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

All of Bongard's original Problems have whitespace around the border of all examples.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP1191 BP1192 BP1193 BP1194 BP1195  *  BP1197 BP1198 BP1199 BP1200 BP1201

meta (see left/right), links, keyword

Aaron David Fairbanks

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

The repositioned content has to stay within the box. If an example in a Bongard Problem features content touching a border (keyword bordercontent), then that prevents the contents from being shifted in that direction.

If a Bongard Problem has the keyword "absoluteposition", then it likely has the keyword boundingbox.

If a Bongard Problem has the keyword boundingbox and does not have the keyword bordercontent, then it likely has the keyword "absoluteposition".

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP1190 BP1191 BP1192 BP1193 BP1194  *  BP1196 BP1197 BP1198 BP1199 BP1200

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

Aaron David Fairbanks

Alternatively, BP pages on the OEBP with number less than or equal to 394 vs. other BP pages.

https://www.foundalis.com/res/bps/bpidx.htm

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP1189 BP1190 BP1191 BP1192 BP1193  *  BP1195 BP1196 BP1197 BP1198 BP1199

Foundalis's collection includes all Bongard Problems by Bongard.

meta (see left/right), links, right-self, time

Aaron David Fairbanks

Left-sorted Bongard Problems are tagged with the keyword "preciseworld" on the OEBP.

The keyword "preciseworld" basically means: if a new Bongard Problem were created to sort whether or not examples fit in the pool of examples in the original Bongard Problem, it would be tagged precise.

For a Bongard Problem fitting left, the intended class of examples sorted by the Bongard Problem is clear-cut.

For a Bongard Problem fitting right, there isn't any obvious boundary to take as delimiting the pool of potential examples. There is an imprecise fading of relevancy rather than a natural cutoff point.

Sometimes there are specific notable cases of potential examples for which there is ambiguity about whether they belong.

For example, the empty square (zero dots) has been left out of BP989. This is perhaps the only obvious example that is ambiguous as to whether it should be considered as belonging to the pool of examples shown in the Bongard Problem (or any similar dot-counting Bongard Problem).

(There would be no ambiguity if it were actually included in the Bongard Problem.)

(Whether or not zero seems like an obvious example also has a cultural component (see culture); someone who is not accustomed think of zero as a number might not see this as ambiguous at all.)

Larger pools of examples make the absence of notable border cases like this more conspicuous and intentional-seeming. (See also discussion at left-narrow.) But expanding the pool of examples cannot resolve certain border cases: if the rule of the Bongard Problem by nature leaves unsorted a potential example that is a border case for even fitting in with the rest of the examples, its absence doesn't communicate anything; whether it belongs with the pool of examples remains ambiguous.

It is tempting to make another another "allsortedworld" analogous to allsorted. But the pool of relevant examples fitting in a Bongard Problem is like a Bongard Problem with only one side: a collection satisfying some rule. Would there be any difference between precise and allsorted for a Bongard Problem with only one side?

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP1185 BP1186 BP1187 BP1188 BP1189  *  BP1191 BP1192 BP1193 BP1194 BP1195

Bongard Problems featuring generic shapes ( https://oebp.org/search.php?q=world:fill_shape ) have not usually been labelled "preciseworld". (What counts as a "shape"? Can the shapes be fractally complicated, for example? What exactly are the criteria?) Nonetheless, these Bongard Problems are frequently precise.

meta (see left/right), links, keyword

Aaron David Fairbanks

Left-sorted Bongard Problems have the keyword "neither" on the OEBP.

This keyword is for Bongard Problems for which some obviously relevant case, in the same class as the shown examples, clearly would not fit in with either of the two sides.

An example falling in the threshold between a less-than/greater-than comparison (keyword spectrum) is a special case; it is easy to view such an example as belonging on both sides (keyword both) as well as neither side.

NOTE: It might be nice to have a separate keyword for tracking these special-case spectrum-based ambiguities (because they don't quite suit the keywords "both" or "neither"). - Aaron David Fairbanks, Apr 16 2022

See also both.

The keywords "neither" and allsorted are mutually exclusive.

Usually, Bongard Problems with a case that fits neither side in a clear-cut way are precise.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP1184 BP1185 BP1186 BP1187 BP1188  *  BP1190 BP1191 BP1192 BP1193 BP1194

meta (see left/right), links, keyword

Aaron David Fairbanks

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

The archetypal example is "rhombuses vs. rectangles".

Notice "rhombuses vs. rectangles" could alternatively be interpreted as "not rectangles vs. not rhombuses"; by this less natural interpretation, a square would fit on neither side (keyword neither) rather than both.

In fact, for any Bongard Problem solution "A vs. B", there are three alternative solution descriptions: "A vs. not A", "not B vs. B", and "not B vs. not A". These are not necessarily just different wordings of the same answer. For example, "rhombuses vs. not rhombuses" and "not rectangles vs. rectangles" differ on where they would sort a square. (This discrepancy between "A vs. not A" and "B vs. not B" occurs whenever "A vs. B" does not sort all relevant cases. See the keyword allsorted.)

"Is a rhombus" and "is a rectangle" are what are on the OEBP called "narrow" patterns, while "is not a rectangle" and "is not a rhombus" are not. (See keywords left-narrow and right-narrow for more explanation.)

The keywords both and allsorted are mutually exclusive.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP1183 BP1184 BP1185 BP1186 BP1187  *  BP1189 BP1190 BP1191 BP1192 BP1193

meta (see left/right), links, keyword

Aaron David Fairbanks

Any miniproblems BP with all examples in the same format will be sorted left.

See also the keyword structure.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP1160 BP1161 BP1162 BP1163 BP1164  *  BP1166 BP1167 BP1168 BP1169 BP1170

notso, meta (see left/right), links

visualbp [smaller | same | bigger]

Aaron David Fairbanks

The intended presentation is that the animations are displayed without access to the underlying GIF files, so that there is no way to tell a dot blinks besides waiting.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP1158 BP1159 BP1160 BP1161 BP1162  *  BP1164 BP1165 BP1166 BP1167 BP1168

example, animated, right-unknowable, finished, experimental, funny

Aaron David Fairbanks, Jago Collins

Bongard Problems sorted left obtain the keyword "viceversa" on the OEBP.

Contrast the keyword notso.

"Viceversa" BPs are often dual.

The solution to a less-than/greater-than quantity comparison Bongard Problem (keyword spectrum) where the two sides divide the spectrum in half can be phrased as "closer to left end of spectrum than right end vs. vice versa." Whether this is a natural way to phrase the solution depends on the kind of quantity being compared.

Here are some examples of spectra for which the "vice versa" phrasing tends to seem natural: left vs. right, up vs. down, black vs. white, higher quantity of [thing type 1] vs. higher quantity of [thing type 2].

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP1157 BP1158 BP1159 BP1160 BP1161  *  BP1163 BP1164 BP1165 BP1166 BP1167

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

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