design: be important in software development

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 software development 1.00
be in software development 0.98
is software 0.89
be in software engineering 0.87
is software expensive 0.86
has state development 0.82
be important in project management 0.80
be important for business 0.78
be important in business 0.78
is bible software expensive 0.78

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

0.47
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(cost, be important in project management) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(design, be important in software development)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(cost, be important in business) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(design, be important in software development)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(design, be important in software development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(cost, be important in business)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(design, be important in software development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(cost, be important in project management)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.25
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(design, be important in software development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(cost, be important in project management)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(design, be important in software development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(cost, be important in business)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(design, be important in software development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(logo, is bible software expensive)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.32
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(design, be important in software development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(prototype, be in software development)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(design, be important in software development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(logo, be important for business)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.16
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(design, be important in software development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(logo, is software)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.16
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(design, be important in software development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(design pattern, be in software engineering)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(cost, be important in project management) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
Remarkable(design, be important in software development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(design, be important in software development)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(cost, be important in business) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
Remarkable(design, be important in software development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(design, be important in software development)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.57
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(design, be important in software development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
Remarkable(prototype, be in software development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Plausible(prototype, be in software development)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(design, be important in software development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
Remarkable(logo, is software) ⋁
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Plausible(logo, is software)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(design, be important in software development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
Remarkable(design pattern, be in software engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Plausible(design pattern, be in software engineering)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(design, be important in software development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
Remarkable(logo, be important for business) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(logo, be important for business)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(design, be important in software development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
Remarkable(logo, is bible software expensive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Plausible(logo, is bible software expensive)

Salient implies Plausible

0.20
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(design, be important in software development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Salient(design, be important in software development)

Similarity expansion

0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.87
Remarkable(design, be important in software development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(design, has state development)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.85
Salient(design, be important in software development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Salient(design, has state development)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.87
Remarkable(design, be important in software development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(design, be important in business)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.85
Salient(design, be important in software development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Salient(design, be important in business)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(design, be important in software development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(design, has state development)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(design, be important in software development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(design, be important in business)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.54
Typical(design, be important in software development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(design, has state development)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.54
Typical(design, be important in software development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Typical(design, be important in business)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Salient(design, be important in software development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(design, be important in software development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(design, be important in software development)

Typical implies Plausible

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(design, be important in software development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(design, be important in software development)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.12
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.29
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(design, be important in software development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(cost, be important in business)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.25
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(design, be important in software development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(cost, be important in project management)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(design, be important in software development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Typical(logo, is software)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(design, be important in software development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Typical(design pattern, be in software engineering)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(design, be important in software development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Typical(prototype, be in software development)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.30
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(design, be important in software development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(logo, be important for business)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.24
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(design, be important in software development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(logo, is bible software expensive)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.24
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.54
Typical(design, be important in software development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(cost, be important in business)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.54
Typical(design, be important in software development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(cost, be important in project management)