programming: be great for for intp

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents computer science
Weight: 0.61
, operation
Weight: 0.58
, item
Weight: 0.57
, feature
Weight: 0.57
Siblings computer programming
Weight: 0.71
, tv show
Weight: 0.64
, comedy
Weight: 0.62
, broadcast
Weight: 0.55
, programming language
Weight: 0.38

Related properties

Property Similarity
be great for for intp 1.00
has quality good 0.81
be important in theatre 0.77
is all 0.77
be like 10b 0.76
is bad now 0.76
has quality better 0.76

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

0.48
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(computer science, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(programming, be great for for intp)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(programming, be great for for intp) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Plausible(computer science, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.25
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(programming, be great for for intp) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(computer science, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(programming, be great for for intp) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(comedy, be important in theatre)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(programming, be great for for intp) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(comedy, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(computer science, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
Remarkable(programming, be great for for intp) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(programming, be great for for intp)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(programming, be great for for intp) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(comedy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(comedy, has quality good)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(programming, be great for for intp) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
Remarkable(comedy, be important in theatre) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Plausible(comedy, be important in theatre)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(programming, be great for for intp) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Salient(programming, be great for for intp)

Similarity expansion

0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.81
Salient(programming, be great for for intp) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Salient(programming, has quality good)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.78
Typical(programming, be great for for intp) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(programming, has quality good)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(programming, be great for for intp) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Plausible(programming, has quality good)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.81
Salient(programming, be great for for intp) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Salient(programming, has quality better)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.78
Typical(programming, be great for for intp) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(programming, has quality better)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(programming, be great for for intp) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(programming, has quality better)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.62
Remarkable(programming, be great for for intp) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(programming, has quality good)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.62
Remarkable(programming, be great for for intp) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(programming, has quality better)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.81
Salient(programming, be great for for intp) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(programming, be great for for intp) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(programming, be great for for intp)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(programming, be great for for intp) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(programming, be great for for intp)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.18
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(programming, be great for for intp) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(computer science, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(programming, be great for for intp) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Typical(comedy, be important in theatre)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(programming, be great for for intp) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(comedy, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.32
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.78
Typical(programming, be great for for intp) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(computer science, has quality good)