taxonomy: be important tool better understanding

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents discipline
Weight: 0.58
, field
Weight: 0.56
, information
Weight: 0.56
, topic
Weight: 0.56
, structure
Weight: 0.54
Siblings recursion
Weight: 0.32
, computer database
Weight: 0.32
, ontology
Weight: 0.32
, directory
Weight: 0.31
, indexing
Weight: 0.31

Related properties

Property Similarity
be important tool better understanding 1.00
be important tool understanding 0.98
give understanding 0.85
give richer understanding 0.82
is useful 0.79
be important for function 0.78
be about relationships useful 0.78
is important brainly 0.78
give richer understanding of novel 0.78
be about evolutionary relationships useful 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

0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(taxonomy, be important tool better understanding) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(ontology, is useful)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(taxonomy, be important tool better understanding) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(recursion, is useful)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.44
Plausible(taxonomy, be important tool better understanding) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(recursion, is useful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Plausible(recursion, is useful)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.44
Plausible(taxonomy, be important tool better understanding) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
Remarkable(ontology, is useful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(ontology, is useful)

Salient implies Plausible

0.21
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.44
Plausible(taxonomy, be important tool better understanding) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Salient(taxonomy, be important tool better understanding)

Similarity expansion

0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.51
Typical(taxonomy, be important tool better understanding) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(taxonomy, be important tool understanding)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.44
Plausible(taxonomy, be important tool better understanding) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Plausible(taxonomy, be important tool understanding)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.49
Remarkable(taxonomy, be important tool better understanding) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Remarkable(taxonomy, be important tool understanding)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.44
Salient(taxonomy, be important tool better understanding) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Salient(taxonomy, be important tool understanding)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.49
Remarkable(taxonomy, be important tool better understanding) ⋁
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Remarkable(taxonomy, is important brainly)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.44
Salient(taxonomy, be important tool better understanding) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Salient(taxonomy, is important brainly)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.44
Plausible(taxonomy, be important tool better understanding) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Plausible(taxonomy, is important brainly)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.51
Typical(taxonomy, be important tool better understanding) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(taxonomy, is useful)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.51
Typical(taxonomy, be important tool better understanding) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(taxonomy, is important brainly)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.44
Plausible(taxonomy, be important tool better understanding) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Plausible(taxonomy, is useful)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.49
Remarkable(taxonomy, be important tool better understanding) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(taxonomy, is useful)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.44
Salient(taxonomy, be important tool better understanding) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Salient(taxonomy, is useful)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.44
Salient(taxonomy, be important tool better understanding) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(taxonomy, be important tool better understanding) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(taxonomy, be important tool better understanding)

Typical implies Plausible

0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.44
Plausible(taxonomy, be important tool better understanding) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(taxonomy, be important tool better understanding)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(taxonomy, be important tool better understanding) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Typical(recursion, is useful)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(taxonomy, be important tool better understanding) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(ontology, is useful)