spam: has state problem

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents activity
Weight: 0.58
, issue
Weight: 0.57
, thing
Weight: 0.55
, risk
Weight: 0.55
, item
Weight: 0.54
Siblings junk mail
Weight: 0.33
, business activity
Weight: 0.33
, mail
Weight: 0.32
, trojan
Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property Similarity
has state problem 1.00

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

0.63
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(issue, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Typical(spam, has state problem)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.34
Plausible(spam, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(issue, has state problem)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.19
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.32
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(spam, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(issue, has state problem)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(spam, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(junk mail, has state problem)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.41
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(issue, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
Remarkable(spam, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Plausible(spam, has state problem)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.34
Plausible(spam, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(junk mail, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(junk mail, has state problem)

Salient implies Plausible

0.18
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.34
Plausible(spam, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Salient(spam, has state problem)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.55
Salient(spam, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Typical(spam, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(spam, has state problem)

Typical implies Plausible

0.43
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.34
Plausible(spam, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Typical(spam, has state problem)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.22
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(spam, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(issue, has state problem)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.34
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(spam, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(junk mail, has state problem)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.22
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.15
Typical(spam, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(issue, has state problem)