programming language: have ugly sites

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents language
Weight: 0.81
, syntax
Weight: 0.67
, computer science
Weight: 0.67
, topic
Weight: 0.64
Siblings source code
Weight: 0.69
, smalltalk
Weight: 0.68
, perl
Weight: 0.68
, lisp
Weight: 0.67
, basic
Weight: 0.67

Related properties

Property Similarity
have ugly sites 1.00
have sites 0.87
be considered awful 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

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(programming language, have ugly sites) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(perl, be considered awful)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.39
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(programming language, have ugly sites) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
Remarkable(perl, be considered awful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Plausible(perl, be considered awful)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(programming language, have ugly sites) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Salient(programming language, have ugly sites)

Similarity expansion

0.74
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.81
Typical(programming language, have ugly sites) ⋁
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Typical(programming language, have sites)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(programming language, have ugly sites) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Plausible(programming language, have sites)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.50
Salient(programming language, have ugly sites) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Salient(programming language, have sites)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.30
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.29
Remarkable(programming language, have ugly sites) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Remarkable(programming language, have sites)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
Salient(programming language, have ugly sites) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(programming language, have ugly sites) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(programming language, have ugly sites)

Typical implies Plausible

0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(programming language, have ugly sites) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(programming language, have ugly sites)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(programming language, have ugly sites) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(perl, be considered awful)