computer science: be intensive math

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents science
Weight: 0.83
, technology
Weight: 0.75
, computer program
Weight: 0.74
, computer scientist
Weight: 0.73
Siblings mathematics
Weight: 0.72
, programming language
Weight: 0.67
, artificial intelligence
Weight: 0.65
, biology
Weight: 0.62

Related properties

Property Similarity
be intensive math 1.00
is math 0.86
have math 0.86
need math 0.85
require math 0.85

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

0.49
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.42
Plausible(computer scientist, need math) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Typical(computer science, be intensive math)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(computer science, be intensive math) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Plausible(computer scientist, need math)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.09
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.19
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Remarkable(computer science, be intensive math) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(computer scientist, need math)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.42
Plausible(computer scientist, need math) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
Remarkable(computer science, be intensive math) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Plausible(computer science, be intensive math)

Salient implies Plausible

0.17
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(computer science, be intensive math) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Salient(computer science, be intensive math)

Similarity expansion

0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.23
Typical(computer science, be intensive math) ⋁
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Typical(computer science, is math)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.23
Typical(computer science, be intensive math) ⋁
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Typical(computer science, need math)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.92
Remarkable(computer science, be intensive math) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Remarkable(computer science, have math)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.92
Remarkable(computer science, be intensive math) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Remarkable(computer science, is math)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.92
Remarkable(computer science, be intensive math) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Remarkable(computer science, need math)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.92
Remarkable(computer science, be intensive math) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(computer science, require math)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.23
Typical(computer science, be intensive math) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Typical(computer science, have math)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(computer science, be intensive math) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Plausible(computer science, is math)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(computer science, be intensive math) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Plausible(computer science, need math)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.68
Salient(computer science, be intensive math) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Salient(computer science, is math)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.68
Salient(computer science, be intensive math) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Salient(computer science, need math)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.68
Salient(computer science, be intensive math) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Salient(computer science, have math)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.23
Typical(computer science, be intensive math) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Typical(computer science, require math)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.68
Salient(computer science, be intensive math) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Salient(computer science, require math)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(computer science, be intensive math) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Plausible(computer science, have math)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(computer science, be intensive math) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Plausible(computer science, require math)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Salient(computer science, be intensive math) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Typical(computer science, be intensive math) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Remarkable(computer science, be intensive math)

Typical implies Plausible

0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(computer science, be intensive math) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Typical(computer science, be intensive math)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.33
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Remarkable(computer science, be intensive math) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Typical(computer scientist, need math)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.23
Typical(computer science, be intensive math) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Typical(computer scientist, need math)