Right:

All are "all but one are ___"; all but one are black.

All are "every other is ___"; every other is solid polygons.

All are "gradually becoming ___"; gradually becoming thickly outlined.

Left:

All but one are "all but one are ___".

Every other is "every other is ___".

Gradually becoming "gradually becoming ___".

Here is another way of putting it:

Call it "meta" when the whole imitates its parts, and call it "doubly-meta" when the whole imitates its parts with respect to the way it imitates its parts. Left are doubly-meta, while right are just meta.

Here is a more belabored way of putting it:

Call something like "is star-shaped" a "rule". An object can satisfy a rule.

Call something like "all but one are ___" a "rule-parametrized rule". A collection of objects can satisfy a rule-parametrized rule with respect to a particular rule.

On the right: every collection fits the same rule-parametrized rule (with respect to various rules); furthermore the collection of collections fits that same rule-parametrized rule (with respect to some unrelated rule that collections can satisfy).

On the left: The collection of collections fits a rule-parametrized rule with respect to the rule of fitting that rule-parametrized rule (with respect to various rules).

Previously, an unintended solution to this BP was "not all groups share some noticeable property vs. all do." It is hard to come up with examples foiling this alternative solution because the rule-parametrized rule (see explanation above) usually has to do with not all objects in the collection fitting the rule. (See BP568, which is about BP ideas that are always overridden by a simpler solution.) The example EX10108 "all five are 'all five are ___'" was added, foiling the alternative solution.

The right side of this Problem is a subset of BP999^left.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP993 BP994 BP995 BP996 BP997  *  BP999 BP1000 BP1001 BP1002 BP1003

"Odd one out with respect to what property is the odd one out" would not fit left: even though this example does seem doubly-meta, it is not doubly-meta in the right way. There is no odd one out with respect to the property of having an odd one out.

Similarly, consider "gradual transition with respect to what the gradual transition is between", etc. Instead of having the form "X 'X __' ", this is more like "X [the __ appearing in 'X __']". Examples like these two could make for a different Bongard Problem.

hard, unwordable, challenge, overriddensolution, infodense, contributepairs, funny, rules, miniworlds

zoom in right

Aaron David Fairbanks

Rhetorical question: Where would the collection of left examples of this Bongard Problem be sorted by this Bongard Problem? (The question is whether these examples considered together satisfy the pattern that all the parts do, namely that the whole satisfies the pattern that all the parts do.)

See BP793 and BP1004 for similar paradoxes.

See BP1005 for the version about only numerical properties; examples in that BP would be sorted the same way here that they are there.

See BP1003 for a similar idea. Rather than the collection of collections imitating the individual collections, BP1003 is about the total combined collection imitating the individual collections. A picture showing (for example) an odd number of even-numbered groups would be sorted differently by these two BPs.

Also see BP1004, which is likewise about the whole satisfying the same rule as its parts, but there the parts don't themselves have to be collections; there the parts are just plain individual objects. The panels in BP999 (this BP) should be sorted the same way in BP1004.

See BP1002, which is about only visual self-similarity instead of more general conceptual "self-similarity".

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP994 BP995 BP996 BP997 BP998  *  BP1000 BP1001 BP1002 BP1003 BP1004

nice, abstract, creativeexamples, left-narrow, rules, miniworlds

[smaller | same | bigger]
zoom in left | zoom in right

Aaron David Fairbanks

See BP1004 for a Problem about conceptual self-similarity instead of visual self-similarity.

See BP188 for a similar Problem restricted to shape outlines made of shape outlines.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP997 BP998 BP999 BP1000 BP1001  *  BP1003 BP1004 BP1005 BP1006 BP1007

easy, nice, fuzzy, abstract, anticomputer, concept, traditional

Aaron David Fairbanks

Since it is most intuitive to imagine spatially squishing together all the collections in the process of combining them into one big collection, avoid rules that involve relative spatial positionings of objects.

Contrast BP999, which is very similar. There, when considering the whole picture, the collections are to be treated as individual objects; here, when considering the whole picture, the collections are to be combined into one big collection. A picture showing (for example) an odd number of even-numbered groups would be sorted differently by these two BPs.

Also contrast BP1004, which is about a collection of plain objects obeying the same rule as all the objects (instead of a collection of [collections of objects] obeying the same rule as all the [collections of objects]).

See BP1006 for the version with only number-based properties. All panels in that Bongard Problem fit the same way in this Bongard Problem as well.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP998 BP999 BP1000 BP1001 BP1002  *  BP1004 BP1005 BP1006 BP1007 BP1008

nice, abstract, notso, creativeexamples, rules, miniworlds

[smaller | same | bigger]

Leo Crabbe, Aaron David Fairbanks

The "whole" is the entire panel including the bounding box. A "part" is some region either stylistically different or amply separated in space from everything else. Smaller parts-within-parts don't count as parts.

Rhetorical question: Where would the collection of left examples of this Bongard Problem be sorted by this Bongard Problem? (The question is whether these examples considered together satisfy the pattern that all the parts do, namely that the whole satisfies the pattern that all the parts do.)

See BP793 and BP999 for similar paradoxes.

See BP1006 for the version about numerical properties where each part is a cluster of dots; examples in that BP would be sorted the same way here that they are there.

See BP999 and BP1003 for versions where each object is itself a collection of objects, so that the focus is on rules specifically pertaining to collections (e.g. "all the objects are different").

See BP1002 for a Bongard Problem about only visual self-similarity instead of conceptual self-similarity.

The rule shown in each panel is "narrow" (see BP513^left and BP514^left).

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP999 BP1000 BP1001 BP1002 BP1003  *  BP1005 BP1006 BP1007 BP1008 BP1009

nice, abstract, anticomputer, creativeexamples, left-narrow, rules, miniworlds

Aaron David Fairbanks

This is a version of BP999 with only numbers.

Contrast BP1006, which is very similar.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP1000 BP1001 BP1002 BP1003 BP1004  *  BP1006 BP1007 BP1008 BP1009 BP1010

nice, notso, hardsort, left-narrow, rules

[smaller | same | bigger]
zoom in left | zoom in right

Aaron David Fairbanks

This is a version of BP1003 with only numbers.

Contrast BP1005, which is very similar.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP1001 BP1002 BP1003 BP1004 BP1005  *  BP1007 BP1008 BP1009 BP1010 BP1011

nice, hardsort, left-narrow, rules

[smaller | same | bigger]
zoom in left | zoom in right

Leo Crabbe, Aaron David Fairbanks

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP1053 BP1054 BP1055 BP1056 BP1057  *  BP1059 BP1060 BP1061 BP1062 BP1063

arbitrary, perfect, infinitedetail

recursive_boxes [smaller | same | bigger]

Aaron David Fairbanks

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP1054 BP1055 BP1056 BP1057 BP1058  *  BP1060 BP1061 BP1062 BP1063 BP1064

perfect, infinitedetail

recursive_boxes [smaller | same | bigger]

Aaron David Fairbanks

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP1055 BP1056 BP1057 BP1058 BP1059  *  BP1061 BP1062 BP1063 BP1064 BP1065

perfect, infinitedetail

recursive_boxes [smaller | same | bigger]

Aaron David Fairbanks