pda: has quality wrong

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents electronic device
Weight: 0.63
, device
Weight: 0.63
, cell phone
Weight: 0.60
, digital camera
Weight: 0.58
, mobile phone
Weight: 0.57
Siblings iphone
Weight: 0.69
, palm
Weight: 0.58
, tablet computer
Weight: 0.36
, computer keyboard
Weight: 0.35
, network device
Weight: 0.35

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality wrong 1.00
has quality bad 0.87
has quality good 0.85

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: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(cell phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(pda, has quality wrong)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(pda, has quality wrong)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(pda, has quality wrong)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(digital camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(pda, has quality wrong)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(pda, has quality wrong)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(cell phone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(pda, has quality wrong)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.51
Plausible(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(cell phone, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.51
Plausible(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(electronic device, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.51
Plausible(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(digital camera, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.51
Plausible(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(device, has quality good)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.51
Plausible(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(mobile phone, has quality good)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.51
Plausible(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Plausible(cell phone, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.41
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Remarkable(cell phone, has quality bad)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(electronic device, has quality good)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(digital camera, has quality good)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality good)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(device, has quality good)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(cell phone, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Remarkable(palm, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(network device, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(network device, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(cell phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Plausible(pda, has quality wrong)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Plausible(pda, has quality wrong)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Plausible(pda, has quality wrong)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(digital camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Plausible(pda, has quality wrong)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(cell phone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Plausible(pda, has quality wrong)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Plausible(pda, has quality wrong)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.51
Plausible(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
Remarkable(palm, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Plausible(palm, has quality bad)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.51
Plausible(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(network device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(network device, has quality good)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.51
Plausible(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
Remarkable(network device, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(network device, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.20
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.51
Plausible(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Salient(pda, has quality wrong)

Similarity expansion

0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.57
Typical(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(pda, has quality good)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.57
Typical(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(pda, has quality bad)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Remarkable(pda, has quality bad)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.51
Plausible(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(pda, has quality bad)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.57
Salient(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Salient(pda, has quality bad)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.51
Plausible(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Plausible(pda, has quality good)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.57
Salient(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Salient(pda, has quality good)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(pda, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.57
Salient(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(pda, has quality wrong)

Typical implies Plausible

0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.51
Plausible(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(pda, has quality wrong)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.24
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(digital camera, has quality good)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(cell phone, has quality bad)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(electronic device, has quality good)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(device, has quality good)
0.19
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(mobile phone, has quality good)
0.19
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(cell phone, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Typical(palm, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(network device, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(network device, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.27
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.57
Typical(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(digital camera, has quality good)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.57
Typical(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(cell phone, has quality bad)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.57
Typical(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(electronic device, has quality good)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.57
Typical(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(device, has quality good)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.57
Typical(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(mobile phone, has quality good)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.57
Typical(pda, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(cell phone, has quality good)