login
Hints
(Greetings from The On-Line Encyclopedia of Bongard Problems!)
Search: +ex:BP1245
Displaying 1-6 of 6 results found.     page 1
     Sort: id      Format: long      Filter: (all | no meta | meta)      Mode: (words | no words)
BP508 Bongard Problems with precise definitions vs. Bongard Problems with vague definitions.
BP1
BP3
BP4
BP6
BP13
BP23
BP31
BP67
BP72
BP103
BP104
BP210
BP292
BP312
BP321
BP322
BP324
BP325
BP329
BP334
BP344
BP348
BP367
BP368
BP376
BP384
BP386
BP389
BP390
BP391
BP523
BP527
BP557
BP558
BP559

. . .

BP2
BP9
BP10
BP11
BP12
BP14
BP62
BP119
BP148
BP364
BP393
BP505
BP508
BP509
BP511
BP524
BP571
BP812
BP813
BP847
BP865
BP894
BP895
BP939
BP1002
BP1111
BP1158
(edit; present; nest [left/right]; search; history)
COMMENTS

Bongard Problems sorted left have the keyword "precise" on the OEBP.

Bongard Problems sorted right have the keyword "fuzzy" on the OEBP.


In an precise Bongard Problem, any relevant example is either clearly sorted left, clearly sorted right, or clearly not sorted.

(All relevant examples clearly sorted either left or right is the keyword allsorted.)


How can it be decided whether or not a rule is precise? How can it be decided whether or not a rule classifies all "examples that are relevant"? There needs to be another rule to determine which examples the original rule intends to sort. Bongard Problems by design communicate ideas without fixing that context ahead of time. The label "precise" can only mean a Bongard Problem's rule seems precise to people who see it. (This "precise vs. fuzzy" Bongard Problem is fuzzy.)


In an precise "less than ___ vs. greater than ___" Bongard Problem (keyword spectrum), the division between the sides is usually an apparent threshold. For example, there is an intuitive threshold between acute and obtuse angles (see e.g. BP292).


As a rule of thumb, do not consider imperfections of hand drawn images (keyword ignoreimperfections) when deciding whether a Bongard Problem is precise or fuzzy. Just because one can draw a square badly does not mean "triangle vs. quadrilateral" (BP6) should be labelled fuzzy; similar vagueness arises in all hand-drawn Bongard Problems. (For Bongard Problems in which fine subtleties of drawings, including small imperfections, are meant to be considered, use the keyword perfect.)


Sometimes the way a Bongard Problem would sort certain examples is an unsolved problem in mathematics. (See e.g. BP820.) There is a precise criterion that has been used to verify each sorted example fits where it fits (some kind of mathematical proof); however, where some examples fit is still unknown. Whether or not such a Bongard Problem should be labelled "precise" might be debated.

(Technical note: some properties are known to be undecidable, and sometimes the decidability itself is unknown. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem .)

(See the keyword proofsrequired.)

One way to resolve this ambiguity is to define "precise" as meaning that once people decide where an example belongs for a reason, they will all agree about it.


Sometimes the class of all examples in a Bongard Problem is imprecise, but, despite that, the rule sorting those examples is precise. Say, for some potential new example, it is unclear whether it should be included in the Bongard Problem at all, but, if it were included, it would be clear where it should be sorted (or that it should be left unsorted). A Bongard Problem like this can still be tagged "precise".

(If all examples are clearly sorted except for some example for which it is unclear whether it belongs to the class of relevant examples, the situation becomes ambiguous.)

On the other hand, sometimes the class of all examples is very clear, with an obvious boundary. (Keyword preciseworld.)


There is a subtle distinction to draw between Bongard Problems that are precise to the people making them and Bongard Problems that are precise to the people solving them. A Bongard Problem (particularly a non-allsorted one) might be labeled "precise" on the OEBP because the description and the listed ambiguous examples explicitly forbid sorting certain border cases; however, someone looking at the Bongard Problem without access to the OEBP page containing the definition would not be aware of this. It may or may not be obvious that certain examples were intentionally left out of the Bongard Problem. A larger collection of examples may make it more clear that a particularly blatant potential border case was left out intentionally.

CROSSREFS

See BP876 for the version with pictures of Bongard Problems instead of links to pages on the OEBP.

See both and neither for specific ways an example can be classified as unsorted in an "precise" Bongard Problem.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP503 BP504 BP505 BP506 BP507  *  BP509 BP510 BP511 BP512 BP513

KEYWORD

fuzzy, meta (see left/right), links, keyword, right-self, sideless

WORLD

bp [smaller | same | bigger]

AUTHOR

Aaron David Fairbanks

BP534 Bongard Problems such that potential left examples can intuitively be put in bijection with potential right examples vs. other Bongard Problems.
BP7
BP8
BP19
BP36
BP43
BP45
BP54
BP55
BP63
BP64
BP67
BP95
BP106
BP109
BP157
BP158
BP180
BP196
BP197
BP211
BP234
BP278
BP279
BP286
BP313
BP337
BP357
BP363
BP372
BP513
BP514
BP515
BP516
BP517
BP793

. . .

(edit; present; nest [left/right]; search; history)
COMMENTS

This is the keyword "dual" on the OEBP.

Given an example there is some way to "flip sides" by altering it. The left-to-right and right-to-left transformations should be inverses.


It is not required that there only be one such transformation. For example, for many handed Bongard Problem, flipping an example over any axis will reliably switch its sorting.


It is not required that every left example must have its corresponding right example uploaded on the OEBP nor vice versa. See the keyword contributepairs for the BPs the OEBP advises users upload left and right examples for in pairs.

CROSSREFS

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP529 BP530 BP531 BP532 BP533  *  BP535 BP536 BP537 BP538 BP539

KEYWORD

meta (see left/right), links, keyword, sideless

WORLD

bp [smaller | same | bigger]

AUTHOR

Aaron David Fairbanks

BP553 Rotation-dependent Bongard Problems vs. rotation-independent visual Bongard Problems.
BP7
BP19
BP36
BP65
BP95
BP106
BP152
BP158
BP199
BP273
BP523
BP551
BP971
BP1014
BP1086
BP1087
BP1213
BP1215
BP1216
BP1218
BP1245
BP16
BP54
BP1122
(edit; present; nest [left/right]; search; history)
COMMENTS

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


If rotating an example about the center can change its sorting the BP is a left example here.


Note that BPs about relative rotation comparisons fit on the right side.

CROSSREFS

See BP872 for the version with pictures of Bongard Problems instead (miniproblems) of links to pages on the OEBP.


Bongard Problems tagged "rotate" are usually handed, since any rotation can be created by two reflections. Not necessarily, however, since the reflected step in between might not be sorted on either side by the Bongard Problem.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP548 BP549 BP550 BP551 BP552  *  BP554 BP555 BP556 BP557 BP558

KEYWORD

notso, meta (see left/right), links, keyword, invariance, wellfounded

WORLD

visualbp [smaller | same | bigger]

AUTHOR

Aaron David Fairbanks

BP974 "Bounding-box-dependent" Bongard Problems vs. Bongard Problems in which the bounding box can be extended arbitrarily in any direction (in white space) without switching the sorting of any examples.
BP8
BP157
BP209
BP210
BP243
BP257
BP312
BP321
BP525
BP818
BP942
BP966
BP971
BP972
BP1008
BP1014
BP1089
BP1093
BP1104
BP1122
BP1132
BP1156
BP1245
?
BP2
(edit; present; nest [left/right]; search; history)
COMMENTS

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


Slightly different: sliding the content in a box around without letting it cross the bounding box and without changing the size of the bounding box. (See keyword absoluteposition.)


Expanding the boxes of BP2 ("big vs. small") makes the contents smaller in comparison to the box, but not smaller in an absolute sense. Hence the situation is ambiguous.

CROSSREFS

If a Bongard Problem has the keyword absoluteposition, then it likely has the keyword boundingbox.

If a Bongard Problem has the keyword boundingbox and does not have the keyword bordercontent, then it likely has the keyword absoluteposition.

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP969 BP970 BP971 BP972 BP973  *  BP975 BP976 BP977 BP978 BP979

KEYWORD

meta (see left/right), links, keyword, invariance

AUTHOR

Aaron David Fairbanks

BP1125 BP pages on the OEBP (with a criterion for sorting examples that in some cases may be very difficult to work out) where users should be certain (i.e. know a proof) about how examples are sorted vs. users can include examples on a side as long as nobody has seen a reason it does not fit there.
BP335
BP344
BP532
BP850
BP1119
BP1137
BP1200
BP1245
(edit; present; nest [left/right]; search; history)
COMMENTS

Left-sorted Bongard Problems have the keyword "proofsrequired" on the OEBP.

Right-sorted Bongard Problems have the keyword "noproofs" on the OEBP.


For every "noproofs" Bongard Problem there could be made a stricter "proofsrequired" version. This stricter version will be hardsort.


Deciding to make a Bongard Problem noproofs adds subjectivity to the sorting of examples (keyword subjective).



One interpretation of topology (a subject of mathematics -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topology ) is that a topology describes the observability of various properties. (The topological "neighborhoods" of a point are the subsets one could determine the point to be within using a finite number of measurements.) The analogue of restricting to just the cases where a property is observably true (i.e. "proofsrequired") corresponds to taking the topological "interior" of that property.



TO DO: It may be better to split each of these keywords up into two: "left-proofsrequired", "right-proofsrequired", "left-noproofs", "right noproofs".


CROSSREFS

See keyword hardsort.


Bongard Problems that are left-unknowable or right-unknowable will have to be "noproofs".

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP1120 BP1121 BP1122 BP1123 BP1124  *  BP1126 BP1127 BP1128 BP1129 BP1130

EXAMPLE

In "proofsrequired" BP335 (shape tessellates the plane vs. shape does not tessellate the plane), shapes are only put in the Bongard Problem if they are known to tessellate or not to tessellate the plane. A "noproofs" version of this Bongard Problem would instead allow a shape to be put on the right if it was just (subjectively) really hard to find a way of tessellating the plane with it.

KEYWORD

meta (see left/right), links, keyword, oebp, instruction

AUTHOR

Aaron David Fairbanks

BP1196 Bongard Problems with content touching the border of some examples vs. Bongard Problems with a lip of whitespace around the border of all examples.
BP157
BP210
BP211
BP321
BP806
BP966
BP971
BP972
BP1008
BP1014
BP1089
BP1093
BP1228
BP1230
BP1245
BP1249
BP1252
BP1
BP2
BP3
BP4
BP5
BP6
BP7
BP8
BP9
BP10
BP11
BP12
BP13
BP14
BP15
BP16
BP17
BP18
BP19
BP20
BP21
BP22
BP23
BP24
BP25
BP26
BP27
BP28
BP29
BP30
BP31
BP32
BP33
BP34
BP35

. . .

(edit; present; nest [left/right]; search; history)
COMMENTS

Bongard Problems sorted left have the keyword "bordercontent" on the OEBP.


All of Bongard's original Problems have whitespace around the border of all examples.

CROSSREFS

Adjacent-numbered pages:
BP1191 BP1192 BP1193 BP1194 BP1195  *  BP1197 BP1198 BP1199 BP1200 BP1201

KEYWORD

meta (see left/right), links, keyword

AUTHOR

Aaron David Fairbanks

    page 1

Welcome | Solve | Browse | Lookup | Recent | Links | Register | Contact
Contribute | Keywords | Concepts | Worlds | Ambiguities | Transformations | Invalid Problems | Style Guide | Goals | Glossary