patent: has quality assets

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
has quality assets 1.00
is intangible assets 0.86
have properties 0.77
be with better properties 0.77

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

0.39
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.49
Plausible(material, have properties) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Typical(patent, has quality assets)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(patent, has quality assets) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Plausible(material, have properties)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.11
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.24
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(patent, has quality assets) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(material, have properties)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.49
Plausible(material, have properties) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
Remarkable(patent, has quality assets) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Plausible(patent, has quality assets)

Salient implies Plausible

0.19
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(patent, has quality assets) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Salient(patent, has quality assets)

Similarity expansion

0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.84
Remarkable(patent, has quality assets) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(patent, is intangible assets)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.76
Salient(patent, has quality assets) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Salient(patent, is intangible assets)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(patent, has quality assets) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Plausible(patent, is intangible assets)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.47
Typical(patent, has quality assets) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Typical(patent, is intangible assets)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Salient(patent, has quality assets) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Typical(patent, has quality assets) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(patent, has quality assets)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(patent, has quality assets) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Typical(patent, has quality assets)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.28
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(patent, has quality assets) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Typical(material, have properties)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.31
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.47
Typical(patent, has quality assets) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Typical(material, have properties)