BPs sorted left are tagged with the keyword "abstract" on the OEBP. The solution is not an easily-checked or concretely-defined geometrical or numerical property in pictures.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP507 BP508 BP509 BP510 BP511  *  BP513 BP514 BP515 BP516 BP517

abstract, meta (see left/right), links, keyword, left-self, sideless

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 Bongard Problems have the keyword "left-unknowable" on the OEBP.

Right-sorted Bongard Problems have the keyword "right-unknowable".

Think of searching for needles in endless haystacks. You can be sure a haystack has a needle by finding it, but you can never be sure a haystack does not have a needle.

When a Bongard Problem is "left-unknowable", individual examples cannot be determined for certain to fit left, by any means. The author of the Bongard Problem just chooses some examples that seem to fit left. (See also the noproofs keyword.)

It is very extreme for this to apply to all examples without exception. Often a Bongard Problem is close to being purely left-unknowable, but a few examples spoil it by being obviously disqualified from the right side for some reason.

It is natural for a person to guess the solution to an unknowable Bongard Problem before actually understanding all the knowable examples, taking some of them on faith.

As a prank, take a left- or right- unknowable Bongard Problem and put an example that actually belongs on the unknowable side on the knowable side. The solver will have to take it on faith there is some reason it fits there they are not seeing.

(The property of having this kind of sorting mistake is unknowable for left- or right- unknowable Bongard Problems.)

One interpretation of topology (a subject of mathematics -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topology ) is that a topology describes the observability of various properties. (The topological "neighborhoods" of a point are the subsets one could determine the point to be within using a finite number of measurements.) The analogue of a property that is nowhere directly observable is a "subset with empty interior". Furthermore, the fact that the negation of the property is observable corresponds to the subset being "closed".

Left- or right- unknowable Bongard Problems are generally notso Bongard Problems: an example fits on one side just in case it cannot be observed to fit on the other.

Although the descriptions of left-couldbe and right-couldbe sound similar to "left-unknowable" and "right-unknowable", they are not the same. It is the difference between a clear absence of information and perpetual uncertainty about whether there is more information to be found. For any example sorted on a "could be" side, there is a clear (knowable) absence of information whose presence would justify the example being on the other side.

Sometimes an unknowable BP can be turned into a couldbe BP by explicitly restricting the amount of available information. For example, if there were a hypothetical Bongard Problem with infinitely detailed pictures, using a low resolution for all pictures could simplify the issue of detecting some properties that would be "unknowable". Many fractal-based BPs are this way (e.g. BP1122). See keyword infinitedetail.

Right-unknowable Bongard Problems are generally left-narrow (and left-unknowable Bongard Problems are generally right-narrow).

A Bongard Problem with examples on both sides cannot be tagged both proofsrequired and left- or right- unknowable.

Many Bongard Problems are about finding rules (keyword rules)--in each panel a rule is to be found, and there are no specified limits about what kind of rule it can be or how abstract it can be. (Just like a Bongard Problem.) "There is a rule vs. there isn't" (resp. vice versa) are right- (resp. left-) unknowable. (That is, disregarding cases that obviously do not define a rule because of some trivial disqualifying reason.)

Actually, I think there is something more to be said about this. It is possible to design examples that signal there is no rule to be found. See for example EX9138 in BP1127 and EX6829 in BP829. (Related: keyword help.) Each of these examples communicates a clear rule that "doesn't count". And there is so little information shown that a person can feel confident they've noticed all the relevant details. So, contrary to how they are currently tagged, these Bongard Problems aren't strictly "unknowable"; there are some exceptional knowable cases. But being too strict about the definition of "unknowable" makes it so there aren't any examples of unknowable Bongard Problems, so it's probably better to be a bit loose. - Aaron David Fairbanks, Apr 20 2022

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP1119 BP1120 BP1121 BP1122 BP1123  *  BP1125 BP1126 BP1127 BP1128 BP1129

The perfect example is BP1163.

Interesting example of a Bongard Problem that is neither left-unknowable nor right unknowable in particular, but for which it is impossible to know whether any example fits on either side: BP1229 (translational symmetry vs. not) made with examples that can be expanded to any larger finite region the solver wants to look at. In this case, examples could only be sorted based on what they seem like (see seemslike), trusting they appear in a way that hints psychologically at what they actually are (see help).

dual, meta (see left/right), links, keyword, side, viceversa

Aaron David Fairbanks

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

In the typical "rules" Bongard Problem, it is possible to come up with many convoluted rules that fit each example, but the intended interpretation is the only simple and obvious one.

Since it is difficult to communicate a rule with little detail, "rules" Bongard Problems are usually infodense.

Typically, each example is itself a bunch of smaller examples that all obey the rule. It is the same as how a Bongard Problems relies on many examples to communicate rules; likely just one example wouldn't get the answer across.

On the other hand, in BP1157 for example, each intended rule is communicated by just one example; these rules have to be particularly simple and intuitive, and the individual examples have to be complicated enough to communicate them.

Often, each rule is communicated by showing several examples of things satisfying it. (See keywords left-narrow and right-narrow.) Contrast Bongard Problems, which are more communicative, by showing some examples satisfying the rule and some examples NOT satisfying the rule.

A "rules" Bongard Problem is often collective. Some examples may admit multiple equally plausible rules, and the correct interpretation of each example only becomes clear once the solution is known. The group of examples together improve the solver's confidence about having understood each individual one right.

It is common that there will be one or two examples with multiple reasonable interpretations due to oversight of the author.

All meta Bongard Problems are "rules" Bongard Problems.

Many other Bongard-Problem-like structures seen on the OEBP are also about recognizing a pattern. (See keyword structure.)

"Rules" Bongard Problems are abstract, although the individual rules in them may not be abstract. "Rules" Bongard Problems also usually have the keyword creativeexamples.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP1153 BP1154 BP1155 BP1156 BP1157  *  BP1159 BP1160 BP1161 BP1162 BP1163

fuzzy, meta (see left/right), links, keyword, left-self, rules

Aaron David Fairbanks

Left-sorted Problems have the keyword "miniworlds" on the OEBP.

All examples in this Problem are visual Bongard Problems with multiple objects in most panels. This is key as an intuitive set of allowable objects needs to be communicated by any one sorted image.

There is a decent degree of overlap between rules and "miniworlds", but BP1049 is an example of a "miniworlds" problem where the rule is constant across examples, and BP1155 is an example of a "rules" Problem that would not be tagged "miniworlds".

Although this Problem does sort any BP whose examples are images of Bongard Problems left, it is probably best not to consider them to avoid clutter and more unnecessary keywords being attached to them.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP1175 BP1176 BP1177 BP1178 BP1179  *  BP1181 BP1182 BP1183 BP1184 BP1185

meta (see left/right), links, keyword

visualbp [smaller | same | bigger]

Leo Crabbe

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP1239 BP1240 BP1241 BP1242 BP1243  *  BP1245 BP1246 BP1247 BP1248 BP1249

meta (see left/right), metaconcept

bp [smaller | same | bigger]

Aaron David Fairbanks