digital camera: do produce same image quality

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents electronic device
Weight: 0.76
, computer hardware
Weight: 0.73
, photograph
Weight: 0.73
, camera
Weight: 0.62
Siblings mobile phone
Weight: 0.73
, computer
Weight: 0.71
, floppy disk
Weight: 0.64
, scanner
Weight: 0.63
, video
Weight: 0.62

Related properties

Property Similarity
do produce same image quality 1.00
do produce image quality 0.98
has quality good 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

0.51
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(camera, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Typical(digital camera, do produce same image quality)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(electronic device, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Typical(digital camera, do produce same image quality)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.02
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.29
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.03
Plausible(digital camera, do produce same image quality)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(electronic device, has quality good)
0.01
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.16
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.03
Plausible(digital camera, do produce same image quality)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Plausible(camera, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.42
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(digital camera, do produce same image quality)
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(electronic device, has quality good)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(digital camera, do produce same image quality)
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(camera, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(digital camera, do produce same image quality)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(digital camera, do produce same image quality)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Remarkable(scanner, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(camera, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.16
Remarkable(digital camera, do produce same image quality)
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Plausible(digital camera, do produce same image quality)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(electronic device, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.16
Remarkable(digital camera, do produce same image quality)
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Plausible(digital camera, do produce same image quality)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.35
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.03
Plausible(digital camera, do produce same image quality)
Evidence: 0.66
Remarkable(scanner, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(scanner, has quality good)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.03
Plausible(digital camera, do produce same image quality)
Evidence: 0.65
Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(mobile phone, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.26
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.03
Plausible(digital camera, do produce same image quality)
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Salient(digital camera, do produce same image quality)

Similarity expansion

0.81
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.03
Plausible(digital camera, do produce same image quality)
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Plausible(digital camera, do produce image quality)
0.77
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.09
Typical(digital camera, do produce same image quality)
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Typical(digital camera, do produce image quality)
0.77
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.07
Salient(digital camera, do produce same image quality)
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Salient(digital camera, do produce image quality)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.16
Remarkable(digital camera, do produce same image quality)
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Remarkable(digital camera, do produce image quality)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.16
Remarkable(digital camera, do produce same image quality)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(digital camera, has quality good)
0.18
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.27
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.03
Plausible(digital camera, do produce same image quality)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(digital camera, has quality good)
0.18
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.27
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.09
Typical(digital camera, do produce same image quality)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(digital camera, has quality good)
0.15
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.23
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.07
Salient(digital camera, do produce same image quality)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Salient(digital camera, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.07
Salient(digital camera, do produce same image quality)
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Typical(digital camera, do produce same image quality)
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(digital camera, do produce same image quality)

Typical implies Plausible

0.44
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.03
Plausible(digital camera, do produce same image quality)
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Typical(digital camera, do produce same image quality)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.34
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(digital camera, do produce same image quality)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(electronic device, has quality good)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(digital camera, do produce same image quality)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(camera, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(digital camera, do produce same image quality)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(scanner, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(digital camera, do produce same image quality)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(mobile phone, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.22
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.09
Typical(digital camera, do produce same image quality)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(electronic device, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.16
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.09
Typical(digital camera, do produce same image quality)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(camera, has quality good)