java: is more efficient

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents coffee
Weight: 0.72
, software
Weight: 0.59
, programming language
Weight: 0.58
, island
Weight: 0.57
, tool
Weight: 0.57
Siblings groovy
Weight: 0.50
, tcl
Weight: 0.46
, coffee mug
Weight: 0.37
, mocha
Weight: 0.36
, coffee maker
Weight: 0.35

Related properties

Property Similarity
is more efficient 1.00
is used more 0.78
be better than c++ 0.78
be better than kotlin 0.78
be reliable 0.78
is more scalable 0.77
is more secure 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

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(java, is more efficient)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Salient(java, is more efficient)

Similarity expansion

0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.77
Typical(java, is more efficient)
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Typical(java, is used more)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(java, is more efficient)
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Salient(java, be better than kotlin)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(java, is more efficient)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Salient(java, is used more)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(java, is more efficient)
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Plausible(java, is used more)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.77
Typical(java, is more efficient)
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(java, be better than c++)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(java, is more efficient)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Salient(java, be better than c++)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(java, is more efficient)
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Plausible(java, be better than kotlin)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(java, is more efficient)
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(java, be reliable)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.77
Typical(java, is more efficient)
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(java, be better than kotlin)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(java, is more efficient)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Salient(java, be reliable)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(java, is more efficient)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Salient(java, is more scalable)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(java, is more efficient)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Salient(java, is more secure)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.77
Typical(java, is more efficient)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(java, is more scalable)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(java, is more efficient)
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Remarkable(java, be better than kotlin)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(java, is more efficient)
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(java, be better than c++)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.77
Typical(java, is more efficient)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(java, is more secure)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(java, is more efficient)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(java, is more secure)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.77
Typical(java, is more efficient)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(java, be reliable)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(java, is more efficient)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(java, is more secure)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(java, is more efficient)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(java, is more scalable)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(java, is more efficient)
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Plausible(java, is more scalable)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(java, is more efficient)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Plausible(java, be reliable)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(java, is more efficient)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(java, be better than c++)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(java, is more efficient)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Remarkable(java, is used more)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(java, is more efficient)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(java, is more efficient)
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(java, is more efficient)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(java, is more efficient)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(java, is more efficient)