telephone: have letters on keys

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents cellular telephone
Weight: 0.76
, telephone system
Weight: 0.66
, device
Weight: 0.61
, network
Weight: 0.61
, utility
Weight: 0.60
Siblings mobile phone
Weight: 0.38
, cellphone
Weight: 0.35
, computer network
Weight: 0.34
, pager
Weight: 0.33
, internet service provider
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
have letters on keys 1.00
have letters on 0.91
have letters 0.90
have number of keys 0.86
have limited number of keys 0.82

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

0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(telephone, have letters on keys)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, have limited number of keys)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(telephone, have letters on keys)
Evidence: 0.68
Remarkable(mobile phone, have limited number of keys)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(mobile phone, have limited number of keys)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(telephone, have letters on keys)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Salient(telephone, have letters on keys)

Similarity expansion

0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.78
Typical(telephone, have letters on keys)
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(telephone, have letters)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.66
Salient(telephone, have letters on keys)
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Salient(telephone, have letters)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.78
Typical(telephone, have letters on keys)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(telephone, have letters on)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(telephone, have letters on keys)
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(telephone, have letters on)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(telephone, have letters on keys)
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(telephone, have letters)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.66
Salient(telephone, have letters on keys)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Salient(telephone, have letters on)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(telephone, have letters on keys)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(telephone, have letters)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(telephone, have letters on keys)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Plausible(telephone, have letters on)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.66
Salient(telephone, have letters on keys)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(telephone, have letters on keys)
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(telephone, have letters on keys)

Typical implies Plausible

0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(telephone, have letters on keys)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(telephone, have letters on keys)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(telephone, have letters on keys)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(mobile phone, have limited number of keys)