language: was developed

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents programming language
Weight: 0.85
, english language
Weight: 0.85
, sign language
Weight: 0.81
, subject
Weight: 0.63
Siblings italian language
Weight: 0.79
, chinese language
Weight: 0.77
, american sign language
Weight: 0.76
, old english
Weight: 0.75
, haitian creole
Weight: 0.72

Related properties

Property Similarity
was developed 1.00
be developed 0.96
was created 0.83
was invented 0.81
is created 0.79
were created 0.78
was produced 0.78
was developed in stone ages 0.78
be created 0.78
was introduced 0.78

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

0.51
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.47
Plausible(sign language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(language, was developed)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(sign language, was invented) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(language, was developed)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.21
Plausible(programming language, be developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(language, was developed)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.28
Plausible(sign language, was created) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(language, was developed)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.21
Plausible(sign language, was introduced) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(language, was developed)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.17
Plausible(programming language, is created) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(language, was developed)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.17
Plausible(programming language, be created) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(language, was developed)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.55
Plausible(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Plausible(programming language, be developed)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.55
Plausible(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Plausible(sign language, was developed)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.55
Plausible(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Plausible(programming language, is created)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.55
Plausible(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Plausible(sign language, was created)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.55
Plausible(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Plausible(programming language, be created)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.55
Plausible(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Plausible(sign language, was introduced)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.55
Plausible(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(sign language, was invented)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.14
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.30
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(sign language, was invented)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.21
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(sign language, was developed)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.16
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(sign language, was introduced)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.13
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(programming language, be developed)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.13
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(sign language, was created)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.12
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Remarkable(programming language, be created)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.11
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Remarkable(programming language, is created)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.35
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(american sign language, was invented)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.32
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(old english, was invented)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.41
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.47
Plausible(sign language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
Remarkable(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Plausible(language, was developed)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.21
Plausible(programming language, be developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
Remarkable(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Plausible(language, was developed)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(sign language, was invented) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
Remarkable(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Plausible(language, was developed)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.28
Plausible(sign language, was created) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
Remarkable(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Plausible(language, was developed)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.17
Plausible(programming language, is created) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
Remarkable(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Plausible(language, was developed)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.17
Plausible(programming language, be created) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
Remarkable(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Plausible(language, was developed)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.21
Plausible(sign language, was introduced) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
Remarkable(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Plausible(language, was developed)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.55
Plausible(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
Remarkable(old english, was invented) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Plausible(old english, was invented)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.55
Plausible(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(american sign language, was invented) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(american sign language, was invented)

Salient implies Plausible

0.19
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.55
Plausible(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Salient(language, was developed)

Similarity expansion

0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.89
Remarkable(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Remarkable(language, was created)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.89
Remarkable(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(language, was invented)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.45
Typical(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Typical(language, was created)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.45
Typical(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Typical(language, was produced)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.89
Remarkable(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(language, were created)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.89
Remarkable(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(language, was produced)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.74
Salient(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Salient(language, was created)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.55
Plausible(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Plausible(language, was created)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.74
Salient(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Salient(language, was produced)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.55
Plausible(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Plausible(language, was produced)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.45
Typical(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Typical(language, were created)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.74
Salient(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Salient(language, were created)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.55
Plausible(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Plausible(language, were created)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.74
Salient(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Salient(language, was invented)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.55
Plausible(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(language, was invented)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.45
Typical(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(language, was invented)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
Salient(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(language, was developed)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.55
Plausible(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(language, was developed)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.48
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Typical(programming language, be developed)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Typical(programming language, is created)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Typical(sign language, was created)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Typical(programming language, be created)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Typical(sign language, was introduced)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Typical(sign language, was developed)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.32
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(sign language, was invented)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.34
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(old english, was invented)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.19
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(american sign language, was invented)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.46
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.45
Typical(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Typical(programming language, be developed)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.45
Typical(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Typical(sign language, was developed)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.45
Typical(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Typical(sign language, was created)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.45
Typical(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Typical(programming language, is created)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.45
Typical(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Typical(programming language, be created)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.45
Typical(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Typical(sign language, was introduced)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.45
Typical(language, was developed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(sign language, was invented)