illinois: has state state

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents country
Weight: 0.62
, university
Weight: 0.59
, north carolina
Weight: 0.59
, michigan
Weight: 0.59
Siblings ohio
Weight: 0.64
, indiana
Weight: 0.64
, chicago
Weight: 0.63
, south carolina
Weight: 0.36
, florida
Weight: 0.36

Related properties

Property Similarity
has state state 1.00
be called state 0.89
is bad state 0.85
is blue state 0.80
is great state 0.78
is failed state 0.77

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

0.53
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.16
Plausible(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Typical(illinois, has state state)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(university, be called state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Typical(illinois, has state state)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(michigan, is blue state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Typical(illinois, has state state)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Plausible(michigan, has state state)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Plausible(university, be called state)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Plausible(michigan, is blue state)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.43
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(michigan, has state state)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(michigan, is blue state)
0.18
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.35
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(university, be called state)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Remarkable(indiana, is bad state)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(ohio, is bad state)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(indiana, be called state)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(ohio, be called state)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(indiana, has state state)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.31
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(florida, has state state)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.16
Plausible(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Plausible(illinois, has state state)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(university, be called state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Plausible(illinois, has state state)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(michigan, is blue state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Plausible(illinois, has state state)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.59
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
Remarkable(florida, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Plausible(florida, has state state)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
Remarkable(indiana, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Plausible(indiana, has state state)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
Remarkable(indiana, be called state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Plausible(indiana, be called state)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
Remarkable(ohio, be called state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Plausible(ohio, be called state)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
Remarkable(indiana, is bad state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Plausible(indiana, is bad state)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.26
Remarkable(ohio, is bad state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Plausible(ohio, is bad state)

Salient implies Plausible

0.20
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Salient(illinois, has state state)

Similarity expansion

0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(illinois, is bad state)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.40
Salient(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Salient(illinois, is bad state)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Plausible(illinois, is bad state)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Remarkable(illinois, is blue state)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Remarkable(illinois, is great state)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Remarkable(illinois, is failed state)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.40
Salient(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Salient(illinois, is great state)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.40
Salient(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Salient(illinois, is blue state)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Plausible(illinois, is great state)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Plausible(illinois, is blue state)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.40
Salient(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Salient(illinois, is failed state)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Plausible(illinois, is failed state)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.24
Typical(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Typical(illinois, is bad state)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.24
Typical(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Typical(illinois, is great state)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.24
Typical(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(illinois, is blue state)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.24
Typical(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Typical(illinois, is failed state)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.40
Salient(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Typical(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(illinois, has state state)

Typical implies Plausible

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Typical(illinois, has state state)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.42
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Typical(michigan, has state state)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Typical(university, be called state)
0.17
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(michigan, is blue state)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Typical(florida, has state state)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Typical(indiana, has state state)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Typical(indiana, be called state)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Typical(ohio, be called state)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Typical(indiana, is bad state)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Typical(ohio, is bad state)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.24
Typical(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Typical(michigan, has state state)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.24
Typical(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Typical(university, be called state)
0.16
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.24
Typical(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(michigan, is blue state)