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

An "overriddensolution" is solution idea for a Bongard Problem that would not be chosen by the solver because there is a simpler solution that always comes with it.

An overridden solution occurs when the Bongard Problem's examples on both sides all share some constraint, and furthermore within this constrained class of examples, the intended rule is equivalent to a simpler rule that can be understood without noticing the constraint. See e.g. BP1146. The solver of the Bongard Problem will get the solution before noticing the constraint.

There is a more extreme class of overridden solution: not only is the solution possible to overlook in favor of something simpler, but even with scrutiny it will likely never be recognized. See e.g. BP570. This happens when intended left and right side rules are not direct negations of one another, but one or both of these rules is not "narrow"-- it can only be communicated in a Bongard Problem by its opposite being on the other side.

TO DO: Should this more extreme version have its own keyword? - Aaron David Fairbanks, Nov 23 2021

The keyword left-narrow (resp. right-narrow) is for Bongard Problems whose left-side (resp. right-side) rule can be recognized alone without examples on the other side.

The keyword notso is for Bongard Problems whose two sides are direct negations of one another.

See keyword impossible for solution ideas that cannot even apply to any set of examples, much less be communicated as the best solution.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP563 BP564 BP565 BP566 BP567  *  BP569 BP570 BP571 BP572 BP573

BP570 "Shape outlines that aren't triangles vs. black shapes that aren't squares" was created as an example of this.

meta (see left/right), links, keyword

bp [smaller | same | bigger]

Aaron David Fairbanks

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 fit a rule.

Call something like "all but one are ___" a "rule-parametrized rule". A collection of objects, with respect to a particular rule, can fit a rule-parametrized rule.

A drawing on the right shows many collections. 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 rule collections can fit).

Likewise a drawing on the left shows a collection of collections, with some noticeable recurring rule-parametrized rule. The collection of collections must fit that rule-parametrized rule with respect to the rule of fitting that rule-parametrized rule (with respect to various rule).

An unintended solution to this BP is "not all groups share some noticeable property vs. all do." It is hard to come up with examples foiling this alternative solution because (what was above called) the rule-parametrized rule 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.)

Some examples would fit left under a certain interpretation: EX8220 "all are 'all are ___' " and EX8222 "palindrome with respect to being a palindrome with respect to ___" (every shown collection is a palindrome with respect to some property, and all things in a list being the same is a palindrome). But those rules are not necessarily the most obvious ways of interpreting these pictures, so they have been marked as ambiguous. Either of these placed on the left would prevent the intended solution being overridden (see the previous paragraph).

Here is a list of left example ideas that would be impossible to make:

- Exhaustive list of all exhaustive lists of all ____.

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 in this Problem: 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, unwordable, challenge, overriddensolution, infodense, contributepairs, funny, rules, miniworlds

zoom in right

Aaron David Fairbanks

Left examples are not required to be valid, as long as their solution doesn't apply in the traditional Bongard Problem format (6 panels vs. 6 panels, all one image). Additionally, they do not necessarily have to be rendered invalid by being viewed in the template format, but their solution does have to be altered. In some cases left examples are simply Problems whose solution is specific to the computer medium (BP941), however some examples have more profound solutions that the pen-and-paper template medium is too restrictive to represent (BP854).

See BP568.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP938 BP939 BP940 BP941 BP942  *  BP944 BP945 BP946 BP947 BP948

meta (see left/right), links, oebp, time

bp [smaller | same | bigger]

Leo Crabbe