new hampshire: was chosen for name

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents new england
Weight: 0.75
, new york
Weight: 0.73
, massachusetts
Weight: 0.64
, maine
Weight: 0.56
Siblings alabama
Weight: 0.65
, manchester
Weight: 0.61
, mississippi
Weight: 0.57
, lake champlain
Weight: 0.56
, new york city
Weight: 0.40

Related properties

Property Similarity
was chosen for name 1.00
was named 0.83
is named 0.81
is named after 0.79

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

0.44
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(maine, was named)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(new hampshire, was chosen for name)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(new hampshire, was chosen for name)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(maine, was named)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.19
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(new hampshire, was chosen for name)
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(maine, was named)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(new hampshire, was chosen for name)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(lake champlain, was named)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(maine, was named)
Evidence: 0.86
Remarkable(new hampshire, was chosen for name)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(new hampshire, was chosen for name)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(new hampshire, was chosen for name)
Evidence: 0.65
Remarkable(lake champlain, was named)
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Plausible(lake champlain, was named)

Salient implies Plausible

0.19
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(new hampshire, was chosen for name)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Salient(new hampshire, was chosen for name)

Similarity expansion

0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.54
Typical(new hampshire, was chosen for name)
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Typical(new hampshire, was named)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.54
Typical(new hampshire, was chosen for name)
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Typical(new hampshire, is named)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.54
Typical(new hampshire, was chosen for name)
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Typical(new hampshire, is named after)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.83
Salient(new hampshire, was chosen for name)
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Salient(new hampshire, was named)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(new hampshire, was chosen for name)
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Plausible(new hampshire, was named)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.83
Salient(new hampshire, was chosen for name)
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Salient(new hampshire, is named)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(new hampshire, was chosen for name)
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Plausible(new hampshire, is named)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.86
Remarkable(new hampshire, was chosen for name)
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(new hampshire, was named)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.83
Salient(new hampshire, was chosen for name)
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Salient(new hampshire, is named after)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(new hampshire, was chosen for name)
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Plausible(new hampshire, is named after)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.86
Remarkable(new hampshire, was chosen for name)
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Remarkable(new hampshire, is named)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.86
Remarkable(new hampshire, was chosen for name)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(new hampshire, is named after)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
Salient(new hampshire, was chosen for name)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(new hampshire, was chosen for name)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(new hampshire, was chosen for name)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(new hampshire, was chosen for name)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(new hampshire, was chosen for name)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.19
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(new hampshire, was chosen for name)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(maine, was named)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(new hampshire, was chosen for name)
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(lake champlain, was named)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.28
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.54
Typical(new hampshire, was chosen for name)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(maine, was named)