design: think useful methodology

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
think useful methodology 1.00
think methodology 0.97
is effectiveness analysis 0.78
is useful 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: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(approach, is useful)
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Typical(design, think useful methodology)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(cost, is effectiveness analysis)
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Typical(design, think useful methodology)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(design, think useful methodology)
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Plausible(cost, is effectiveness analysis)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(design, think useful methodology)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(approach, is useful)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.22
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(design, think useful methodology)
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(cost, is effectiveness analysis)
0.14
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.32
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(design, think useful methodology)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(approach, is useful)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.02
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.24
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(design, think useful methodology)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(prototype, is useful)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.19
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(design, think useful methodology)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(design pattern, is useful)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(approach, is useful)
Evidence: 0.87
Remarkable(design, think useful methodology)
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Plausible(design, think useful methodology)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(cost, is effectiveness analysis)
Evidence: 0.87
Remarkable(design, think useful methodology)
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Plausible(design, think useful methodology)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(design, think useful methodology)
Evidence: 0.93
Remarkable(design pattern, is useful)
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Plausible(design pattern, is useful)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(design, think useful methodology)
Evidence: 0.87
Remarkable(prototype, is useful)
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Plausible(prototype, is useful)

Salient implies Plausible

0.19
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(design, think useful methodology)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Salient(design, think useful methodology)

Similarity expansion

0.80
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.47
Typical(design, think useful methodology)
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Typical(design, think methodology)
0.74
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.80
Salient(design, think useful methodology)
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Salient(design, think methodology)
0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(design, think useful methodology)
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Plausible(design, think methodology)
0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.87
Remarkable(design, think useful methodology)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(design, think methodology)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.47
Typical(design, think useful methodology)
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Typical(design, is useful)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.87
Remarkable(design, think useful methodology)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(design, is useful)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.80
Salient(design, think useful methodology)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Salient(design, is useful)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(design, think useful methodology)
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Plausible(design, is useful)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Salient(design, think useful methodology)
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Typical(design, think useful methodology)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(design, think useful methodology)

Typical implies Plausible

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(design, think useful methodology)
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Typical(design, think useful methodology)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.23
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(design, think useful methodology)
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(cost, is effectiveness analysis)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(design, think useful methodology)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(approach, is useful)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(design, think useful methodology)
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Typical(design pattern, is useful)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(design, think useful methodology)
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Typical(prototype, is useful)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.28
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.47
Typical(design, think useful methodology)
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(cost, is effectiveness analysis)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.47
Typical(design, think useful methodology)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(approach, is useful)