all Bongard Problems the caveat "...when figures are interpreted as the most obvious shapes they approximate."

This is the meaning of the label "ignoreimperfections". On the other hand, the label "perfect" means even the pedant would drop this caveat; either all the images are precise, or precision doesn't matter (see also keyword stable).

Even in BPs tagged "perfect", the tiny rough edges caused by image pixelation are not expected to matter. If the OEBP would indeed prefer users only upload pixel-perfect examples, a BP can be tagged with the stricter keyword pixelperfect.

E.g., for BPs having to do with smooth curves and lines, "perfect" only requires images offer the best possible approximation of those intended shapes given the resolution.

Most Bongard Problems involving small details at all would be tagged "perfect". However, this is not always so; sometimes the small details are intended to be noticed, but certain imperfections are still intended to be overlooked.

BP119 ("small correction results in circle vs. not") is an interesting example: imperfections matter with respect to the outline being closed, but imperfections do not matter with respect to circular-ness.

If a Bongard Problem on the OEBP is tagged "ignoreimperfections" -- i.e., it has imperfect hand drawings -- then other keywords are generally applied relative to the intended idea, a corrected version sans imperfect hand drawings. (For example, this is how the keywords precise and stable are applied. Alternative versions of these keywords, which factor in imperfect hand drawings, could be made instead, but that would be less useful.)

It may be better to change the definition of "perfect" so it only applies to Bongard Problems such that small changes can potentially switch an example's side / remove it from the Bongard Problem. That would cut down on the number of Bongard Problems to label "perfect". There isn't currently a single keyword for "small changes can potentially switch an example's side / remove it from the Bongard Problem", but this is basically captured by unstable or unstableworld. There is also deformunstable which uses a different notion of "small change". - Aaron David Fairbanks, Jun 16 2023

See BP508 for discussion of this topic in relation to Bongard Problems tagged precise.

Stable Bongard Problems are generally "perfect".

Pixelperfect implies "perfect".

The keywords proofsrequired and noproofs (BP1125) have a similar relationship: "noproofs" indicates a lenience for a certain kind of imperfection.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP908 BP909 BP910 BP911 BP912  *  BP914 BP915 BP916 BP917 BP918

Many Bongard Problems involving properties of curves (e.g. BP62) really are about those wiggly, imperfect curves; they qualify as "perfect" problems. On the other hand, Bongard Problems involving polygons, (e.g. BP5) often show only approximately-straight lines; they are not "perfect" problems.

meta (see left/right), links, keyword, wellfounded

visualbp [smaller | same | bigger]
zoom in left (perfect_bp)

Aaron David Fairbanks

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP905 BP906 BP907 BP908 BP909  *  BP911 BP912 BP913 BP914 BP915

meta (see left/right), links, metaconcept

bp [smaller | same | bigger]

Leo Crabbe

Swapping any 2 objects in a totally ordered triplet would change the information being conveyed. A partially ordered triplet could be parsed as an unordered pair and a 3rd object that relates to the pair.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP904 BP905 BP906 BP907 BP908  *  BP910 BP911 BP912 BP913 BP914

meta (see left/right), links

ordered_triplet_comparison_bp [smaller | same | bigger]

Leo Crabbe

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

Right examples have the keyword "unorderedtriplet" on the OEBP.

An ordered triplet can be totally ordered (swapping any 2 objects would change the information being conveyed by the panel) or partially ordered (unordered pair and a 3rd object that relates to the pair).

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP903 BP904 BP905 BP906 BP907  *  BP909 BP910 BP911 BP912 BP913

meta (see left/right), links, keyword

triplet_comparison_bp [smaller | same | bigger]
zoom in left (ordered_triplet_comparison_bp)

Leo Crabbe

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP901 BP902 BP903 BP904 BP905  *  BP907 BP908 BP909 BP910 BP911

meta (see left/right), links, metaconcept

bp [smaller | same | bigger]

Leo Crabbe

Although this Bongard Problem is self-referential, it's only because of the specific phrasing of the solution. "BP902 vs. anything else" would also work. The number 902 could have been chosen coincidentally.

See BP953, BP959.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP897 BP898 BP899 BP900 BP901  *  BP903 BP904 BP905 BP906 BP907

notso, meta (see left/right), links, left-self, left-narrow, left-finite, left-full, right-null, right-it, invalid, experimental, funny

everything [smaller | same]
zoom in left (bp902)

Leo Crabbe

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP896 BP897 BP898 BP899 BP900  *  BP902 BP903 BP904 BP905 BP906

meta (see left/right), links, metaconcept

bp [smaller | same | bigger]

Leo Crabbe

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

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

fuzzy, meta (see left/right), links, keyword, right-self, sideless, metameta, right-it, dependence, presentationinvariant

metabp [smaller | same | bigger]

Jago Collins

One left and one right example with each solution are shown for help.

This BP is fuzzy for multiple reasons. How obvious it is that an example fits a rule is subjective. Also, somebody could read the simplicity of all included examples as part of a Bongard Problem's solution. For example, the more obvious version of "square number of dots vs. non-square number of dots" could be interpreted as "square small number of dots arranged in easy-to-read way vs. non-square small number of dots arranged in easy-to-read way."

Whether this Bongard Problem solution would categorize an image of itself left or right depends on the difficulty of the solutions of the mini-Problems.

See keyword help.

See keyword hardsort.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP889 BP890 BP891 BP892 BP893  *  BP895 BP896 BP897 BP898 BP899

fuzzy, abstract, notso, subjective, meta (see left/right), miniproblems, creativeexamples, presentationmatters, assumesfamiliarity, structure, contributepairs

boxes_bpimage_three_per_side [smaller | same | bigger]

Aaron David Fairbanks

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP885 BP886 BP887 BP888 BP889  *  BP891 BP892 BP893 BP894 BP895

meta (see left/right), links, metaconcept

Leo Crabbe