Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP633 BP634 BP635 BP636 BP637  *  BP639 BP640 BP641 BP642 BP643

meta (see left/right), links, metaconcept

bp [smaller | same | bigger]

Harry E. Foundalis

Left-sorted BPs have the keyword "notso" on the OEBP.

This meta Bongard Problem is about Bongard Problems featuring two rules that are conceptual opposites.

Sometimes both sides could be seen as the "not" side: consider, for example, two definitions of the same Bongard Problem, "shape has hole vs. does not" and "shape is not filled vs. is". It is possible (albeit perhaps unnatural) to phrase the solution either way when the left and right sides partition all possible relevant examples cleanly into two groups (see the allsorted keyword).

When one property is "positive-seeming" and its opposite is "negative-seeming", it usually means the positive property would be recognized without counter-examples (e.g. a collection of triangles will be seen as such), while the negative property wouldn't be recognized without counter-examples (e.g. a collection of "non-triangle shapes" will just be interpreted as "shapes" unless triangles are shown opposite them).

BP513 (keyword left-narrow) is about Bongard Problems whose left side can be recognized without the right side. When a Bongard Problem is left-narrow and not "right-narrow that usually makes the property on the left seem positive and the property on the right seem negative.

The OEBP by convention has preferred the "positive-seeming" property (when there is one) to be on the left side.

All in all, the keyword "notso" should mean:

1) If the Bongard Problem is "narrow" on at least one side, then it is left-narrow.

2) The right side is the conceptual negation of the left side.

If a Bongard Problem's solution is "[Property A] vs. not so", the "not so" side is everything without [Property A] within some suitable context. A Bongard Problem "triangles vs. not so" might only include simple shapes as non-triangles; it need not include images of boats as non-triangles. It is not necessary for all the kitchen sink to be thrown on the "not so" side (although it is here).

See BP1001 for a version sorting pictures of Bongard Problems (miniproblems) instead of links to pages on the OEBP. (This version is a little different. In BP1001, the kitchen sink of all other possible images is always included on the right "not so" side, rather than a context-dependent conceptual negation.)

Contrast keyword viceversa.

"[Property A] vs. not so" Bongard Problems are often allsorted, meaning they sort all relevant examples--but not always, because sometimes there exist ambiguous border cases, unclear whether they fit [Property A] or not.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP862 BP863 BP864 BP865 BP866  *  BP868 BP869 BP870 BP871 BP872

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

everything [smaller | same]
zoom in left

Aaron David Fairbanks

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

Right examples have the keyword "ignoreimperfections".

Consider the difference in style between BP344 and BP24.

Hand-drawn figures in BPs are typically imperfect. A "circles vs. squares" BP may only show what are approximately circles and approximately squares. A pedant might append to the solutions of all Bongard Problems the caveat "...when figures are interpreted as the most obvious shapes they approximate."

This is the meaning of the label "ignoreimperfections". On the other hand, the label "perfect" means even the pedant would drop this caveat; either all the images are precise, or precision doesn't matter (see also keyword stable).

Even in BPs tagged "perfect", the tiny rough edges caused by image pixelation are not expected to matter. If the OEBP would indeed prefer users only upload pixel-perfect examples, a BP can be tagged with the stricter keyword pixelperfect.

E.g., for BPs having to do with smooth curves and lines, "perfect" only requires images offer the best possible approximation of those intended shapes given the resolution.

Most Bongard Problems involving small details at all would be tagged "perfect". However, this is not always so; sometimes the small details are intended to be noticed, but certain imperfections are still intended to be overlooked.

BP119 ("small correction results in circle vs. not") is an interesting example: imperfections matter with respect to the outline being closed, but imperfections do not matter with respect to circular-ness.

If a Bongard Problem on the OEBP is tagged "ignoreimperfections" -- i.e., it has imperfect hand drawings -- then other keywords are generally applied relative to the intended idea, a corrected version sans imperfect hand drawings. (For example, this is how the keywords precise and stable are applied. Alternative versions of these keywords, which factor in imperfect hand drawings, could be made instead, but that would be less useful.)

It may be better to change the definition of "perfect" so it only applies to Bongard Problems such that small changes can potentially switch an example's side / remove it from the Bongard Problem. That would cut down on the number of Bongard Problems to label "perfect". There isn't currently a single keyword for "small changes can potentially switch an example's side / remove it from the Bongard Problem", but this is basically captured by unstable or unstableworld. There is also deformunstable which uses a different notion of "small change". - Aaron David Fairbanks, Jun 16 2023

See BP508 for discussion of this topic in relation to Bongard Problems tagged precise.

Stable Bongard Problems are generally "perfect".

Pixelperfect implies "perfect".

The keywords proofsrequired and noproofs (BP1125) have a similar relationship: "noproofs" indicates a lenience for a certain kind of imperfection.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP908 BP909 BP910 BP911 BP912  *  BP914 BP915 BP916 BP917 BP918

Many Bongard Problems involving properties of curves (e.g. BP62) really are about those wiggly, imperfect curves; they qualify as "perfect" problems. On the other hand, Bongard Problems involving polygons, (e.g. BP5) often show only approximately-straight lines; they are not "perfect" problems.

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

visualbp [smaller | same | bigger]
zoom in left (perfect_bp)

Aaron David Fairbanks

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

Image files on the OEBP do not really have infinite detail. For a panel to be intuitively read as having infinite detail, there usually needs to be some apparent self-similarity, or perhaps a sequence of objects following an easy to read pattern getting smaller and smaller with increasing pixelation.

Usually in "infinitedetail" Bongard Problems, not only is it a puzzle to figure out the solution, but it is another puzzle to find self-similarities and understand the intended infinite detail in each example.

BPs tagged with the keyword "infinitedetail" usually feature pixelated images that give the closest approximation of the intended infinite structure up to pixelation. This means they should be tagged with the keyword perfect, but should not be tagged with the keyword pixelperfect.

Just because a Bongard Problem has "infinitedetail" does not necessarily make it infodense. Some fractal images might be encoded by a small amount of information (just the information about which places within itself it includes smaller copies of itself) and may be recognized quickly.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP953 BP954 BP955 BP956 BP957  *  BP959 BP960 BP961 BP962 BP963

notso, meta (see left/right), links, keyword, wellfounded

visualbp [smaller | same | bigger]

Aaron David Fairbanks