"True" vs. "false."

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP388 BP389 BP390 BP391 BP392  *  BP394 BP395 BP396 BP397 BP398

nice, fuzzy, abstract, collective, contributepairs, traditional, rules, miniworlds, dithering

Jago Collins

This is the "easier version" of BP801.

All numbers on the left are canonical mathematical constants, i.e. there are no totally arbitrary ratios, with images below featuring those ratios.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP500 BP501 BP502 BP503 BP504  *  BP506 BP507 BP508 BP509 BP510

fuzzy, math

Aaron David Fairbanks

Bongard Problems sorted left have the keyword "precise" on the OEBP.

Bongard Problems sorted right have the keyword "fuzzy" on the OEBP.

In an precise Bongard Problem, any relevant example is either clearly sorted left, clearly sorted right, or clearly not sorted.

(All relevant examples clearly sorted either left or right is the keyword allsorted.)

How can it be decided whether or not a rule is precise? How can it be decided whether or not a rule classifies all "examples that are relevant"? There needs to be another rule to determine which examples the original rule intends to sort. Bongard Problems by design communicate ideas without fixing that context ahead of time. The label "precise" can only mean a Bongard Problem's rule seems precise to people who see it. (This "precise vs. fuzzy" Bongard Problem is fuzzy.)

In an precise "less than ___ vs. greater than ___" Bongard Problem (keyword spectrum), the division between the sides is usually an apparent threshold. For example, there is an intuitive threshold between acute and obtuse angles (see e.g. BP292).

As a rule of thumb, do not consider imperfections of hand drawn images (keyword ignoreimperfections) when deciding whether a Bongard Problem is precise or fuzzy. Just because one can draw a square badly does not mean "triangle vs. quadrilateral" (BP6) should be labelled fuzzy; similar vagueness arises in all hand-drawn Bongard Problems. (For Bongard Problems in which fine subtleties of drawings, including small imperfections, are meant to be considered, use the keyword perfect.)

Sometimes the way a Bongard Problem would sort certain examples is an unsolved problem in mathematics. (See e.g. BP820.) There is a precise criterion that has been used to verify each sorted example fits where it fits (some kind of mathematical proof); however, where some examples fit is still unknown. Whether or not such a Bongard Problem should be labelled "precise" might be debated.

(Technical note: some properties are known to be undecidable, and sometimes the decidability itself is unknown. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem .)

(See the keyword proofsrequired.)

One way to resolve this ambiguity is to define "precise" as meaning that once people decide where an example belongs for a reason, they will all agree about it.

Sometimes the class of all examples in a Bongard Problem is imprecise, but, despite that, the rule sorting those examples is precise. Say, for some potential new example, it is unclear whether it should be included in the Bongard Problem at all, but, if it were included, it would be clear where it should be sorted (or that it should be left unsorted). A Bongard Problem like this can still be tagged "precise".

(If all examples are clearly sorted except for some example for which it is unclear whether it belongs to the class of relevant examples, the situation becomes ambiguous.)

On the other hand, sometimes the class of all examples is very clear, with an obvious boundary. (Keyword preciseworld.)

There is a subtle distinction to draw between Bongard Problems that are precise to the people making them and Bongard Problems that are precise to the people solving them. A Bongard Problem (particularly a non-allsorted one) might be labeled "precise" on the OEBP because the description and the listed ambiguous examples explicitly forbid sorting certain border cases; however, someone looking at the Bongard Problem without access to the OEBP page containing the definition would not be aware of this. It may or may not be obvious that certain examples were intentionally left out of the Bongard Problem. A larger collection of examples may make it more clear that a particularly blatant potential border case was left out intentionally.

See BP876 for the version with pictures of Bongard Problems instead of links to pages on the OEBP.

See both and neither for specific ways an example can be classified as unsorted in an "precise" Bongard Problem.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP503 BP504 BP505 BP506 BP507  *  BP509 BP510 BP511 BP512 BP513

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

bp [smaller | same | bigger]

Aaron David Fairbanks

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

A Bongard Problem is labelled "allsorted" when the type of thing it sorts is partitioned unambiguously and without exception into two groups.

Similarly to using the precise and fuzzy keywords, calling a Bongard Problem "allsorted" is a subjective/intuitive judgment. The collection of all relevant potential examples is not clearly delineated anywhere.

(Sometimes it's ambiguous whether to consider certain examples that are ambiguously sorted relevant.)

The solution to an "allsorted" Bongard Problem can usually be re-phrased as "___ vs. not so" (see the keyword notso).

But not every "___ vs. not so" Bongard Problem should be labelled "allsorted"; there could be ambiguous border cases in a "___ vs. not so" Bongard Problem.

Bongard Problems in which the two sides are so different that there is no middle ground between them (keyword gap) are sometimes still labelled "allsorted", since the intuitive pool of all relevant examples just amounts to the two unrelated sides. But some "gap" Bongard Problems are not like that; for example sometimes there are more related classes of examples besides the two shown.

Sometimes the class of all examples in a Bongard Problem is imprecise, but, despite that, the rule sorting those examples is precise. Say, for some potential new example, it is unclear whether it should be included in the Bongard Problem at all, but, if it were included, it would be clear where it should be sorted. A Bongard Problem like this can still be tagged "allsorted".

On the other hand, sometimes the class of all examples is very clear, with an obvious boundary. (Keyword preciseworld.)

In deciding where to sort an example, we think about it until we come to a conclusion; an example isn't here considered ambiguous just because someone might have a hard time with it (keyword hardsort).

However, sometimes the way a Bongard Problem would sort certain examples is an unsolved problem in mathematics, and it may be unknown whether there is even a solution. Whether or not such a Bongard Problem should be labelled "allsorted" might be debated.

(See the keyword proofsrequired.)

One way to resolve this ambiguity is to redefine "allsorted" as meaning that once people decide where an example belongs, it will be on one of the two sides, and they will all agree about it.

There is a distinction to be made between a non-"allsorted" Bongard Problem that could be made "allsorted" by making (finitely many) more examples sorted (thereby modifying or clarifying the solution of the Bongard Problem) and one such that this is not possible while maintaining a comparably simple solution. The former kind would often be labelled precise, in particular when these border cases have been explicitly forbidden from being sorted in the Bongard Problem's definition.

For instance, discrete Bongard Problems that are not allsorted usually fall into the former category.

See BP875 for the version with pictures of Bongard Problems instead of links to pages on the OEBP.

"Allsorted" implies precise.

"Allsorted" and both are mutually exclusive.

"Allsorted" and neither are mutually exclusive.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP504 BP505 BP506 BP507 BP508  *  BP510 BP511 BP512 BP513 BP514

fuzzy, meta (see left/right), links, keyword, right-self, sideless, right-it, feedback

bp [smaller | same | bigger]

Aaron David Fairbanks

Left-sorted BPs have the keyword "noisy" on the OEBP. Right-sorted examples have the keyword "minimal."

Noisy Bongard Problems include extra details varying between examples that distract from the solution property; more specifically noise is properties independent of the solution property that vary between examples. Minimalist Bongard Problems only vary details absolutely necessary to communicate the solution.

"Noisy" is different than the kind of distraction mentioned at distractingworld, which means the class of examples is distractingly specific, irrelevant to the solution, rather than that there are extra distracting properties changing between examples.

Bongard Problems have varying degrees of noisiness. Only include here BPs that are very noisy or very minimal.

See BP827 for the version with pictures of Bongard Problems (miniproblems) instead of links to pages on the OEBP.

See BP845 for noise in sequences of quantity increase.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP506 BP507 BP508 BP509 BP510  *  BP512 BP513 BP514 BP515 BP516

fuzzy, meta (see left/right), links, keyword, sideless

bp [smaller | same | bigger]

Harry E. Foundalis, Aaron David Fairbanks

All examples are black and white images, partitioned by lines such that crossing a line switches the background color and the foreground color. (Sometimes it is not clear which is "background" and which is "foreground".) In the space between two dividing lines, there is a black and white scene; the outlines of the shapes are curves dividing black from white. Images sorted left are such that each outline-curve present in a scene that comes in contact non-tangentially with a dividing line continues across the dividing line, across which the black and white sides of it switch.

Examples (especially right) usually have ambiguity to some degree; depending on how a person reads the images, dividing lines may be confused for curves within a scene.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP519 BP520 BP521 BP522 BP523  *  BP525 BP526 BP527 BP528 BP529

fuzzy, unwordable, anticomputer, traditional, blackwhiteinvariant

Aaron David Fairbanks

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

Although everything is arguably related to math, these BP solutions include content that people don't inherently understand without learning at least some mathematics.

Left examples do not technically have "culturally-dependent" content (keyword culture), but knowledge and previous learning plays a role in how easy they are to solve.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP566 BP567 BP568 BP569 BP570  *  BP572 BP573 BP574 BP575 BP576

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

bp [smaller | same | bigger]

Aaron David Fairbanks

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP807 BP808 BP809 BP810 BP811  *  BP813 BP814 BP815 BP816 BP817

easy, fuzzy, abstract, notso, stretch, anticomputer, subjective, invalid, experimental, funny, dithering

Aaron David Fairbanks

This is a very fuzzy definition. Some left examples arguably should be placed on the right, since the particular way they are represented is arbitrary--the Platonic solids EX6730 and primes EX6734 especially, as these show arbitrary placement and arrangement of objects. Furthermore if arbitrary representations are allowed one cannot be sure for example the right hand drawing of random numbers EX6740 does not represent "numbers" in general. Still this Bongard Problem has been solved by people.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP808 BP809 BP810 BP811 BP812  *  BP814 BP815 BP816 BP817 BP818

fuzzy, abstract, stretch, math, solved, collective, experimental, dithering

Aaron David Fairbanks

Or, perhaps more concretely, "Depiction of object with some symmetry (invariance under transformation) vs. depiction of object with no simple symmetries."

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP842 BP843 BP844 BP845 BP846  *  BP848 BP849 BP850 BP851 BP852

nice, fuzzy, abstract, math, concept, collective, dithering

Leo Crabbe