hacking: has quality wrong

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents crime
Weight: 0.63
, computer network
Weight: 0.57
, activity
Weight: 0.57
, thing
Weight: 0.55
, breach
Weight: 0.53
Siblings computer virus
Weight: 0.35
, hack
Weight: 0.33
, stealing
Weight: 0.32
, sexual harassment
Weight: 0.32
, piracy
Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality wrong 1.00
has quality bad 0.87
has quality good 0.85

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

0.50
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(computer network, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(hacking, has quality wrong)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(breach, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(hacking, has quality wrong)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(crime, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(hacking, has quality wrong)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Plausible(crime, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(breach, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(computer network, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.38
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(computer network, has quality bad)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(breach, has quality bad)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(crime, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Remarkable(sexual harassment, has quality wrong)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Remarkable(stealing, has quality good)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Remarkable(piracy, has quality wrong)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Remarkable(sexual harassment, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Remarkable(piracy, has quality good)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(stealing, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(piracy, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(stealing, has quality wrong)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(computer virus, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Remarkable(hack, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(computer network, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Plausible(hacking, has quality wrong)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(breach, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Plausible(hacking, has quality wrong)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(crime, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Plausible(hacking, has quality wrong)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
Remarkable(piracy, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Plausible(piracy, has quality wrong)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(stealing, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Plausible(stealing, has quality wrong)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
Remarkable(sexual harassment, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Plausible(sexual harassment, has quality wrong)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
Remarkable(piracy, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Plausible(piracy, has quality bad)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
Remarkable(stealing, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Plausible(stealing, has quality good)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
Remarkable(piracy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Plausible(piracy, has quality good)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
Remarkable(stealing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Plausible(stealing, has quality bad)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
Remarkable(sexual harassment, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Plausible(sexual harassment, has quality bad)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
Remarkable(hack, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(hack, has quality good)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(computer virus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Plausible(computer virus, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Salient(hacking, has quality wrong)

Similarity expansion

0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(hacking, has quality bad)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.64
Salient(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Salient(hacking, has quality bad)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Plausible(hacking, has quality bad)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Remarkable(hacking, has quality bad)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(hacking, has quality good)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(hacking, has quality good)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.64
Salient(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Salient(hacking, has quality good)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(hacking, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
Salient(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(hacking, has quality wrong)

Typical implies Plausible

0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(hacking, has quality wrong)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.36
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(crime, has quality bad)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(breach, has quality bad)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(computer network, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Typical(piracy, has quality wrong)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(stealing, has quality wrong)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(sexual harassment, has quality wrong)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Typical(piracy, has quality bad)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Typical(piracy, has quality good)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Typical(stealing, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(stealing, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(sexual harassment, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(hack, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(computer virus, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(crime, has quality bad)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(breach, has quality bad)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(hacking, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(computer network, has quality bad)