comedy: were similar

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents programming
Weight: 0.62
, medium
Weight: 0.57
, style
Weight: 0.52
Siblings rock
Weight: 0.63
, groundhog day
Weight: 0.61
, bridesmaid
Weight: 0.60
, hot rod
Weight: 0.57
, dude
Weight: 0.57

Related properties

Property Similarity
were similar 1.00
be different in 1930 0.81
be different than 2009 0.78
is different 0.77

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

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.26
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(comedy, were similar) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(rock, is different)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.40
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.33
Plausible(comedy, were similar) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
Remarkable(rock, is different) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Plausible(rock, is different)

Salient implies Plausible

0.17
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.33
Plausible(comedy, were similar) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Salient(comedy, were similar)

Similarity expansion

0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.94
Remarkable(comedy, were similar) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(comedy, be different in 1930)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.94
Remarkable(comedy, were similar) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(comedy, be different than 2009)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.94
Remarkable(comedy, were similar) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(comedy, is different)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.12
Typical(comedy, were similar) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Typical(comedy, is different)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.33
Plausible(comedy, were similar) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Plausible(comedy, is different)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.59
Salient(comedy, were similar) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Salient(comedy, is different)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.59
Salient(comedy, were similar) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Salient(comedy, be different than 2009)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.59
Salient(comedy, were similar) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Salient(comedy, be different in 1930)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.33
Plausible(comedy, were similar) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Plausible(comedy, be different than 2009)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.12
Typical(comedy, were similar) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Typical(comedy, be different than 2009)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.33
Plausible(comedy, were similar) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Plausible(comedy, be different in 1930)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.12
Typical(comedy, were similar) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Typical(comedy, be different in 1930)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.59
Salient(comedy, were similar) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Typical(comedy, were similar) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(comedy, were similar)

Typical implies Plausible

0.44
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.33
Plausible(comedy, were similar) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Typical(comedy, were similar)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.01
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.08
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(comedy, were similar) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(rock, is different)