dab: taste bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents technology
Weight: 0.43
, species
Weight: 0.40
, feature
Weight: 0.37
, substrate
Weight: 0.36
Siblings spray
Weight: 0.28
, computer science
Weight: 0.28
, red squirrel
Weight: 0.28
, microwave
Weight: 0.28
, fiber optics
Weight: 0.28

Related properties

Property Similarity
taste bad 1.00
has quality bad 0.80

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

0.29
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.21
Plausible(technology, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Typical(dab, taste bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(dab, taste bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Plausible(technology, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.43
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(dab, taste bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(technology, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(dab, taste bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(spray, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(dab, taste bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(microwave, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(dab, taste bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(red squirrel, has quality bad)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.26
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.21
Plausible(technology, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(dab, taste bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Plausible(dab, taste bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.39
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(dab, taste bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
Remarkable(spray, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(spray, has quality bad)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(dab, taste bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(red squirrel, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(red squirrel, has quality bad)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(dab, taste bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
Remarkable(microwave, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(microwave, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(dab, taste bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Salient(dab, taste bad)

Similarity expansion

0.45
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.59
Typical(dab, taste bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(dab, has quality bad)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(dab, taste bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(dab, has quality bad)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(dab, taste bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Plausible(dab, has quality bad)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.44
Salient(dab, taste bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Salient(dab, has quality bad)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.44
Salient(dab, taste bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Typical(dab, taste bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(dab, taste bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(dab, taste bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Typical(dab, taste bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.31
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(dab, taste bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(technology, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(dab, taste bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(spray, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(dab, taste bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(red squirrel, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(dab, taste bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(microwave, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.30
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.59
Typical(dab, taste bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(technology, has quality bad)