camera: were back then

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents digital camera
Weight: 0.75
, electronic device
Weight: 0.68
, recorder
Weight: 0.64
, driver
Weight: 0.61
Siblings camera lens
Weight: 0.70
, human eye
Weight: 0.60
, underwater
Weight: 0.54
, cctv
Weight: 0.54
, flip
Weight: 0.54

Related properties

Property Similarity
were back then 1.00
were then 0.95
get over time 0.81
has physical part back 0.81
get have 0.79
get from one side 0.79
were used in past 0.78
have on right side 0.77
be on left side 0.76
get to other 0.76

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

0.32
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(driver, have on right side) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(camera, were back then)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(driver, be on left side) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(camera, were back then)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.23
Plausible(electronic device, get over time) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(camera, were back then)
0.19
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.10
Plausible(digital camera, were used in past) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(camera, were back then)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(camera, were back then) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Plausible(digital camera, were used in past)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(camera, were back then) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Plausible(electronic device, get over time)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(camera, were back then) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Plausible(driver, be on left side)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(camera, were back then) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Plausible(driver, have on right side)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.43
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(camera, were back then) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(digital camera, were used in past)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(camera, were back then) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Remarkable(driver, be on left side)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(camera, were back then) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(driver, have on right side)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(camera, were back then) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Remarkable(electronic device, get over time)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(camera, were back then) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(flip, has physical part back)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.26
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(driver, have on right side) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
Remarkable(camera, were back then) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Plausible(camera, were back then)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.23
Plausible(electronic device, get over time) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
Remarkable(camera, were back then) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Plausible(camera, were back then)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(driver, be on left side) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
Remarkable(camera, were back then) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Plausible(camera, were back then)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.10
Plausible(digital camera, were used in past) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
Remarkable(camera, were back then) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Plausible(camera, were back then)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(camera, were back then) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
Remarkable(flip, has physical part back) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(flip, has physical part back)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(camera, were back then) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Salient(camera, were back then)

Similarity expansion

0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.70
Typical(camera, were back then) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(camera, were used in past)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.34
Remarkable(camera, were back then) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(camera, were used in past)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(camera, were back then) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(camera, were used in past)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.43
Salient(camera, were back then) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Salient(camera, were used in past)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.43
Salient(camera, were back then) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(camera, were back then) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(camera, were back then)

Typical implies Plausible

0.32
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(camera, were back then) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(camera, were back then)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.41
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(camera, were back then) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Typical(electronic device, get over time)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(camera, were back then) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Typical(digital camera, were used in past)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(camera, were back then) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Typical(driver, be on left side)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(camera, were back then) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(driver, have on right side)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(camera, were back then) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(flip, has physical part back)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.70
Typical(camera, were back then) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Typical(electronic device, get over time)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.70
Typical(camera, were back then) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Typical(digital camera, were used in past)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.70
Typical(camera, were back then) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Typical(driver, be on left side)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.70
Typical(camera, were back then) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(driver, have on right side)