michigan: has state state

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents university
Weight: 0.60
, school
Weight: 0.60
, city
Weight: 0.59
, indiana
Weight: 0.59
, institution
Weight: 0.59
Siblings illinois
Weight: 0.59
, tennessee
Weight: 0.35
, iowa
Weight: 0.35
, missouri
Weight: 0.35
, mexico city
Weight: 0.35

Related properties

Property Similarity
has state state 1.00
is best state 0.80
is blue state 0.80

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

0.54
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.27
Plausible(indiana, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Typical(michigan, has state state)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(indiana, is best state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Typical(michigan, has state state)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.16
Plausible(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Plausible(indiana, has state state)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.16
Plausible(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(indiana, is best state)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.40
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(indiana, has state state)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(indiana, is best state)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Remarkable(tennessee, has state state)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Remarkable(missouri, has state state)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Remarkable(illinois, is blue state)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(illinois, has state state)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(iowa, has state state)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Remarkable(iowa, is blue state)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(iowa, is best state)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.27
Plausible(indiana, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
Remarkable(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Plausible(michigan, has state state)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(indiana, is best state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
Remarkable(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Plausible(michigan, has state state)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.16
Plausible(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
Remarkable(iowa, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Plausible(iowa, has state state)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.16
Plausible(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
Remarkable(missouri, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Plausible(missouri, has state state)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.16
Plausible(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(illinois, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Plausible(illinois, has state state)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.16
Plausible(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.22
Remarkable(tennessee, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(tennessee, has state state)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.16
Plausible(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
Remarkable(illinois, is blue state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Plausible(illinois, is blue state)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.16
Plausible(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(iowa, is best state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(iowa, is best state)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.16
Plausible(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
Remarkable(iowa, is blue state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(iowa, is blue state)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.16
Plausible(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Salient(michigan, has state state)

Similarity expansion

0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.35
Remarkable(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(michigan, is blue state)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.35
Remarkable(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(michigan, is best state)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.22
Salient(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Salient(michigan, is blue state)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.25
Typical(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(michigan, is best state)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.16
Plausible(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Plausible(michigan, is blue state)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.25
Typical(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(michigan, is blue state)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.16
Plausible(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(michigan, is best state)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.22
Salient(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Salient(michigan, is best state)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.22
Salient(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Typical(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(michigan, has state state)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.16
Plausible(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Typical(michigan, has state state)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.49
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Typical(indiana, has state state)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(indiana, is best state)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Typical(missouri, has state state)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Typical(iowa, has state state)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Typical(illinois, has state state)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Typical(tennessee, has state state)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(illinois, is blue state)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(iowa, is best state)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(iowa, is blue state)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.44
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.25
Typical(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Typical(indiana, has state state)
0.17
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.25
Typical(michigan, has state state) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(indiana, is best state)