sharing: be spam

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents concept
Weight: 0.58
, service
Weight: 0.57
, value
Weight: 0.57
, option
Weight: 0.57
Siblings internet service provider
Weight: 0.32
, service station
Weight: 0.31
, integration
Weight: 0.31
, cooperation
Weight: 0.31
, chat
Weight: 0.31

Related properties

Property Similarity
be spam 1.00
spam gg 0.93
spamming f for ebt 0.81
spamming trihard incorporated 0.81
spamming leave wtf \ 0.78

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

0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Remarkable(sharing, be spam) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Remarkable(chat, spam gg)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Remarkable(sharing, be spam) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Remarkable(chat, spamming trihard incorporated)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Remarkable(sharing, be spam) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(chat, spamming f for ebt)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Remarkable(sharing, be spam) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Remarkable(chat, spamming leave wtf \)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.97
Plausible(sharing, be spam) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
Remarkable(chat, spam gg) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Plausible(chat, spam gg)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.97
Plausible(sharing, be spam) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
Remarkable(chat, spamming f for ebt) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Plausible(chat, spamming f for ebt)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.97
Plausible(sharing, be spam) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
Remarkable(chat, spamming trihard incorporated) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(chat, spamming trihard incorporated)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.97
Plausible(sharing, be spam) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
Remarkable(chat, spamming leave wtf \) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Plausible(chat, spamming leave wtf \)

Salient implies Plausible

0.28
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.97
Plausible(sharing, be spam) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Salient(sharing, be spam)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.67
Salient(sharing, be spam) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(sharing, be spam) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Remarkable(sharing, be spam)

Typical implies Plausible

0.47
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.97
Plausible(sharing, be spam) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(sharing, be spam)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Remarkable(sharing, be spam) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(chat, spam gg)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Remarkable(sharing, be spam) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(chat, spamming trihard incorporated)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Remarkable(sharing, be spam) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Typical(chat, spamming leave wtf \)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Remarkable(sharing, be spam) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(chat, spamming f for ebt)