event: CAN can good idea

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents race
Weight: 0.65
, night
Weight: 0.62
, conflict
Weight: 0.60
, topic
Weight: 0.60
Siblings national convention
Weight: 0.73
, competition
Weight: 0.71
, boxing match
Weight: 0.71
, wedding reception
Weight: 0.70
, contest
Weight: 0.70

Related properties

Property Similarity
CAN can good idea 1.00
CAN can mutually exclusive 0.77
have chance truly random 0.77
be way say 0.76
is ultimately concept 0.76
is thing 0.76
is ultimately unrealistic concept 0.76
make us better 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

0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(event, CAN can good idea) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(competition, make us better)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(event, CAN can good idea) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
Remarkable(competition, make us better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Plausible(competition, make us better)

Salient implies Plausible

0.24
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(event, CAN can good idea) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Salient(event, CAN can good idea)

Similarity expansion

0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.93
Salient(event, CAN can good idea) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Salient(event, CAN can mutually exclusive)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.93
Salient(event, CAN can good idea) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Salient(event, have chance truly random)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.88
Typical(event, CAN can good idea) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(event, have chance truly random)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.88
Typical(event, CAN can good idea) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(event, CAN can mutually exclusive)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(event, CAN can good idea) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(event, have chance truly random)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.70
Remarkable(event, CAN can good idea) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(event, CAN can mutually exclusive)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(event, CAN can good idea) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Plausible(event, CAN can mutually exclusive)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.70
Remarkable(event, CAN can good idea) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(event, have chance truly random)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.93
Salient(event, CAN can good idea) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(event, CAN can good idea) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(event, CAN can good idea)

Typical implies Plausible

0.41
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(event, CAN can good idea) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(event, CAN can good idea)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(event, CAN can good idea) ⋁
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Typical(competition, make us better)