scaling: has quality cost

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 quality cost 1.00
is quality 0.86
costs work 0.83
has quality good 0.82
has quality bad 0.81
has quality change 0.79
cost much more in america 0.79
is expensive 0.77
has quality difference 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

0.51
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(process, is quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Typical(scaling, has quality cost)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(operation, cost much more in america) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Typical(scaling, has quality cost)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(function, has quality difference) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Typical(scaling, has quality cost)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(process, is quality)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Plausible(operation, cost much more in america)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(function, has quality difference)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.14
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(function, has quality difference)
0.14
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.31
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(operation, cost much more in america)
0.14
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.28
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(process, is quality)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(cutting, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(trimming, has quality bad)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(trimming, has quality good)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(shrinking, is expensive)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.35
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(cutting, has quality good)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.35
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(shrinking, has quality bad)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.26
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(cutting, has quality change)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(process, is quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Plausible(scaling, has quality cost)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(operation, cost much more in america) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Plausible(scaling, has quality cost)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(function, has quality difference) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Plausible(scaling, has quality cost)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
Remarkable(cutting, has quality change) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Plausible(cutting, has quality change)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(cutting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Plausible(cutting, has quality good)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(shrinking, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(shrinking, has quality bad)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
Remarkable(trimming, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Plausible(trimming, has quality good)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
Remarkable(shrinking, is expensive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Plausible(shrinking, is expensive)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
Remarkable(cutting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(cutting, has quality bad)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
Remarkable(trimming, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(trimming, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.18
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Salient(scaling, has quality cost)

Similarity expansion

0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(scaling, costs work)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(scaling, is expensive)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.74
Salient(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Salient(scaling, costs work)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.74
Salient(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Salient(scaling, is expensive)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(scaling, costs work)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.37
Typical(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(scaling, costs work)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(scaling, is expensive)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.37
Typical(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(scaling, is expensive)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
Salient(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Typical(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(scaling, has quality cost)

Typical implies Plausible

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Typical(scaling, has quality cost)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.19
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Typical(process, is quality)
0.17
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(operation, cost much more in america)
0.17
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(function, has quality difference)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(cutting, has quality change)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.34
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(shrinking, has quality bad)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.22
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(cutting, has quality good)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.21
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(shrinking, is expensive)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.20
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(cutting, has quality bad)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.19
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(trimming, has quality good)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.18
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(trimming, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.25
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.37
Typical(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Typical(process, is quality)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.37
Typical(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(operation, cost much more in america)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.37
Typical(scaling, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(function, has quality difference)