silence: has quality noise

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents prayer
Weight: 0.60
, language
Weight: 0.60
, answer
Weight: 0.59
, word
Weight: 0.59
Siblings sign language
Weight: 0.31
, english language
Weight: 0.31
, shame
Weight: 0.31
, f word
Weight: 0.31
, italian language
Weight: 0.31

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality noise 1.00
make ringing noise 0.82
is noisy 0.78
have sound 0.77
has quality good 0.77
has quality bad 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

0.50
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(word, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Typical(silence, has quality noise)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(language, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Typical(silence, has quality noise)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(prayer, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Typical(silence, has quality noise)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.03
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.07
Plausible(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(prayer, has quality good)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.24
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.07
Plausible(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(language, has quality bad)
0.01
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.16
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.07
Plausible(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(word, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.39
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Remarkable(language, has quality bad)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(word, has quality bad)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(prayer, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Remarkable(shame, has quality good)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(shame, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(english language, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(f word, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(sign language, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(word, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
Remarkable(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Plausible(silence, has quality noise)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(language, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
Remarkable(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Plausible(silence, has quality noise)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(prayer, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
Remarkable(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Plausible(silence, has quality noise)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.07
Plausible(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
Remarkable(shame, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Plausible(shame, has quality good)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.07
Plausible(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
Remarkable(shame, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Plausible(shame, has quality bad)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.07
Plausible(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(sign language, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(sign language, has quality good)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.07
Plausible(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
Remarkable(f word, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(f word, has quality bad)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.07
Plausible(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
Remarkable(english language, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Plausible(english language, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.25
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.07
Plausible(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Salient(silence, has quality noise)

Similarity expansion

0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.07
Plausible(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Plausible(silence, make ringing noise)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.11
Salient(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Salient(silence, make ringing noise)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.16
Remarkable(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Remarkable(silence, make ringing noise)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.07
Plausible(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Plausible(silence, is noisy)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.11
Salient(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Salient(silence, is noisy)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.16
Remarkable(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(silence, is noisy)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.07
Plausible(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Plausible(silence, has quality good)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.11
Salient(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Salient(silence, has quality good)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.16
Remarkable(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(silence, has quality good)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.07
Plausible(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Plausible(silence, have sound)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.20
Typical(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Typical(silence, make ringing noise)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.20
Typical(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Typical(silence, have sound)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.16
Remarkable(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Remarkable(silence, has quality bad)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.07
Plausible(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Plausible(silence, has quality bad)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.11
Salient(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Salient(silence, has quality bad)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.20
Typical(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Typical(silence, is noisy)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.11
Salient(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Salient(silence, have sound)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.20
Typical(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Typical(silence, has quality good)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.16
Remarkable(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Remarkable(silence, have sound)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.20
Typical(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Typical(silence, has quality bad)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.11
Salient(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Typical(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(silence, has quality noise)

Typical implies Plausible

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.07
Plausible(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Typical(silence, has quality noise)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.35
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Typical(prayer, has quality good)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(language, has quality bad)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(word, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Typical(shame, has quality good)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Typical(shame, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(f word, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(sign language, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(english language, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.20
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.20
Typical(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Typical(prayer, has quality good)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.29
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.20
Typical(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(language, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.25
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.20
Typical(silence, has quality noise) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(word, has quality bad)