computer programmer: hold future potential

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents computer user
Weight: 0.81
, computer
Weight: 0.74
, user
Weight: 0.67
, worker
Weight: 0.66
Siblings computer programming
Weight: 0.40
, computer monitor
Weight: 0.39
, computer virus
Weight: 0.39
, computer network
Weight: 0.39
, computer program
Weight: 0.39

Related properties

Property Similarity
hold future potential 1.00
hold potential 0.95

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

0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(computer programmer, hold future potential) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Remarkable(computer programming, hold future potential)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(computer programmer, hold future potential) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(computer programming, hold potential)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(computer programmer, hold future potential) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
Remarkable(computer programming, hold future potential) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Plausible(computer programming, hold future potential)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(computer programmer, hold future potential) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
Remarkable(computer programming, hold potential) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(computer programming, hold potential)

Salient implies Plausible

0.26
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(computer programmer, hold future potential) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Salient(computer programmer, hold future potential)

Similarity expansion

0.79
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.97
Salient(computer programmer, hold future potential) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Salient(computer programmer, hold potential)
0.79
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.95
Typical(computer programmer, hold future potential) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(computer programmer, hold potential)
0.77
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(computer programmer, hold future potential) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Plausible(computer programmer, hold potential)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.65
Remarkable(computer programmer, hold future potential) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(computer programmer, hold potential)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.97
Salient(computer programmer, hold future potential) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(computer programmer, hold future potential) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(computer programmer, hold future potential)

Typical implies Plausible

0.44
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(computer programmer, hold future potential) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(computer programmer, hold future potential)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(computer programmer, hold future potential) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(computer programming, hold potential)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(computer programmer, hold future potential) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(computer programming, hold future potential)