remote control: be in tv work

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents control
Weight: 0.80
, electronic device
Weight: 0.72
, interface
Weight: 0.66
, information
Weight: 0.65
Siblings joystick
Weight: 0.56
, computer monitor
Weight: 0.36
, network device
Weight: 0.36
, security system
Weight: 0.35
, computer network
Weight: 0.35

Related properties

Property Similarity
be in tv work 1.00
be in tv works 0.94
be better than tv 0.90
be more expensive than tv 0.86
be more expensive than than tv 0.82
look better than tvs 0.77
be better than tvs 0.77

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

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Remarkable(remote control, be in tv work)
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Remarkable(computer monitor, be better than tv)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Remarkable(remote control, be in tv work)
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Remarkable(computer monitor, be more expensive than tv)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Remarkable(remote control, be in tv work)
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Remarkable(computer monitor, be more expensive than than tv)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Remarkable(remote control, be in tv work)
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(computer monitor, look better than tvs)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Remarkable(remote control, be in tv work)
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(computer monitor, be better than tvs)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.49
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(remote control, be in tv work)
Evidence: 0.05
Remarkable(computer monitor, be more expensive than tv)
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Plausible(computer monitor, be more expensive than tv)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(remote control, be in tv work)
Evidence: 0.08
Remarkable(computer monitor, be more expensive than than tv)
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Plausible(computer monitor, be more expensive than than tv)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(remote control, be in tv work)
Evidence: 0.18
Remarkable(computer monitor, be better than tv)
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Plausible(computer monitor, be better than tv)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(remote control, be in tv work)
Evidence: 0.67
Remarkable(computer monitor, look better than tvs)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(computer monitor, look better than tvs)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(remote control, be in tv work)
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(computer monitor, be better than tvs)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(computer monitor, be better than tvs)

Salient implies Plausible

0.28
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(remote control, be in tv work)
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Salient(remote control, be in tv work)

Similarity expansion

0.80
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(remote control, be in tv work)
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Plausible(remote control, be in tv works)
0.80
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.01
Salient(remote control, be in tv work)
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Salient(remote control, be in tv works)
0.80
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.01
Remarkable(remote control, be in tv work)
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Remarkable(remote control, be in tv works)
0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.13
Typical(remote control, be in tv work)
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Typical(remote control, be in tv works)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.01
Salient(remote control, be in tv work)
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Typical(remote control, be in tv work)
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Remarkable(remote control, be in tv work)

Typical implies Plausible

0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(remote control, be in tv work)
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Typical(remote control, be in tv work)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Remarkable(remote control, be in tv work)
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(computer monitor, be better than tv)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Remarkable(remote control, be in tv work)
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Typical(computer monitor, be more expensive than tv)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Remarkable(remote control, be in tv work)
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Typical(computer monitor, be more expensive than than tv)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Remarkable(remote control, be in tv work)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(computer monitor, look better than tvs)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Remarkable(remote control, be in tv work)
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(computer monitor, be better than tvs)