market: is inefficient

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents stock market
Weight: 0.68
, segment
Weight: 0.67
, country
Weight: 0.60
Siblings banking
Weight: 0.67
, dealer
Weight: 0.66
, semiconductor
Weight: 0.66
, manufacturing
Weight: 0.64
, tablet
Weight: 0.64

Related properties

Property Similarity
is inefficient 1.00
is efficient 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

0.50
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(stock market, is efficient) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Typical(market, is inefficient)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.02
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(market, is inefficient) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Plausible(stock market, is efficient)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.40
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Remarkable(market, is inefficient) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(stock market, is efficient)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(stock market, is efficient) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
Remarkable(market, is inefficient) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Plausible(market, is inefficient)

Salient implies Plausible

0.24
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(market, is inefficient) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Salient(market, is inefficient)

Similarity expansion

0.41
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.58
Typical(market, is inefficient) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(market, is efficient)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.17
Remarkable(market, is inefficient) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(market, is efficient)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(market, is inefficient) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Plausible(market, is efficient)
0.16
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.24
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.21
Salient(market, is inefficient) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Salient(market, is efficient)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.21
Salient(market, is inefficient) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Typical(market, is inefficient) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Remarkable(market, is inefficient)

Typical implies Plausible

0.28
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(market, is inefficient) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Typical(market, is inefficient)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.33
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Remarkable(market, is inefficient) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(stock market, is efficient)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.22
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.58
Typical(market, is inefficient) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(stock market, is efficient)