lux: has quality good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents thing
Weight: 0.47
, experiment
Weight: 0.46
, unit
Weight: 0.45
, brand
Weight: 0.38
, program
Weight: 0.34
Siblings aperture
Weight: 0.30
, light switch
Weight: 0.29
, watt
Weight: 0.29
, sherlock holmes
Weight: 0.29
, cd player
Weight: 0.29

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality good 1.00
has quality bad 0.96
used lately in competitive play 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

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.61
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(experiment, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(lux, has quality good)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(brand, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(lux, has quality good)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(program, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(lux, has quality good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(lux, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(program, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(lux, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(brand, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(lux, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Plausible(experiment, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.33
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(lux, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(program, has quality bad)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(lux, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(experiment, has quality good)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(lux, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(brand, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(lux, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(sherlock holmes, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(lux, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(aperture, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.41
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(experiment, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
Remarkable(lux, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(lux, has quality good)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(brand, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
Remarkable(lux, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(lux, has quality good)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(program, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
Remarkable(lux, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(lux, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(lux, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(aperture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Plausible(aperture, has quality good)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(lux, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
Remarkable(sherlock holmes, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(sherlock holmes, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.21
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(lux, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Salient(lux, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.79
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(lux, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Salient(lux, has quality bad)
0.77
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.73
Remarkable(lux, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Remarkable(lux, has quality bad)
0.75
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(lux, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Plausible(lux, has quality bad)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.72
Typical(lux, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(lux, has quality bad)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(lux, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Salient(lux, used lately in competitive play)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.73
Remarkable(lux, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(lux, used lately in competitive play)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(lux, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(lux, used lately in competitive play)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.72
Typical(lux, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(lux, used lately in competitive play)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(lux, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(lux, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(lux, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(lux, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(lux, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.23
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(lux, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(program, has quality bad)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(lux, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(brand, has quality good)
0.17
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(lux, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(experiment, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(lux, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(aperture, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(lux, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(sherlock holmes, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Typical(lux, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(brand, has quality good)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.72
Typical(lux, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(program, has quality bad)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Typical(lux, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(experiment, has quality good)