cctv: has quality better

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents system
Weight: 0.63
, security system
Weight: 0.62
, television station
Weight: 0.56
, camera
Weight: 0.54
, technology
Weight: 0.54
Siblings digital camera
Weight: 0.34
, camera lens
Weight: 0.33
, security guard
Weight: 0.33
, computer hardware
Weight: 0.32
, radio station
Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality better 1.00
has quality good 0.94
has quality bad 0.90
is quality 0.89
is poor quality 0.84
have poor image quality 0.78
has quality disadvantage 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

0.56
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(cctv, has quality better)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(security system, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(cctv, has quality better)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(technology, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(cctv, has quality better)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(cctv, has quality better)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.21
Plausible(technology, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(cctv, has quality better)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.23
Plausible(technology, has quality disadvantage) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(cctv, has quality better)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Plausible(technology, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(technology, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Plausible(security system, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(security system, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Plausible(technology, has quality disadvantage)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Plausible(camera, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.46
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(technology, has quality bad)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Remarkable(technology, has quality disadvantage)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(security system, has quality bad)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(camera, has quality good)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(technology, has quality good)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(security system, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(digital camera, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(cctv, has quality better)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(security system, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(cctv, has quality better)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(technology, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(cctv, has quality better)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(cctv, has quality better)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.21
Plausible(technology, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(cctv, has quality better)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.23
Plausible(technology, has quality disadvantage) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(cctv, has quality better)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
Remarkable(digital camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(digital camera, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.21
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Salient(cctv, has quality better)

Similarity expansion

0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.83
Salient(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Salient(cctv, has quality good)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.83
Salient(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Salient(cctv, has quality bad)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.83
Salient(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Salient(cctv, is quality)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.71
Typical(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(cctv, is quality)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(cctv, has quality bad)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(cctv, has quality good)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Plausible(cctv, is quality)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.71
Typical(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(cctv, has quality good)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(cctv, has quality good)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.83
Salient(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Salient(cctv, is poor quality)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(cctv, has quality bad)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.71
Typical(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(cctv, has quality bad)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.83
Salient(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Salient(cctv, have poor image quality)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(cctv, is poor quality)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(cctv, is quality)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.83
Salient(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Salient(cctv, has quality disadvantage)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Plausible(cctv, have poor image quality)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.71
Typical(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(cctv, have poor image quality)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Plausible(cctv, is poor quality)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(cctv, have poor image quality)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(cctv, has quality disadvantage)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.71
Typical(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(cctv, is poor quality)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Plausible(cctv, has quality disadvantage)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.71
Typical(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(cctv, has quality disadvantage)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
Salient(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(cctv, has quality better)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(cctv, has quality better)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.28
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(technology, has quality bad)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(technology, has quality disadvantage)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(technology, has quality good)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(security system, has quality bad)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(security system, has quality good)
0.16
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(camera, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(digital camera, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.71
Typical(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(technology, has quality bad)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.71
Typical(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(technology, has quality good)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.71
Typical(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(security system, has quality good)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.71
Typical(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(security system, has quality bad)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.71
Typical(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(camera, has quality good)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.71
Typical(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(technology, has quality disadvantage)