tablet: have cameras

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents electronic device
Weight: 0.67
, personal computer
Weight: 0.67
, mobile phone
Weight: 0.64
, device
Weight: 0.64
, market
Weight: 0.64
Siblings nokia
Weight: 0.60
, nook
Weight: 0.55
, playbook
Weight: 0.51
, tablet computer
Weight: 0.41
, smartphone
Weight: 0.37

Related properties

Property Similarity
have cameras 1.00
have bad cameras 0.97
have two cameras 0.97
have 2 cameras 0.96
have dual cameras 0.89

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

0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(tablet, have cameras) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Remarkable(smartphone, have 2 cameras)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(tablet, have cameras) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(smartphone, have dual cameras)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(tablet, have cameras) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(smartphone, have two cameras)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(tablet, have cameras) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
Remarkable(smartphone, have two cameras) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Plausible(smartphone, have two cameras)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(tablet, have cameras) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
Remarkable(smartphone, have 2 cameras) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Plausible(smartphone, have 2 cameras)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(tablet, have cameras) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
Remarkable(smartphone, have dual cameras) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(smartphone, have dual cameras)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(tablet, have cameras) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Salient(tablet, have cameras)

Similarity expansion

0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(tablet, have cameras) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(tablet, have bad cameras)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.40
Salient(tablet, have cameras) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Salient(tablet, have bad cameras)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(tablet, have cameras) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Plausible(tablet, have bad cameras)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.53
Typical(tablet, have cameras) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(tablet, have bad cameras)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.40
Salient(tablet, have cameras) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(tablet, have cameras) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(tablet, have cameras)

Typical implies Plausible

0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(tablet, have cameras) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(tablet, have cameras)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(tablet, have cameras) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Typical(smartphone, have two cameras)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(tablet, have cameras) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(smartphone, have 2 cameras)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(tablet, have cameras) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(smartphone, have dual cameras)