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

Right-sorted Bongard Problems have the keyword "less." They are not necessarily "bad," but we do not want more like them.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP498 BP499 BP500 BP501 BP502  *  BP504 BP505 BP506 BP507 BP508

subjective, meta (see left/right), links, keyword, oebp, right-finite, left-it, feedback, time

bp [smaller | same | bigger]

Aaron David Fairbanks

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

Call a rule "narrow" if it is likely to be noticed in a large collection of examples, without any counterexamples provided.

A collection of triangles will be recognized as such; "triangles" is a narrow rule. A collection of non-triangular shapes will just be seen as "shapes"; "not triangles" is not narrow.

Intuitively, a narrow rule seems small in comparison to the space of other related possibilities. Narrow rules tend to be phrased positively ("is [property]"), while non-narrow rules opposite narrow rules tend to be phrased negatively ("is not [property]").

Both sides of a Bongard Problem can be narrow, e.g. BP6.

Even a rule and its conceptual opposite can be narrow, e.g. BP20.

A Bongard Problem such that one side is narrow and the other side is the non-narrow opposite reads as the narrow side being a subset of the other. See BP881.

What seems like a typical example depends on expectations. (See the keyword assumesfamiliarity for Bongard Problems that require the solver to go in with special expectations.)

A person might notice the absence of triangles in a collection of just polygons, because a triangle is such a typical example of a polygon. On the other hand, a person will probably not notice the absence of 174-gons in a collection of polygons.

Typically, any example fitting a narrow rule can be changed slightly to no longer fit. (This is not always the case, however. Consider the narrow rule "is approximately a triangle".) See the keyword stable.

It is possible for a rule to be "narrow" (communicable by a properly chosen collection of examples) but not clearly communicated by a particular collection of examples satisfying it, e.g., a collection of examples that is too small to communicate it.

Note that this is not just BP514 (right-narrow) flipped.

Is it possible for a rule to be such that some collections of examples do bring it to mind, but no collection of examples unambiguously communicates it as the intended rule? Perhaps there is some border case the rule excludes, but it is not clear whether the border case was intentionally left out. The border case's absence would likely become more conspicuous with more examples (assuming the collection of examples naturally brings this border case to mind).

See BP830 for a version with pictures of Bongard Problems (miniproblems) instead of links.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP508 BP509 BP510 BP511 BP512  *  BP514 BP515 BP516 BP517 BP518

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

bp [smaller | same | bigger]

Aaron David Fairbanks

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP682 BP683 BP684 BP685 BP686  *  BP688 BP689 BP690 BP691 BP692

meta (see left/right), links, metaconcept, primitive, left-it, feedback

bp [smaller | same | bigger]

Harry E. Foundalis

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP686 BP687 BP688 BP689 BP690  *  BP692 BP693 BP694 BP695 BP696

meta (see left/right), links, metaconcept, primitive, left-it, feedback

bp [smaller | same | bigger]

Harry E. Foundalis

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