programming: is boring

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
is boring 1.00
is depressing 0.78
is funny 0.77
be funny 0.77
is weird 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

0.47
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(computer science, is boring) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Typical(programming, is boring)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(programming, is boring) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Plausible(computer science, is boring)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.56
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(programming, is boring) ⋁
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Remarkable(computer science, is boring)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.13
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(programming, is boring) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Remarkable(computer programming, is boring)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(programming, is boring) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(comedy, be funny)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(programming, is boring) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(comedy, is funny)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(programming, is boring) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(tv show, be funny)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(computer science, is boring) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
Remarkable(programming, is boring) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(programming, is boring)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(programming, is boring) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
Remarkable(tv show, be funny) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Plausible(tv show, be funny)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(programming, is boring) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(comedy, be funny) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Plausible(comedy, be funny)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(programming, is boring) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
Remarkable(computer programming, is boring) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Plausible(computer programming, is boring)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(programming, is boring) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
Remarkable(comedy, is funny) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(comedy, is funny)

Salient implies Plausible

0.25
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(programming, is boring) ⋁
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Salient(programming, is boring)

Similarity expansion

0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.11
Remarkable(programming, is boring) ⋁
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Remarkable(programming, is depressing)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(programming, is boring) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Plausible(programming, is depressing)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.13
Salient(programming, is boring) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Salient(programming, is depressing)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.43
Typical(programming, is boring) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Typical(programming, is depressing)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.13
Salient(programming, is boring) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Typical(programming, is boring) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(programming, is boring)

Typical implies Plausible

0.30
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(programming, is boring) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Typical(programming, is boring)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.48
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(programming, is boring) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(computer science, is boring)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(programming, is boring) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(computer programming, is boring)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(programming, is boring) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Typical(comedy, be funny)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(programming, is boring) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Typical(tv show, be funny)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(programming, is boring) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(comedy, is funny)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.43
Typical(programming, is boring) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(computer science, is boring)