scaling: has physical part teeth

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents operation
Weight: 0.59
, function
Weight: 0.58
, process
Weight: 0.57
, feature
Weight: 0.56
Siblings shrinking
Weight: 0.39
, cutting
Weight: 0.33
, setting
Weight: 0.32
, trimming
Weight: 0.32
, trigonometric function
Weight: 0.31

Related properties

Property Similarity
has physical part teeth 1.00
is own teeth 0.89
has physical part hair 0.86
has physical part tissue 0.79
is physical change 0.76
has physical part grooves 0.75
be physical change 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

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(scaling, has physical part teeth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(cutting, has physical part grooves)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(scaling, has physical part teeth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(cutting, be physical change)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.28
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(scaling, has physical part teeth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(cutting, is physical change)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.24
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(scaling, has physical part teeth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(cutting, has physical part hair)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.36
Plausible(scaling, has physical part teeth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
Remarkable(cutting, has physical part hair) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Plausible(cutting, has physical part hair)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.36
Plausible(scaling, has physical part teeth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(cutting, is physical change) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(cutting, is physical change)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.36
Plausible(scaling, has physical part teeth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
Remarkable(cutting, has physical part grooves) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Plausible(cutting, has physical part grooves)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.36
Plausible(scaling, has physical part teeth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
Remarkable(cutting, be physical change) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(cutting, be physical change)

Salient implies Plausible

0.18
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.36
Plausible(scaling, has physical part teeth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Salient(scaling, has physical part teeth)

Similarity expansion

0.74
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.90
Remarkable(scaling, has physical part teeth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Remarkable(scaling, is own teeth)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.60
Salient(scaling, has physical part teeth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Salient(scaling, is own teeth)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.36
Plausible(scaling, has physical part teeth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Plausible(scaling, is own teeth)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.18
Typical(scaling, has physical part teeth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(scaling, is own teeth)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
Salient(scaling, has physical part teeth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Typical(scaling, has physical part teeth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(scaling, has physical part teeth)

Typical implies Plausible

0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.36
Plausible(scaling, has physical part teeth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Typical(scaling, has physical part teeth)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(scaling, has physical part teeth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Typical(cutting, has physical part hair)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(scaling, has physical part teeth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(cutting, is physical change)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(scaling, has physical part teeth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Typical(cutting, has physical part grooves)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.30
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(scaling, has physical part teeth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(cutting, be physical change)