haskell: has quality good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents programming language
Weight: 0.56
, language
Weight: 0.54
, example
Weight: 0.48
, topic
Weight: 0.47
, man
Weight: 0.47
Siblings english language
Weight: 0.28
, sign language
Weight: 0.28
, italian language
Weight: 0.28
, chinese language
Weight: 0.28
, american sign language
Weight: 0.28

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality good 1.00
has quality darn 0.83

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

0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(haskell, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(english language, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(haskell, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(sign language, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.57
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(haskell, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(sign language, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(sign language, has quality good)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(haskell, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
Remarkable(english language, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Plausible(english language, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(haskell, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Salient(haskell, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.91
Salient(haskell, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Salient(haskell, has quality darn)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(haskell, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(haskell, has quality darn)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(haskell, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(haskell, has quality darn)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(haskell, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(haskell, has quality darn)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.91
Salient(haskell, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(haskell, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(haskell, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(haskell, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(haskell, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.31
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(haskell, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(sign language, has quality good)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.25
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(haskell, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(english language, has quality good)