monitor: has quality good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents device
Weight: 0.63
, computer hardware
Weight: 0.62
, screen
Weight: 0.60
, interface
Weight: 0.59
Siblings computer monitor
Weight: 0.39
, electronic device
Weight: 0.34
, laptop computer
Weight: 0.34
, network device
Weight: 0.33
, cooling device
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality good 1.00
has quality bad 0.96
has quality better 0.94
is quality 0.91
affect quality 0.81
affect sound quality 0.79
be better than real life 0.76
has quality print 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

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.55
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(monitor, has quality good)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(screen, has quality print) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(monitor, has quality good)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(monitor, has quality good)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.54
Plausible(interface, affect sound quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(monitor, has quality good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.09
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(monitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(device, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(monitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(interface, affect quality)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(monitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Plausible(interface, affect sound quality)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(monitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Plausible(screen, has quality print)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.32
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(monitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(device, has quality good)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(monitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(interface, affect sound quality)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(monitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(screen, has quality print)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(monitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(interface, affect quality)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(monitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(network device, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(monitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(electronic device, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(monitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(network device, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(monitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(computer monitor, is quality)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
Remarkable(monitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(monitor, has quality good)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(screen, has quality print) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
Remarkable(monitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(monitor, has quality good)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
Remarkable(monitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(monitor, has quality good)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.54
Plausible(interface, affect sound quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
Remarkable(monitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(monitor, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.59
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(monitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(network device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(network device, has quality good)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(monitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(electronic device, has quality good)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(monitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
Remarkable(network device, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(network device, has quality bad)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(monitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
Remarkable(computer monitor, is quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(computer monitor, is quality)

Salient implies Plausible

0.26
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(monitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Salient(monitor, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.79
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.99
Salient(monitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Salient(monitor, has quality better)
0.78
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(monitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(monitor, has quality better)
0.75
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(monitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Plausible(monitor, has quality better)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.67
Remarkable(monitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(monitor, has quality better)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.99
Salient(monitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(monitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(monitor, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.45
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(monitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(monitor, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.26
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(monitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(interface, affect quality)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(monitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(interface, affect sound quality)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(monitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(device, has quality good)
0.14
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(monitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(screen, has quality print)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(monitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(computer monitor, is quality)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(monitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(network device, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(monitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(electronic device, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(monitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(network device, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.47
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(monitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(device, has quality good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(monitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(interface, affect quality)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(monitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(interface, affect sound quality)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(monitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(screen, has quality print)