prototype: be important to engineers

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents device
Weight: 0.63
, design
Weight: 0.63
, project
Weight: 0.62
, design pattern
Weight: 0.62
Siblings electronic device
Weight: 0.34
, robot
Weight: 0.34
, network device
Weight: 0.34
, galvanometer
Weight: 0.34
, tablet computer
Weight: 0.34

Related properties

Property Similarity
be important to engineers 1.00
help engineers 0.96
be developed by engineers 0.92
be important in engineering 0.83
be in software engineering 0.79

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

0.37
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(design, be important in engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(prototype, be important to engineers)
0.19
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.24
Plausible(design pattern, be in software engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(prototype, be important to engineers)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(prototype, be important to engineers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Plausible(design pattern, be in software engineering)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(prototype, be important to engineers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(design, be important in engineering)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.25
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Remarkable(prototype, be important to engineers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(design, be important in engineering)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Remarkable(prototype, be important to engineers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(design pattern, be in software engineering)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Remarkable(prototype, be important to engineers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(robot, help engineers)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.30
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(design, be important in engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
Remarkable(prototype, be important to engineers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(prototype, be important to engineers)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.24
Plausible(design pattern, be in software engineering) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
Remarkable(prototype, be important to engineers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(prototype, be important to engineers)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(prototype, be important to engineers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
Remarkable(robot, help engineers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Plausible(robot, help engineers)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(prototype, be important to engineers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Salient(prototype, be important to engineers)

Similarity expansion

0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(prototype, be important to engineers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(prototype, be developed by engineers)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.82
Salient(prototype, be important to engineers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Salient(prototype, be developed by engineers)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(prototype, be important to engineers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(prototype, be developed by engineers)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.54
Remarkable(prototype, be important to engineers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(prototype, be developed by engineers)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Salient(prototype, be important to engineers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(prototype, be important to engineers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Remarkable(prototype, be important to engineers)

Typical implies Plausible

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(prototype, be important to engineers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(prototype, be important to engineers)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.39
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Remarkable(prototype, be important to engineers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Typical(design pattern, be in software engineering)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Remarkable(prototype, be important to engineers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(design, be important in engineering)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Remarkable(prototype, be important to engineers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(robot, help engineers)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(prototype, be important to engineers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Typical(design pattern, be in software engineering)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(prototype, be important to engineers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(design, be important in engineering)