computer programming: was invented

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
was invented 1.00

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

0.57
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(language, was invented) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(computer programming, was invented)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(computer programming, was invented) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(language, was invented)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.21
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(computer programming, was invented) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(language, was invented)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(language, was invented) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
Remarkable(computer programming, was invented) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(computer programming, was invented)

Salient implies Plausible

0.24
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(computer programming, was invented) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Salient(computer programming, was invented)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.95
Salient(computer programming, was invented) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(computer programming, was invented) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(computer programming, was invented)

Typical implies Plausible

0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(computer programming, was invented) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(computer programming, was invented)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.20
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(computer programming, was invented) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(language, was invented)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(computer programming, was invented) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(language, was invented)