patent: be important to business

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents method
Weight: 0.60
, development
Weight: 0.59
, material
Weight: 0.59
, device
Weight: 0.58
Siblings invention
Weight: 0.33
, tablet computer
Weight: 0.32
, application
Weight: 0.32
, network device
Weight: 0.32
, algorithm
Weight: 0.31

Related properties

Property Similarity
be important to business 1.00
be important for tncs 0.81
be important in market economy 0.81
be important for innovation 0.78
be important for employees 0.77
be integral part of process of aerospace product 0.76
be important to resource management 0.76
affect location of industry 0.76
have important software 0.76
be integral part of designing process of aerospace product 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

0.49
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(development, be important for employees)
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Typical(patent, be important to business)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(development, be integral part of designing process of aerospace product)
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Typical(patent, be important to business)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.04
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.51
Plausible(patent, be important to business)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Plausible(development, be important for employees)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.51
Plausible(patent, be important to business)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Plausible(development, be integral part of designing process of aerospace product)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.23
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(patent, be important to business)
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(development, be integral part of designing process of aerospace product)
0.14
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.32
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(patent, be important to business)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(development, be important for employees)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.25
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(patent, be important to business)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(application, have important software)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(development, be important for employees)
Evidence: 0.89
Remarkable(patent, be important to business)
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Plausible(patent, be important to business)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(development, be integral part of designing process of aerospace product)
Evidence: 0.89
Remarkable(patent, be important to business)
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Plausible(patent, be important to business)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.51
Plausible(patent, be important to business)
Evidence: 0.84
Remarkable(application, have important software)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(application, have important software)

Salient implies Plausible

0.18
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.51
Plausible(patent, be important to business)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Salient(patent, be important to business)

Similarity expansion

0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.89
Remarkable(patent, be important to business)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(patent, be important for tncs)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.89
Remarkable(patent, be important to business)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(patent, be important in market economy)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.89
Remarkable(patent, be important to business)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(patent, be important for innovation)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.74
Salient(patent, be important to business)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Salient(patent, be important in market economy)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.74
Salient(patent, be important to business)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Salient(patent, be important for tncs)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.74
Salient(patent, be important to business)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Salient(patent, be important for innovation)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.51
Plausible(patent, be important to business)
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(patent, be important in market economy)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.35
Typical(patent, be important to business)
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(patent, be important in market economy)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.51
Plausible(patent, be important to business)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(patent, be important for tncs)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.51
Plausible(patent, be important to business)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Plausible(patent, be important for innovation)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.35
Typical(patent, be important to business)
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Typical(patent, be important for innovation)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.35
Typical(patent, be important to business)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(patent, be important for tncs)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
Salient(patent, be important to business)
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Typical(patent, be important to business)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(patent, be important to business)

Typical implies Plausible

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.51
Plausible(patent, be important to business)
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Typical(patent, be important to business)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.21
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(patent, be important to business)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(development, be important for employees)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.14
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(patent, be important to business)
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(development, be integral part of designing process of aerospace product)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(patent, be important to business)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(application, have important software)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.16
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.35
Typical(patent, be important to business)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(development, be important for employees)
0.14
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.35
Typical(patent, be important to business)
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(development, be integral part of designing process of aerospace product)