massachusetts: be in 1600s

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents new york
Weight: 0.66
, new england
Weight: 0.65
, pennsylvania
Weight: 0.63
, connecticut
Weight: 0.59
Siblings new hampshire
Weight: 0.64
, boston
Weight: 0.62
, west virginia
Weight: 0.36
, new york city
Weight: 0.36
, maryland
Weight: 0.36

Related properties

Property Similarity
be in 1600s 1.00
be best state live in 0.77
was better than rest 0.75

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

0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.32
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(massachusetts, be in 1600s) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(new hampshire, be best state live in)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.21
Plausible(massachusetts, be in 1600s) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
Remarkable(new hampshire, be best state live in) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Plausible(new hampshire, be best state live in)

Salient implies Plausible

0.21
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.21
Plausible(massachusetts, be in 1600s) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Salient(massachusetts, be in 1600s)

Similarity expansion

0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.12
Typical(massachusetts, be in 1600s) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Typical(massachusetts, was better than rest)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.76
Remarkable(massachusetts, be in 1600s) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(massachusetts, be best state live in)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.76
Remarkable(massachusetts, be in 1600s) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(massachusetts, was better than rest)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.21
Plausible(massachusetts, be in 1600s) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Plausible(massachusetts, was better than rest)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.12
Typical(massachusetts, be in 1600s) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Typical(massachusetts, be best state live in)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.33
Salient(massachusetts, be in 1600s) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Salient(massachusetts, was better than rest)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.21
Plausible(massachusetts, be in 1600s) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(massachusetts, be best state live in)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.33
Salient(massachusetts, be in 1600s) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Salient(massachusetts, be best state live in)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.33
Salient(massachusetts, be in 1600s) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Typical(massachusetts, be in 1600s) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(massachusetts, be in 1600s)

Typical implies Plausible

0.43
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.21
Plausible(massachusetts, be in 1600s) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Typical(massachusetts, be in 1600s)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(massachusetts, be in 1600s) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Typical(new hampshire, be best state live in)