Search: ex:BP1004
|
|
| Displaying 1-10 of 10 results found.
|
page 1
|
|
|
Sort:
id
Format:
long
Filter:
(all | no meta | meta)
Mode:
(words | no words)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| BP503 |
| "Nice" Bongard Problems vs. Bongard Problems excluded from the OEBP "Solve" page |
|
| |
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
| BP512 |
| Abstract Bongard Problems vs. concrete visual Bongard Problems. |
|
| |
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
| BP513 |
| Bongard Problems whose left examples could stand alone vs. the right side is necessary to communicate what the left side is. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
COMMENTS
|
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). |
|
|
CROSSREFS
|
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
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
dual, meta (see left/right), links, keyword, side
|
|
|
WORLD
|
bp [smaller | same | bigger]
|
|
|
AUTHOR
|
Aaron David Fairbanks
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| BP565 |
| Bongard Problems that are hard for humans to solve but easier for computers to solve vs. Bongard Problems that are hard for computers to solve but easier for humans to solve. |
|
| |
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
| BP687 |
| Bongard Problem with solution relating to concept: recursion vs. Bongard Problem unrelated to this concept. |
|
| |
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
| BP691 |
| Bongard Problem with solution relating to concept: self-reference vs. Bongard Problem unrelated to this concept. |
|
| |
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
| BP866 |
| Bongard Problems that admit examples fitting the solution in various creative ways vs. not so. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
COMMENTS
|
Left-sorted Bongard Problems have the keyword "creativeexamples" on the OEBP.
Be encouraged to contribute new interesting examples to Bongard Problems with this keyword.
There is much overlap with the keyword hardsort.
This is what it usually means to say examples fit on (e.g.) the left of a Bongard Problem in various creative ways: there is no (obvious) general method to determine a left-fitting example fits left.
There is a related idea in computability theory: a "non recursively enumerable" property is one that cannot in general be checked by a computer algorithm.
But keep in mind the tag "creativeexamples" is supposed to mean something less formal. For example, it requires no ingenuity for a human being to check when a simple shape is convex or concave (so BP4 is not labelled "creativeexamples"). However, it is not as if we use an algorithm to do this, like a computer. (It is not even clear what an "algorithm" would mean in this context, since it is ambiguous both what class of shapes the Bongard Problem sorts and how that would be encoded into a computer program's input. There are usually many options and ambiguities like this whenever one tries to formalize the content of a Bongard Problem.) |
|
|
CROSSREFS
|
Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP861 BP862 BP863 BP864 BP865  *  BP867 BP868 BP869 BP870 BP871
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
notso, meta (see left/right), links, keyword
|
|
|
WORLD
|
bp [smaller | same | bigger]
|
|
|
AUTHOR
|
Aaron David Fairbanks
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| BP1158 |
| Bongard Problems in which each example communicates a rule vs. other Bongard Problems. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
COMMENTS
|
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. |
|
|
CROSSREFS
|
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
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
fuzzy, meta (see left/right), links, keyword, left-self, rules
|
|
|
AUTHOR
|
Aaron David Fairbanks
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| BP1162 |
| Bongard Problem with solution that can be naturally phrased as "___ vs. vice versa" vs. not so. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
COMMENTS
|
Bongard Problems sorted left obtain the keyword "viceversa" on the OEBP. |
|
|
CROSSREFS
|
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
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
notso, meta (see left/right), links, keyword, right-self
|
|
|
AUTHOR
|
Aaron David Fairbanks
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| BP1180 |
| Bongard Problems where every example establishes its own distinct "world" of allowed objects vs. Bongard Problems where every example pulls from the same set of allowed objects. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
COMMENTS
|
Left-sorted Problems have the keyword "miniworlds" on the OEBP.
All examples in this Problem are visual Bongard Problems with multiple objects in most panels. This is key as an intuitive set of allowable objects needs to be communicated by any one sorted image.
There is a decent degree of overlap between rules and "miniworlds", but BP1049 is an example of a "miniworlds" problem where the rule is constant across examples, and BP1155 is an example of a "rules" Problem that would not be tagged "miniworlds".
Although this Problem does sort any BP whose examples are images of Bongard Problems left, it is probably best not to consider them to avoid clutter and more unnecessary keywords being attached to them. |
|
|
CROSSREFS
|
Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP1175 BP1176 BP1177 BP1178 BP1179  *  BP1181 BP1182 BP1183 BP1184 BP1185
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
meta (see left/right), links, keyword
|
|
|
WORLD
|
visualbp [smaller | same | bigger]
|
|
|
AUTHOR
|
Leo Crabbe
|
| |
|
|
Welcome |
Solve |
Browse |
Lookup |
Recent |
Links |
Register |
Contact
Contribute |
Keywords |
Concepts |
Worlds |
Ambiguities |
Transformations |
Invalid Problems |
Style Guide |
Goals |
Glossary
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|