ipod: have bad players

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents pda
Weight: 0.68
, invention
Weight: 0.67
, format
Weight: 0.65
, tablet computer
Weight: 0.64
Siblings ipad
Weight: 0.66
, iphone
Weight: 0.38
, laptop computer
Weight: 0.37
, dvd
Weight: 0.35
, smartphone
Weight: 0.35

Related properties

Property Similarity
have bad players 1.00
have players 0.95
playing way 0.77
look bad 0.76
be bad at school 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: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Remarkable(ipod, have bad players) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(dvd, look bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Remarkable(ipod, have bad players) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(dvd, playing way)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(ipod, have bad players) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
Remarkable(dvd, playing way) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Plausible(dvd, playing way)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(ipod, have bad players) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
Remarkable(dvd, look bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Plausible(dvd, look bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(ipod, have bad players) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Salient(ipod, have bad players)

Similarity expansion

0.79
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.89
Typical(ipod, have bad players) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Typical(ipod, have players)
0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(ipod, have bad players) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Plausible(ipod, have players)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.76
Salient(ipod, have bad players) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Salient(ipod, have players)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.89
Typical(ipod, have bad players) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(ipod, be bad at school)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(ipod, have bad players) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(ipod, be bad at school)
...

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Salient(ipod, have bad players) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(ipod, have bad players) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Remarkable(ipod, have bad players)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(ipod, have bad players) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(ipod, have bad players)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Remarkable(ipod, have bad players) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Typical(dvd, playing way)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Remarkable(ipod, have bad players) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(dvd, look bad)