design: be important in engineering

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents cost
Weight: 0.64
, industry
Weight: 0.63
, approach
Weight: 0.63
, layout
Weight: 0.62
Siblings architect
Weight: 0.71
, design pattern
Weight: 0.69
, prototype
Weight: 0.63
, chevron
Weight: 0.62
, logo
Weight: 0.62

Related properties

Property Similarity
be important in engineering 1.00
be in software engineering 0.89
be important to engineers 0.83
be important in software development 0.78
have important to manufacturing firm estimation 0.77
be important in project management 0.77
be developed by engineers 0.77
hate engineers 0.77
be important in economics 0.76
be important in manufacturing 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

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.49
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(cost, have important to manufacturing firm estimation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(design, be important in engineering)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(cost, be important in economics) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(design, be important in engineering)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(cost, be important in project management) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(design, be important in engineering)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(design, be important in engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(cost, be important in project management)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(design, be important in engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(cost, be important in economics)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(design, be important in engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Plausible(cost, have important to manufacturing firm estimation)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.24
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(design, be important in engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(cost, be important in economics)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(design, be important in engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(cost, be important in project management)
0.19
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(design, be important in engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(cost, have important to manufacturing firm estimation)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(design, be important in engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Remarkable(architect, hate engineers)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(design, be important in engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Remarkable(prototype, be important to engineers)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(design, be important in engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(prototype, be developed by engineers)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.15
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(design, be important in engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(design pattern, be in software engineering)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(cost, have important to manufacturing firm estimation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(design, be important in engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(design, be important in engineering)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(cost, be important in project management) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(design, be important in engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(design, be important in engineering)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(cost, be important in economics) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(design, be important in engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(design, be important in engineering)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(design, be important in engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
Remarkable(design pattern, be in software engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Plausible(design pattern, be in software engineering)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(design, be important in engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.05
Remarkable(architect, hate engineers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Plausible(architect, hate engineers)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(design, be important in engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
Remarkable(prototype, be important to engineers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(prototype, be important to engineers)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(design, be important in engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
Remarkable(prototype, be developed by engineers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(prototype, be developed by engineers)

Salient implies Plausible

0.19
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(design, be important in engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Salient(design, be important in engineering)

Similarity expansion

0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(design, be important in engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(design, be important in software development)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(design, be important in engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(design, be important in manufacturing)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.83
Salient(design, be important in engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Salient(design, be important in software development)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.83
Salient(design, be important in engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Salient(design, be important in manufacturing)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(design, be important in engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(design, be important in software development)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(design, be important in engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(design, be important in manufacturing)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.49
Typical(design, be important in engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(design, be important in software development)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.49
Typical(design, be important in engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(design, be important in manufacturing)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
Salient(design, be important in engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(design, be important in engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(design, be important in engineering)

Typical implies Plausible

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(design, be important in engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(design, be important in engineering)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.09
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.23
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(design, be important in engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(cost, be important in project management)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.20
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(design, be important in engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(cost, be important in economics)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.15
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(design, be important in engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(cost, have important to manufacturing firm estimation)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(design, be important in engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Typical(design pattern, be in software engineering)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(design, be important in engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Typical(architect, hate engineers)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.26
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(design, be important in engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(prototype, be important to engineers)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.24
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(design, be important in engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(prototype, be developed by engineers)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.21
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.49
Typical(design, be important in engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(cost, be important in project management)
0.20
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.49
Typical(design, be important in engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(cost, be important in economics)
0.19
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.49
Typical(design, be important in engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(cost, have important to manufacturing firm estimation)