video: look better than real life

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents demo
Weight: 0.65
, electronic device
Weight: 0.63
, digital camera
Weight: 0.62
, demonstration
Weight: 0.62
Siblings television show
Weight: 0.68
, television series
Weight: 0.62
, minute
Weight: 0.61
, webcam
Weight: 0.58
, tube
Weight: 0.56

Related properties

Property Similarity
look better than real life 1.00
be better than state 0.83
have life 0.82
be better than solid state 0.81
look different 0.81
have working life 0.79
be better than book 0.79
be better than film 0.79
be maybe stable 0.78
have short working life 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

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.40
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.49
Plausible(electronic device, have life)
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(video, look better than real life)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.41
Plausible(electronic device, have working life)
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(video, look better than real life)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.16
Plausible(electronic device, have short working life)
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(video, look better than real life)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.04
Plausible(digital camera, be better than film)
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(video, look better than real life)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(video, look better than real life)
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Plausible(digital camera, be better than film)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(video, look better than real life)
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Plausible(electronic device, have short working life)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(video, look better than real life)
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Plausible(electronic device, have working life)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(video, look better than real life)
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Plausible(electronic device, have life)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.45
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Remarkable(video, look better than real life)
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Remarkable(digital camera, be better than film)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Remarkable(video, look better than real life)
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Remarkable(electronic device, have short working life)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Remarkable(video, look better than real life)
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(electronic device, have working life)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Remarkable(video, look better than real life)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(electronic device, have life)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Remarkable(video, look better than real life)
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(tube, be better than state)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Remarkable(video, look better than real life)
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Remarkable(tube, be better than solid state)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.49
Plausible(electronic device, have life)
Evidence: 0.13
Remarkable(video, look better than real life)
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Plausible(video, look better than real life)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.41
Plausible(electronic device, have working life)
Evidence: 0.13
Remarkable(video, look better than real life)
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Plausible(video, look better than real life)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.16
Plausible(electronic device, have short working life)
Evidence: 0.13
Remarkable(video, look better than real life)
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Plausible(video, look better than real life)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.04
Plausible(digital camera, be better than film)
Evidence: 0.13
Remarkable(video, look better than real life)
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Plausible(video, look better than real life)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.36
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(video, look better than real life)
Evidence: 0.19
Remarkable(tube, be better than solid state)
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Plausible(tube, be better than solid state)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(video, look better than real life)
Evidence: 0.21
Remarkable(tube, be better than state)
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Plausible(tube, be better than state)

Salient implies Plausible

0.25
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(video, look better than real life)
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Salient(video, look better than real life)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.16
Salient(video, look better than real life)
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(video, look better than real life)
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Remarkable(video, look better than real life)

Typical implies Plausible

0.28
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(video, look better than real life)
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(video, look better than real life)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.40
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Remarkable(video, look better than real life)
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(electronic device, have life)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Remarkable(video, look better than real life)
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Typical(digital camera, be better than film)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Remarkable(video, look better than real life)
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Typical(electronic device, have short working life)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Remarkable(video, look better than real life)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(electronic device, have working life)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Remarkable(video, look better than real life)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(tube, be better than state)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Remarkable(video, look better than real life)
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(tube, be better than solid state)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.51
Typical(video, look better than real life)
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Typical(digital camera, be better than film)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.51
Typical(video, look better than real life)
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(electronic device, have life)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.51
Typical(video, look better than real life)
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Typical(electronic device, have short working life)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.51
Typical(video, look better than real life)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(electronic device, have working life)