hardware: is loss hardware theft

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents merchandise
Weight: 0.64
, operating system
Weight: 0.64
, engineering
Weight: 0.61
, module
Weight: 0.59
, strategy
Weight: 0.59
Siblings software
Weight: 0.35
, electronics
Weight: 0.34
, unix
Weight: 0.33
, solaris
Weight: 0.33
, macintosh
Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property Similarity
is loss hardware theft 1.00
be called hardware 0.79
affect hardware 0.79
works in hardware 0.78
be more important than hardware 0.77
be more expensive than hardware 0.77
actually make hardware work 0.76

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

0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(hardware, is loss hardware theft) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(software, actually make hardware work)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(hardware, is loss hardware theft) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Remarkable(software, be more expensive than hardware)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(hardware, is loss hardware theft) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(software, works in hardware)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(hardware, is loss hardware theft) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Remarkable(software, affect hardware)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(hardware, is loss hardware theft) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(software, be more important than hardware)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(hardware, is loss hardware theft) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
Remarkable(software, affect hardware) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Plausible(software, affect hardware)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(hardware, is loss hardware theft) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
Remarkable(software, works in hardware) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Plausible(software, works in hardware)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(hardware, is loss hardware theft) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
Remarkable(software, be more important than hardware) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Plausible(software, be more important than hardware)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(hardware, is loss hardware theft) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
Remarkable(software, be more expensive than hardware) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Plausible(software, be more expensive than hardware)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(hardware, is loss hardware theft) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
Remarkable(software, actually make hardware work) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Plausible(software, actually make hardware work)

Salient implies Plausible

0.25
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(hardware, is loss hardware theft) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Salient(hardware, is loss hardware theft)

Similarity expansion

0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.93
Typical(hardware, is loss hardware theft) ⋁
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Typical(hardware, be called hardware)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(hardware, is loss hardware theft) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Plausible(hardware, be called hardware)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(hardware, is loss hardware theft) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Salient(hardware, be called hardware)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.51
Remarkable(hardware, is loss hardware theft) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Remarkable(hardware, be called hardware)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(hardware, is loss hardware theft) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(hardware, is loss hardware theft) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(hardware, is loss hardware theft)

Typical implies Plausible

0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(hardware, is loss hardware theft) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(hardware, is loss hardware theft)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(hardware, is loss hardware theft) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Typical(software, affect hardware)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(hardware, is loss hardware theft) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Typical(software, works in hardware)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(hardware, is loss hardware theft) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Typical(software, be more important than hardware)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(hardware, is loss hardware theft) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(software, be more expensive than hardware)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(hardware, is loss hardware theft) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Typical(software, actually make hardware work)