prototype: has quality good

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
has quality good 1.00
has quality bad 0.96
is good thing 0.78
has quality evil 0.78
be considered good 0.77
be bad for environment 0.77
has quality questions 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

0.57
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(prototype, has quality good)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(design, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(prototype, has quality good)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(project, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(prototype, has quality good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(design pattern, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(prototype, has quality good)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(design, be considered good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(prototype, has quality good)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.34
Plausible(design pattern, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(prototype, has quality good)
0.20
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.32
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.12
Plausible(project, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(prototype, has quality good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.09
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Plausible(project, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Plausible(design pattern, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(project, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(design, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(device, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(design, be considered good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(design pattern, has quality questions)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.50
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(project, has quality bad)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Remarkable(design pattern, has quality bad)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(device, has quality good)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(project, has quality good)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(design, has quality good)
0.20
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(design, be considered good)
0.20
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(design pattern, has quality questions)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(network device, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(electronic device, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(network device, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(galvanometer, has quality questions)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(galvanometer, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(prototype, has quality good)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(design, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(prototype, has quality good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(project, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(prototype, has quality good)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.34
Plausible(design pattern, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(prototype, has quality good)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.12
Plausible(project, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(prototype, has quality good)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(design pattern, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(prototype, has quality good)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(design, be considered good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(prototype, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.57
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(galvanometer, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(galvanometer, has quality good)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(network device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(network device, has quality good)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(electronic device, has quality good)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
Remarkable(network device, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(network device, has quality bad)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
Remarkable(galvanometer, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Plausible(galvanometer, has quality questions)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Salient(prototype, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.88
Salient(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Salient(prototype, has quality evil)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Remarkable(prototype, has quality evil)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Plausible(prototype, has quality evil)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.78
Typical(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Typical(prototype, has quality evil)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.88
Salient(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(prototype, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(prototype, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.35
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(project, has quality bad)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Typical(design pattern, has quality bad)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(project, has quality good)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(design, has quality good)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(design, be considered good)
0.20
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Typical(design pattern, has quality questions)
0.19
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(device, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(galvanometer, has quality questions)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(galvanometer, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(network device, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(electronic device, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(network device, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.78
Typical(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(project, has quality bad)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
Typical(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(project, has quality good)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.78
Typical(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Typical(design pattern, has quality bad)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
Typical(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(design, has quality good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
Typical(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(device, has quality good)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.78
Typical(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(design, be considered good)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.78
Typical(prototype, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Typical(design pattern, has quality questions)