Search: ex:BP1005
|
|
| Displaying 1-7 of 7 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 |
|
| |
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
| 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
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| 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. |
|
| |
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
| BP864 |
| Bongard Problems in which all examples are easy to sort after knowing the solution vs. Bongard Problems in which examples can be hard to sort even after knowing the solution. |
|
| |
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
| BP867 |
| Bongard Problem with solution that can be naturally expressed as "___ vs. not so" vs. not so. |
|
| | | BP6
 |  | Qat | blimp | notso |
|
|
|
|
|
COMMENTS
|
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). |
|
|
CROSSREFS
|
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
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
notso, meta (see left/right), links, keyword, left-self, funny
|
|
|
WORLD
|
everything [smaller | same] zoom in left
|
|
|
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
|
| |
|
|
Welcome |
Solve |
Browse |
Lookup |
Recent |
Links |
Register |
Contact
Contribute |
Keywords |
Concepts |
Worlds |
Ambiguities |
Transformations |
Invalid Problems |
Style Guide |
Goals |
Glossary
|
|
|
|
|
|
|