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

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

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP821 BP822 BP823 BP824 BP825  *  BP827 BP828 BP829 BP830 BP831

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

Aaron David Fairbanks

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

Some Bongard Problems are "collective" in a more extreme way than others. Perhaps there are absolutely no individual examples that anyone would confidently sort on either side, and the solver can only be expected to get a vague gist by seeing them all together. Or perhaps in practice most people agree about where most examples should fit, even though a stretch of an argument could conceivably be made for each one fitting on the other side.

In some collective Bongard Problems, each example admits a number of possible interpretations, and the correct choice of interpretation is only clear once the solution is known. The group of examples together improve the solver's confidence about having understood each individual one right. This is common in rules Bongard Problems), where each example communicates its own rule.

Collective Bongard Problems are borderline invalid Bongard Problems (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. It is a less strict kind of Bongard Problem.

Collective implies fuzzy.

Collective Bongard Problems are often abstract".

Subjective Bongard Problems are often collective.

In some Bongard Problems, each example has a corresponding slightly different twin example on the other side (keyword contributepairs), and it is necessary to see both examples together in order to be able to sort either of them. This is related to "collective" but not quite the same. It becomes unambiguous where an example fits once its twin is seen.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP832 BP833 BP834 BP835 BP836  *  BP838 BP839 BP840 BP841 BP842

meta (see left/right), links, keyword

bp [smaller | same | bigger]

Aaron David Fairbanks

Left-sorted Bongard Problems have the keyword "consistentsymbols" on the OEBP.

A most extreme "consistentsymbols" Bongard Problem is BP121: the solution is about codes consistently symbolizing objects. However, "consistentsymbols" Bongard Problems may have solution unrelated to the symbolism; the symbolism may just be implicit, e.g. always meaning dots as numbers, always meaning stacked dots as fractions, repeatedly using the same simple drawings as shorthand to represent platonic solids. Most BPs have some symbolism in this sense; a Bongard Problem should only be labelled "consistentsymbols" if there is a relatively high amount of varied symbolism, particularly if it is visual symbolism not all people would naturally understand.

A Bongard Problem featuring a real language would be another extreme example of "consistentsymbols".

A Bongard Problem with many varied images meant to be interpreted in unique ways is not necessarily "consistentsymbols," since there is no specific-to-this-Bongard-Problem vocabulary of symbols that must be known to understand it. (Even so, some might say that how people intuitively interpret images is a vocabulary on its own.)

Sometimes, the symbolism isn't an important part of the Bongard Problem, and it just helps make the Bongard Problem easier to read (see the help keyword). For example, a Bongard Problem may include many clumps of dots, and the solution of the Problem may have to do with counting the number of dots in each clump; the Bongard Problem might build up a symbolic context by always arranging each number of dots in a consistent way (e.g. how they conventionally appear on dice faces).

"Consistentsymbols" is related to the keyword structure, a format that all examples fit that the solver needs to know how to read. In "consistentsymbols" Bongard Problems, not all examples need to fit a rigid format; instead there may be various smaller structures of meaning that only appear in some examples.

"Consistentsymbols" is related to assumesfamiliarity, BPs that require the solver to take certain assumptions about what the examples are for the solution to seem simple. A "consistentsymbols" Bongard Problem may have a very convoluted solution that involves explaining the meaning of each appearing object; however, the solution can become simple given correct interpretations of all objects. This effect works best when each object must be interpreted the same way across all boxes in order for the simple solution to fit. The comments sections of "consistentsymbols" BP pages on the OEBP ought to explain the symbolism used.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP833 BP834 BP835 BP836 BP837  *  BP839 BP840 BP841 BP842 BP843

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

visualbp [smaller | same | bigger]

Aaron David Fairbanks

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP852 BP853 BP854 BP855 BP856  *  BP858 BP859 BP860 BP861 BP862

meta (see left/right), links, metaconcept

bp [smaller | same | bigger]

Leo Crabbe

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

Sometimes instead of gauging somebody's ability to guess the pattern, a Bongard Problem might teach the pattern.

Consider a Bongard Problem whose left examples are images of a specific person's face; after seeing that Problem, one might be able to recognize that person.

A "teach" Bongard Problem (with a huge number of examples) could be taken as a training set for machine learning.

"Teach" BPs tend to be convoluted, arbitrary, cultural-knowledge-based (keyword culture), or they illustrate some insight that might be overlooked, perhaps mathematical (keyword math).

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP853 BP854 BP855 BP856 BP857  *  BP859 BP860 BP861 BP862 BP863

meta (see left/right), links, keyword

bp [smaller | same | bigger]

Aaron David Fairbanks

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

Contrast "hardsort" to infodense, where examples have a high amount of information, but perhaps after parsing all the information in the examples it is easy to sort them.

BPs labelled "hardsort" are likely to be labelled hard, but perhaps not--e.g. in BP323 the answer is easy to guess, but laborious to verify.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP859 BP860 BP861 BP862 BP863  *  BP865 BP866 BP867 BP868 BP869

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

bp [smaller | same | bigger]

Aaron David Fairbanks

Left examples have keyword "distractingworld" on the OEBP.

This is different than the kind of distraction mentioned at noisy, which means there are details that are irrelevant to the solution changing between examples.

To label a BP "distractingworld" is to judge that the type of examples are more specific than should have been necessary to communicate the same general solution idea--this involves separating out which ideas are the nice ideas the BP really ought to have been about, and which ideas seem unimportant and irrelevant. On the other hand, to label a BP "noisy" is just to notice there are extra properties varying that are independent of the solution property.

Distractingworld BPs are often arbitrary.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP860 BP861 BP862 BP863 BP864  *  BP866 BP867 BP868 BP869 BP870

BP1105 was created as an extreme example of this. All images in that BP show the same distractingly detailed background, irrelevant to the solution.

stub, fuzzy, abstract, subjective, meta (see left/right), links, keyword

bp [smaller | same | bigger]

Aaron David Fairbanks

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.)

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP861 BP862 BP863 BP864 BP865  *  BP867 BP868 BP869 BP870 BP871

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

bp [smaller | same | bigger]

Aaron David Fairbanks

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).

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

notso, meta (see left/right), links, keyword, left-self, funny

everything [smaller | same]
zoom in left

Aaron David Fairbanks

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP878 BP879 BP880 BP881 BP882  *  BP884 BP885 BP886 BP887 BP888

meta (see left/right), links, metaconcept

bp [smaller | same | bigger]

Aaron David Fairbanks