patent: has quality bad

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 bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
be good bad 0.87
is bad thing 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

0.56
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(patent, has quality bad)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(patent, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(patent, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(method, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(patent, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(device, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.49
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(patent, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(method, has quality bad)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(patent, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(device, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.13
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(patent, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(invention, has quality bad)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(patent, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(network device, has quality bad)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(patent, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(algorithm, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(patent, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(network device, has quality good)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(patent, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(invention, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
Remarkable(patent, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Plausible(patent, has quality bad)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
Remarkable(patent, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Plausible(patent, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.60
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(patent, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
Remarkable(invention, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Plausible(invention, has quality bad)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(patent, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(invention, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(invention, has quality good)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(patent, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(network device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(network device, has quality good)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(patent, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
Remarkable(algorithm, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(algorithm, has quality bad)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(patent, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
Remarkable(network device, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(network device, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(patent, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Salient(patent, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(patent, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Plausible(patent, be good bad)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.36
Salient(patent, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Salient(patent, be good bad)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.29
Remarkable(patent, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(patent, be good bad)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.66
Typical(patent, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(patent, has quality good)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.66
Typical(patent, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(patent, be good bad)
...

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.36
Salient(patent, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(patent, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(patent, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.31
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(patent, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(patent, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.39
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(patent, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, has quality bad)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(patent, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(device, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(patent, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Typical(invention, has quality bad)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(patent, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Typical(invention, has quality good)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(patent, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(algorithm, has quality bad)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(patent, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(network device, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(patent, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(network device, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.66
Typical(patent, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, has quality bad)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.66
Typical(patent, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(device, has quality good)