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

zoom in right

Aaron David Fairbanks

Examples sorted by this problem need to be Bongard Problems with some multiple disconnected shapes in them that are formatted in some way.

Problems do not necessarily need symbols to recur across examples to be sorted left.

Right-sorted Problems usually vary their object "language" across examples to emphasise the generality of their solution. Every example in these problems would be thought of as having its own intuitive "world".

TO DO: Figure out whether to implement the prerequisite "You must easily be able to think of a way that a sorted problem could be redrawn such that its sorting in this Problem would switch." This restriction would eliminate problems like BP121 from being sorted, for example, as its solution hinges on the consistency of the symbols across examples. The keyword consistentsymbols already describes problems like this. This also eliminates problems like BP998 from sorting.

TO DO: Should this problem's world be changed from "Formatted object comparison BPs" to "object comparison BPs"? This would allow for some nice Problems like BP841 to be sorted, but may make things too broad.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP1173 BP1174 BP1175 BP1176 BP1177  *  BP1179 BP1180 BP1181 BP1182 BP1183

meta (see left/right), links

Leo Crabbe