prototype: is hard

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
is hard 1.00
be hard for companies 0.80
is good thing 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

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.63
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.93
Plausible(design pattern, is hard) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Typical(prototype, is hard)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(design, be hard for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Typical(prototype, is hard)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(prototype, is hard) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Plausible(design, be hard for companies)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(prototype, is hard) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Plausible(design pattern, is hard)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.46
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(prototype, is hard) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(design pattern, is hard)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(prototype, is hard) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(design, be hard for companies)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.41
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.93
Plausible(design pattern, is hard) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
Remarkable(prototype, is hard) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Plausible(prototype, is hard)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(design, be hard for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
Remarkable(prototype, is hard) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Plausible(prototype, is hard)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(prototype, is hard) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Salient(prototype, is hard)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.42
Salient(prototype, is hard) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Typical(prototype, is hard) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(prototype, is hard)

Typical implies Plausible

0.32
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(prototype, is hard) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Typical(prototype, is hard)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.34
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(prototype, is hard) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(design pattern, is hard)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(prototype, is hard) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(design, be hard for companies)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.32
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
Typical(prototype, is hard) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(design pattern, is hard)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.65
Typical(prototype, is hard) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(design, be hard for companies)