photography: be better than video

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents hobby
Weight: 0.67
, art
Weight: 0.65
, medium
Weight: 0.64
, invention
Weight: 0.64
, passion
Weight: 0.62
Siblings painting
Weight: 0.35
, watercolor
Weight: 0.35
, calligraphy
Weight: 0.34
, needlework
Weight: 0.34

Related properties

Property Similarity
be better than video 1.00
be better than colour 0.88
is video 0.87
be better than music 0.86
be better than sports 0.81
be than better photography 0.80
be better than science 0.79
build better being 0.75
make world better place 0.75
is less realistic 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

0.54
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(art, be better than music) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Typical(photography, be better than video)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.47
Plausible(art, be better than science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Typical(photography, be better than video)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.08
Plausible(art, be better than sports) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Typical(photography, be better than video)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.03
Plausible(photography, be better than video) ⋁
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Plausible(art, be better than sports)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.03
Plausible(photography, be better than video) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Plausible(art, be better than science)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.28
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.03
Plausible(photography, be better than video) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(art, be better than music)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.49
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(photography, be better than video) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(art, be better than music)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(photography, be better than video) ⋁
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Remarkable(art, be better than sports)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(photography, be better than video) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Remarkable(art, be better than science)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(photography, be better than video) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(painting, be than better photography)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.36
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(art, be better than music) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
Remarkable(photography, be better than video) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Plausible(photography, be better than video)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.08
Plausible(art, be better than sports) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
Remarkable(photography, be better than video) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Plausible(photography, be better than video)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.47
Plausible(art, be better than science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
Remarkable(photography, be better than video) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Plausible(photography, be better than video)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.29
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.03
Plausible(photography, be better than video) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(painting, be than better photography) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(painting, be than better photography)

Salient implies Plausible

0.27
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.03
Plausible(photography, be better than video) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Salient(photography, be better than video)

Similarity expansion

0.74
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.03
Plausible(photography, be better than video) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Plausible(photography, is video)
0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.03
Salient(photography, be better than video) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Salient(photography, is video)
0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.03
Remarkable(photography, be better than video) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(photography, is video)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.23
Typical(photography, be better than video) ⋁
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Typical(photography, is video)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.03
Remarkable(photography, be better than video) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(photography, be better than colour)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.23
Typical(photography, be better than video) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(photography, be better than colour)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.03
Salient(photography, be better than video) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Salient(photography, be better than colour)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.03
Plausible(photography, be better than video) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(photography, be better than colour)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.03
Salient(photography, be better than video) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Typical(photography, be better than video) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(photography, be better than video)

Typical implies Plausible

0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.03
Plausible(photography, be better than video) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Typical(photography, be better than video)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.43
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(photography, be better than video) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(art, be better than music)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(photography, be better than video) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Typical(art, be better than sports)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(photography, be better than video) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(art, be better than science)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(photography, be better than video) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(painting, be than better photography)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.28
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.23
Typical(photography, be better than video) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Typical(art, be better than sports)
0.19
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.23
Typical(photography, be better than video) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(art, be better than science)
0.16
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.23
Typical(photography, be better than video) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(art, be better than music)