technology: be useful

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents sector
Weight: 0.66
, breakthrough
Weight: 0.66
, solution
Weight: 0.64
, resource
Weight: 0.64
Siblings computer science
Weight: 0.75
, computer hardware
Weight: 0.74
, fiber optics
Weight: 0.73
, computer program
Weight: 0.71
, internet service provider
Weight: 0.69

Related properties

Property Similarity
be useful 1.00
be helpful 0.90

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

0.02
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.13
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(technology, be useful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Remarkable(computer science, be helpful)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.55
Plausible(technology, be useful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
Remarkable(computer science, be helpful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Plausible(computer science, be helpful)

Salient implies Plausible

0.18
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.55
Plausible(technology, be useful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Salient(technology, be useful)

Similarity expansion

0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.95
Remarkable(technology, be useful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(technology, be helpful)
0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.95
Remarkable(technology, be useful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(technology, be helpful)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.77
Salient(technology, be useful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Salient(technology, be helpful)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.77
Salient(technology, be useful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Salient(technology, be helpful)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.55
Plausible(technology, be useful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Plausible(technology, be helpful)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.55
Plausible(technology, be useful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Plausible(technology, be helpful)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.42
Typical(technology, be useful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(technology, be helpful)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.42
Typical(technology, be useful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(technology, be helpful)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
Salient(technology, be useful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(technology, be useful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(technology, be useful)

Typical implies Plausible

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.55
Plausible(technology, be useful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(technology, be useful)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(technology, be useful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Typical(computer science, be helpful)