abacus: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents instrument
Weight: 0.50
, tool
Weight: 0.48
, calculator
Weight: 0.47
, mathematics
Weight: 0.44
, software
Weight: 0.43
Siblings pencil sharpener
Weight: 0.32
, spreadsheet
Weight: 0.31
, debt instrument
Weight: 0.31
, xylophone
Weight: 0.31
, negotiable instrument
Weight: 0.31

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
has quality system 0.82
has quality worth 0.82
has quality plus 0.80
go bad 0.79
needs quality product 0.77
is quality product 0.77
be good for business 0.76
has quality questions 0.75

Priors about this statement

Cues

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Joint Necessity Sufficiency Implication Entailment Contradiction Entropy

Evidence

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Clauses

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.60
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.93
Plausible(calculator, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(abacus, has quality bad)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(tool, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(abacus, has quality bad)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(instrument, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(abacus, has quality bad)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(calculator, has quality plus) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(abacus, has quality bad)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(tool, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(abacus, has quality bad)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(software, is quality product) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(abacus, has quality bad)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.53
Plausible(software, needs quality product) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(abacus, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(instrument, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(tool, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Plausible(calculator, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(tool, has quality worth)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Plausible(software, needs quality product)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(calculator, has quality plus)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(software, is quality product)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.31
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(tool, has quality good)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(instrument, has quality good)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(calculator, has quality good)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(calculator, has quality plus)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(software, is quality product)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(tool, has quality worth)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(software, needs quality product)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(spreadsheet, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(spreadsheet, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(pencil sharpener, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(spreadsheet, be good for business)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(debt instrument, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(negotiable instrument, has quality good)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(negotiable instrument, has quality questions)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.93
Plausible(calculator, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
Remarkable(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(abacus, has quality bad)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(tool, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
Remarkable(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(abacus, has quality bad)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(instrument, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
Remarkable(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(abacus, has quality bad)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(calculator, has quality plus) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
Remarkable(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(abacus, has quality bad)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(tool, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
Remarkable(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(abacus, has quality bad)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(software, is quality product) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
Remarkable(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(abacus, has quality bad)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.53
Plausible(software, needs quality product) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
Remarkable(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(abacus, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.57
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
Remarkable(spreadsheet, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Plausible(spreadsheet, has quality bad)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
Remarkable(debt instrument, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(debt instrument, has quality good)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
Remarkable(negotiable instrument, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(negotiable instrument, has quality good)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(pencil sharpener, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(pencil sharpener, has quality good)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
Remarkable(spreadsheet, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(spreadsheet, has quality good)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
Remarkable(negotiable instrument, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Plausible(negotiable instrument, has quality questions)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
Remarkable(spreadsheet, be good for business) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(spreadsheet, be good for business)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Salient(abacus, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.88
Salient(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Salient(abacus, has quality system)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(abacus, has quality system)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(abacus, has quality system)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.64
Remarkable(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(abacus, has quality system)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.88
Salient(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(abacus, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(abacus, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.27
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Typical(software, needs quality product)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(tool, has quality worth)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(instrument, has quality good)
0.20
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(software, is quality product)
0.20
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(tool, has quality good)
0.19
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(calculator, has quality good)
0.18
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(calculator, has quality plus)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Typical(spreadsheet, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(debt instrument, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Typical(negotiable instrument, has quality questions)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(negotiable instrument, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(spreadsheet, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(spreadsheet, be good for business)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(pencil sharpener, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(instrument, has quality good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(tool, has quality good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(calculator, has quality good)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(tool, has quality worth)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Typical(software, needs quality product)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(calculator, has quality plus)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(abacus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(software, is quality product)