Although this Bongard Problem is self-referential, it's only because of the specific phrasing of the solution. "BP902 vs. anything else" would also work. The number 902 could have been chosen coincidentally.

See BP953, BP959.

Although this Problem is technically invalid, it's only because of the specific phrasing of the solution. "BP902 vs. anything else" would work, as it isn't a precise indication that the world of the Problem 'knows' it is inside a Bongard Problem. There's always the possibility that the number 902 could have been chosen incidentally.

Although this Problem is technically invalid, it's only because of the specific phrasing of the solution. "BP902 vs. anything else" would work, as it isn't a specific indication that the world of the Problem 'knows' it is inside a Bongard Problem. There's always the possibility that the number 902 could have been chosen incidentally.

Although this Problem is technically invalid, it's only because of the specific phrasing of the solution. "BP902 vs. anything else" would work, as it isn't a specific indication that the world of the Problem knows it is inside a Bongard Problem. There's always the possibility that the number 902 could have been chosen incidentally.

Although this Problem is technically invalid, it's only because of the specific phrasing of the solution. "BP902 vs. anything else" would work, as it isn't a specific indication that the world knows it is inside a Bongard Problem. The number 902 could have been chosen incidentally. Another valid solution would be "Bongard Problems for whom an invalid solution would be 'This Bongard Problem vs. anything else' vs. anything else".

This Bongard Problem vs. anything else.

Leo Crabbe

Metaworld Bongard Problems for sub-worlds of small outlines (BP901) vs. other metaworld Bongard Problems.

Aaron David Fairbanks