depth: be important in photography

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents dimension
Weight: 0.67
, quality
Weight: 0.62
, effect
Weight: 0.62
, factor
Weight: 0.61
, feature
Weight: 0.60
Siblings width
Weight: 0.33
, talent
Weight: 0.33
, consistency
Weight: 0.33
, detail
Weight: 0.33
, accuracy
Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property Similarity
be important in photography 1.00
be important in art 0.82
be important in journalism 0.75

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

0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(depth, be important in photography)
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Remarkable(accuracy, be important in journalism)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(depth, be important in photography)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(detail, be important in art)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(depth, be important in photography)
Evidence: 0.68
Remarkable(detail, be important in art)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(detail, be important in art)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(depth, be important in photography)
Evidence: 0.45
Remarkable(accuracy, be important in journalism)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Plausible(accuracy, be important in journalism)

Salient implies Plausible

0.27
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(depth, be important in photography)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Salient(depth, be important in photography)

Similarity expansion

0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.98
Typical(depth, be important in photography)
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(depth, be important in art)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.98
Salient(depth, be important in photography)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Salient(depth, be important in art)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(depth, be important in photography)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Plausible(depth, be important in art)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.55
Remarkable(depth, be important in photography)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Remarkable(depth, be important in art)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.98
Salient(depth, be important in photography)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(depth, be important in photography)
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(depth, be important in photography)

Typical implies Plausible

0.45
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(depth, be important in photography)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(depth, be important in photography)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(depth, be important in photography)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(detail, be important in art)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(depth, be important in photography)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(accuracy, be important in journalism)