snap: be on good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents game
Weight: 0.61
, group
Weight: 0.56
, method
Weight: 0.55
, organization
Weight: 0.54
, service
Weight: 0.53
Siblings football game
Weight: 0.33
, soccer ball
Weight: 0.33
, hockey game
Weight: 0.33
, computer game
Weight: 0.32
, game show
Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property Similarity
be on good 1.00
be on best 0.84
has quality good 0.84
has quality bad 0.81
is big right now 0.80
is big now 0.78
is big 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

0.55
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(game, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Typical(snap, be on good)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.96
Plausible(game, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Typical(snap, be on good)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(service, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Typical(snap, be on good)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(group, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Typical(snap, be on good)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Typical(snap, be on good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(group, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(method, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(service, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Plausible(game, has quality good)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Plausible(game, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.27
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(method, has quality bad)
0.18
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(game, has quality bad)
0.16
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(group, has quality good)
0.16
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(service, has quality good)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.25
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(game, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(computer game, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(computer game, has quality good)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(football game, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(game, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
Remarkable(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Plausible(snap, be on good)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(service, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
Remarkable(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Plausible(snap, be on good)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(group, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
Remarkable(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Plausible(snap, be on good)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.96
Plausible(game, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
Remarkable(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Plausible(snap, be on good)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
Remarkable(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Plausible(snap, be on good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
Remarkable(football game, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Plausible(football game, has quality good)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
Remarkable(computer game, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(computer game, has quality good)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(computer game, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Plausible(computer game, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.19
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Salient(snap, be on good)

Similarity expansion

0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.83
Remarkable(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(snap, has quality bad)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.83
Remarkable(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(snap, be on best)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.83
Remarkable(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(snap, has quality good)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.77
Salient(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Salient(snap, has quality bad)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.83
Remarkable(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(snap, is big right now)
...

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
Salient(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Typical(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(snap, be on good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Typical(snap, be on good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.16
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(group, has quality good)
0.15
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.35
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(service, has quality good)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.20
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(game, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.17
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Typical(game, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.03
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.27
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(football game, has quality good)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.22
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(computer game, has quality good)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.19
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(computer game, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.25
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.50
Typical(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(group, has quality good)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.50
Typical(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(service, has quality good)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.50
Typical(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, has quality bad)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.50
Typical(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(game, has quality good)
0.20
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.50
Typical(snap, be on good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Typical(game, has quality bad)