computer programming: be even possible

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents computer
Weight: 0.75
, programming
Weight: 0.71
, service
Weight: 0.67
, language
Weight: 0.67
, activity
Weight: 0.63
Siblings computer programmer
Weight: 0.40
, programming language
Weight: 0.40
, computer network
Weight: 0.40
, computer program
Weight: 0.39
, computer monitor
Weight: 0.39

Related properties

Property Similarity
be even possible 1.00
be possible 0.95
is necessary 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

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.02
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.20
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(computer programming, be even possible)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(programming language, is necessary)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(computer programming, be even possible)
Evidence: 0.97
Remarkable(programming language, is necessary)
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Plausible(programming language, is necessary)

Salient implies Plausible

0.19
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(computer programming, be even possible)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Salient(computer programming, be even possible)

Similarity expansion

0.75
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.48
Typical(computer programming, be even possible)
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Typical(computer programming, be possible)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.76
Salient(computer programming, be even possible)
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Salient(computer programming, be possible)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(computer programming, be even possible)
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Plausible(computer programming, be possible)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.83
Remarkable(computer programming, be even possible)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Remarkable(computer programming, be possible)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.48
Typical(computer programming, be even possible)
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Typical(computer programming, is necessary)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(computer programming, be even possible)
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Plausible(computer programming, is necessary)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.76
Salient(computer programming, be even possible)
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Salient(computer programming, is necessary)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.83
Remarkable(computer programming, be even possible)
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Remarkable(computer programming, is necessary)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Salient(computer programming, be even possible)
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(computer programming, be even possible)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(computer programming, be even possible)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(computer programming, be even possible)
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(computer programming, be even possible)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(computer programming, be even possible)
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Typical(programming language, is necessary)