garbage: has state problem

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents waste
Weight: 0.62
, object
Weight: 0.60
, service
Weight: 0.59
, mess
Weight: 0.58
Siblings human waste
Weight: 0.66
, banana peel
Weight: 0.58
, litter
Weight: 0.56

Related properties

Property Similarity
has state problem 1.00
be major problem 0.87
be problem in community 0.85
be patch problem 0.80
dump problem 0.79
dump big problem 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

0.31
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.34
Plausible(waste, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(garbage, has state problem)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(garbage, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Plausible(waste, has state problem)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.49
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(garbage, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(waste, has state problem)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(garbage, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(litter, has state problem)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(garbage, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(human waste, has state problem)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.30
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.34
Plausible(waste, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.39
Remarkable(garbage, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(garbage, has state problem)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(garbage, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.84
Remarkable(human waste, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Plausible(human waste, has state problem)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(garbage, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(litter, has state problem)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(garbage, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Salient(garbage, has state problem)

Similarity expansion

0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.81
Typical(garbage, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Typical(garbage, dump problem)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.81
Typical(garbage, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Typical(garbage, be patch problem)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.64
Salient(garbage, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Salient(garbage, be patch problem)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.81
Typical(garbage, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(garbage, be major problem)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.81
Typical(garbage, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(garbage, be problem in community)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.39
Remarkable(garbage, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Remarkable(garbage, be patch problem)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(garbage, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(garbage, be patch problem)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.39
Remarkable(garbage, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Remarkable(garbage, be problem in community)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.64
Salient(garbage, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Salient(garbage, dump problem)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(garbage, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(garbage, be problem in community)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.81
Typical(garbage, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Typical(garbage, dump big problem)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.64
Salient(garbage, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Salient(garbage, be problem in community)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(garbage, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Plausible(garbage, be major problem)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(garbage, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(garbage, dump problem)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.39
Remarkable(garbage, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Remarkable(garbage, be major problem)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.64
Salient(garbage, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Salient(garbage, be major problem)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(garbage, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Plausible(garbage, dump big problem)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.64
Salient(garbage, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Salient(garbage, dump big problem)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.39
Remarkable(garbage, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(garbage, dump big problem)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.39
Remarkable(garbage, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(garbage, dump problem)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
Salient(garbage, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(garbage, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(garbage, has state problem)

Typical implies Plausible

0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(garbage, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(garbage, has state problem)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.42
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(garbage, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Typical(waste, has state problem)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(garbage, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Typical(human waste, has state problem)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(garbage, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(litter, has state problem)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.44
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.81
Typical(garbage, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Typical(waste, has state problem)