version
stringclasses 1
value | hypothesis
stringlengths 11
215
| hypothesis_formula
stringlengths 3
39
| context
stringlengths 0
2.9k
| context_formula
stringlengths 0
905
| proofs
list | proofs_formula
list | negative_hypothesis
stringlengths 15
193
⌀ | negative_hypothesis_formula
stringlengths 3
37
⌀ | negative_proofs
list | negative_original_tree_depth
int64 0
25
⌀ | original_tree_depth
int64 1
4
| depth
int64 0
3
⌀ | num_formula_distractors
int64 0
22
| num_translation_distractors
int64 0
0
| num_all_distractors
int64 0
22
| proof_label
stringclasses 3
values | negative_proof_label
stringclasses 2
values | world_assump_label
stringclasses 3
values | negative_world_assump_label
stringclasses 2
values | prompt_serial
stringlengths 89
3.09k
| proof_serial
stringlengths 11
654
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DeductionInstance
|
the thermoacidophile is not a cataphyll but appellate.
|
(¬{A}{aa} & {B}{aa})
|
sent1: if that the calender is not usual but it is a shawm is not true the actuator is a shawm. sent2: the actuator is not non-appellate. sent3: the thermoacidophile is appellate and it is an edginess. sent4: everything is not a Furnariidae but pro-choice. sent5: the thermoacidophile is not an edginess if the fact that the Manila is not a kind of an edginess is correct. sent6: if the thermoacidophile is a Furnariidae and is pro-choice then it is not a cataphyll. sent7: the thermoacidophile is not a kind of a Furnariidae. sent8: everything is both not a palatability and a phlox. sent9: if the thermoacidophile is a kind of aware thing that cantons actuator it is not an edginess. sent10: the thermoacidophile is not usual but it does canton bestiality. sent11: the thermoacidophile is neurophysiological and it does canton colored. sent12: that something is not a kind of a cataphyll but it is appellate does not hold if it is not an edginess. sent13: the thermoacidophile does canton bestiality. sent14: if the fact that the torchlight is not colloidal but an interstate is true it does not criticize wobbler. sent15: the Tunisian is not a kind of a Thuja but it is a cataphyll. sent16: the laryngopharynx criticizes Mylodontidae and it is pro-choice. sent17: that everything is not arbitral and it tenants laryngopharynx is correct. sent18: the thermoacidophile is not a crucible. sent19: the Manila is not an edginess and is tortious if the actuator is a kind of a shawm. sent20: the fact that everything is not a Furnariidae is right. sent21: the thermoacidophile is an edginess. sent22: the thermoacidophile is not a kind of a cataphyll if it is not a Furnariidae and it is pro-choice.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{F}{c} & {E}{c}) -> {E}{b} sent2: {B}{b} sent3: ({B}{aa} & {C}{aa}) sent4: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent5: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬{C}{aa} sent6: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent7: ¬{AA}{aa} sent8: (x): (¬{EU}x & {T}x) sent9: (¬{AO}{aa} & {IO}{aa}) -> ¬{C}{aa} sent10: (¬{F}{aa} & {CS}{aa}) sent11: ({HA}{aa} & {FC}{aa}) sent12: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & {B}x) sent13: {CS}{aa} sent14: (¬{L}{gj} & {IE}{gj}) -> ¬{FU}{gj} sent15: (¬{IN}{hi} & {A}{hi}) sent16: ({HC}{bh} & {AB}{bh}) sent17: (x): (¬{EP}x & {HL}x) sent18: ¬{HN}{aa} sent19: {E}{b} -> (¬{C}{a} & {D}{a}) sent20: (x): ¬{AA}x sent21: {C}{aa} sent22: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa}
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: the thermoacidophile is not a Furnariidae but pro-choice.; int1 & sent22 -> int2: the thermoacidophile is not a kind of a cataphyll.; sent3 -> int3: the thermoacidophile is appellate.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> int1: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int1 & sent22 -> int2: ¬{A}{aa}; sent3 -> int3: {B}{aa}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the thermoacidophile is not a cataphyll and is appellate does not hold.
|
¬(¬{A}{aa} & {B}{aa})
|
[
"sent12 -> int4: if the thermoacidophile is not a kind of an edginess then that it is both not a cataphyll and appellate is wrong.;"
] | 7 | 3 | 3 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the thermoacidophile is not a cataphyll but appellate. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the calender is not usual but it is a shawm is not true the actuator is a shawm. sent2: the actuator is not non-appellate. sent3: the thermoacidophile is appellate and it is an edginess. sent4: everything is not a Furnariidae but pro-choice. sent5: the thermoacidophile is not an edginess if the fact that the Manila is not a kind of an edginess is correct. sent6: if the thermoacidophile is a Furnariidae and is pro-choice then it is not a cataphyll. sent7: the thermoacidophile is not a kind of a Furnariidae. sent8: everything is both not a palatability and a phlox. sent9: if the thermoacidophile is a kind of aware thing that cantons actuator it is not an edginess. sent10: the thermoacidophile is not usual but it does canton bestiality. sent11: the thermoacidophile is neurophysiological and it does canton colored. sent12: that something is not a kind of a cataphyll but it is appellate does not hold if it is not an edginess. sent13: the thermoacidophile does canton bestiality. sent14: if the fact that the torchlight is not colloidal but an interstate is true it does not criticize wobbler. sent15: the Tunisian is not a kind of a Thuja but it is a cataphyll. sent16: the laryngopharynx criticizes Mylodontidae and it is pro-choice. sent17: that everything is not arbitral and it tenants laryngopharynx is correct. sent18: the thermoacidophile is not a crucible. sent19: the Manila is not an edginess and is tortious if the actuator is a kind of a shawm. sent20: the fact that everything is not a Furnariidae is right. sent21: the thermoacidophile is an edginess. sent22: the thermoacidophile is not a kind of a cataphyll if it is not a Furnariidae and it is pro-choice. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> int1: the thermoacidophile is not a Furnariidae but pro-choice.; int1 & sent22 -> int2: the thermoacidophile is not a kind of a cataphyll.; sent3 -> int3: the thermoacidophile is appellate.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the put-put is not extralinguistic.
|
¬{C}{a}
|
sent1: either the breadwinner tenants fire or it is a Valkyrie or both. sent2: if there exists something such that it is Senegalese then the artifact is extralinguistic. sent3: something is a kind of a Senegalese if that it is not a Senegalese and it tenants girlhood is not true. sent4: something is a kind of a Senegalese. sent5: the nutter is tertian if the breadwinner tenants fire. sent6: that the fritillary is not asymmetrical is not incorrect if the nutter is not Prakritic but it condescends. sent7: there exists something such that it is inexhaustible. sent8: if there exists something such that it is a kind of Senegalese thing that criticizes Scheele that the put-put is extralinguistic is false. sent9: something is extralinguistic and it is a kind of a Senegalese. sent10: if something is not asymmetrical then the fact that it is non-Senegalese thing that does tenant girlhood is not correct. sent11: if that something is not extralinguistic but it does criticize Scheele is wrong it is extralinguistic. sent12: the mill-girl is Senegalese. sent13: if something is tertian then it is a kind of non-Prakritic thing that condescends. sent14: the nutter is tertian if the breadwinner is a Valkyrie.
|
sent1: ({I}{e} v {J}{e}) sent2: (x): {A}x -> {C}{b} sent3: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & {E}x) -> {A}x sent4: (Ex): {A}x sent5: {I}{e} -> {H}{d} sent6: (¬{G}{d} & {F}{d}) -> ¬{D}{c} sent7: (Ex): {IC}x sent8: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}{a} sent9: (Ex): ({C}x & {A}x) sent10: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & {E}x) sent11: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & {B}x) -> {C}x sent12: {A}{aa} sent13: (x): {H}x -> (¬{G}x & {F}x) sent14: {J}{e} -> {H}{d}
|
[] |
[] |
the put-put is extralinguistic.
|
{C}{a}
|
[
"sent11 -> int1: if the fact that the put-put is not extralinguistic but it criticizes Scheele is wrong it is extralinguistic.; sent3 -> int2: the fritillary is a kind of a Senegalese if the fact that it is not a Senegalese and does tenant girlhood is not true.; sent10 -> int3: the fact that the fritillary is non-Senegalese thing that tenants girlhood is not right if it is not asymmetrical.; sent13 -> int4: the nutter is not Prakritic and condescends if it is tertian.; sent1 & sent5 & sent14 -> int5: the nutter is tertian.; int4 & int5 -> int6: that the nutter is non-Prakritic thing that does condescend hold.; sent6 & int6 -> int7: the fritillary is not asymmetrical.; int3 & int7 -> int8: the fact that the fact that the fritillary is non-Senegalese thing that tenants girlhood is correct is not right.; int2 & int8 -> int9: the fritillary is a kind of a Senegalese.; int9 -> int10: there exists something such that it is a Senegalese.; int10 & sent2 -> int11: the artifact is extralinguistic.; int11 -> int12: there is something such that it is extralinguistic.;"
] | 10 | 2 | null | 13 | 0 | 13 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the put-put is not extralinguistic. ; $context$ = sent1: either the breadwinner tenants fire or it is a Valkyrie or both. sent2: if there exists something such that it is Senegalese then the artifact is extralinguistic. sent3: something is a kind of a Senegalese if that it is not a Senegalese and it tenants girlhood is not true. sent4: something is a kind of a Senegalese. sent5: the nutter is tertian if the breadwinner tenants fire. sent6: that the fritillary is not asymmetrical is not incorrect if the nutter is not Prakritic but it condescends. sent7: there exists something such that it is inexhaustible. sent8: if there exists something such that it is a kind of Senegalese thing that criticizes Scheele that the put-put is extralinguistic is false. sent9: something is extralinguistic and it is a kind of a Senegalese. sent10: if something is not asymmetrical then the fact that it is non-Senegalese thing that does tenant girlhood is not correct. sent11: if that something is not extralinguistic but it does criticize Scheele is wrong it is extralinguistic. sent12: the mill-girl is Senegalese. sent13: if something is tertian then it is a kind of non-Prakritic thing that condescends. sent14: the nutter is tertian if the breadwinner is a Valkyrie. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the anime is not sigmoid.
|
¬{C}{b}
|
sent1: the XYY is sigmoid and it is a collard. sent2: the XYY is sigmoid. sent3: the XYY is a kind of brahminic a collard. sent4: the XYY is sigmoid if the anime is brahminic. sent5: that the anime is attributive hold. sent6: the anime is sigmoid if the XYY is brahminic. sent7: a non-holy and non-apocalyptic thing is not brahminic. sent8: the anime is not sigmoid if the XYY is not sigmoid and not brahminic. sent9: the XYY is a collard. sent10: the fact that something is not a collard but it is sigmoid is false if it is not brahminic. sent11: the XYY is not sigmoid and it is not brahminic if the besieger is a collard. sent12: the sarcomere is brahminic. sent13: the XYY cantons Enesco.
|
sent1: ({C}{a} & {B}{a}) sent2: {C}{a} sent3: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent4: {A}{b} -> {C}{a} sent5: {EI}{b} sent6: {A}{a} -> {C}{b} sent7: (x): (¬{E}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{A}x sent8: (¬{C}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent9: {B}{a} sent10: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & {C}x) sent11: {B}{c} -> (¬{C}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent12: {A}{gq} sent13: {Q}{a}
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: the XYY is brahminic.; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> int1: {A}{a}; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the anime is not sigmoid.
|
¬{C}{b}
|
[
"sent10 -> int2: if the XYY is not brahminic then the fact that it is not a collard and it is sigmoid does not hold.; sent7 -> int3: if the XYY is unholy thing that is not apocalyptic it is not brahminic.;"
] | 5 | 2 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the anime is not sigmoid. ; $context$ = sent1: the XYY is sigmoid and it is a collard. sent2: the XYY is sigmoid. sent3: the XYY is a kind of brahminic a collard. sent4: the XYY is sigmoid if the anime is brahminic. sent5: that the anime is attributive hold. sent6: the anime is sigmoid if the XYY is brahminic. sent7: a non-holy and non-apocalyptic thing is not brahminic. sent8: the anime is not sigmoid if the XYY is not sigmoid and not brahminic. sent9: the XYY is a collard. sent10: the fact that something is not a collard but it is sigmoid is false if it is not brahminic. sent11: the XYY is not sigmoid and it is not brahminic if the besieger is a collard. sent12: the sarcomere is brahminic. sent13: the XYY cantons Enesco. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> int1: the XYY is brahminic.; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there is something such that if it is raptorial then the fact that it is a graviton and not Gabonese is not right is not correct.
|
¬((Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x))
|
sent1: the hindquarters is a graviton but it is not a Gabonese if it is raptorial. sent2: there is something such that if it is raptorial it is a graviton and is not Gabonese. sent3: that the hindquarters is a graviton and is a Gabonese does not hold if it is raptorial. sent4: if the hindquarters is raptorial then the fact that it is a kind of a graviton and it is not a Gabonese is false. sent5: the fact that the Khedive is a kind of Soviet thing that does not tenant Miri is not true if it is Gabonese.
|
sent1: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent2: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent3: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent4: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent5: {AB}{fs} -> ¬({IE}{fs} & ¬{EC}{fs})
|
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if it is raptorial then the fact that it is a graviton and not Gabonese is not right is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the hindquarters is a graviton but it is not a Gabonese if it is raptorial. sent2: there is something such that if it is raptorial it is a graviton and is not Gabonese. sent3: that the hindquarters is a graviton and is a Gabonese does not hold if it is raptorial. sent4: if the hindquarters is raptorial then the fact that it is a kind of a graviton and it is not a Gabonese is false. sent5: the fact that the Khedive is a kind of Soviet thing that does not tenant Miri is not true if it is Gabonese. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the rapporteur is a decision and does not tenant sodalist.
|
({C}{b} & ¬{D}{b})
|
sent1: the mollycoddle is not a decision. sent2: the rapporteur does not tenant sodalist. sent3: the mollycoddle does not tenant mollycoddle. sent4: the fact that the rapporteur is a decision if the mollycoddle is a kind of a Cestidae hold. sent5: that the rapporteur is not paniculate is right. sent6: if something does not tenant sodalist and is not a decision then it is a Cestidae. sent7: if the fact that the sodalist is discriminatory and it is a kind of a decision does not hold then it is not a decision. sent8: the mollycoddle is a anestrus. sent9: the fact that the sodalist tenants sodalist and does criticize Phlebodium does not hold if the rapporteur is not paniculate. sent10: something does not tenant sodalist if the fact that it does tenant sodalist and criticizes Phlebodium is wrong. sent11: the mollycoddle is a anestrus and it is a Cestidae. sent12: The sodalist does not tenant rapporteur.
|
sent1: ¬{C}{a} sent2: ¬{D}{b} sent3: ¬{AT}{a} sent4: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent5: ¬{F}{b} sent6: (x): (¬{D}x & ¬{C}x) -> {B}x sent7: ¬({E}{hn} & {C}{hn}) -> ¬{C}{hn} sent8: {A}{a} sent9: ¬{F}{b} -> ¬({D}{hn} & {G}{hn}) sent10: (x): ¬({D}x & {G}x) -> ¬{D}x sent11: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent12: ¬{AA}{aa}
|
[
"sent11 -> int1: the mollycoddle is a Cestidae.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the rapporteur is a decision.; int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent11 -> int1: {B}{a}; int1 & sent4 -> int2: {C}{b}; int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the sodalist is a Cestidae and is a sachet.
|
({B}{hn} & {AK}{hn})
|
[
"sent6 -> int3: the fact that the sodalist is a kind of the Cestidae if the sodalist does not tenant sodalist and it is not a decision is right.; sent10 -> int4: if that the sodalist tenants sodalist and it does criticize Phlebodium is not correct then it does not tenants sodalist.; sent9 & sent5 -> int5: the fact that the sodalist tenants sodalist and it criticizes Phlebodium is false.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the sodalist does not tenant sodalist.;"
] | 5 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the rapporteur is a decision and does not tenant sodalist. ; $context$ = sent1: the mollycoddle is not a decision. sent2: the rapporteur does not tenant sodalist. sent3: the mollycoddle does not tenant mollycoddle. sent4: the fact that the rapporteur is a decision if the mollycoddle is a kind of a Cestidae hold. sent5: that the rapporteur is not paniculate is right. sent6: if something does not tenant sodalist and is not a decision then it is a Cestidae. sent7: if the fact that the sodalist is discriminatory and it is a kind of a decision does not hold then it is not a decision. sent8: the mollycoddle is a anestrus. sent9: the fact that the sodalist tenants sodalist and does criticize Phlebodium does not hold if the rapporteur is not paniculate. sent10: something does not tenant sodalist if the fact that it does tenant sodalist and criticizes Phlebodium is wrong. sent11: the mollycoddle is a anestrus and it is a Cestidae. sent12: The sodalist does not tenant rapporteur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent11 -> int1: the mollycoddle is a Cestidae.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the rapporteur is a decision.; int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the hydathode is not a Witherspoon.
|
¬{B}{aa}
|
sent1: the wingman does not criticize Bethlehem if there exists something such that it does not criticize kanzu and it cantons hygroscope. sent2: the hydathode does not collapse and it is not an internist if the wingman is a Witherspoon. sent3: if the wingman does collapse the hydathode does not impend and is not a kind of an internist. sent4: if that something is a short and it is artesian does not hold then it is not sartorial. sent5: the fact that that the hydathode is not the Witherspoon hold if the hydathode does not impend and it is not a collapse is not false. sent6: the wingman is a kind of a collapse. sent7: the kanzu cantons hygroscope. sent8: the fact that something is a short and it is artesian is wrong if it does not criticize Bethlehem. sent9: the kanzu does not criticize kanzu. sent10: if the hydathode does not impend but it is an internist it is not a kind of a Witherspoon. sent11: if the hydathode impends and is not an internist then it is not a Witherspoon.
|
sent1: (x): (¬{H}x & {G}x) -> ¬{F}{a} sent2: {B}{a} -> (¬{A}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent3: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent4: (x): ¬({E}x & {D}x) -> ¬{C}x sent5: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent6: {A}{a} sent7: {G}{b} sent8: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬({E}x & {D}x) sent9: ¬{H}{b} sent10: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent11: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}
|
[
"sent3 & sent6 -> int1: the hydathode does not impend and it is not an internist.;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent6 -> int1: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa});"
] |
the hydathode is a Witherspoon.
|
{B}{aa}
|
[
"sent4 -> int2: the wingman is not sartorial if the fact that it is a kind of a short that is artesian is incorrect.; sent8 -> int3: if the wingman does not criticize Bethlehem then the fact that it is a short and artesian does not hold.; sent9 & sent7 -> int4: the kanzu does not criticize kanzu and does canton hygroscope.; int4 -> int5: there exists something such that it does not criticize kanzu and does canton hygroscope.; int5 & sent1 -> int6: the wingman does not criticize Bethlehem.; int3 & int6 -> int7: the fact that the wingman is short and it is artesian does not hold.; int2 & int7 -> int8: the wingman is not sartorial.; int8 -> int9: there is something such that the fact that it is not sartorial is not incorrect.;"
] | 8 | 2 | null | 9 | 0 | 9 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the hydathode is not a Witherspoon. ; $context$ = sent1: the wingman does not criticize Bethlehem if there exists something such that it does not criticize kanzu and it cantons hygroscope. sent2: the hydathode does not collapse and it is not an internist if the wingman is a Witherspoon. sent3: if the wingman does collapse the hydathode does not impend and is not a kind of an internist. sent4: if that something is a short and it is artesian does not hold then it is not sartorial. sent5: the fact that that the hydathode is not the Witherspoon hold if the hydathode does not impend and it is not a collapse is not false. sent6: the wingman is a kind of a collapse. sent7: the kanzu cantons hygroscope. sent8: the fact that something is a short and it is artesian is wrong if it does not criticize Bethlehem. sent9: the kanzu does not criticize kanzu. sent10: if the hydathode does not impend but it is an internist it is not a kind of a Witherspoon. sent11: if the hydathode impends and is not an internist then it is not a Witherspoon. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent6 -> int1: the hydathode does not impend and it is not an internist.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the humanities is not cartographic.
|
¬{B}{aa}
|
sent1: if there is something such that it does not tenant extremeness then the humanities is not aphoristic. sent2: if something that criticizes tramp is aphoristic it is not cartographic. sent3: there exists something such that it does not tenant extremeness. sent4: if the fact that the fact that something is a kind of non-cartographic thing that does not canton peel is true is not correct it is cartographic. sent5: the humanities is not aphoristic. sent6: if something that does criticize tramp is not aphoristic then it is not cartographic.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{AB}{aa} sent2: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent3: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent4: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) -> {B}x sent5: ¬{AB}{aa} sent6: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
[
"sent6 -> int1: that that the humanities is not cartographic is not incorrect if the humanities criticizes tramp and is not aphoristic is not incorrect.;"
] |
[
"sent6 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa};"
] |
the fact that the humanities is cartographic is not false.
|
{B}{aa}
|
[
"sent4 -> int2: the humanities is cartographic if the fact that it is not cartographic and does not canton peel is not correct.;"
] | 5 | 2 | null | 4 | 0 | 4 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the humanities is not cartographic. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that it does not tenant extremeness then the humanities is not aphoristic. sent2: if something that criticizes tramp is aphoristic it is not cartographic. sent3: there exists something such that it does not tenant extremeness. sent4: if the fact that the fact that something is a kind of non-cartographic thing that does not canton peel is true is not correct it is cartographic. sent5: the humanities is not aphoristic. sent6: if something that does criticize tramp is not aphoristic then it is not cartographic. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 -> int1: that that the humanities is not cartographic is not incorrect if the humanities criticizes tramp and is not aphoristic is not incorrect.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the translunarness happens.
|
{E}
|
sent1: the refrigeration occurs. sent2: that the twanging does not occur and/or the tripling does not occur yields that the tripling does not occur. sent3: the sparring occurs. sent4: the inconsolableness does not occur if the suffering does not occur. sent5: if the androgynousness happens then the tenanting spot-weld happens. sent6: the fact that the precedence occurs is right. sent7: that the festering does not occur is prevented by that the strengthening happens. sent8: that the gift but not the blending occurs is not right if the fact that the androgynousness does not occur is right. sent9: that the irresponsibleness occurs is caused by that the down-bow happens. sent10: the roaring occurs. sent11: if the branching happens the splurging occurs. sent12: if the pitter-patter occurs the criticizing ileum happens. sent13: the suburbanness occurs. sent14: the androgynousness occurs if the blending happens. sent15: the flip occurs if the gyroscopicness happens. sent16: the Mercurialness happens. sent17: both the blend and the gift happens. sent18: if the inconsolableness does not occur the twang does not occur and/or the triple does not occur. sent19: the tenanting execution happens. sent20: if the tripling does not occur then the tenanting spot-weld does not occur and the androgynousness does not occur. sent21: the straight happens.
|
sent1: {JH} sent2: (¬{H} v ¬{F}) -> ¬{F} sent3: {AU} sent4: ¬{I} -> ¬{G} sent5: {C} -> {D} sent6: {FH} sent7: {GD} -> {BO} sent8: ¬{C} -> ¬({B} & ¬{A}) sent9: {GF} -> {AF} sent10: {AR} sent11: {IN} -> {FK} sent12: {GP} -> {GI} sent13: {IF} sent14: {A} -> {C} sent15: {IP} -> {S} sent16: {CT} sent17: ({A} & {B}) sent18: ¬{G} -> (¬{H} v ¬{F}) sent19: {BU} sent20: ¬{F} -> (¬{D} & ¬{C}) sent21: {FU}
|
[
"sent17 -> int1: the blending happens.; sent14 & int1 -> int2: the androgynousness happens.; sent5 & int2 -> int3: the tenanting spot-weld happens.;"
] |
[
"sent17 -> int1: {A}; sent14 & int1 -> int2: {C}; sent5 & int2 -> int3: {D};"
] |
the translunarness does not occur.
|
¬{E}
|
[] | 10 | 4 | null | 18 | 0 | 18 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the translunarness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the refrigeration occurs. sent2: that the twanging does not occur and/or the tripling does not occur yields that the tripling does not occur. sent3: the sparring occurs. sent4: the inconsolableness does not occur if the suffering does not occur. sent5: if the androgynousness happens then the tenanting spot-weld happens. sent6: the fact that the precedence occurs is right. sent7: that the festering does not occur is prevented by that the strengthening happens. sent8: that the gift but not the blending occurs is not right if the fact that the androgynousness does not occur is right. sent9: that the irresponsibleness occurs is caused by that the down-bow happens. sent10: the roaring occurs. sent11: if the branching happens the splurging occurs. sent12: if the pitter-patter occurs the criticizing ileum happens. sent13: the suburbanness occurs. sent14: the androgynousness occurs if the blending happens. sent15: the flip occurs if the gyroscopicness happens. sent16: the Mercurialness happens. sent17: both the blend and the gift happens. sent18: if the inconsolableness does not occur the twang does not occur and/or the triple does not occur. sent19: the tenanting execution happens. sent20: if the tripling does not occur then the tenanting spot-weld does not occur and the androgynousness does not occur. sent21: the straight happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent17 -> int1: the blending happens.; sent14 & int1 -> int2: the androgynousness happens.; sent5 & int2 -> int3: the tenanting spot-weld happens.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the pro is non-murine.
|
¬{E}{b}
|
sent1: the runner-up does not canton acrodont if the fact that it criticizes drawl and does canton acrodont is not true. sent2: the runner-up does not criticize footrace. sent3: if the runner-up does not criticize footrace and is efficacious the pro is not a murine. sent4: the pro is not drinkable if the runner-up is not efficacious but it is a murine. sent5: the pro is arthralgic and it develops. sent6: if something is both not arthralgic and drinkable then it is a murine. sent7: the pro is not a murine if the runner-up does criticize footrace and is efficacious. sent8: if there is something such that that it is a carouse and it is not incommodious is not true then the fact that the elderberry does not criticize drawl is correct. sent9: the runner-up is both not a stocks and murine. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a carouse and is not incommodious does not hold. sent11: the pro is not a unthoughtfulness but it is not non-benign if it does criticize subjunctive. sent12: the runner-up is drinkable. sent13: that the runner-up does criticize drawl and cantons acrodont is incorrect if there is something such that it does not criticize drawl. sent14: if the runner-up is arthralgic it does not criticize footrace. sent15: the runner-up is drinkable and arthralgic. sent16: if that the washwoman is not arthralgic and does not criticize footrace is incorrect it is drinkable. sent17: something that is arthralgic does not criticize footrace and is efficacious. sent18: the fact that something is both not unworldly and inefficacious is false if it does not canton acrodont. sent19: something does not criticize footrace if that it is arthralgic hold.
|
sent1: ¬({H}{a} & {G}{a}) -> ¬{G}{a} sent2: ¬{C}{a} sent3: (¬{C}{a} & {D}{a}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent4: (¬{D}{a} & {E}{a}) -> ¬{A}{b} sent5: ({B}{b} & {DN}{b}) sent6: (x): (¬{B}x & {A}x) -> {E}x sent7: ({C}{a} & {D}{a}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent8: (x): ¬({I}x & ¬{J}x) -> ¬{H}{c} sent9: (¬{CK}{a} & {E}{a}) sent10: (Ex): ¬({I}x & ¬{J}x) sent11: {CO}{b} -> (¬{FM}{b} & {AG}{b}) sent12: {A}{a} sent13: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬({H}{a} & {G}{a}) sent14: {B}{a} -> ¬{C}{a} sent15: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent16: ¬(¬{B}{bb} & ¬{C}{bb}) -> {A}{bb} sent17: (x): {B}x -> (¬{C}x & {D}x) sent18: (x): ¬{G}x -> ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{D}x) sent19: (x): {B}x -> ¬{C}x
|
[
"sent15 -> int1: the fact that the runner-up is arthralgic hold.; sent17 -> int2: the runner-up does not criticize footrace and is efficacious if it is arthralgic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the runner-up does not criticize footrace but it is efficacious.; int3 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent15 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent17 -> int2: {B}{a} -> (¬{C}{a} & {D}{a}); int1 & int2 -> int3: (¬{C}{a} & {D}{a}); int3 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the washwoman is drinkable a basic.
|
({A}{bb} & {FN}{bb})
|
[] | 5 | 3 | 3 | 16 | 0 | 16 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the pro is non-murine. ; $context$ = sent1: the runner-up does not canton acrodont if the fact that it criticizes drawl and does canton acrodont is not true. sent2: the runner-up does not criticize footrace. sent3: if the runner-up does not criticize footrace and is efficacious the pro is not a murine. sent4: the pro is not drinkable if the runner-up is not efficacious but it is a murine. sent5: the pro is arthralgic and it develops. sent6: if something is both not arthralgic and drinkable then it is a murine. sent7: the pro is not a murine if the runner-up does criticize footrace and is efficacious. sent8: if there is something such that that it is a carouse and it is not incommodious is not true then the fact that the elderberry does not criticize drawl is correct. sent9: the runner-up is both not a stocks and murine. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a carouse and is not incommodious does not hold. sent11: the pro is not a unthoughtfulness but it is not non-benign if it does criticize subjunctive. sent12: the runner-up is drinkable. sent13: that the runner-up does criticize drawl and cantons acrodont is incorrect if there is something such that it does not criticize drawl. sent14: if the runner-up is arthralgic it does not criticize footrace. sent15: the runner-up is drinkable and arthralgic. sent16: if that the washwoman is not arthralgic and does not criticize footrace is incorrect it is drinkable. sent17: something that is arthralgic does not criticize footrace and is efficacious. sent18: the fact that something is both not unworldly and inefficacious is false if it does not canton acrodont. sent19: something does not criticize footrace if that it is arthralgic hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent15 -> int1: the fact that the runner-up is arthralgic hold.; sent17 -> int2: the runner-up does not criticize footrace and is efficacious if it is arthralgic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the runner-up does not criticize footrace but it is efficacious.; int3 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there is something such that if that it is not a container and it is not a melena is false it criticizes polecat does not hold.
|
¬((Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x)
|
sent1: something is amblyopic if that it does not criticize entertainment and does not canton sherry is not right. sent2: if the overlook is a container then it criticizes polecat. sent3: if the overlook is not a container and not a melena then it criticizes polecat. sent4: there exists something such that if it is not a container and not a melena it criticizes polecat. sent5: there is something such that if that it is a kind of a container that is not a melena is false it does criticize polecat. sent6: if that that something is not a melena and is not sterile is right is not correct it is a flatterer. sent7: there is something such that if that it is not a container and it is a kind of a melena does not hold it does criticize polecat. sent8: the sherry is a kind of a container if it is gyroscopic. sent9: there is something such that if it is a container then it does criticize polecat. sent10: if the fact that the overlook is not a kind of a container but it is a kind of a melena is not correct it does criticize polecat. sent11: if the fact that the overlook is not a container and is not a melena is wrong it criticizes polecat. sent12: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a melena it does criticize polecat.
|
sent1: (x): ¬(¬{EL}x & ¬{H}x) -> {BT}x sent2: {AA}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent3: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent4: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent5: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent6: (x): ¬(¬{AB}x & ¬{HR}x) -> {GL}x sent7: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent8: {DM}{ef} -> {AA}{ef} sent9: (Ex): {AA}x -> {B}x sent10: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent11: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent12: (Ex): {AB}x -> {B}x
|
[
"sent11 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent11 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the cucumber is amblyopic if that it does not criticize entertainment and it does not canton sherry is not correct.
|
¬(¬{EL}{br} & ¬{H}{br}) -> {BT}{br}
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if that it is not a container and it is not a melena is false it criticizes polecat does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: something is amblyopic if that it does not criticize entertainment and does not canton sherry is not right. sent2: if the overlook is a container then it criticizes polecat. sent3: if the overlook is not a container and not a melena then it criticizes polecat. sent4: there exists something such that if it is not a container and not a melena it criticizes polecat. sent5: there is something such that if that it is a kind of a container that is not a melena is false it does criticize polecat. sent6: if that that something is not a melena and is not sterile is right is not correct it is a flatterer. sent7: there is something such that if that it is not a container and it is a kind of a melena does not hold it does criticize polecat. sent8: the sherry is a kind of a container if it is gyroscopic. sent9: there is something such that if it is a container then it does criticize polecat. sent10: if the fact that the overlook is not a kind of a container but it is a kind of a melena is not correct it does criticize polecat. sent11: if the fact that the overlook is not a container and is not a melena is wrong it criticizes polecat. sent12: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a melena it does criticize polecat. ; $proof$ =
|
sent11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there is something such that if the fact that it does not dispose anthill and is not a leatherleaf does not hold it does see is not right.
|
¬((Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x)
|
sent1: the oxbow is a seeing if that it does not dispose anthill and is not a leatherleaf is false. sent2: there is something such that if it disposes anthill then it is a seeing. sent3: if the fact that the oxbow does not dispose anthill and is not a angioscope does not hold it is a triumvirate. sent4: there exists something such that if the fact that it disposes anthill and it is not a leatherleaf is wrong it does see. sent5: if the fact that the lacertid does not dispose anthill and does not frolic is false it is a differential. sent6: the oxbow does tenant bone if the fact that it is not an overturn and does not criticize seat is not correct. sent7: there is something such that if that it does not dispose anthill and it is a leatherleaf is incorrect it does see. sent8: the oxbow does dispose anthill if that it is not monozygotic and it is not a she-oak is incorrect. sent9: the Black is a chessboard if the fact that it is a kind of non-extensive thing that does not tenant trisaccharide does not hold. sent10: if the fact that something is both unobligated and non-feminist is not right it is a kind of a Herman. sent11: if that the assimilation is not a A'man and not scenic is not correct it disposes anthill. sent12: there is something such that if the fact that it is not a kind of a Ariadne and is not a kind of a stripped is not correct that it is a Chagall is correct. sent13: if the oxbow does not dispose anthill and is not a leatherleaf it does see. sent14: the fact that there is something such that if it is a leatherleaf then it is a seeing is true. sent15: there exists something such that if that it is not a Constance and it is non-Sadducean does not hold then it is a joy. sent16: if that the oxbow does not dispose anthill and is a kind of a leatherleaf does not hold then it does see. sent17: there exists something such that if it does not dispose anthill and is not a leatherleaf then it is a kind of a seeing. sent18: the oxbow is cross-modal if the fact that it is not a kind of a bribery and is not a kind of a Black is false. sent19: if the oxbow does dispose anthill it does see.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent2: (Ex): {AA}x -> {B}x sent3: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{HB}{aa}) -> {M}{aa} sent4: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent5: ¬(¬{AA}{ab} & ¬{CT}{ab}) -> {AF}{ab} sent6: ¬(¬{DJ}{aa} & ¬{IU}{aa}) -> {GJ}{aa} sent7: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent8: ¬(¬{IM}{aa} & ¬{N}{aa}) -> {AA}{aa} sent9: ¬(¬{DM}{ds} & ¬{FU}{ds}) -> {DI}{ds} sent10: (x): ¬(¬{IE}x & ¬{E}x) -> {BD}x sent11: ¬(¬{JG}{is} & ¬{HQ}{is}) -> {AA}{is} sent12: (Ex): ¬(¬{GS}x & ¬{GP}x) -> {ET}x sent13: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent14: (Ex): {AB}x -> {B}x sent15: (Ex): ¬(¬{IC}x & ¬{DT}x) -> {DL}x sent16: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent17: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent18: ¬(¬{EK}{aa} & ¬{GN}{aa}) -> {HG}{aa} sent19: {AA}{aa} -> {B}{aa}
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
if that the parquetry does not obligate and it is non-feminist does not hold then it is a kind of a Herman.
|
¬(¬{IE}{it} & ¬{E}{it}) -> {BD}{it}
|
[
"sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if the fact that it does not dispose anthill and is not a leatherleaf does not hold it does see is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the oxbow is a seeing if that it does not dispose anthill and is not a leatherleaf is false. sent2: there is something such that if it disposes anthill then it is a seeing. sent3: if the fact that the oxbow does not dispose anthill and is not a angioscope does not hold it is a triumvirate. sent4: there exists something such that if the fact that it disposes anthill and it is not a leatherleaf is wrong it does see. sent5: if the fact that the lacertid does not dispose anthill and does not frolic is false it is a differential. sent6: the oxbow does tenant bone if the fact that it is not an overturn and does not criticize seat is not correct. sent7: there is something such that if that it does not dispose anthill and it is a leatherleaf is incorrect it does see. sent8: the oxbow does dispose anthill if that it is not monozygotic and it is not a she-oak is incorrect. sent9: the Black is a chessboard if the fact that it is a kind of non-extensive thing that does not tenant trisaccharide does not hold. sent10: if the fact that something is both unobligated and non-feminist is not right it is a kind of a Herman. sent11: if that the assimilation is not a A'man and not scenic is not correct it disposes anthill. sent12: there is something such that if the fact that it is not a kind of a Ariadne and is not a kind of a stripped is not correct that it is a Chagall is correct. sent13: if the oxbow does not dispose anthill and is not a leatherleaf it does see. sent14: the fact that there is something such that if it is a leatherleaf then it is a seeing is true. sent15: there exists something such that if that it is not a Constance and it is non-Sadducean does not hold then it is a joy. sent16: if that the oxbow does not dispose anthill and is a kind of a leatherleaf does not hold then it does see. sent17: there exists something such that if it does not dispose anthill and is not a leatherleaf then it is a kind of a seeing. sent18: the oxbow is cross-modal if the fact that it is not a kind of a bribery and is not a kind of a Black is false. sent19: if the oxbow does dispose anthill it does see. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the flint does not tenant propagation.
|
¬{C}{b}
|
sent1: something is a hippoboscid if it is irreversible. sent2: if the cenobite does tenant refection the flint criticizes webbing. sent3: something that does criticize webbing does tenant propagation. sent4: the myosin does not criticize consulate but it does dispose Homyel if the Sister is a hippoboscid. sent5: if there is something such that the fact that it is non-coronary and osmotic is false the cenobite tenants refection. sent6: the cenobite criticizes webbing if there exists something such that the fact that it does not tenant propagation and tenants refection does not hold. sent7: there is something such that that it is not a kind of a coronary and it is osmotic is incorrect. sent8: if the houseguest is a kind of non-irreversible thing that does not canton jibboom then the turbinate is irreversible. sent9: the fact that the nester is not a flavin and it does not canton jibboom is incorrect if it is not medieval. sent10: if the strand is informal the houseguest is not irreversible. sent11: the nester is not a gaggle if the facilitation is a gaggle and affirmative. sent12: the strand is a IMF and/or informal. sent13: the fact that if the fact that the nester is not a kind of a flavin and it does not canton jibboom is false then the Yakut does not canton jibboom is right. sent14: the Sister is a hippoboscid if the turbinate is a hippoboscid. sent15: if the strand is a IMF then that the houseguest is non-irreversible hold. sent16: the facilitation does gaggle and it is an affirmative. sent17: if the nester is not a gaggle it is not medieval and it does not tenant Wynette. sent18: if the Yakut does not canton jibboom then the houseguest does not canton jibboom. sent19: something that is not a limey does tenant refection and does not criticize webbing.
|
sent1: (x): {H}x -> {G}x sent2: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent3: (x): {B}x -> {C}x sent4: {G}{d} -> (¬{E}{c} & {F}{c}) sent5: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent6: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & {A}x) -> {B}{a} sent7: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent8: (¬{H}{f} & ¬{J}{f}) -> {H}{e} sent9: ¬{K}{h} -> ¬(¬{I}{h} & ¬{J}{h}) sent10: {M}{i} -> ¬{H}{f} sent11: ({O}{j} & {Q}{j}) -> ¬{O}{h} sent12: ({L}{i} v {M}{i}) sent13: ¬(¬{I}{h} & ¬{J}{h}) -> ¬{J}{g} sent14: {G}{e} -> {G}{d} sent15: {L}{i} -> ¬{H}{f} sent16: ({O}{j} & {Q}{j}) sent17: ¬{O}{h} -> (¬{K}{h} & ¬{N}{h}) sent18: ¬{J}{g} -> ¬{J}{f} sent19: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({A}x & ¬{B}x)
|
[
"sent7 & sent5 -> int1: the cenobite does tenant refection.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the flint criticizes webbing.; sent3 -> int3: the flint tenants propagation if that it criticizes webbing hold.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent7 & sent5 -> int1: {A}{a}; int1 & sent2 -> int2: {B}{b}; sent3 -> int3: {B}{b} -> {C}{b}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the flint does not tenant propagation.
|
¬{C}{b}
|
[
"sent19 -> int4: the cenobite tenants refection but it does not criticize webbing if it is not a kind of a limey.; sent1 -> int5: the turbinate is a kind of a hippoboscid if it is not non-irreversible.; sent12 & sent15 & sent10 -> int6: that the houseguest is not irreversible is right.; sent11 & sent16 -> int7: the nester does not gaggle.; sent17 & int7 -> int8: the nester is not medieval and it does not tenant Wynette.; int8 -> int9: the nester is not medieval.; sent9 & int9 -> int10: that the nester is not a flavin and it does not canton jibboom is wrong.; sent13 & int10 -> int11: the Yakut does not canton jibboom.; sent18 & int11 -> int12: the houseguest does not canton jibboom.; int6 & int12 -> int13: the houseguest is not irreversible and does not canton jibboom.; sent8 & int13 -> int14: that the turbinate is not irreversible does not hold.; int5 & int14 -> int15: the turbinate is a hippoboscid.; sent14 & int15 -> int16: the Sister is a kind of a hippoboscid.; sent4 & int16 -> int17: the myosin does not criticize consulate and disposes Homyel.; int17 -> int18: the fact that there exists something such that it does not criticize consulate and it disposes Homyel is not incorrect.;"
] | 16 | 3 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the flint does not tenant propagation. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a hippoboscid if it is irreversible. sent2: if the cenobite does tenant refection the flint criticizes webbing. sent3: something that does criticize webbing does tenant propagation. sent4: the myosin does not criticize consulate but it does dispose Homyel if the Sister is a hippoboscid. sent5: if there is something such that the fact that it is non-coronary and osmotic is false the cenobite tenants refection. sent6: the cenobite criticizes webbing if there exists something such that the fact that it does not tenant propagation and tenants refection does not hold. sent7: there is something such that that it is not a kind of a coronary and it is osmotic is incorrect. sent8: if the houseguest is a kind of non-irreversible thing that does not canton jibboom then the turbinate is irreversible. sent9: the fact that the nester is not a flavin and it does not canton jibboom is incorrect if it is not medieval. sent10: if the strand is informal the houseguest is not irreversible. sent11: the nester is not a gaggle if the facilitation is a gaggle and affirmative. sent12: the strand is a IMF and/or informal. sent13: the fact that if the fact that the nester is not a kind of a flavin and it does not canton jibboom is false then the Yakut does not canton jibboom is right. sent14: the Sister is a hippoboscid if the turbinate is a hippoboscid. sent15: if the strand is a IMF then that the houseguest is non-irreversible hold. sent16: the facilitation does gaggle and it is an affirmative. sent17: if the nester is not a gaggle it is not medieval and it does not tenant Wynette. sent18: if the Yakut does not canton jibboom then the houseguest does not canton jibboom. sent19: something that is not a limey does tenant refection and does not criticize webbing. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 & sent5 -> int1: the cenobite does tenant refection.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the flint criticizes webbing.; sent3 -> int3: the flint tenants propagation if that it criticizes webbing hold.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fore-and-after is a MAK.
|
{C}{a}
|
sent1: the fore-and-after disposes stabbing. sent2: the fore-and-after does dispose stabbing if something is a MAK. sent3: the fore-and-after is a Maja. sent4: the fore-and-after is not tragic. sent5: the bone is both a Cystophora and not violable if there is something such that it does tenant Vanbrugh. sent6: something is a kind of a Cystophora. sent7: the fore-and-after does wipe. sent8: the corn communes but it is not a PIN. sent9: that the fore-and-after does dispose stabbing if there is something such that it is a kind of a Cystophora hold. sent10: the jet does criticize bone but it is not a acerbity if it does not tenant lymphoma. sent11: that there exists something such that the fact that it is a MAK is not incorrect is correct. sent12: the tarwood is a MAK. sent13: if there is something such that it is a Cystophora then the fore-and-after does dispose stabbing and is not a MAK.
|
sent1: {B}{a} sent2: (x): {C}x -> {B}{a} sent3: {CT}{a} sent4: ¬{T}{a} sent5: (x): {CC}x -> ({A}{dd} & ¬{AJ}{dd}) sent6: (Ex): {A}x sent7: {CJ}{a} sent8: ({FL}{al} & ¬{EF}{al}) sent9: (x): {A}x -> {B}{a} sent10: ¬{F}{b} -> ({D}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) sent11: (Ex): {C}x sent12: {C}{es} sent13: (x): {A}x -> ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a})
|
[
"sent6 & sent13 -> int1: the fore-and-after does dispose stabbing and is not a MAK.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 & sent13 -> int1: ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the fore-and-after is a MAK hold.
|
{C}{a}
|
[] | 5 | 2 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fore-and-after is a MAK. ; $context$ = sent1: the fore-and-after disposes stabbing. sent2: the fore-and-after does dispose stabbing if something is a MAK. sent3: the fore-and-after is a Maja. sent4: the fore-and-after is not tragic. sent5: the bone is both a Cystophora and not violable if there is something such that it does tenant Vanbrugh. sent6: something is a kind of a Cystophora. sent7: the fore-and-after does wipe. sent8: the corn communes but it is not a PIN. sent9: that the fore-and-after does dispose stabbing if there is something such that it is a kind of a Cystophora hold. sent10: the jet does criticize bone but it is not a acerbity if it does not tenant lymphoma. sent11: that there exists something such that the fact that it is a MAK is not incorrect is correct. sent12: the tarwood is a MAK. sent13: if there is something such that it is a Cystophora then the fore-and-after does dispose stabbing and is not a MAK. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 & sent13 -> int1: the fore-and-after does dispose stabbing and is not a MAK.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the chrysotile grooms and does not fling.
|
({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})
|
sent1: that the fact that something does not criticize comfit but it is a vaulter is false if the fact that it is not nasty is true is true. sent2: if the prizefighter criticizes FHLMC that the simulator criticizes FHLMC is not incorrect. sent3: if the redpoll is not a kind of an impedance that it is a Titian and it does not unclutter is true. sent4: if the thermoacidophile does not tenant apophatism then it tenants chrysotile and it does not tenant teleology. sent5: the fact that the chrysotile is a groom and a fling is not right. sent6: the chrysotile does not criticize comfit. sent7: the simulator does tenant Timothy but it is non-nasty if it criticizes FHLMC. sent8: if that something does not criticize comfit but it is a vaulter does not hold it is not dissuasive. sent9: the chrysotile is not a ganger. sent10: something is not dissuasive and it does not tenant apophatism if it criticizes comfit. sent11: if something criticizes comfit it is not a groom. sent12: the chrysotile is not a kind of a Nicandra if the fact that it is a Rhyacotriton hold. sent13: if the simulator tenants Timothy and is not nasty then the snuffbox is not nasty. sent14: the chrysotile is dissuasive but it does not tenant apophatism if it does not criticize comfit. sent15: something does not criticize comfit if the fact that it is a fling and not dissuasive does not hold. sent16: if the fact that the snuffbox is not dissuasive is not incorrect then the Timothy tenants apophatism and it does fling. sent17: The comfit does not criticize chrysotile.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & {D}x) sent2: {G}{d} -> {G}{c} sent3: ¬{FN}{ie} -> ({I}{ie} & ¬{CJ}{ie}) sent4: ¬{A}{io} -> ({FB}{io} & ¬{DS}{io}) sent5: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent6: ¬{C}{aa} sent7: {G}{c} -> ({F}{c} & ¬{E}{c}) sent8: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & {D}x) -> ¬{B}x sent9: ¬{EB}{aa} sent10: (x): {C}x -> (¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) sent11: (x): {C}x -> ¬{AA}x sent12: {BO}{aa} -> ¬{CF}{aa} sent13: ({F}{c} & ¬{E}{c}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent14: ¬{C}{aa} -> ({B}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa}) sent15: (x): ¬({AB}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{C}x sent16: ¬{B}{b} -> ({A}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent17: ¬{AC}{ab}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the chrysotile is a kind of a groom that is not a fling is wrong.; sent14 & sent6 -> int1: the chrysotile is dissuasive but it does not tenant apophatism.; int1 -> int2: the chrysotile is dissuasive.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); sent14 & sent6 -> int1: ({B}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa}); int1 -> int2: {B}{aa};"
] |
that the chrysotile is a kind of a groom and is not a kind of a fling does not hold.
|
¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})
|
[
"sent8 -> int3: the snuffbox is not dissuasive if that it does not criticize comfit and it is a vaulter is not right.; sent1 -> int4: if the snuffbox is non-nasty then the fact that the fact that it does not criticize comfit and is a vaulter is not false is incorrect.;"
] | 9 | 4 | null | 15 | 0 | 15 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the chrysotile grooms and does not fling. ; $context$ = sent1: that the fact that something does not criticize comfit but it is a vaulter is false if the fact that it is not nasty is true is true. sent2: if the prizefighter criticizes FHLMC that the simulator criticizes FHLMC is not incorrect. sent3: if the redpoll is not a kind of an impedance that it is a Titian and it does not unclutter is true. sent4: if the thermoacidophile does not tenant apophatism then it tenants chrysotile and it does not tenant teleology. sent5: the fact that the chrysotile is a groom and a fling is not right. sent6: the chrysotile does not criticize comfit. sent7: the simulator does tenant Timothy but it is non-nasty if it criticizes FHLMC. sent8: if that something does not criticize comfit but it is a vaulter does not hold it is not dissuasive. sent9: the chrysotile is not a ganger. sent10: something is not dissuasive and it does not tenant apophatism if it criticizes comfit. sent11: if something criticizes comfit it is not a groom. sent12: the chrysotile is not a kind of a Nicandra if the fact that it is a Rhyacotriton hold. sent13: if the simulator tenants Timothy and is not nasty then the snuffbox is not nasty. sent14: the chrysotile is dissuasive but it does not tenant apophatism if it does not criticize comfit. sent15: something does not criticize comfit if the fact that it is a fling and not dissuasive does not hold. sent16: if the fact that the snuffbox is not dissuasive is not incorrect then the Timothy tenants apophatism and it does fling. sent17: The comfit does not criticize chrysotile. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the chrysotile is a kind of a groom that is not a fling is wrong.; sent14 & sent6 -> int1: the chrysotile is dissuasive but it does not tenant apophatism.; int1 -> int2: the chrysotile is dissuasive.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the aquavit is a compartmentalization that does not tenant Callitriche.
|
({D}{b} & ¬{E}{b})
|
sent1: the aquavit is not a vintner. sent2: the knotgrass is not a vintner and is not a covering. sent3: if the knotgrass is Andalusian and a knee-high then it covers. sent4: if the knotgrass is both not a vintner and a covering then it is a knee-high. sent5: if the knotgrass is not a compartmentalization but a vintner it shines. sent6: the aquavit is not Andalusian. sent7: the knotgrass is a knee-high if it is not a vintner and not a covering. sent8: if the knotgrass is a knee-high the aquavit is non-Andalusian thing that is a knee-high. sent9: that the fact that the aquavit is a kind of a compartmentalization but it does not tenant Callitriche is wrong is right if the knotgrass does not shine. sent10: the fact that if the aquavit is the vintner the aquavit is a knee-high is true. sent11: that something is a precipitate and does not criticize Nome is incorrect if the fact that it is not a chatroom is not incorrect. sent12: the fact that everything is not a chatroom is not false. sent13: something is a compartmentalization but it does not tenant Callitriche if it does shine. sent14: the aquavit does not tenant Callitriche.
|
sent1: ¬{AA}{b} sent2: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent3: ({C}{a} & {B}{a}) -> {AB}{a} sent4: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent5: (¬{D}{a} & {AA}{a}) -> {A}{a} sent6: ¬{C}{b} sent7: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent8: {B}{a} -> (¬{C}{b} & {B}{b}) sent9: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({D}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) sent10: {AA}{b} -> {B}{b} sent11: (x): ¬{I}x -> ¬({G}x & ¬{H}x) sent12: (x): ¬{I}x sent13: (x): {A}x -> ({D}x & ¬{E}x) sent14: ¬{E}{b}
|
[
"sent7 & sent2 -> int1: the knotgrass is a knee-high.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the aquavit is not Andalusian but it is a kind of a knee-high.; sent13 -> int3: if the aquavit does shine then it is a kind of a compartmentalization and it does not tenant Callitriche.;"
] |
[
"sent7 & sent2 -> int1: {B}{a}; int1 & sent8 -> int2: (¬{C}{b} & {B}{b}); sent13 -> int3: {A}{b} -> ({D}{b} & ¬{E}{b});"
] |
the fact that the aquavit is a compartmentalization and does not tenant Callitriche is false.
|
¬({D}{b} & ¬{E}{b})
|
[
"sent11 -> int4: the fact that the cochineal does precipitate but it does not criticize Nome is incorrect if it is not a chatroom.; sent12 -> int5: the cochineal is not a chatroom.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the fact that the cochineal is a precipitate that does not criticize Nome is not correct.; int6 -> int7: there is nothing such that it precipitates and it does not criticize Nome.; int7 -> int8: that the abortionist is a precipitate that does not criticize Nome is false.;"
] | 9 | 4 | null | 10 | 0 | 10 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the aquavit is a compartmentalization that does not tenant Callitriche. ; $context$ = sent1: the aquavit is not a vintner. sent2: the knotgrass is not a vintner and is not a covering. sent3: if the knotgrass is Andalusian and a knee-high then it covers. sent4: if the knotgrass is both not a vintner and a covering then it is a knee-high. sent5: if the knotgrass is not a compartmentalization but a vintner it shines. sent6: the aquavit is not Andalusian. sent7: the knotgrass is a knee-high if it is not a vintner and not a covering. sent8: if the knotgrass is a knee-high the aquavit is non-Andalusian thing that is a knee-high. sent9: that the fact that the aquavit is a kind of a compartmentalization but it does not tenant Callitriche is wrong is right if the knotgrass does not shine. sent10: the fact that if the aquavit is the vintner the aquavit is a knee-high is true. sent11: that something is a precipitate and does not criticize Nome is incorrect if the fact that it is not a chatroom is not incorrect. sent12: the fact that everything is not a chatroom is not false. sent13: something is a compartmentalization but it does not tenant Callitriche if it does shine. sent14: the aquavit does not tenant Callitriche. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 & sent2 -> int1: the knotgrass is a knee-high.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the aquavit is not Andalusian but it is a kind of a knee-high.; sent13 -> int3: if the aquavit does shine then it is a kind of a compartmentalization and it does not tenant Callitriche.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the cantoning hug-me-tight happens.
|
{D}
|
sent1: the fact that the unsoundness occurs hold. sent2: if the cantoning introit but not the pathologicalness occurs then the bound occurs. sent3: the entrancing occurs but the bankruptcy does not occur. sent4: if that the adientness happens hold then the criticizing Conrad occurs. sent5: the clarioning does not occur. sent6: the tastiness happens. sent7: that the bluffing but not the constitution occurs prevents that the insult does not occur. sent8: the apologizing does not occur. sent9: if the distributiveness but not the decisiveness happens then the vivification happens. sent10: the majorness does not occur. sent11: the amenorrheicness does not occur. sent12: if the faith but not the outgrowth happens then the vanilla happens. sent13: if the apetalousness but not the training happens then the adduction occurs. sent14: the fact that the adientness occurs is right. sent15: if the bash and the non-hospitableness happens then the osteotomy occurs. sent16: the chelicerousness occurs. sent17: the immunoassay but not the African occurs. sent18: the criticizing NSAID happens. sent19: the bust does not occur and the major does not occur.
|
sent1: {GI} sent2: ({IR} & ¬{DH}) -> {EU} sent3: ({HR} & ¬{JJ}) sent4: {A} -> {B} sent5: ¬{GO} sent6: {IL} sent7: ({JG} & ¬{AQ}) -> {HS} sent8: ¬{AM} sent9: ({DD} & ¬{FD}) -> {GB} sent10: ¬{E} sent11: ¬{AJ} sent12: ({FE} & ¬{EG}) -> {AC} sent13: ({R} & ¬{G}) -> {JE} sent14: {A} sent15: ({JI} & ¬{EJ}) -> {DI} sent16: {AI} sent17: ({CT} & ¬{AR}) sent18: {L} sent19: (¬{C} & ¬{E})
|
[
"sent4 & sent14 -> int1: the criticizing Conrad occurs.; sent19 -> int2: the bust does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the criticizing Conrad occurs but the bust does not occur.;"
] |
[
"sent4 & sent14 -> int1: {B}; sent19 -> int2: ¬{C}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({B} & ¬{C});"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | null | 16 | 0 | 16 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the cantoning hug-me-tight happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the unsoundness occurs hold. sent2: if the cantoning introit but not the pathologicalness occurs then the bound occurs. sent3: the entrancing occurs but the bankruptcy does not occur. sent4: if that the adientness happens hold then the criticizing Conrad occurs. sent5: the clarioning does not occur. sent6: the tastiness happens. sent7: that the bluffing but not the constitution occurs prevents that the insult does not occur. sent8: the apologizing does not occur. sent9: if the distributiveness but not the decisiveness happens then the vivification happens. sent10: the majorness does not occur. sent11: the amenorrheicness does not occur. sent12: if the faith but not the outgrowth happens then the vanilla happens. sent13: if the apetalousness but not the training happens then the adduction occurs. sent14: the fact that the adientness occurs is right. sent15: if the bash and the non-hospitableness happens then the osteotomy occurs. sent16: the chelicerousness occurs. sent17: the immunoassay but not the African occurs. sent18: the criticizing NSAID happens. sent19: the bust does not occur and the major does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 & sent14 -> int1: the criticizing Conrad occurs.; sent19 -> int2: the bust does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the criticizing Conrad occurs but the bust does not occur.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the vaporizer is not a paregmenon and is not alternate.
|
(¬{C}{b} & ¬{B}{b})
|
sent1: the Caddo is both a Guam and not a bend. sent2: if something does not cane sticker then it does alternate and it is a kind of a paregmenon. sent3: the Caddo is a past and is not a kind of a BMR. sent4: the fact that that the hazelnut is a puppy and it is a langley is correct does not hold. sent5: The year-end does light Caddo. sent6: the vaporizer lights year-end but it is not a kind of a paregmenon. sent7: the vaporizer is a tarnish that is not unrighteous. sent8: the fact that the vaporizer is a kind of a gun and is not a kind of a paregmenon is wrong. sent9: the fact that the vaporizer is not a Farrell and it does not gun if the Caddo is a paregmenon hold. sent10: if that the Caddo is a Farrell hold then the vaporizer is not a paregmenon and it is not alternate. sent11: the vaporizer is not a kind of a paregmenon. sent12: if the hazelnut does not cane sticker but it is a Farrell then the Caddo is alternate. sent13: the fact that the coalbin guns is not wrong. sent14: the fact that something is not a paregmenon and is not alternate is wrong if it is not a Farrell. sent15: the fact that something is a drunkenness and is not a kind of a paregmenon is wrong if it is a Farrell. sent16: the vaporizer is not an old if there exists something such that the fact that it is a puppy and is a langley is wrong. sent17: if the fact that the Caddo is a Farrell is not incorrect then the vaporizer is not a paregmenon. sent18: if the vaporizer is not old then it is a Nash and does light AFISR. sent19: if the Caddo does light year-end then the vaporizer is not a kind of a paregmenon and it is not a gun. sent20: the luciferin does alternate and it is a Farrell if the Caddo does not cane sticker. sent21: if the Caddo is not a Farrell that it does light year-end and does not gun is not true. sent22: the Caddo is not a gun.
|
sent1: ({AI}{a} & ¬{FU}{a}) sent2: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({B}x & {C}x) sent3: ({AT}{a} & ¬{CM}{a}) sent4: ¬({I}{c} & {H}{c}) sent5: {AC}{aa} sent6: ({AA}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent7: ({EO}{b} & ¬{JE}{b}) sent8: ¬({AB}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent9: {C}{a} -> (¬{A}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent10: {A}{a} -> (¬{C}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent11: ¬{C}{b} sent12: (¬{D}{c} & {A}{c}) -> {B}{a} sent13: {AB}{ji} sent14: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{B}x) sent15: (x): {A}x -> ¬({BR}x & ¬{C}x) sent16: (x): ¬({I}x & {H}x) -> ¬{G}{b} sent17: {A}{a} -> ¬{C}{b} sent18: ¬{G}{b} -> ({E}{b} & {F}{b}) sent19: {AA}{a} -> (¬{C}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent20: ¬{D}{a} -> ({B}{dr} & {A}{dr}) sent21: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent22: ¬{AB}{a}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the Caddo is not a Farrell is not wrong.; sent21 & assump1 -> int1: that the Caddo lights year-end but it is not a gun is not right.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ¬{A}{a}; sent21 & assump1 -> int1: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a});"
] |
that the luciferin is both a drunkenness and not a paregmenon does not hold.
|
¬({BR}{dr} & ¬{C}{dr})
|
[
"sent15 -> int2: the fact that the luciferin is a kind of a drunkenness that is not a paregmenon does not hold if it is a Farrell.; sent4 -> int3: there is something such that that it is a puppy and is a langley is false.; int3 & sent16 -> int4: the vaporizer is not old.; sent18 & int4 -> int5: the vaporizer is a Nash and it lights AFISR.; int5 -> int6: the vaporizer is a Nash.; int6 -> int7: there exists something such that it is a Nash.;"
] | 9 | 4 | null | 19 | 0 | 19 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the vaporizer is not a paregmenon and is not alternate. ; $context$ = sent1: the Caddo is both a Guam and not a bend. sent2: if something does not cane sticker then it does alternate and it is a kind of a paregmenon. sent3: the Caddo is a past and is not a kind of a BMR. sent4: the fact that that the hazelnut is a puppy and it is a langley is correct does not hold. sent5: The year-end does light Caddo. sent6: the vaporizer lights year-end but it is not a kind of a paregmenon. sent7: the vaporizer is a tarnish that is not unrighteous. sent8: the fact that the vaporizer is a kind of a gun and is not a kind of a paregmenon is wrong. sent9: the fact that the vaporizer is not a Farrell and it does not gun if the Caddo is a paregmenon hold. sent10: if that the Caddo is a Farrell hold then the vaporizer is not a paregmenon and it is not alternate. sent11: the vaporizer is not a kind of a paregmenon. sent12: if the hazelnut does not cane sticker but it is a Farrell then the Caddo is alternate. sent13: the fact that the coalbin guns is not wrong. sent14: the fact that something is not a paregmenon and is not alternate is wrong if it is not a Farrell. sent15: the fact that something is a drunkenness and is not a kind of a paregmenon is wrong if it is a Farrell. sent16: the vaporizer is not an old if there exists something such that the fact that it is a puppy and is a langley is wrong. sent17: if the fact that the Caddo is a Farrell is not incorrect then the vaporizer is not a paregmenon. sent18: if the vaporizer is not old then it is a Nash and does light AFISR. sent19: if the Caddo does light year-end then the vaporizer is not a kind of a paregmenon and it is not a gun. sent20: the luciferin does alternate and it is a Farrell if the Caddo does not cane sticker. sent21: if the Caddo is not a Farrell that it does light year-end and does not gun is not true. sent22: the Caddo is not a gun. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the Caddo is not a Farrell is not wrong.; sent21 & assump1 -> int1: that the Caddo lights year-end but it is not a gun is not right.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a hemosiderin and it pools clumber is not true.
|
(Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x)
|
sent1: there exists nothing such that it is a obsessive-compulsive and it is a kind of a aerobe. sent2: the fact that something is a debenture that is ungual is incorrect if it is not odd. sent3: there is nothing such that it is a hemosiderin and it pools clumber.
|
sent1: (x): ¬({BB}x & {FE}x) sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AU}x & {DM}x) sent3: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x)
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: that the cabbage is a kind of a hemosiderin and it does pool clumber is not true.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> int1: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there exists nothing such that it is a debenture and ungual.
|
(x): ¬({AU}x & {DM}x)
|
[
"sent2 -> int2: the fact that the jackknife is a debenture and it is ungual is incorrect if it is not odd.;"
] | 5 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a hemosiderin and it pools clumber is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists nothing such that it is a obsessive-compulsive and it is a kind of a aerobe. sent2: the fact that something is a debenture that is ungual is incorrect if it is not odd. sent3: there is nothing such that it is a hemosiderin and it pools clumber. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> int1: that the cabbage is a kind of a hemosiderin and it does pool clumber is not true.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the feverroot does splice is not false.
|
{A}{a}
|
sent1: if the fact that the epicenter does not cane policeman and is not a splice is not true then the fact that the feverroot is technophobic is right. sent2: if the Cretan is technophobic then the feverroot is technophobic. sent3: the Cretan is chlorotic if the epicenter does cane policeman. sent4: the feverroot is unfamiliar. sent5: something is technophobic if it canes policeman. sent6: if something is chlorotic and is technophobic it is not a splice. sent7: that the epicenter canes policeman and is not technophobic is not true. sent8: the feverroot is chlorotic if it is unfamiliar. sent9: the Cretan is not chlorotic if the feverroot is not a kind of a splice. sent10: that the epicenter does not cane policeman and is not technophobic is not correct.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{D}{c} & ¬{A}{c}) -> {C}{a} sent2: {C}{b} -> {C}{a} sent3: {D}{c} -> {B}{b} sent4: {G}{a} sent5: (x): {D}x -> {C}x sent6: (x): ({B}x & {C}x) -> ¬{A}x sent7: ¬({D}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) sent8: {G}{a} -> {B}{a} sent9: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent10: ¬(¬{D}{c} & ¬{C}{c})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the feverroot is not a splice.; sent9 & assump1 -> int1: the Cretan is not chlorotic.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ¬{A}{a}; sent9 & assump1 -> int1: ¬{B}{b};"
] |
the feverroot does not splice.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
[
"sent6 -> int2: if the feverroot is not non-chlorotic and it is technophobic it is not a splice.; sent8 & sent4 -> int3: the feverroot is chlorotic.; sent5 -> int4: if the Cretan canes policeman it is technophobic.;"
] | 7 | 3 | null | 8 | 0 | 8 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the feverroot does splice is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the epicenter does not cane policeman and is not a splice is not true then the fact that the feverroot is technophobic is right. sent2: if the Cretan is technophobic then the feverroot is technophobic. sent3: the Cretan is chlorotic if the epicenter does cane policeman. sent4: the feverroot is unfamiliar. sent5: something is technophobic if it canes policeman. sent6: if something is chlorotic and is technophobic it is not a splice. sent7: that the epicenter canes policeman and is not technophobic is not true. sent8: the feverroot is chlorotic if it is unfamiliar. sent9: the Cretan is not chlorotic if the feverroot is not a kind of a splice. sent10: that the epicenter does not cane policeman and is not technophobic is not correct. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the feverroot is not a splice.; sent9 & assump1 -> int1: the Cretan is not chlorotic.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if it is not a bullying it is benzoic and it is not crustaceous.
|
(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
sent1: there is something such that if it is not a bullying it is not crustaceous. sent2: the hazelnut does layer easterner and is not a kind of a sailing if it is not a bullying. sent3: the fratricide is a Achaean and it is iridaceous if the fact that it is not a kind of a showboat is true. sent4: if the fratricide does not layer pax then it is a Taegu and it is not a surf. sent5: there exists something such that if it does not light semasiology that it canes chilblained and is not a Araneae is not incorrect. sent6: if the fratricide is not institutional it is benzoic and is a kunzite. sent7: if the fratricide is not a kind of a bullying it is both a counterglow and a neutering. sent8: if the patchcord is not benzoic the fact that it is a place and it is not Hmong is correct. sent9: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a bullying then it is benzoic. sent10: if something is other then it is a epigraphy and is not a kind of a Archidiskidon. sent11: if the fratricide is not a kind of a bullying the fact that it is benzoic is not incorrect. sent12: there is something such that if it is a kind of a bullying then it is benzoic and it is not crustaceous. sent13: something is a kind of a knuckle that is not a eleven-plus if it layers Galton. sent14: the fratricide is a kind of a bullying that does not attenuate if the fact that it is a kind of a pinochle is not wrong. sent15: if something is a berth then it is a kind of a M2 and it is not avuncular.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬{AB}x sent2: ¬{A}{dk} -> ({BT}{dk} & ¬{IU}{dk}) sent3: ¬{IH}{aa} -> ({GF}{aa} & {AP}{aa}) sent4: ¬{EC}{aa} -> ({DD}{aa} & ¬{DU}{aa}) sent5: (Ex): ¬{BK}x -> ({N}x & ¬{CH}x) sent6: ¬{IB}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {HF}{aa}) sent7: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({D}{aa} & {FS}{aa}) sent8: ¬{AA}{is} -> ({EF}{is} & ¬{GI}{is}) sent9: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> {AA}x sent10: (x): {IQ}x -> ({DC}x & ¬{L}x) sent11: ¬{A}{aa} -> {AA}{aa} sent12: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent13: (x): {CR}x -> ({DH}x & ¬{AS}x) sent14: {AR}{aa} -> ({A}{aa} & ¬{FR}{aa}) sent15: (x): {AT}x -> ({FQ}x & ¬{BI}x)
|
[] |
[] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | null | 15 | 0 | 15 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is not a bullying it is benzoic and it is not crustaceous. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is not a bullying it is not crustaceous. sent2: the hazelnut does layer easterner and is not a kind of a sailing if it is not a bullying. sent3: the fratricide is a Achaean and it is iridaceous if the fact that it is not a kind of a showboat is true. sent4: if the fratricide does not layer pax then it is a Taegu and it is not a surf. sent5: there exists something such that if it does not light semasiology that it canes chilblained and is not a Araneae is not incorrect. sent6: if the fratricide is not institutional it is benzoic and is a kunzite. sent7: if the fratricide is not a kind of a bullying it is both a counterglow and a neutering. sent8: if the patchcord is not benzoic the fact that it is a place and it is not Hmong is correct. sent9: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a bullying then it is benzoic. sent10: if something is other then it is a epigraphy and is not a kind of a Archidiskidon. sent11: if the fratricide is not a kind of a bullying the fact that it is benzoic is not incorrect. sent12: there is something such that if it is a kind of a bullying then it is benzoic and it is not crustaceous. sent13: something is a kind of a knuckle that is not a eleven-plus if it layers Galton. sent14: the fratricide is a kind of a bullying that does not attenuate if the fact that it is a kind of a pinochle is not wrong. sent15: if something is a berth then it is a kind of a M2 and it is not avuncular. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the layering amblygonite does not occur and the multidimensionalness happens is right.
|
(¬{C} & {D})
|
sent1: not the layering amblygonite but the multidimensionalness happens if the discarding occurs. sent2: the briefing happens. sent3: the cross-sententialness occurs. sent4: the layering amblygonite does not occur if that both the multidimensionalness and the spot occurs is wrong. sent5: that the briefing happens triggers that the discard occurs.
|
sent1: {B} -> (¬{C} & {D}) sent2: {A} sent3: {BP} sent4: ¬({D} & {E}) -> ¬{C} sent5: {A} -> {B}
|
[
"sent5 & sent2 -> int1: the discard occurs.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 & sent2 -> int1: {B}; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the caning ripple occurs.
|
{BD}
|
[] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the layering amblygonite does not occur and the multidimensionalness happens is right. ; $context$ = sent1: not the layering amblygonite but the multidimensionalness happens if the discarding occurs. sent2: the briefing happens. sent3: the cross-sententialness occurs. sent4: the layering amblygonite does not occur if that both the multidimensionalness and the spot occurs is wrong. sent5: that the briefing happens triggers that the discard occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 & sent2 -> int1: the discard occurs.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the mutter happens.
|
{C}
|
sent1: the caning distressed does not occur if the resolving and the garlickiness happens. sent2: that the downturn does not occur and the mutter does not occur is caused by the caning need. sent3: that the virtuousness occurs or the lighting Qiang occurs or both triggers that the caning linemen does not occur. sent4: the virtuousness happens. sent5: if the custom-made does not occur the caning need does not occur and the cartoon does not occur. sent6: the orthographicness does not occur. sent7: the pooling Pliocene occurs. sent8: the accusatorialness does not occur if that the caning linemen but not the caning miller's-thumb happens is incorrect. sent9: the fact that the non-accusatorialness and the non-Epicureanness occurs is wrong if the caning linemen does not occur. sent10: if the lighting Qiang occurs then the fact that the caning linemen occurs but the caning miller's-thumb does not occur is not true. sent11: if the fact that that the mounting does not occur and the cataplasticness does not occur is not right is true the cataplasticness happens. sent12: the fact that the mounting does not occur and the cataplasticness does not occur is incorrect if the Epicureanness occurs. sent13: the Epicureanness occurs if the fact that the accusatorialness does not occur and the Epicureanness does not occur is false. sent14: that the mutter does not occur is brought about by that the permissibleness and the downturn happens. sent15: the fact that the permissibleness happens hold. sent16: if the downturn does not occur then the permissibleness occurs and the mutter occurs. sent17: that the atomization occurs and the permissibleness happens is caused by that the downturn does not occur. sent18: the custom-made happens. sent19: the Epicureanness happens if the accusatorialness does not occur. sent20: both the confrontationalness and the caning miller's-thumb happens. sent21: the downturn occurs.
|
sent1: ({BJ} & {FP}) -> ¬{AO} sent2: {E} -> (¬{B} & ¬{C}) sent3: ({M} v {L}) -> ¬{J} sent4: {M} sent5: ¬{G} -> (¬{E} & ¬{F}) sent6: ¬{AH} sent7: {P} sent8: ¬({J} & ¬{K}) -> ¬{I} sent9: ¬{J} -> ¬(¬{I} & ¬{H}) sent10: {L} -> ¬({J} & ¬{K}) sent11: ¬(¬{D} & ¬{AS}) -> {AS} sent12: {H} -> ¬(¬{D} & ¬{AS}) sent13: ¬(¬{I} & ¬{H}) -> {H} sent14: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent15: {A} sent16: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {C}) sent17: ¬{B} -> ({BI} & {A}) sent18: {G} sent19: ¬{I} -> {H} sent20: ({JJ} & {K}) sent21: {B}
|
[
"sent15 & sent21 -> int1: the permissibleness happens and the downturn occurs.; sent14 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent15 & sent21 -> int1: ({A} & {B}); sent14 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
both the cataplasticness and the atomization happens.
|
({AS} & {BI})
|
[
"sent4 -> int2: the virtuousness or the lighting Qiang or both happens.; sent3 & int2 -> int3: the caning linemen does not occur.; sent9 & int3 -> int4: the fact that both the non-accusatorialness and the non-Epicureanness occurs is not correct.; sent13 & int4 -> int5: the Epicureanness happens.; sent12 & int5 -> int6: the fact that the mounting does not occur and the cataplasticness does not occur is false.; sent11 & int6 -> int7: the cataplasticness happens.;"
] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the mutter happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the caning distressed does not occur if the resolving and the garlickiness happens. sent2: that the downturn does not occur and the mutter does not occur is caused by the caning need. sent3: that the virtuousness occurs or the lighting Qiang occurs or both triggers that the caning linemen does not occur. sent4: the virtuousness happens. sent5: if the custom-made does not occur the caning need does not occur and the cartoon does not occur. sent6: the orthographicness does not occur. sent7: the pooling Pliocene occurs. sent8: the accusatorialness does not occur if that the caning linemen but not the caning miller's-thumb happens is incorrect. sent9: the fact that the non-accusatorialness and the non-Epicureanness occurs is wrong if the caning linemen does not occur. sent10: if the lighting Qiang occurs then the fact that the caning linemen occurs but the caning miller's-thumb does not occur is not true. sent11: if the fact that that the mounting does not occur and the cataplasticness does not occur is not right is true the cataplasticness happens. sent12: the fact that the mounting does not occur and the cataplasticness does not occur is incorrect if the Epicureanness occurs. sent13: the Epicureanness occurs if the fact that the accusatorialness does not occur and the Epicureanness does not occur is false. sent14: that the mutter does not occur is brought about by that the permissibleness and the downturn happens. sent15: the fact that the permissibleness happens hold. sent16: if the downturn does not occur then the permissibleness occurs and the mutter occurs. sent17: that the atomization occurs and the permissibleness happens is caused by that the downturn does not occur. sent18: the custom-made happens. sent19: the Epicureanness happens if the accusatorialness does not occur. sent20: both the confrontationalness and the caning miller's-thumb happens. sent21: the downturn occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent15 & sent21 -> int1: the permissibleness happens and the downturn occurs.; sent14 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the check does not occur.
|
¬{D}
|
sent1: if the fact that both the non-entrepreneurialness and the electronicsness happens is false then the tan does not occur. sent2: both the caning Zurich and the Arabic happens. sent3: if the fixture does not occur the fact that not the entrepreneurialness but the electronicsness occurs is false. sent4: the check happens if the tan occurs. sent5: the fact that the tanning occurs is not incorrect if the caning Zurich happens. sent6: if the afterglow happens then the nod happens. sent7: the adjuration occurs. sent8: both the afterglow and the stored-programness happens if the fact that the bribery does not occur hold. sent9: the fixture does not occur if either the CPR happens or the nodding occurs or both. sent10: the fact that the Arabic happens hold.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{F} & {E}) -> ¬{C} sent2: ({A} & {B}) sent3: ¬{G} -> ¬(¬{F} & {E}) sent4: {C} -> {D} sent5: {A} -> {C} sent6: {J} -> {I} sent7: {GG} sent8: ¬{L} -> ({J} & {K}) sent9: ({H} v {I}) -> ¬{G} sent10: {B}
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: the caning Zurich happens.; sent5 & int1 -> int2: that the tan occurs is not false.; sent4 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> int1: {A}; sent5 & int1 -> int2: {C}; sent4 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the check does not occur.
|
¬{D}
|
[] | 10 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the check does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that both the non-entrepreneurialness and the electronicsness happens is false then the tan does not occur. sent2: both the caning Zurich and the Arabic happens. sent3: if the fixture does not occur the fact that not the entrepreneurialness but the electronicsness occurs is false. sent4: the check happens if the tan occurs. sent5: the fact that the tanning occurs is not incorrect if the caning Zurich happens. sent6: if the afterglow happens then the nod happens. sent7: the adjuration occurs. sent8: both the afterglow and the stored-programness happens if the fact that the bribery does not occur hold. sent9: the fixture does not occur if either the CPR happens or the nodding occurs or both. sent10: the fact that the Arabic happens hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> int1: the caning Zurich happens.; sent5 & int1 -> int2: that the tan occurs is not false.; sent4 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the birthplace does not layer truthfulness.
|
¬{D}{a}
|
sent1: if the fact that something does not cane variometer hold then the fact that the birthplace does layer Miwok but it does not layer truthfulness is incorrect. sent2: something does cane variometer and it layers Miwok if it does not light presumption. sent3: that the fact that the birthplace canes variometer and it does layer Miwok is correct is incorrect if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a clef. sent4: that the birthplace canes variometer and layers Miwok is not true. sent5: that the birthplace does not layer truthfulness is true if it does layer Miwok. sent6: if that something does not layer truthfulness but it is a kind of a clef is not right it does layer truthfulness. sent7: there exists something such that it does not layer truthfulness. sent8: the barrator is a kind of a Hollywood if that the pharisee is a Hollywood hold. sent9: the pteridophyte does not layer Miwok. sent10: the birthplace does not cane Rasht if the fact that it layers Miwok and it is not a groupware does not hold. sent11: if something does cane variometer it is a clef. sent12: if the bioweapon is a clef the birthplace layers truthfulness. sent13: that something is not a kind of a quarterly or it does light presumption or both does not hold if it is Hollywood. sent14: if something lights welcoming then it is a kind of a Hollywood. sent15: the fact that the birthplace does cane variometer and does not layer Miwok is not right if there exists something such that it is not a clef. sent16: there is something such that it is a clef. sent17: that the pepperwood is a kind of non-comatose thing that does not light welcoming is not true. sent18: if that the barrator is not a quarterly and/or it does light presumption is not right then the bioweapon does not light presumption. sent19: something is not a clef.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({C}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent2: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({B}x & {C}x) sent3: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent4: ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent5: {C}{a} -> ¬{D}{a} sent6: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {A}x) -> {D}x sent7: (Ex): ¬{D}x sent8: {G}{d} -> {G}{c} sent9: ¬{C}{fh} sent10: ¬({C}{a} & ¬{CL}{a}) -> ¬{FE}{a} sent11: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent12: {A}{b} -> {D}{a} sent13: (x): {G}x -> ¬(¬{F}x v {E}x) sent14: (x): {H}x -> {G}x sent15: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent16: (Ex): {A}x sent17: ¬(¬{I}{e} & ¬{H}{e}) sent18: ¬(¬{F}{c} v {E}{c}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent19: (Ex): ¬{A}x
|
[
"sent19 & sent15 -> int1: that the birthplace does cane variometer and does not layer Miwok does not hold.;"
] |
[
"sent19 & sent15 -> int1: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a});"
] |
the fact that the birthplace does layer truthfulness is right.
|
{D}{a}
|
[
"sent6 -> int2: if the fact that the birthplace does not layer truthfulness but it is a clef does not hold it does layer truthfulness.;"
] | 4 | 2 | null | 17 | 0 | 17 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the birthplace does not layer truthfulness. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something does not cane variometer hold then the fact that the birthplace does layer Miwok but it does not layer truthfulness is incorrect. sent2: something does cane variometer and it layers Miwok if it does not light presumption. sent3: that the fact that the birthplace canes variometer and it does layer Miwok is correct is incorrect if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a clef. sent4: that the birthplace canes variometer and layers Miwok is not true. sent5: that the birthplace does not layer truthfulness is true if it does layer Miwok. sent6: if that something does not layer truthfulness but it is a kind of a clef is not right it does layer truthfulness. sent7: there exists something such that it does not layer truthfulness. sent8: the barrator is a kind of a Hollywood if that the pharisee is a Hollywood hold. sent9: the pteridophyte does not layer Miwok. sent10: the birthplace does not cane Rasht if the fact that it layers Miwok and it is not a groupware does not hold. sent11: if something does cane variometer it is a clef. sent12: if the bioweapon is a clef the birthplace layers truthfulness. sent13: that something is not a kind of a quarterly or it does light presumption or both does not hold if it is Hollywood. sent14: if something lights welcoming then it is a kind of a Hollywood. sent15: the fact that the birthplace does cane variometer and does not layer Miwok is not right if there exists something such that it is not a clef. sent16: there is something such that it is a clef. sent17: that the pepperwood is a kind of non-comatose thing that does not light welcoming is not true. sent18: if that the barrator is not a quarterly and/or it does light presumption is not right then the bioweapon does not light presumption. sent19: something is not a clef. ; $proof$ =
|
sent19 & sent15 -> int1: that the birthplace does cane variometer and does not layer Miwok does not hold.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the broadsword does not cane crested.
|
¬{D}{b}
|
sent1: something does layer broadsword. sent2: there is something such that it is distributional. sent3: the interphone canes crested. sent4: the clipper layers enthusiasm and it is distributional. sent5: the interphone layers Orleanism if something that does layer enthusiasm is distributional. sent6: something does not layer Orleanism if it is not a belly. sent7: the clipper is distributional. sent8: that the broadsword is a kina hold. sent9: there exists something such that it is a kind of a cataleptic. sent10: if the interphone does layer Orleanism then the broadsword does cane crested. sent11: that something is non-distributional thing that does not layer enthusiasm is wrong if it does not layer Orleanism. sent12: there exists something such that it does cane crested. sent13: there exists something such that it does layer enthusiasm. sent14: the hock is a Namibian but it is not a holotype. sent15: there exists something such that it is adoptable.
|
sent1: (Ex): {DS}x sent2: (Ex): {B}x sent3: {D}{a} sent4: ({A}{aa} & {B}{aa}) sent5: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> {C}{a} sent6: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬{C}x sent7: {B}{aa} sent8: {FM}{b} sent9: (Ex): {CC}x sent10: {C}{a} -> {D}{b} sent11: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) sent12: (Ex): {D}x sent13: (Ex): {A}x sent14: ({G}{c} & ¬{F}{c}) sent15: (Ex): {BP}x
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: something does layer enthusiasm and it is distributional.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the interphone does layer Orleanism.; int2 & sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> int1: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x); int1 & sent5 -> int2: {C}{a}; int2 & sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the broadsword does not cane crested.
|
¬{D}{b}
|
[
"sent11 -> int3: the fact that the interphone is not distributional and it does not layer enthusiasm does not hold if it does not layer Orleanism.; sent6 -> int4: the interphone does not layer Orleanism if it does not belly.; sent14 -> int5: there exists something such that it is a Namibian and is not a holotype.;"
] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the broadsword does not cane crested. ; $context$ = sent1: something does layer broadsword. sent2: there is something such that it is distributional. sent3: the interphone canes crested. sent4: the clipper layers enthusiasm and it is distributional. sent5: the interphone layers Orleanism if something that does layer enthusiasm is distributional. sent6: something does not layer Orleanism if it is not a belly. sent7: the clipper is distributional. sent8: that the broadsword is a kina hold. sent9: there exists something such that it is a kind of a cataleptic. sent10: if the interphone does layer Orleanism then the broadsword does cane crested. sent11: that something is non-distributional thing that does not layer enthusiasm is wrong if it does not layer Orleanism. sent12: there exists something such that it does cane crested. sent13: there exists something such that it does layer enthusiasm. sent14: the hock is a Namibian but it is not a holotype. sent15: there exists something such that it is adoptable. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> int1: something does layer enthusiasm and it is distributional.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the interphone does layer Orleanism.; int2 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the pothead is not an irony and it does not light breadbasket.
|
(¬{C}{c} & ¬{A}{c})
|
sent1: that the Arctic is not a Dragunov is not false if the carinate does light sparseness and pools fishhook. sent2: the fact that the carinate does light sparseness and it pools fishhook is not false. sent3: everything does layer Speer. sent4: the Arctic is a kind of a ceruse. sent5: if something is not a kindness it is a Dragunov.
|
sent1: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent2: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent3: (x): {F}x sent4: {E}{b} sent5: (x): ¬{D}x -> {B}x
|
[
"sent1 & sent2 -> int1: the Arctic is not a Dragunov.;"
] |
[
"sent1 & sent2 -> int1: ¬{B}{b};"
] |
the fact that the pothead is not an irony and does not light breadbasket is wrong.
|
¬(¬{C}{c} & ¬{A}{c})
|
[
"sent5 -> int2: if the carinate is not a kindness it is a Dragunov.; sent3 -> int3: the Arctic does layer Speer.; sent4 & int3 -> int4: the Arctic is a kind of a ceruse and it layers Speer.; int4 -> int5: something is a kind of a ceruse that does layer Speer.;"
] | 7 | 2 | null | 3 | 0 | 3 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the pothead is not an irony and it does not light breadbasket. ; $context$ = sent1: that the Arctic is not a Dragunov is not false if the carinate does light sparseness and pools fishhook. sent2: the fact that the carinate does light sparseness and it pools fishhook is not false. sent3: everything does layer Speer. sent4: the Arctic is a kind of a ceruse. sent5: if something is not a kindness it is a Dragunov. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 & sent2 -> int1: the Arctic is not a Dragunov.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the sclerometer wreathes.
|
{C}{b}
|
sent1: the armyworm is a kind of a Riksmal or it is a Amaethon or both if there exists something such that it is a Amaethon. sent2: something glazes. sent3: the sclerometer does not cane Scorpaenidae. sent4: the sclerometer does not light third-rater. sent5: there exists something such that it wreathes. sent6: there is something such that it does not cane Scorpaenidae. sent7: there exists something such that it canes Scorpaenidae. sent8: if something lights third-rater it is a kind of a Amaethon. sent9: that the sclerometer does not cane psychometry is not wrong. sent10: if the Appalachian does not cane Scorpaenidae the sclerometer does not wreathe. sent11: the swallowwort is bony. sent12: something is a kind of a Montserratian. sent13: the sclerometer does wreathe if the Appalachian does wreathe. sent14: if something is not a matriculation and is bony then it does not light lymphocyte. sent15: the agnostic is a kind of a Riksmal if the armyworm is a kind of a Riksmal. sent16: if the swallowwort is not a vasoconstrictor then it is not exodontics and it lights third-rater. sent17: if there is something such that it does not glaze then that the Appalachian does not cane Scorpaenidae is true. sent18: there is something such that it is not a glaze. sent19: the swallowwort is not a matriculation. sent20: if the agnostic is a Riksmal that it does cane Scorpaenidae and is not a glaze hold. sent21: the Appalachian does not wreathe if that it lights third-rater and it wreathe is not right. sent22: the fact that something is not a vasoconstrictor and it is not an officer hold if it does not light lymphocyte. sent23: the sclerometer does not cane Scorpaenidae if there is something such that it does not wreathe.
|
sent1: (x): {F}x -> ({D}{d} v {F}{d}) sent2: (Ex): {A}x sent3: ¬{B}{b} sent4: ¬{E}{b} sent5: (Ex): {C}x sent6: (Ex): ¬{B}x sent7: (Ex): {B}x sent8: (x): {E}x -> {F}x sent9: ¬{AL}{b} sent10: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬{C}{b} sent11: {L}{e} sent12: (Ex): {IO}x sent13: {C}{a} -> {C}{b} sent14: (x): (¬{K}x & {L}x) -> ¬{J}x sent15: {D}{d} -> {D}{c} sent16: ¬{H}{e} -> (¬{G}{e} & {E}{e}) sent17: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{B}{a} sent18: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent19: ¬{K}{e} sent20: {D}{c} -> ({B}{c} & ¬{A}{c}) sent21: ¬({E}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent22: (x): ¬{J}x -> (¬{H}x & ¬{I}x) sent23: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬{B}{b}
|
[
"sent18 & sent17 -> int1: the Appalachian does not cane Scorpaenidae.; int1 & sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent18 & sent17 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; int1 & sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the peroxidase is not a kind of a groupware.
|
¬{BF}{hj}
|
[
"sent4 -> int2: something does not light third-rater.;"
] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 20 | 0 | 20 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the sclerometer wreathes. ; $context$ = sent1: the armyworm is a kind of a Riksmal or it is a Amaethon or both if there exists something such that it is a Amaethon. sent2: something glazes. sent3: the sclerometer does not cane Scorpaenidae. sent4: the sclerometer does not light third-rater. sent5: there exists something such that it wreathes. sent6: there is something such that it does not cane Scorpaenidae. sent7: there exists something such that it canes Scorpaenidae. sent8: if something lights third-rater it is a kind of a Amaethon. sent9: that the sclerometer does not cane psychometry is not wrong. sent10: if the Appalachian does not cane Scorpaenidae the sclerometer does not wreathe. sent11: the swallowwort is bony. sent12: something is a kind of a Montserratian. sent13: the sclerometer does wreathe if the Appalachian does wreathe. sent14: if something is not a matriculation and is bony then it does not light lymphocyte. sent15: the agnostic is a kind of a Riksmal if the armyworm is a kind of a Riksmal. sent16: if the swallowwort is not a vasoconstrictor then it is not exodontics and it lights third-rater. sent17: if there is something such that it does not glaze then that the Appalachian does not cane Scorpaenidae is true. sent18: there is something such that it is not a glaze. sent19: the swallowwort is not a matriculation. sent20: if the agnostic is a Riksmal that it does cane Scorpaenidae and is not a glaze hold. sent21: the Appalachian does not wreathe if that it lights third-rater and it wreathe is not right. sent22: the fact that something is not a vasoconstrictor and it is not an officer hold if it does not light lymphocyte. sent23: the sclerometer does not cane Scorpaenidae if there is something such that it does not wreathe. ; $proof$ =
|
sent18 & sent17 -> int1: the Appalachian does not cane Scorpaenidae.; int1 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Argyrol is an itch and is necromantic.
|
({B}{b} & {A}{b})
|
sent1: there is something such that it is an airplane. sent2: the fact that the lancelet is a kind of a Crucifixion but it is not achromatic is not true. sent3: that something is both an itch and necromantic is incorrect if it does not pool once-over. sent4: the Argyrol is a bioassay. sent5: the lancelet does light playmaker. sent6: the lancelet layers steeper and does tug. sent7: the dewberry is necromantic. sent8: the steeper does itch. sent9: the lancelet is not non-necromantic. sent10: everything is an inroad. sent11: that the lancelet is a Crucifixion and it is achromatic is wrong. sent12: if that the Argyrol is necromantic but it is not a Crucifixion does not hold the lancelet is an itch. sent13: the Argyrol does itch if that the lancelet is a kind of a Crucifixion and is not achromatic is false. sent14: if the lancelet is achromatic the Argyrol is an itch. sent15: the fact that the Argyrol is achromatic is correct. sent16: the fact that the Argyrol is a kind of a Crucifixion but it does not itch is not right. sent17: if that the lancelet is a Crucifixion but it is not necromantic is false the Argyrol is achromatic. sent18: something lights speakership and is a rhythmicity if the fact that it is not a kind of a Pickeringia hold. sent19: everything is necromantic.
|
sent1: (Ex): {G}x sent2: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent3: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({B}x & {A}x) sent4: {ID}{b} sent5: {EH}{a} sent6: ({BR}{a} & {JF}{a}) sent7: {A}{cb} sent8: {B}{cl} sent9: {A}{a} sent10: (x): {AK}x sent11: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent12: ¬({A}{b} & ¬{AA}{b}) -> {B}{a} sent13: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent14: {AB}{a} -> {B}{b} sent15: {AB}{b} sent16: ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent17: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> {AB}{b} sent18: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({D}x & {E}x) sent19: (x): {A}x
|
[
"sent13 & sent2 -> int1: the Argyrol itches.; sent19 -> int2: the Argyrol is necromantic.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent13 & sent2 -> int1: {B}{b}; sent19 -> int2: {A}{b}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the Argyrol is an itch and is necromantic does not hold.
|
¬({B}{b} & {A}{b})
|
[
"sent3 -> int3: the fact that the Argyrol is both an itch and necromantic is not right if it does not pool once-over.; sent18 -> int4: the lancelet lights speakership and is a rhythmicity if it is not a kind of a Pickeringia.;"
] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 16 | 0 | 16 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the Argyrol is an itch and is necromantic. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is an airplane. sent2: the fact that the lancelet is a kind of a Crucifixion but it is not achromatic is not true. sent3: that something is both an itch and necromantic is incorrect if it does not pool once-over. sent4: the Argyrol is a bioassay. sent5: the lancelet does light playmaker. sent6: the lancelet layers steeper and does tug. sent7: the dewberry is necromantic. sent8: the steeper does itch. sent9: the lancelet is not non-necromantic. sent10: everything is an inroad. sent11: that the lancelet is a Crucifixion and it is achromatic is wrong. sent12: if that the Argyrol is necromantic but it is not a Crucifixion does not hold the lancelet is an itch. sent13: the Argyrol does itch if that the lancelet is a kind of a Crucifixion and is not achromatic is false. sent14: if the lancelet is achromatic the Argyrol is an itch. sent15: the fact that the Argyrol is achromatic is correct. sent16: the fact that the Argyrol is a kind of a Crucifixion but it does not itch is not right. sent17: if that the lancelet is a Crucifixion but it is not necromantic is false the Argyrol is achromatic. sent18: something lights speakership and is a rhythmicity if the fact that it is not a kind of a Pickeringia hold. sent19: everything is necromantic. ; $proof$ =
|
sent13 & sent2 -> int1: the Argyrol itches.; sent19 -> int2: the Argyrol is necromantic.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the theme and the non-eveningness happens does not hold.
|
¬({A} & ¬{C})
|
sent1: the caning Nash does not occur if the recreationalness occurs but the furor does not occur. sent2: that the awfulness occurs is prevented by that the ravage and the non-fernlessness occurs. sent3: the recreationalness occurs. sent4: the fact that the theme and the non-eveningness happens is wrong if the caning Nash does not occur. sent5: the caning Nash causes that the theming occurs but the evening does not occur. sent6: the non-warmingness leads to that the caning Nash but not the layering sombrero occurs. sent7: if the caning Nash does not occur then the fact that the theme happens and the eveningness occurs is not right.
|
sent1: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent2: ({DT} & ¬{FQ}) -> ¬{IF} sent3: {AA} sent4: ¬{B} -> ¬({A} & ¬{C}) sent5: {B} -> ({A} & ¬{C}) sent6: ¬{E} -> ({B} & ¬{D}) sent7: ¬{B} -> ¬({A} & {C})
|
[] |
[] |
the theme and the non-eveningness occurs.
|
({A} & ¬{C})
|
[] | 7 | 2 | null | 5 | 0 | 5 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the theme and the non-eveningness happens does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the caning Nash does not occur if the recreationalness occurs but the furor does not occur. sent2: that the awfulness occurs is prevented by that the ravage and the non-fernlessness occurs. sent3: the recreationalness occurs. sent4: the fact that the theme and the non-eveningness happens is wrong if the caning Nash does not occur. sent5: the caning Nash causes that the theming occurs but the evening does not occur. sent6: the non-warmingness leads to that the caning Nash but not the layering sombrero occurs. sent7: if the caning Nash does not occur then the fact that the theme happens and the eveningness occurs is not right. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the rat-a-tat-tat happens.
|
{AB}
|
sent1: if the polarographicness does not occur the fact that the supporting happens and the rat-a-tat-tat happens does not hold. sent2: that the layering midsummer does not occur causes that the hewing happens and the novelization happens. sent3: the supporting does not occur. sent4: that the supporting does not occur leads to that the intemperance occurs and the rat-a-tat-tat happens.
|
sent1: ¬{B} -> ¬({A} & {AB}) sent2: ¬{HF} -> ({BR} & {H}) sent3: ¬{A} sent4: ¬{A} -> ({AA} & {AB})
|
[
"sent4 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the intemperance occurs and the rat-a-tat-tat happens hold.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 & sent3 -> int1: ({AA} & {AB}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the rat-a-tat-tat does not occur.
|
¬{AB}
|
[] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the rat-a-tat-tat happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if the polarographicness does not occur the fact that the supporting happens and the rat-a-tat-tat happens does not hold. sent2: that the layering midsummer does not occur causes that the hewing happens and the novelization happens. sent3: the supporting does not occur. sent4: that the supporting does not occur leads to that the intemperance occurs and the rat-a-tat-tat happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the intemperance occurs and the rat-a-tat-tat happens hold.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Cognac is not alopecic.
|
¬{B}{a}
|
sent1: that the trunk is an aversion that is not Augustan is not correct. sent2: something is not a bedpan if it is not a preemie and does light fetishism. sent3: the Cognac does not answer and is a kind of a director. sent4: something is not alopecic if it is not a bedpan. sent5: the Cognac is a kind of a director. sent6: the ozonide is not a kind of a overcapitalization and canes flamen. sent7: something canes knowing if it is a kind of a carload. sent8: something is not a kind of a preemie and lights fetishism if it is not non-recreational. sent9: if the Cognac is not an answer but it is a director it is alopecic. sent10: if the trunk is not an aversion then the fetishism is a kind of a garambulla that is not a grid. sent11: if something that is a kind of a garambulla is not a grid the flamen is a carload. sent12: the trunk is not an aversion if that it is a kind of an aversion that is not Augustan is not correct.
|
sent1: ¬({J}{d} & ¬{K}{d}) sent2: (x): (¬{C}x & {D}x) -> ¬{A}x sent3: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{B}x sent5: {AB}{a} sent6: (¬{ID}{du} & {CM}{du}) sent7: (x): {G}x -> {F}x sent8: (x): {E}x -> (¬{C}x & {D}x) sent9: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent10: ¬{J}{d} -> ({I}{c} & ¬{H}{c}) sent11: (x): ({I}x & ¬{H}x) -> {G}{b} sent12: ¬({J}{d} & ¬{K}{d}) -> ¬{J}{d}
|
[
"sent9 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the Cognac is not alopecic.
|
¬{B}{a}
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: if the Cognac is not a bedpan then it is not alopecic.; sent2 -> int2: the Cognac is not a kind of a bedpan if it is not a preemie and lights fetishism.; sent8 -> int3: the Cognac is not a preemie but it lights fetishism if it is recreational.; sent7 -> int4: if the flamen is a kind of a carload then that it does cane knowing hold.; sent12 & sent1 -> int5: the trunk is not an aversion.; sent10 & int5 -> int6: the fetishism is a kind of a garambulla and is not a grid.; int6 -> int7: something is a kind of a garambulla that is not a grid.; int7 & sent11 -> int8: the flamen is a carload.; int4 & int8 -> int9: the flamen does cane knowing.; int9 -> int10: something does cane knowing.;"
] | 10 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the Cognac is not alopecic. ; $context$ = sent1: that the trunk is an aversion that is not Augustan is not correct. sent2: something is not a bedpan if it is not a preemie and does light fetishism. sent3: the Cognac does not answer and is a kind of a director. sent4: something is not alopecic if it is not a bedpan. sent5: the Cognac is a kind of a director. sent6: the ozonide is not a kind of a overcapitalization and canes flamen. sent7: something canes knowing if it is a kind of a carload. sent8: something is not a kind of a preemie and lights fetishism if it is not non-recreational. sent9: if the Cognac is not an answer but it is a director it is alopecic. sent10: if the trunk is not an aversion then the fetishism is a kind of a garambulla that is not a grid. sent11: if something that is a kind of a garambulla is not a grid the flamen is a carload. sent12: the trunk is not an aversion if that it is a kind of an aversion that is not Augustan is not correct. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the athanor does pool Macon.
|
{B}{b}
|
sent1: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a footer and it lights PWR is not correct then the gingersnap is inelegant. sent2: something pools Macon if that it is an addendum but not apetalous does not hold. sent3: if the Macon is not fishy and it is not a gaze then the gingersnap is fishy. sent4: that something is not a kind of a Surya and/or it does gripe does not hold if it is not impressionable. sent5: that the athanor does not pool Macon is not incorrect if the fact that the penlight is not a kind of a Surya or it is a gripe or both does not hold. sent6: the penlight is a Surya. sent7: the castle is not cenogenetic. sent8: something is a Surya if it pools Macon. sent9: if the castle is not cenogenetic then that it is not a footer and does light PWR is incorrect. sent10: the Macon is not fishy and is not a gaze.
|
sent1: (x): ¬(¬{I}x & {J}x) -> {G}{d} sent2: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent3: (¬{F}{e} & ¬{H}{e}) -> {F}{d} sent4: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬(¬{A}x v {C}x) sent5: ¬(¬{A}{a} v {C}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent6: {A}{a} sent7: ¬{K}{f} sent8: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent9: ¬{K}{f} -> ¬(¬{I}{f} & {J}{f}) sent10: (¬{F}{e} & ¬{H}{e})
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: if that the athanor is a kind of an addendum but it is not apetalous is not correct then it pools Macon.;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> int1: ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) -> {B}{b};"
] |
the cine-film is a Surya.
|
{A}{dn}
|
[
"sent8 -> int2: the cine-film is a Surya if it pools Macon.;"
] | 5 | 2 | null | 8 | 0 | 8 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the athanor does pool Macon. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a footer and it lights PWR is not correct then the gingersnap is inelegant. sent2: something pools Macon if that it is an addendum but not apetalous does not hold. sent3: if the Macon is not fishy and it is not a gaze then the gingersnap is fishy. sent4: that something is not a kind of a Surya and/or it does gripe does not hold if it is not impressionable. sent5: that the athanor does not pool Macon is not incorrect if the fact that the penlight is not a kind of a Surya or it is a gripe or both does not hold. sent6: the penlight is a Surya. sent7: the castle is not cenogenetic. sent8: something is a Surya if it pools Macon. sent9: if the castle is not cenogenetic then that it is not a footer and does light PWR is incorrect. sent10: the Macon is not fishy and is not a gaze. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> int1: if that the athanor is a kind of an addendum but it is not apetalous is not correct then it pools Macon.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the take-up is Andean.
|
{C}{b}
|
sent1: the take-up is Boolean and canes bunion. sent2: something is unrhythmical. sent3: that the jellyroll layers warrigal is not incorrect. sent4: the take-up is Andean if the jellyroll is not Boolean but it is Andean. sent5: there is something such that it is a kind of Andean thing that does layer warrigal. sent6: there exists something such that it layers warrigal. sent7: something lights Gallinago and it is plantar. sent8: if that the jellyroll does layer warrigal and is Andean is not right the take-up does not layer warrigal. sent9: That the warrigal layers jellyroll is not incorrect. sent10: there exists something such that it does layer warrigal and it is Andean. sent11: something is not non-noisy and it is Boolean if that it does not layer warrigal is not false. sent12: the jellyroll is Boolean. sent13: there exists something such that it is Boolean. sent14: the take-up is not Andean if a Boolean thing layers warrigal.
|
sent1: ({A}{b} & {GT}{b}) sent2: (Ex): {F}x sent3: {B}{a} sent4: (¬{A}{a} & {C}{a}) -> {C}{b} sent5: (Ex): ({C}x & {B}x) sent6: (Ex): {B}x sent7: (Ex): ({EL}x & {P}x) sent8: ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent9: {AA}{aa} sent10: (Ex): ({B}x & {C}x) sent11: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({AI}x & {A}x) sent12: {A}{a} sent13: (Ex): {A}x sent14: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}{b}
|
[
"sent12 & sent3 -> int1: the jellyroll is a kind of Boolean thing that does layer warrigal.; int1 -> int2: something is Boolean thing that layers warrigal.; int2 & sent14 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent12 & sent3 -> int1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x); int2 & sent14 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the take-up is noisy and is an irradiation.
|
({AI}{b} & {DN}{b})
|
[
"sent11 -> int3: if the take-up does not layer warrigal it is noisy and is Boolean.;"
] | 5 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the take-up is Andean. ; $context$ = sent1: the take-up is Boolean and canes bunion. sent2: something is unrhythmical. sent3: that the jellyroll layers warrigal is not incorrect. sent4: the take-up is Andean if the jellyroll is not Boolean but it is Andean. sent5: there is something such that it is a kind of Andean thing that does layer warrigal. sent6: there exists something such that it layers warrigal. sent7: something lights Gallinago and it is plantar. sent8: if that the jellyroll does layer warrigal and is Andean is not right the take-up does not layer warrigal. sent9: That the warrigal layers jellyroll is not incorrect. sent10: there exists something such that it does layer warrigal and it is Andean. sent11: something is not non-noisy and it is Boolean if that it does not layer warrigal is not false. sent12: the jellyroll is Boolean. sent13: there exists something such that it is Boolean. sent14: the take-up is not Andean if a Boolean thing layers warrigal. ; $proof$ =
|
sent12 & sent3 -> int1: the jellyroll is a kind of Boolean thing that does layer warrigal.; int1 -> int2: something is Boolean thing that layers warrigal.; int2 & sent14 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the soldier is not vitiliginous and does not nip.
|
(¬{E}{d} & ¬{C}{d})
|
sent1: if the fact that the soldier canes laboriousness and/or it is non-vitiliginous does not hold the Green is a kind of a nip. sent2: the soldier is non-vitiliginous thing that is not a nip if the suitor is a nip. sent3: something canes laboriousness and is not vitiliginous. sent4: the Green is not vitiliginous if there is something such that it does not cane laboriousness. sent5: the suitor is not a kind of a nip and it does not cane laboriousness if the Green cane laboriousness. sent6: if the tadalafil does not cane laboriousness and is a Astrophyton then that the soldier does not cane laboriousness hold. sent7: that if the suitor canes laboriousness then the tadalafil does not nip is not incorrect. sent8: there exists something such that that it is sexy and it does nip is not correct. sent9: the fact that something is not vitiliginous and is not a nip is not correct if it does not cane laboriousness. sent10: the Green does not cane laboriousness. sent11: that that either the Green canes laboriousness or it is not sexy or both is wrong is correct if the tadalafil does not canes laboriousness. sent12: the tadalafil is granulomatous. sent13: there exists something such that that it is granulomatous and it is not agonadal does not hold. sent14: if there is something such that the fact that it is granulomatous and is not agonadal is incorrect then the tadalafil does not cane laboriousness. sent15: there exists something such that that it is sexy and does not cane laboriousness is incorrect.
|
sent1: ¬({A}{d} v ¬{E}{d}) -> {C}{b} sent2: {C}{c} -> (¬{E}{d} & ¬{C}{d}) sent3: (Ex): ({A}x & ¬{E}x) sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{E}{b} sent5: {A}{b} -> (¬{C}{c} & ¬{A}{c}) sent6: (¬{A}{a} & {D}{a}) -> ¬{A}{d} sent7: {A}{c} -> ¬{C}{a} sent8: (Ex): ¬({B}x & {C}x) sent9: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{C}x) sent10: ¬{A}{b} sent11: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({A}{b} v ¬{B}{b}) sent12: {AA}{a} sent13: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent14: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent15: (Ex): ¬({B}x & ¬{A}x)
|
[
"sent13 & sent14 -> int1: that the tadalafil does not cane laboriousness hold.; sent11 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the Green does cane laboriousness and/or it is not sexy is not correct.;"
] |
[
"sent13 & sent14 -> int1: ¬{A}{a}; sent11 & int1 -> int2: ¬({A}{b} v ¬{B}{b});"
] |
the fact that the soldier is not vitiliginous and it is not a nip is not right.
|
¬(¬{E}{d} & ¬{C}{d})
|
[
"sent9 -> int3: the fact that the soldier is a kind of non-vitiliginous thing that is not a kind of a nip does not hold if it does not cane laboriousness.;"
] | 5 | 4 | null | 11 | 0 | 11 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the soldier is not vitiliginous and does not nip. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the soldier canes laboriousness and/or it is non-vitiliginous does not hold the Green is a kind of a nip. sent2: the soldier is non-vitiliginous thing that is not a nip if the suitor is a nip. sent3: something canes laboriousness and is not vitiliginous. sent4: the Green is not vitiliginous if there is something such that it does not cane laboriousness. sent5: the suitor is not a kind of a nip and it does not cane laboriousness if the Green cane laboriousness. sent6: if the tadalafil does not cane laboriousness and is a Astrophyton then that the soldier does not cane laboriousness hold. sent7: that if the suitor canes laboriousness then the tadalafil does not nip is not incorrect. sent8: there exists something such that that it is sexy and it does nip is not correct. sent9: the fact that something is not vitiliginous and is not a nip is not correct if it does not cane laboriousness. sent10: the Green does not cane laboriousness. sent11: that that either the Green canes laboriousness or it is not sexy or both is wrong is correct if the tadalafil does not canes laboriousness. sent12: the tadalafil is granulomatous. sent13: there exists something such that that it is granulomatous and it is not agonadal does not hold. sent14: if there is something such that the fact that it is granulomatous and is not agonadal is incorrect then the tadalafil does not cane laboriousness. sent15: there exists something such that that it is sexy and does not cane laboriousness is incorrect. ; $proof$ =
|
sent13 & sent14 -> int1: that the tadalafil does not cane laboriousness hold.; sent11 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the Green does cane laboriousness and/or it is not sexy is not correct.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the echovirus is a bolide is right.
|
{E}{d}
|
sent1: if that the greave is figurative is not false the echovirus is a bolide. sent2: if the greave is not figurative then that it is a kind of a Micronor and is a surfboard is not right. sent3: the greave is not figurative. sent4: the vault is Beethovenian. sent5: the vault is a surfboard. sent6: that that the greave is a Micronor and not figurative is wrong is not wrong if the Altaic is not figurative. sent7: the fact that the fact that the greave is a kind of a Micronor that is figurative is not true hold. sent8: the Altaic is not figurative if the fact that the vault is Beethovenian thing that is a surfboard is true.
|
sent1: {C}{c} -> {E}{d} sent2: ¬{C}{c} -> ¬({D}{c} & {B}{c}) sent3: ¬{C}{c} sent4: {A}{a} sent5: {B}{a} sent6: ¬{C}{b} -> ¬({D}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) sent7: ¬({D}{c} & {C}{c}) sent8: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b}
|
[
"sent4 & sent5 -> int1: the vault is both Beethovenian and a surfboard.; sent8 & int1 -> int2: the Altaic is not figurative.; sent6 & int2 -> int3: that the greave is a kind of a Micronor but it is not figurative is not right.;"
] |
[
"sent4 & sent5 -> int1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}); sent8 & int1 -> int2: ¬{C}{b}; sent6 & int2 -> int3: ¬({D}{c} & ¬{C}{c});"
] |
the echovirus is not a bolide.
|
¬{E}{d}
|
[
"sent2 & sent3 -> int4: that the greave is a kind of a Micronor that is a kind of a surfboard is false.; int4 -> int5: there is something such that the fact that it is a Micronor and is a kind of a surfboard is incorrect.;"
] | 7 | 4 | null | 4 | 0 | 4 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the echovirus is a bolide is right. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the greave is figurative is not false the echovirus is a bolide. sent2: if the greave is not figurative then that it is a kind of a Micronor and is a surfboard is not right. sent3: the greave is not figurative. sent4: the vault is Beethovenian. sent5: the vault is a surfboard. sent6: that that the greave is a Micronor and not figurative is wrong is not wrong if the Altaic is not figurative. sent7: the fact that the fact that the greave is a kind of a Micronor that is figurative is not true hold. sent8: the Altaic is not figurative if the fact that the vault is Beethovenian thing that is a surfboard is true. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 & sent5 -> int1: the vault is both Beethovenian and a surfboard.; sent8 & int1 -> int2: the Altaic is not figurative.; sent6 & int2 -> int3: that the greave is a kind of a Micronor but it is not figurative is not right.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that that it is a kind of a devitalization and it does cane violinist is false.
|
(Ex): ¬({D}x & {C}x)
|
sent1: something canes potash. sent2: if there exists something such that it is a motile the fact that the violinist does layer Anthus and it is bumpy is not right. sent3: the wassail does cane violinist. sent4: the violinist canes violinist. sent5: the fact that the fact that the violinist is both not a ezo-yama-hagi and not a biotin is not right hold if the Latino is not circadian. sent6: something is a devitalization and does cane violinist. sent7: something is not a devitalization or it is not circadian or both if it does not cane violinist. sent8: if there is something such that it is a kind of a devitalization that the Latino is circadian and it is a biotin is not true. sent9: the Latino is a biotin if it is a devitalization. sent10: if the violinist is a biotin it is circadian. sent11: the gauze is a ezo-yama-hagi if that that the violinist is not a kind of a ezo-yama-hagi and it is not a kind of a biotin is correct does not hold. sent12: something is a biotin if it is circadian. sent13: if something is a biotin then that it is a devitalization hold. sent14: the violinist is a devitalization. sent15: if something canes violinist that the fact that the Latino is a kind of a devitalization and it is circadian hold is not true. sent16: there is something such that it is a kind of a heroine. sent17: there is something such that it does layer Anthus. sent18: that the fact that the Latino is a devitalization and it canes violinist is incorrect if there exists something such that it is circadian hold. sent19: the Latino is philological.
|
sent1: (Ex): {HO}x sent2: (x): {DP}x -> ¬({JK}{a} & {BF}{a}) sent3: {C}{bi} sent4: {C}{a} sent5: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬(¬{FQ}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent6: (Ex): ({D}x & {C}x) sent7: (x): ¬{C}x -> (¬{D}x v ¬{B}x) sent8: (x): {D}x -> ¬({B}{b} & {A}{b}) sent9: {D}{b} -> {A}{b} sent10: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent11: ¬(¬{FQ}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> {FQ}{ei} sent12: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent13: (x): {A}x -> {D}x sent14: {D}{a} sent15: (x): {C}x -> ¬({D}{b} & {B}{b}) sent16: (Ex): {L}x sent17: (Ex): {JK}x sent18: (x): {B}x -> ¬({D}{b} & {C}{b}) sent19: {GC}{b}
|
[] |
[] |
the gauze is a ezo-yama-hagi.
|
{FQ}{ei}
|
[
"sent7 -> int1: the marl is not a devitalization and/or is not circadian if it does not cane violinist.;"
] | 7 | 4 | null | 17 | 0 | 17 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that that it is a kind of a devitalization and it does cane violinist is false. ; $context$ = sent1: something canes potash. sent2: if there exists something such that it is a motile the fact that the violinist does layer Anthus and it is bumpy is not right. sent3: the wassail does cane violinist. sent4: the violinist canes violinist. sent5: the fact that the fact that the violinist is both not a ezo-yama-hagi and not a biotin is not right hold if the Latino is not circadian. sent6: something is a devitalization and does cane violinist. sent7: something is not a devitalization or it is not circadian or both if it does not cane violinist. sent8: if there is something such that it is a kind of a devitalization that the Latino is circadian and it is a biotin is not true. sent9: the Latino is a biotin if it is a devitalization. sent10: if the violinist is a biotin it is circadian. sent11: the gauze is a ezo-yama-hagi if that that the violinist is not a kind of a ezo-yama-hagi and it is not a kind of a biotin is correct does not hold. sent12: something is a biotin if it is circadian. sent13: if something is a biotin then that it is a devitalization hold. sent14: the violinist is a devitalization. sent15: if something canes violinist that the fact that the Latino is a kind of a devitalization and it is circadian hold is not true. sent16: there is something such that it is a kind of a heroine. sent17: there is something such that it does layer Anthus. sent18: that the fact that the Latino is a devitalization and it canes violinist is incorrect if there exists something such that it is circadian hold. sent19: the Latino is philological. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the niobite is not a duologue.
|
¬{B}{b}
|
sent1: the welterweight is not Hippocratic. sent2: everything is not a Arabian. sent3: if the niobite does not skimp then the lock-gate is not a renin and is not abundant. sent4: if the lock-gate canes aquatic that the school is not a kind of a duologue is not incorrect. sent5: if the lock-gate is ionic the niobite is not a kind of a duologue. sent6: the lock-gate does not cane aquatic. sent7: the lock-gate is a duologue. sent8: the lock-gate does layer travel. sent9: if something is Arabian then either it canes aquatic or it is not an expedient or both. sent10: The aquatic does not cane lock-gate. sent11: the lock-gate does layer travel and is ionic if it does not cane aquatic. sent12: the welterweight is centrifugal. sent13: if something is not a renin then it does not light Brighton and it is a Arabian.
|
sent1: ¬{J}{c} sent2: (x): ¬{D}x sent3: ¬{H}{b} -> (¬{F}{a} & ¬{G}{a}) sent4: {A}{a} -> ¬{B}{ir} sent5: {AB}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent6: ¬{A}{a} sent7: {B}{a} sent8: {AA}{a} sent9: (x): {D}x -> ({A}x v ¬{C}x) sent10: ¬{AC}{aa} sent11: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent12: {I}{c} sent13: (x): ¬{F}x -> (¬{E}x & {D}x)
|
[
"sent11 & sent6 -> int1: the lock-gate layers travel and it is ionic.; int1 -> int2: the lock-gate is ionic.; sent5 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent11 & sent6 -> int1: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}); int1 -> int2: {AB}{a}; sent5 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the school is not a duologue.
|
¬{B}{ir}
|
[
"sent9 -> int3: if the lock-gate is a Arabian then either it does cane aquatic or it is not expedient or both.; sent13 -> int4: if that the lock-gate is not a renin is not wrong it does not light Brighton and is Arabian.; sent1 & sent12 -> int5: the welterweight is both not Hippocratic and centrifugal.; int5 -> int6: there exists something such that it is not Hippocratic and it is centrifugal.;"
] | 9 | 3 | 3 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the niobite is not a duologue. ; $context$ = sent1: the welterweight is not Hippocratic. sent2: everything is not a Arabian. sent3: if the niobite does not skimp then the lock-gate is not a renin and is not abundant. sent4: if the lock-gate canes aquatic that the school is not a kind of a duologue is not incorrect. sent5: if the lock-gate is ionic the niobite is not a kind of a duologue. sent6: the lock-gate does not cane aquatic. sent7: the lock-gate is a duologue. sent8: the lock-gate does layer travel. sent9: if something is Arabian then either it canes aquatic or it is not an expedient or both. sent10: The aquatic does not cane lock-gate. sent11: the lock-gate does layer travel and is ionic if it does not cane aquatic. sent12: the welterweight is centrifugal. sent13: if something is not a renin then it does not light Brighton and it is a Arabian. ; $proof$ =
|
sent11 & sent6 -> int1: the lock-gate layers travel and it is ionic.; int1 -> int2: the lock-gate is ionic.; sent5 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if it is a kind of a Agamemnon then that it is not a Moliere and does light quadriplegia is not correct.
|
(Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x)
|
sent1: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a Agamemnon that it is a Moliere and it does light quadriplegia does not hold. sent2: the fact that something is non-sadomasochistic thing that is an optimum does not hold if it canes cannibalism. sent3: if something is a Agamemnon the fact that it is not a Moliere and does light quadriplegia is false. sent4: that the know-it-all is not credulous but nocturnal is wrong if the fact that it does light quadriplegia is not wrong. sent5: the fact that something is not a truncheon and does cane know-it-all is not right if it is Luxemburger. sent6: if something is a steeplechase the fact that it is both a Yellowstone and a Mimidae does not hold. sent7: if the bricklayer is a Agamemnon then it is not a kind of a Moliere and does light quadriplegia.
|
sent1: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent2: (x): {AT}x -> ¬(¬{K}x & {AC}x) sent3: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent4: {AB}{gp} -> ¬(¬{JD}{gp} & {CM}{gp}) sent5: (x): {AS}x -> ¬(¬{BA}x & {I}x) sent6: (x): {DB}x -> ¬({HF}x & {AU}x) sent7: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: if the bricklayer is a Agamemnon then the fact that it is not a Moliere and lights quadriplegia is wrong.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> int1: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there exists something such that if it does cane cannibalism that that it is non-sadomasochistic and it is a kind of an optimum is not wrong is incorrect.
|
(Ex): {AT}x -> ¬(¬{K}x & {AC}x)
|
[
"sent2 -> int2: that that the chokedamp is not sadomasochistic but it is a kind of an optimum hold is incorrect if it does cane cannibalism.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 6 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is a kind of a Agamemnon then that it is not a Moliere and does light quadriplegia is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a Agamemnon that it is a Moliere and it does light quadriplegia does not hold. sent2: the fact that something is non-sadomasochistic thing that is an optimum does not hold if it canes cannibalism. sent3: if something is a Agamemnon the fact that it is not a Moliere and does light quadriplegia is false. sent4: that the know-it-all is not credulous but nocturnal is wrong if the fact that it does light quadriplegia is not wrong. sent5: the fact that something is not a truncheon and does cane know-it-all is not right if it is Luxemburger. sent6: if something is a steeplechase the fact that it is both a Yellowstone and a Mimidae does not hold. sent7: if the bricklayer is a Agamemnon then it is not a kind of a Moliere and does light quadriplegia. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> int1: if the bricklayer is a Agamemnon then the fact that it is not a Moliere and lights quadriplegia is wrong.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the putrefaction is a funicular.
|
{D}{b}
|
sent1: the fact that the putrefaction is a phloem and it is a racetrack is not right. sent2: the fact that the Crown is a phloem and a call-back does not hold if the putrefaction is a kind of a funicular. sent3: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of indissoluble thing that does not light gowned does not hold. sent4: that the Crown is a kind of a call-back hold if there is something such that the fact that it is indissoluble thing that does not light gowned is false. sent5: there exists nothing such that it is both a racetrack and not a throne. sent6: if something is not a call-back the fact that it is both not a phloem and not funicular is wrong. sent7: the fact that something is both not a call-back and not a racetrack is wrong if that it does throne hold. sent8: if the fact that something is a phloem but it is not a kind of a racetrack does not hold it is non-funicular. sent9: the Crown is a throne if the slugger does not throne but it is a prostate. sent10: something that is a call-back is not a kind of a racetrack. sent11: if the fact that something is not a kind of a phloem and it is not a funicular is wrong the fact that it is not funicular is not false. sent12: if the Crown is a call-back then that the putrefaction is a phloem but it is not a kind of a racetrack is incorrect. sent13: something is not a kind of a racetrack if the fact that it is a kind of a phloem and it is not a kind of a call-back is wrong. sent14: that if the fact that something is a racetrack but it does not throne is incorrect then it is not a racetrack is not incorrect. sent15: there exists something such that that it is puerperal and is not a nectarine is wrong.
|
sent1: ¬({B}{b} & {C}{b}) sent2: {D}{b} -> ¬({B}{a} & {A}{a}) sent3: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent4: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent5: (x): ¬({C}x & ¬{E}x) sent6: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{D}x) sent7: (x): {E}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{C}x) sent8: (x): ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{D}x sent9: (¬{E}{c} & {F}{c}) -> {E}{a} sent10: (x): {A}x -> ¬{C}x sent11: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{D}x) -> {D}x sent12: {A}{a} -> ¬({B}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent13: (x): ¬({B}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{C}x sent14: (x): ¬({C}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{C}x sent15: (Ex): ¬({DC}x & ¬{EN}x)
|
[
"sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the Crown is a call-back.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the fact that that the putrefaction is a kind of a phloem that is not a kind of a racetrack hold does not hold.; sent8 -> int3: if that the putrefaction is a phloem that is not a kind of a racetrack is incorrect then it is not a kind of a funicular.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent4 -> int1: {A}{a}; int1 & sent12 -> int2: ¬({B}{b} & ¬{C}{b}); sent8 -> int3: ¬({B}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> ¬{D}{b}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the stratification is a call-back.
|
{A}{gh}
|
[
"sent14 -> int4: the fact that if that the Crown is a kind of the racetrack and does not throne is not correct the Crown is not a racetrack is not false.; sent5 -> int5: the fact that the Crown is a racetrack but it is not a throne does not hold.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the fact that the Crown is not a racetrack is true.;"
] | 5 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the putrefaction is a funicular. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the putrefaction is a phloem and it is a racetrack is not right. sent2: the fact that the Crown is a phloem and a call-back does not hold if the putrefaction is a kind of a funicular. sent3: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of indissoluble thing that does not light gowned does not hold. sent4: that the Crown is a kind of a call-back hold if there is something such that the fact that it is indissoluble thing that does not light gowned is false. sent5: there exists nothing such that it is both a racetrack and not a throne. sent6: if something is not a call-back the fact that it is both not a phloem and not funicular is wrong. sent7: the fact that something is both not a call-back and not a racetrack is wrong if that it does throne hold. sent8: if the fact that something is a phloem but it is not a kind of a racetrack does not hold it is non-funicular. sent9: the Crown is a throne if the slugger does not throne but it is a prostate. sent10: something that is a call-back is not a kind of a racetrack. sent11: if the fact that something is not a kind of a phloem and it is not a funicular is wrong the fact that it is not funicular is not false. sent12: if the Crown is a call-back then that the putrefaction is a phloem but it is not a kind of a racetrack is incorrect. sent13: something is not a kind of a racetrack if the fact that it is a kind of a phloem and it is not a kind of a call-back is wrong. sent14: that if the fact that something is a racetrack but it does not throne is incorrect then it is not a racetrack is not incorrect. sent15: there exists something such that that it is puerperal and is not a nectarine is wrong. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the Crown is a call-back.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the fact that that the putrefaction is a kind of a phloem that is not a kind of a racetrack hold does not hold.; sent8 -> int3: if that the putrefaction is a phloem that is not a kind of a racetrack is incorrect then it is not a kind of a funicular.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the grouseberry is not regular.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
sent1: if something is a exorbitance and/or it does not light intersection that the antimalarial is a kind of a exorbitance is not incorrect. sent2: if something is a exorbitance the fact that it is a clog and does not light narcoterrorism is not correct. sent3: if there exists something such that it does not pool Speer then the sealant is trapezoidal and is not non-cormous. sent4: there is something such that it does not pool Speer. sent5: if the fact that something is uninstructive and it is a regular is wrong it is not a electrodeposition. sent6: if the grouseberry does not cane Hanoverian then the fact that the tentorium is uninstructive and it is a kind of a regular is not true. sent7: the conveyance is not a regular. sent8: there exists something such that it does not light Coventry. sent9: that the grouseberry does not cane Hanoverian is correct if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a clog and it does not light narcoterrorism is not true. sent10: the grouseberry is not east. sent11: there exists something such that it is a regular. sent12: the sulfide is not east and is a kind of a electrodeposition. sent13: a trapezoidal thing either is a exorbitance or does not light intersection or both. sent14: if there exists something such that it is not a electrodeposition and is a regular then the sulfide is not an east. sent15: the sulfide is not east but a regular. sent16: something is a regular if it is not uninstructive.
|
sent1: (x): ({F}x v ¬{G}x) -> {F}{b} sent2: (x): {F}x -> ¬({E}x & ¬{D}x) sent3: (x): ¬{J}x -> ({H}{c} & {I}{c}) sent4: (Ex): ¬{J}x sent5: (x): ¬({B}x & {A}x) -> ¬{AB}x sent6: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬({B}{gg} & {A}{gg}) sent7: ¬{A}{fp} sent8: (Ex): ¬{HE}x sent9: (x): ¬({E}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{C}{a} sent10: ¬{AA}{a} sent11: (Ex): {A}x sent12: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent13: (x): {H}x -> ({F}x v ¬{G}x) sent14: (x): (¬{AB}x & {A}x) -> ¬{AA}{aa} sent15: (¬{AA}{aa} & {A}{aa}) sent16: (x): ¬{B}x -> {A}x
|
[
"sent12 -> int1: there is something such that it is a kind of non-east thing that is a electrodeposition.;"
] |
[
"sent12 -> int1: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x);"
] |
that the grouseberry is a regular is correct.
|
{A}{a}
|
[
"sent16 -> int2: the grouseberry is regular if it is not uninstructive.;"
] | 5 | 2 | null | 15 | 0 | 15 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the grouseberry is not regular. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a exorbitance and/or it does not light intersection that the antimalarial is a kind of a exorbitance is not incorrect. sent2: if something is a exorbitance the fact that it is a clog and does not light narcoterrorism is not correct. sent3: if there exists something such that it does not pool Speer then the sealant is trapezoidal and is not non-cormous. sent4: there is something such that it does not pool Speer. sent5: if the fact that something is uninstructive and it is a regular is wrong it is not a electrodeposition. sent6: if the grouseberry does not cane Hanoverian then the fact that the tentorium is uninstructive and it is a kind of a regular is not true. sent7: the conveyance is not a regular. sent8: there exists something such that it does not light Coventry. sent9: that the grouseberry does not cane Hanoverian is correct if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a clog and it does not light narcoterrorism is not true. sent10: the grouseberry is not east. sent11: there exists something such that it is a regular. sent12: the sulfide is not east and is a kind of a electrodeposition. sent13: a trapezoidal thing either is a exorbitance or does not light intersection or both. sent14: if there exists something such that it is not a electrodeposition and is a regular then the sulfide is not an east. sent15: the sulfide is not east but a regular. sent16: something is a regular if it is not uninstructive. ; $proof$ =
|
sent12 -> int1: there is something such that it is a kind of non-east thing that is a electrodeposition.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the brush pools waterloo and/or interns.
|
({A}{b} v {B}{b})
|
sent1: if that the fact that the banderillero does not abstain and is not postpositive hold is not right the brush interns. sent2: the fact that the banderillero does not abstain and is not postpositive does not hold.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent2: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})
|
[
"sent1 & sent2 -> int1: that the brush interns is not incorrect.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 & sent2 -> int1: {B}{b}; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the brush pools waterloo and/or interns. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the fact that the banderillero does not abstain and is not postpositive hold is not right the brush interns. sent2: the fact that the banderillero does not abstain and is not postpositive does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 & sent2 -> int1: that the brush interns is not incorrect.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
if the pooling lymphocyte happens then the caning Jacob occurs.
|
{A} -> {B}
|
sent1: the bogging does not occur if the non-cyberneticness and the non-toothlessness happens. sent2: not the Nelson but the lighting pteridophyte occurs if the pooling lymphocyte does not occur. sent3: that the mid-off does not occur triggers that both the oddness and the non-libidinalness happens. sent4: that the yip and the terminologicalness occurs hold if the bogging does not occur. sent5: if the entomophilousness does not occur then the rhinalness occurs and the pooling sketcher happens. sent6: the mid-off does not occur. sent7: the caning Jacob does not occur if the rhinalness occurs and the yip happens. sent8: the entomophilousness does not occur if that the entomophilousness happens but the counting does not occur does not hold. sent9: the unrighteousness occurs. sent10: if that the fact that the pooling lymphocyte happens and the response happens does not hold is not wrong then the pooling lymphocyte does not occur. sent11: the caning Jacob happens if both the non-catholicness and the unrighteousness happens. sent12: the efflorescence yields that both the non-cyberneticness and the non-toothlessness happens. sent13: that the pooling lymphocyte happens triggers that both the non-catholicness and the unrighteousness happens. sent14: the fact that the entomophilousness occurs but the count does not occur is not true if the libidinalness does not occur. sent15: if that the emasculation happens hold then the cyberneticness happens. sent16: that the efflorescence happens and the damaging occurs is brought about by that the layering Tragulus does not occur.
|
sent1: (¬{J} & ¬{K}) -> ¬{I} sent2: ¬{A} -> (¬{BA} & {FO}) sent3: ¬{R} -> ({O} & ¬{L}) sent4: ¬{I} -> ({E} & {H}) sent5: ¬{G} -> ({D} & {F}) sent6: ¬{R} sent7: ({D} & {E}) -> ¬{B} sent8: ¬({G} & ¬{M}) -> ¬{G} sent9: {AB} sent10: ¬({A} & {C}) -> ¬{A} sent11: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent12: {N} -> (¬{J} & ¬{K}) sent13: {A} -> (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent14: ¬{L} -> ¬({G} & ¬{M}) sent15: {EF} -> {J} sent16: ¬{Q} -> ({N} & {P})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the pooling lymphocyte happens.; sent13 & assump1 -> int1: the catholicness does not occur but the unrighteousness happens.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: that the caning Jacob occurs is not false.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}; sent13 & assump1 -> int1: (¬{AA} & {AB}); int1 & sent11 -> int2: {B}; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the Nelson does not occur but the lighting pteridophyte occurs.
|
(¬{BA} & {FO})
|
[
"sent3 & sent6 -> int3: the oddness but not the libidinalness happens.; int3 -> int4: the libidinalness does not occur.; sent14 & int4 -> int5: the fact that the entomophilousness occurs and the counting does not occur is wrong.; sent8 & int5 -> int6: the entomophilousness does not occur.; sent5 & int6 -> int7: both the rhinalness and the pooling sketcher occurs.; int7 -> int8: the fact that the rhinalness happens hold.;"
] | 11 | 3 | 3 | 14 | 0 | 14 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = if the pooling lymphocyte happens then the caning Jacob occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the bogging does not occur if the non-cyberneticness and the non-toothlessness happens. sent2: not the Nelson but the lighting pteridophyte occurs if the pooling lymphocyte does not occur. sent3: that the mid-off does not occur triggers that both the oddness and the non-libidinalness happens. sent4: that the yip and the terminologicalness occurs hold if the bogging does not occur. sent5: if the entomophilousness does not occur then the rhinalness occurs and the pooling sketcher happens. sent6: the mid-off does not occur. sent7: the caning Jacob does not occur if the rhinalness occurs and the yip happens. sent8: the entomophilousness does not occur if that the entomophilousness happens but the counting does not occur does not hold. sent9: the unrighteousness occurs. sent10: if that the fact that the pooling lymphocyte happens and the response happens does not hold is not wrong then the pooling lymphocyte does not occur. sent11: the caning Jacob happens if both the non-catholicness and the unrighteousness happens. sent12: the efflorescence yields that both the non-cyberneticness and the non-toothlessness happens. sent13: that the pooling lymphocyte happens triggers that both the non-catholicness and the unrighteousness happens. sent14: the fact that the entomophilousness occurs but the count does not occur is not true if the libidinalness does not occur. sent15: if that the emasculation happens hold then the cyberneticness happens. sent16: that the efflorescence happens and the damaging occurs is brought about by that the layering Tragulus does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the pooling lymphocyte happens.; sent13 & assump1 -> int1: the catholicness does not occur but the unrighteousness happens.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: that the caning Jacob occurs is not false.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the exfoliation is cerebellar and it is a Norwegian.
|
({D}{c} & {C}{c})
|
sent1: the exfoliation is cerebellar if the guitarist is cerebellar. sent2: the exfoliation is a kind of a Peneidae and it layers silverrod. sent3: if the dartboard is Norwegian then the exfoliation is Norwegian. sent4: the fact that the guitarist does redeem is not false. sent5: the exfoliation is a Norwegian if the dartboard is echoic. sent6: the exfoliation is appropriative. sent7: the dartboard is a diesel-hydraulic and/or it is echoic. sent8: the guitarist is not non-Norwegian if the exfoliation is cerebellar. sent9: if the fact that the dartboard is a kind of a diesel-hydraulic is right then the exfoliation is not non-Norwegian. sent10: the fact that something is both cerebellar and a Norwegian is not right if it is not a kind of a diesel-hydraulic. sent11: if the dartboard is echoic then the exfoliation is not echoic. sent12: the guitarist is cerebellar.
|
sent1: {D}{b} -> {D}{c} sent2: ({DP}{c} & {IF}{c}) sent3: {C}{a} -> {C}{c} sent4: {FA}{b} sent5: {B}{a} -> {C}{c} sent6: {EB}{c} sent7: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}) sent8: {D}{c} -> {C}{b} sent9: {A}{a} -> {C}{c} sent10: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({D}x & {C}x) sent11: {B}{a} -> {B}{c} sent12: {D}{b}
|
[
"sent7 & sent9 & sent5 -> int1: the exfoliation is a Norwegian.; sent1 & sent12 -> int2: the exfoliation is cerebellar.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent7 & sent9 & sent5 -> int1: {C}{c}; sent1 & sent12 -> int2: {D}{c}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the fact that the exfoliation is cerebellar thing that is a Norwegian is not incorrect is wrong.
|
¬({D}{c} & {C}{c})
|
[
"sent10 -> int3: the fact that the exfoliation is not non-cerebellar and it is a kind of a Norwegian is false if it is not a kind of a diesel-hydraulic.;"
] | 5 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the exfoliation is cerebellar and it is a Norwegian. ; $context$ = sent1: the exfoliation is cerebellar if the guitarist is cerebellar. sent2: the exfoliation is a kind of a Peneidae and it layers silverrod. sent3: if the dartboard is Norwegian then the exfoliation is Norwegian. sent4: the fact that the guitarist does redeem is not false. sent5: the exfoliation is a Norwegian if the dartboard is echoic. sent6: the exfoliation is appropriative. sent7: the dartboard is a diesel-hydraulic and/or it is echoic. sent8: the guitarist is not non-Norwegian if the exfoliation is cerebellar. sent9: if the fact that the dartboard is a kind of a diesel-hydraulic is right then the exfoliation is not non-Norwegian. sent10: the fact that something is both cerebellar and a Norwegian is not right if it is not a kind of a diesel-hydraulic. sent11: if the dartboard is echoic then the exfoliation is not echoic. sent12: the guitarist is cerebellar. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 & sent9 & sent5 -> int1: the exfoliation is a Norwegian.; sent1 & sent12 -> int2: the exfoliation is cerebellar.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the brocade is Soviet and/or it is a Rasht.
|
({D}{a} v {E}{a})
|
sent1: everything does not invigorate. sent2: there exists something such that it is a kind of a larid. sent3: if something is not a larid then the fact that it is Soviet and/or it is a kind of a Rasht does not hold. sent4: the brocade is a larid or is a Xyphophorus or both. sent5: the brocade is a Tombigbee. sent6: if something is Soviet then it is a kind of a Tombigbee. sent7: the shopper is both not non-whiting and anadromous. sent8: the bismark is a kind of tabular thing that unyokes. sent9: the brocade does layer Culbertson and is a Tombigbee if something is a larid. sent10: that something does not layer Culbertson but it is a larid does not hold if the fact that it is not a kind of a Tombigbee is not wrong. sent11: the brocade is a Tombigbee if the fact that something is a larid is not false. sent12: that the brocade is either Soviet or a Rasht or both is incorrect if the fact that the batholith is a kind of a larid is not right. sent13: everything is a osteoclast.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{F}x sent2: (Ex): {A}x sent3: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({D}x v {E}x) sent4: ({A}{a} v {CI}{a}) sent5: {C}{a} sent6: (x): {D}x -> {C}x sent7: ({FU}{ih} & {AM}{ih}) sent8: ({AN}{fq} & {FB}{fq}) sent9: (x): {A}x -> ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent10: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & {A}x) sent11: (x): {A}x -> {C}{a} sent12: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬({D}{a} v {E}{a}) sent13: (x): {G}x
|
[
"sent2 & sent9 -> int1: the fact that the brocade layers Culbertson and is a Tombigbee is not incorrect.; int1 -> int2: the fact that the brocade layers Culbertson is not false.;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent9 -> int1: ({B}{a} & {C}{a}); int1 -> int2: {B}{a};"
] |
the fact that the brocade is Soviet or it is a Rasht or both is not right.
|
¬({D}{a} v {E}{a})
|
[
"sent3 -> int3: if the brocade is not a larid that it is Soviet or is a Rasht or both is false.;"
] | 4 | 4 | null | 11 | 0 | 11 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the brocade is Soviet and/or it is a Rasht. ; $context$ = sent1: everything does not invigorate. sent2: there exists something such that it is a kind of a larid. sent3: if something is not a larid then the fact that it is Soviet and/or it is a kind of a Rasht does not hold. sent4: the brocade is a larid or is a Xyphophorus or both. sent5: the brocade is a Tombigbee. sent6: if something is Soviet then it is a kind of a Tombigbee. sent7: the shopper is both not non-whiting and anadromous. sent8: the bismark is a kind of tabular thing that unyokes. sent9: the brocade does layer Culbertson and is a Tombigbee if something is a larid. sent10: that something does not layer Culbertson but it is a larid does not hold if the fact that it is not a kind of a Tombigbee is not wrong. sent11: the brocade is a Tombigbee if the fact that something is a larid is not false. sent12: that the brocade is either Soviet or a Rasht or both is incorrect if the fact that the batholith is a kind of a larid is not right. sent13: everything is a osteoclast. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent9 -> int1: the fact that the brocade layers Culbertson and is a Tombigbee is not incorrect.; int1 -> int2: the fact that the brocade layers Culbertson is not false.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the sandglass is a rotifer.
|
{C}{b}
|
sent1: the sandglass is not a rotifer if the swimmeret is a Marconi and it does inform. sent2: the Tahitian is not lunisolar but replaceable. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it does get and does not inventory is wrong. sent4: the swimmeret is a Marconi if there exists something such that that it is both a get and not an inventory is false. sent5: the swimmeret informs if the fact that the Philippian is non-lunisolar thing that does not informs is not true. sent6: if the Philippian is an antagonist that informs that the swimmeret does not informs is true. sent7: the fact that the Philippian is not lunisolar and it does not inform does not hold.
|
sent1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent2: (¬{E}{d} & {F}{d}) sent3: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent4: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent5: ¬(¬{E}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) -> {B}{a} sent6: ({D}{c} & {B}{c}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent7: ¬(¬{E}{c} & ¬{B}{c})
|
[
"sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the swimmeret is a Marconi.; sent5 & sent7 -> int2: the swimmeret does inform.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the swimmeret is a kind of a Marconi and informs.; int3 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent4 -> int1: {A}{a}; sent5 & sent7 -> int2: {B}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}); int3 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the sandglass is a rotifer.
|
{C}{b}
|
[
"sent2 -> int4: the Tahitian is not lunisolar.; int4 -> int5: there exists something such that it is not lunisolar.;"
] | 7 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the sandglass is a rotifer. ; $context$ = sent1: the sandglass is not a rotifer if the swimmeret is a Marconi and it does inform. sent2: the Tahitian is not lunisolar but replaceable. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it does get and does not inventory is wrong. sent4: the swimmeret is a Marconi if there exists something such that that it is both a get and not an inventory is false. sent5: the swimmeret informs if the fact that the Philippian is non-lunisolar thing that does not informs is not true. sent6: if the Philippian is an antagonist that informs that the swimmeret does not informs is true. sent7: the fact that the Philippian is not lunisolar and it does not inform does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the swimmeret is a Marconi.; sent5 & sent7 -> int2: the swimmeret does inform.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the swimmeret is a kind of a Marconi and informs.; int3 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the thiocyanate is not a finisher and is not a Vanbrugh does not hold.
|
¬(¬{B}{d} & ¬{C}{d})
|
sent1: if something is not a Comstock then the fact that it is not a finisher and not a Vanbrugh is wrong. sent2: if the shirtsleeves is not a Comstock then the gale is both not a Comstock and not a finisher. sent3: the infliximab layers leakiness. sent4: the thiocyanate is not a finisher and it is not a Vanbrugh if the shirtsleeves is not a kind of a finisher. sent5: the gale is not a kind of a Comstock. sent6: if something is a GMT it is not a conspecific and is not a Comstock. sent7: if the infliximab layers leakiness and is not cupric the shirtsleeves is not a finisher. sent8: if the gale is not a kind of a Comstock then the infliximab layers leakiness and is not cupric. sent9: the thiocyanate is a GMT if that it is a lodgepole and it is not a GMT is not right.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) sent2: ¬{A}{c} -> (¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent3: {AA}{b} sent4: ¬{B}{c} -> (¬{B}{d} & ¬{C}{d}) sent5: ¬{A}{a} sent6: (x): {E}x -> (¬{D}x & ¬{A}x) sent7: ({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{c} sent8: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent9: ¬({F}{d} & ¬{E}{d}) -> {E}{d}
|
[
"sent8 & sent5 -> int1: the infliximab does layer leakiness and is not cupric.; sent7 & int1 -> int2: the shirtsleeves is not a kind of a finisher.; sent4 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 & sent5 -> int1: ({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}); sent7 & int1 -> int2: ¬{B}{c}; sent4 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the thiocyanate is not a finisher and it is not a Vanbrugh is not right.
|
¬(¬{B}{d} & ¬{C}{d})
|
[
"sent1 -> int3: if the thiocyanate is not a Comstock that the fact that it is not a kind of a finisher and it is not a kind of a Vanbrugh hold is incorrect.; sent6 -> int4: if the thiocyanate is a GMT it is non-conspecific but not a Comstock.;"
] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the thiocyanate is not a finisher and is not a Vanbrugh does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not a Comstock then the fact that it is not a finisher and not a Vanbrugh is wrong. sent2: if the shirtsleeves is not a Comstock then the gale is both not a Comstock and not a finisher. sent3: the infliximab layers leakiness. sent4: the thiocyanate is not a finisher and it is not a Vanbrugh if the shirtsleeves is not a kind of a finisher. sent5: the gale is not a kind of a Comstock. sent6: if something is a GMT it is not a conspecific and is not a Comstock. sent7: if the infliximab layers leakiness and is not cupric the shirtsleeves is not a finisher. sent8: if the gale is not a kind of a Comstock then the infliximab layers leakiness and is not cupric. sent9: the thiocyanate is a GMT if that it is a lodgepole and it is not a GMT is not right. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 & sent5 -> int1: the infliximab does layer leakiness and is not cupric.; sent7 & int1 -> int2: the shirtsleeves is not a kind of a finisher.; sent4 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there exists something such that if it is metastable then the fact that it does not layer Speke and it is not a kind of an epic is false does not hold.
|
¬((Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x))
|
sent1: there is something such that if it canes BD then that it is both not a mass and non-tectonic is not correct. sent2: the fact that something is not a kind of a mangel-wurzel and it is not a fence-sitter does not hold if it is a ptyalith. sent3: there exists something such that if it does layer Xyphophorus then that it is not polyatomic and does not light huddler is wrong. sent4: there exists something such that if it is metastable then the fact that it layers Speke and it is not a kind of an epic is not right. sent5: if the vacuum is metastable then it does not layer Speke and is not an epic. sent6: if the vacuum is metastable the fact that it layers Speke and it is not an epic does not hold. sent7: there is something such that if it is metastable then the fact that it does not layer Speke and it is an epic is incorrect. sent8: that the hipflask does not layer splashboard and does not layer Speke does not hold if it is a kind of a Sterne. sent9: there exists something such that if the fact that it does cane BD is not false then the fact that it does not light martyrdom and it does not light hipflask is false. sent10: the fact that the vacuum is not a kind of a staddle and is not an epic is wrong if the fact that it is a pemmican hold. sent11: there exists something such that if it is metastable then it does not layer Speke and is not an epic. sent12: if that the spongioblast does layer Speke hold the fact that it is not apneic and it is not a rasp is not correct. sent13: if the vacuum is metastable the fact that it is both not a meridian and not a prechlorination does not hold. sent14: the fact that the vacuum does not layer Speke and it is not an epic is not correct if it is metastable. sent15: that the vacuum does not layer Speke but it is epic is not correct if it is metastable.
|
sent1: (Ex): {IC}x -> ¬(¬{IN}x & ¬{FO}x) sent2: (x): {EI}x -> ¬(¬{JE}x & ¬{AQ}x) sent3: (Ex): {DF}x -> ¬(¬{BP}x & ¬{CG}x) sent4: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent5: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent6: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent7: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent8: {BT}{hn} -> ¬(¬{GT}{hn} & ¬{AA}{hn}) sent9: (Ex): {IC}x -> ¬(¬{GJ}x & ¬{CK}x) sent10: {AU}{aa} -> ¬(¬{DH}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent11: (Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent12: {AA}{cm} -> ¬(¬{BF}{cm} & ¬{IH}{cm}) sent13: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{BO}{aa} & ¬{GF}{aa}) sent14: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent15: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})
|
[
"sent14 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent14 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that there is something such that if it is a ptyalith then the fact that it is not a mangel-wurzel and it is not a kind of a fence-sitter does not hold hold.
|
(Ex): {EI}x -> ¬(¬{JE}x & ¬{AQ}x)
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: if the hypersecretion is a ptyalith then the fact that it is both not a mangel-wurzel and not a fence-sitter is not correct.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 14 | 0 | 14 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it is metastable then the fact that it does not layer Speke and it is not a kind of an epic is false does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it canes BD then that it is both not a mass and non-tectonic is not correct. sent2: the fact that something is not a kind of a mangel-wurzel and it is not a fence-sitter does not hold if it is a ptyalith. sent3: there exists something such that if it does layer Xyphophorus then that it is not polyatomic and does not light huddler is wrong. sent4: there exists something such that if it is metastable then the fact that it layers Speke and it is not a kind of an epic is not right. sent5: if the vacuum is metastable then it does not layer Speke and is not an epic. sent6: if the vacuum is metastable the fact that it layers Speke and it is not an epic does not hold. sent7: there is something such that if it is metastable then the fact that it does not layer Speke and it is an epic is incorrect. sent8: that the hipflask does not layer splashboard and does not layer Speke does not hold if it is a kind of a Sterne. sent9: there exists something such that if the fact that it does cane BD is not false then the fact that it does not light martyrdom and it does not light hipflask is false. sent10: the fact that the vacuum is not a kind of a staddle and is not an epic is wrong if the fact that it is a pemmican hold. sent11: there exists something such that if it is metastable then it does not layer Speke and is not an epic. sent12: if that the spongioblast does layer Speke hold the fact that it is not apneic and it is not a rasp is not correct. sent13: if the vacuum is metastable the fact that it is both not a meridian and not a prechlorination does not hold. sent14: the fact that the vacuum does not layer Speke and it is not an epic is not correct if it is metastable. sent15: that the vacuum does not layer Speke but it is epic is not correct if it is metastable. ; $proof$ =
|
sent14 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the contextualness does not occur.
|
¬{A}
|
sent1: if the layering axon happens the fact that the unprofitableness does not occur and the extirpation occurs does not hold. sent2: if the caning fever occurs the pooling vermiculite does not occur and the accruing does not occur. sent3: the lighting steeper does not occur. sent4: the caning Argasidae does not occur if the contextualness does not occur. sent5: if the fact that the non-unprofitableness and the extirpation happens is not correct then the fact that the layering backlash does not occur hold. sent6: that the caning Argasidae does not occur but the pooling presumption happens is caused by the future. sent7: if that the anticlimacticness and the lighting Scorpaenidae happens is false then the lighting Scorpaenidae does not occur. sent8: that the anticlimacticness and the lighting Scorpaenidae happens is not correct if that the youngerness does not occur is right. sent9: if the rulership does not occur then the hornpipe occurs or the homologousness occurs or both. sent10: if the caning Argasidae does not occur but the pooling presumption occurs then the contextualness does not occur. sent11: the hornpipe and the allogamy occurs. sent12: the pooling presumption occurs. sent13: if the lighting Scorpaenidae does not occur the rulership does not occur. sent14: if the fact that the layering backlash does not occur is correct then both the caning fever and the parlaying occurs. sent15: the domesticity happens. sent16: that the pooling vermiculite does not occur results in that the layering Steiner occurs and the future occurs. sent17: the fact that the hardball does not occur is not incorrect. sent18: the caning Argasidae happens and the pooling presumption happens.
|
sent1: {M} -> ¬(¬{L} & {K}) sent2: {H} -> (¬{F} & ¬{G}) sent3: ¬{HM} sent4: ¬{A} -> ¬{B} sent5: ¬(¬{L} & {K}) -> ¬{J} sent6: {D} -> (¬{B} & {C}) sent7: ¬({R} & {Q}) -> ¬{Q} sent8: ¬{S} -> ¬({R} & {Q}) sent9: ¬{P} -> ({N} v {O}) sent10: (¬{B} & {C}) -> ¬{A} sent11: ({N} & {BO}) sent12: {C} sent13: ¬{Q} -> ¬{P} sent14: ¬{J} -> ({H} & {I}) sent15: {FE} sent16: ¬{F} -> ({E} & {D}) sent17: ¬{IR} sent18: ({B} & {C})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the contextualness does not occur.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: that the caning Argasidae does not occur is not incorrect.; sent18 -> int2: the caning Argasidae occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ¬{A}; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: ¬{B}; sent18 -> int2: {B}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the contextualness does not occur.
|
¬{A}
|
[] | 16 | 3 | 3 | 16 | 0 | 16 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the contextualness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the layering axon happens the fact that the unprofitableness does not occur and the extirpation occurs does not hold. sent2: if the caning fever occurs the pooling vermiculite does not occur and the accruing does not occur. sent3: the lighting steeper does not occur. sent4: the caning Argasidae does not occur if the contextualness does not occur. sent5: if the fact that the non-unprofitableness and the extirpation happens is not correct then the fact that the layering backlash does not occur hold. sent6: that the caning Argasidae does not occur but the pooling presumption happens is caused by the future. sent7: if that the anticlimacticness and the lighting Scorpaenidae happens is false then the lighting Scorpaenidae does not occur. sent8: that the anticlimacticness and the lighting Scorpaenidae happens is not correct if that the youngerness does not occur is right. sent9: if the rulership does not occur then the hornpipe occurs or the homologousness occurs or both. sent10: if the caning Argasidae does not occur but the pooling presumption occurs then the contextualness does not occur. sent11: the hornpipe and the allogamy occurs. sent12: the pooling presumption occurs. sent13: if the lighting Scorpaenidae does not occur the rulership does not occur. sent14: if the fact that the layering backlash does not occur is correct then both the caning fever and the parlaying occurs. sent15: the domesticity happens. sent16: that the pooling vermiculite does not occur results in that the layering Steiner occurs and the future occurs. sent17: the fact that the hardball does not occur is not incorrect. sent18: the caning Argasidae happens and the pooling presumption happens. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the contextualness does not occur.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: that the caning Argasidae does not occur is not incorrect.; sent18 -> int2: the caning Argasidae occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the lindy does not occur and the planning does not occur.
|
(¬{C} & ¬{D})
|
sent1: if the combining occurs then the foreclosure does not occur and/or the lighting loving occurs. sent2: the affairs does not occur if the fact that the affairs occurs but the weakening does not occur is wrong. sent3: if the fact that the suburbanness occurs is not incorrect then the lindy does not occur. sent4: the lindy does not occur. sent5: if that not the laughing but the dipolarness occurs is incorrect the dipolarness does not occur. sent6: the appealableness occurs and the suburbanness happens. sent7: if the suburbanness does not occur both the congregating and the appealableness occurs. sent8: the lighting head occurs and the layering psychometry happens. sent9: the fact that the lindy does not occur and the planning does not occur does not hold if the appealableness does not occur. sent10: either that the foreclosure does not occur or that the lighting loving happens or both yields that the foreclosure does not occur. sent11: that the pneumaticsness but not the RAIU occurs does not hold if the vampirism does not occur. sent12: the appealableness happens. sent13: that the skippering does not occur results in that the vampirism does not occur but the impromptu occurs. sent14: if that the pneumaticsness occurs and the RAIU does not occur is not right then the pneumaticsness does not occur. sent15: the combining happens if the combining and/or the non-dipolarness occurs. sent16: if the foreclosure does not occur that the affairs happens but the weakening does not occur is not right. sent17: the filarness does not occur if the alchemisticness happens. sent18: if the pneumaticsness does not occur then the fact that not the laughing but the dipolarness occurs is not true. sent19: the non-appealableness and the non-suburbanness occurs if the affairs does not occur. sent20: the lighting preciosity happens. sent21: that the suburbanness occurs triggers that the lindy does not occur and the plan does not occur. sent22: the socioculturalness occurs.
|
sent1: {I} -> (¬{F} v {H}) sent2: ¬({E} & ¬{G}) -> ¬{E} sent3: {B} -> ¬{C} sent4: ¬{C} sent5: ¬(¬{J} & {K}) -> ¬{K} sent6: ({A} & {B}) sent7: ¬{B} -> ({GD} & {A}) sent8: ({FM} & {CA}) sent9: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{C} & ¬{D}) sent10: (¬{F} v {H}) -> ¬{F} sent11: ¬{N} -> ¬({L} & ¬{M}) sent12: {A} sent13: ¬{P} -> (¬{N} & {O}) sent14: ¬({L} & ¬{M}) -> ¬{L} sent15: ({I} v ¬{K}) -> {I} sent16: ¬{F} -> ¬({E} & ¬{G}) sent17: {DM} -> ¬{FD} sent18: ¬{L} -> ¬(¬{J} & {K}) sent19: ¬{E} -> (¬{A} & ¬{B}) sent20: {HU} sent21: {B} -> (¬{C} & ¬{D}) sent22: {AJ}
|
[
"sent6 -> int1: the suburbanness occurs.; sent21 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 -> int1: {B}; sent21 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the lindy does not occur and the planning does not occur does not hold.
|
¬(¬{C} & ¬{D})
|
[] | 17 | 2 | 2 | 20 | 0 | 20 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the lindy does not occur and the planning does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the combining occurs then the foreclosure does not occur and/or the lighting loving occurs. sent2: the affairs does not occur if the fact that the affairs occurs but the weakening does not occur is wrong. sent3: if the fact that the suburbanness occurs is not incorrect then the lindy does not occur. sent4: the lindy does not occur. sent5: if that not the laughing but the dipolarness occurs is incorrect the dipolarness does not occur. sent6: the appealableness occurs and the suburbanness happens. sent7: if the suburbanness does not occur both the congregating and the appealableness occurs. sent8: the lighting head occurs and the layering psychometry happens. sent9: the fact that the lindy does not occur and the planning does not occur does not hold if the appealableness does not occur. sent10: either that the foreclosure does not occur or that the lighting loving happens or both yields that the foreclosure does not occur. sent11: that the pneumaticsness but not the RAIU occurs does not hold if the vampirism does not occur. sent12: the appealableness happens. sent13: that the skippering does not occur results in that the vampirism does not occur but the impromptu occurs. sent14: if that the pneumaticsness occurs and the RAIU does not occur is not right then the pneumaticsness does not occur. sent15: the combining happens if the combining and/or the non-dipolarness occurs. sent16: if the foreclosure does not occur that the affairs happens but the weakening does not occur is not right. sent17: the filarness does not occur if the alchemisticness happens. sent18: if the pneumaticsness does not occur then the fact that not the laughing but the dipolarness occurs is not true. sent19: the non-appealableness and the non-suburbanness occurs if the affairs does not occur. sent20: the lighting preciosity happens. sent21: that the suburbanness occurs triggers that the lindy does not occur and the plan does not occur. sent22: the socioculturalness occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 -> int1: the suburbanness occurs.; sent21 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the spitball is not a kind of a quellung.
|
¬{C}{b}
|
sent1: if the Shahaptian does cane rathskeller it is a kind of a Gnostic. sent2: the Shahaptian is a quellung. sent3: The rathskeller does cane Shahaptian. sent4: the spitball lights organ. sent5: the spitball is not sacramental. sent6: if the Shahaptian is not sacramental then it is a brewing. sent7: if the Shahaptian does cane rathskeller it does singe. sent8: if the spitball is a Gnostic and it does cane rathskeller the Shahaptian is not a lather. sent9: if the spitball is a Gnostic it is a profitableness. sent10: the Shahaptian is a kind of postmillennial thing that is scholarly. sent11: the fact that the spitball is not a NIPR and canes rathskeller does not hold. sent12: the spitball is not a kind of a quellung if the Shahaptian is a brewing and is a Gnostic. sent13: the rosette is a Gnostic. sent14: if that the Shahaptian does brew and/or it is not Gnostic is false then the fact that the windjammer is Gnostic hold. sent15: if something is not a kind of a Gnostic then the fact that it is not a mincemeat and it is a Gabonese does not hold. sent16: that the Shahaptian is not a lather and is sacramental is not correct. sent17: if the fact that the Shahaptian is not a lather and is sacramental is false then it brews. sent18: a Gnostic thing is a quellung.
|
sent1: {D}{a} -> {A}{a} sent2: {C}{a} sent3: {AC}{aa} sent4: {BM}{b} sent5: ¬{AB}{b} sent6: ¬{AB}{a} -> {B}{a} sent7: {D}{a} -> {BF}{a} sent8: ({A}{b} & {D}{b}) -> ¬{AA}{a} sent9: {A}{b} -> {AO}{b} sent10: ({BE}{a} & {EL}{a}) sent11: ¬(¬{DS}{b} & {D}{b}) sent12: ({B}{a} & {A}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent13: {A}{ds} sent14: ¬({B}{a} v ¬{A}{a}) -> ¬{A}{dh} sent15: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{DA}x & {JI}x) sent16: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent17: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent18: (x): {A}x -> {C}x
|
[
"sent17 & sent16 -> int1: the Shahaptian is a brewing.;"
] |
[
"sent17 & sent16 -> int1: {B}{a};"
] |
the fact that the windjammer is both not a mincemeat and Gabonese is wrong.
|
¬(¬{DA}{dh} & {JI}{dh})
|
[
"sent15 -> int2: if the windjammer is not Gnostic then that it is not a mincemeat but Gabonese is wrong.;"
] | 5 | 3 | null | 14 | 0 | 14 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the spitball is not a kind of a quellung. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Shahaptian does cane rathskeller it is a kind of a Gnostic. sent2: the Shahaptian is a quellung. sent3: The rathskeller does cane Shahaptian. sent4: the spitball lights organ. sent5: the spitball is not sacramental. sent6: if the Shahaptian is not sacramental then it is a brewing. sent7: if the Shahaptian does cane rathskeller it does singe. sent8: if the spitball is a Gnostic and it does cane rathskeller the Shahaptian is not a lather. sent9: if the spitball is a Gnostic it is a profitableness. sent10: the Shahaptian is a kind of postmillennial thing that is scholarly. sent11: the fact that the spitball is not a NIPR and canes rathskeller does not hold. sent12: the spitball is not a kind of a quellung if the Shahaptian is a brewing and is a Gnostic. sent13: the rosette is a Gnostic. sent14: if that the Shahaptian does brew and/or it is not Gnostic is false then the fact that the windjammer is Gnostic hold. sent15: if something is not a kind of a Gnostic then the fact that it is not a mincemeat and it is a Gabonese does not hold. sent16: that the Shahaptian is not a lather and is sacramental is not correct. sent17: if the fact that the Shahaptian is not a lather and is sacramental is false then it brews. sent18: a Gnostic thing is a quellung. ; $proof$ =
|
sent17 & sent16 -> int1: the Shahaptian is a brewing.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
not the execution but the layering switcheroo occurs.
|
(¬{E} & {D})
|
sent1: the caning Witherspoon is brought about by that the radiophotography happens but the fresco does not occur. sent2: if the fact that the walkover does not occur and the stoning does not occur is wrong then the radiophotography happens. sent3: if that the prosthodonticness happens is correct the windfall happens. sent4: the layering Mariehamn occurs. sent5: both the Aramean and the theme occurs. sent6: that the layering switcheroo does not occur is prevented by that the zapping happens. sent7: the Aramean happens if the fact that not the theming but the zapping happens is not true. sent8: the zap occurs if the theme occurs. sent9: that the caning neurohormone happens is brought about by that both the non-Arameanness and the theme happens. sent10: the ancestralness happens. sent11: the lighting Terry happens. sent12: the Aramean occurs. sent13: the fact that the Ismailiness does not occur is right. sent14: both the recording and the ruffianism occurs. sent15: that not the layering switcheroo but the questioning happens is brought about by the caning Witherspoon. sent16: the trophoblasticness happens. sent17: the layering slurred results in the question. sent18: if the layering switcheroo does not occur then the fact that both the execution and the zapping happens does not hold. sent19: the pooling dioxide does not occur but the unsanitariness happens. sent20: the countercurrent happens if the enormity happens. sent21: not the regaling but the closed-circuitness occurs.
|
sent1: ({H} & ¬{I}) -> {G} sent2: ¬(¬{K} & ¬{J}) -> {H} sent3: {JB} -> {HK} sent4: {EU} sent5: ({A} & {B}) sent6: {C} -> {D} sent7: ¬(¬{B} & {C}) -> {A} sent8: {B} -> {C} sent9: (¬{A} & {B}) -> {IB} sent10: {BE} sent11: {FD} sent12: {A} sent13: ¬{IU} sent14: ({HH} & {HR}) sent15: {G} -> (¬{D} & {F}) sent16: {JC} sent17: {FB} -> {F} sent18: ¬{D} -> ¬({E} & {C}) sent19: (¬{HO} & {AJ}) sent20: {U} -> {IF} sent21: (¬{DC} & {GK})
|
[
"sent5 -> int1: the theme happens.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the zapping occurs.; int2 & sent6 -> int3: the layering switcheroo happens.;"
] |
[
"sent5 -> int1: {B}; int1 & sent8 -> int2: {C}; int2 & sent6 -> int3: {D};"
] |
the caning neurohormone occurs.
|
{IB}
|
[] | 10 | 4 | null | 18 | 0 | 18 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = not the execution but the layering switcheroo occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the caning Witherspoon is brought about by that the radiophotography happens but the fresco does not occur. sent2: if the fact that the walkover does not occur and the stoning does not occur is wrong then the radiophotography happens. sent3: if that the prosthodonticness happens is correct the windfall happens. sent4: the layering Mariehamn occurs. sent5: both the Aramean and the theme occurs. sent6: that the layering switcheroo does not occur is prevented by that the zapping happens. sent7: the Aramean happens if the fact that not the theming but the zapping happens is not true. sent8: the zap occurs if the theme occurs. sent9: that the caning neurohormone happens is brought about by that both the non-Arameanness and the theme happens. sent10: the ancestralness happens. sent11: the lighting Terry happens. sent12: the Aramean occurs. sent13: the fact that the Ismailiness does not occur is right. sent14: both the recording and the ruffianism occurs. sent15: that not the layering switcheroo but the questioning happens is brought about by the caning Witherspoon. sent16: the trophoblasticness happens. sent17: the layering slurred results in the question. sent18: if the layering switcheroo does not occur then the fact that both the execution and the zapping happens does not hold. sent19: the pooling dioxide does not occur but the unsanitariness happens. sent20: the countercurrent happens if the enormity happens. sent21: not the regaling but the closed-circuitness occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 -> int1: the theme happens.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the zapping occurs.; int2 & sent6 -> int3: the layering switcheroo happens.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the minefield is an enthusiasm.
|
{D}{b}
|
sent1: the glue is a sarcenet. sent2: the glue does light rasher and is offing. sent3: the minefield is not an enthusiasm if the glue is offing and it is a kind of a sarcenet.
|
sent1: {C}{a} sent2: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent3: ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b}
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: that the glue is offing is not false.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the glue is offing and it is a sarcenet.; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> int1: {B}{a}; int1 & sent1 -> int2: ({B}{a} & {C}{a}); int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the minefield is an enthusiasm. ; $context$ = sent1: the glue is a sarcenet. sent2: the glue does light rasher and is offing. sent3: the minefield is not an enthusiasm if the glue is offing and it is a kind of a sarcenet. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> int1: that the glue is offing is not false.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the glue is offing and it is a sarcenet.; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the rehearsal does not occur.
|
¬{A}
|
sent1: the peninsularness occurs and the pooling siren happens if the pooling psychiatry does not occur. sent2: if both the rehearsal and the Levantine happens then the organization does not occur. sent3: the royal occurs. sent4: if the pooling siren does not occur both the organization and the tinning happens. sent5: the fact that both the racialness and the rehearsal happens hold if the Levantineness does not occur. sent6: that the regurgitating happens and the layering Qiang happens is caused by that the malformation does not occur. sent7: either the organization or the Levantine or both occurs if the tinning does not occur. sent8: if the layering Qiang occurs then the katharobicness happens. sent9: the procedure occurs if the katharobicness happens. sent10: if the royalness occurs but the Bond does not occur that the pooling psychiatry does not occur is correct. sent11: the pooling siren does not occur. sent12: that the organization does not occur but the tinning occurs prevents that the Levantineness occurs. sent13: the malformation does not occur if the congregationalness happens and the lighting phensuximide occurs.
|
sent1: ¬{J} -> ({H} & {E}) sent2: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent3: {M} sent4: ¬{E} -> ({C} & {D}) sent5: ¬{B} -> ({DD} & {A}) sent6: ¬{K} -> ({I} & {G}) sent7: ¬{D} -> ({C} v {B}) sent8: {G} -> {F} sent9: {F} -> {AJ} sent10: ({M} & ¬{L}) -> ¬{J} sent11: ¬{E} sent12: (¬{C} & {D}) -> ¬{B} sent13: ({N} & {O}) -> ¬{K}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the rehearsal happens.; sent4 & sent11 -> int1: the organization occurs and the tinning happens.; int1 -> int2: the organization occurs.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}; sent4 & sent11 -> int1: ({C} & {D}); int1 -> int2: {C};"
] |
the racialness and the procedure happens.
|
({DD} & {AJ})
|
[] | 9 | 4 | null | 10 | 0 | 10 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the rehearsal does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the peninsularness occurs and the pooling siren happens if the pooling psychiatry does not occur. sent2: if both the rehearsal and the Levantine happens then the organization does not occur. sent3: the royal occurs. sent4: if the pooling siren does not occur both the organization and the tinning happens. sent5: the fact that both the racialness and the rehearsal happens hold if the Levantineness does not occur. sent6: that the regurgitating happens and the layering Qiang happens is caused by that the malformation does not occur. sent7: either the organization or the Levantine or both occurs if the tinning does not occur. sent8: if the layering Qiang occurs then the katharobicness happens. sent9: the procedure occurs if the katharobicness happens. sent10: if the royalness occurs but the Bond does not occur that the pooling psychiatry does not occur is correct. sent11: the pooling siren does not occur. sent12: that the organization does not occur but the tinning occurs prevents that the Levantineness occurs. sent13: the malformation does not occur if the congregationalness happens and the lighting phensuximide occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the rehearsal happens.; sent4 & sent11 -> int1: the organization occurs and the tinning happens.; int1 -> int2: the organization occurs.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the brethren is not sessile.
|
¬{D}{a}
|
sent1: something is sessile or does cane Coventry or both if it is non-Beethovenian. sent2: the brethren is not sessile if it is Beethovenian and it is apocryphal. sent3: if there exists something such that it canes Coventry then the brethren is not Beethovenian but it is apocryphal. sent4: if that something is not Beethovenian but it is apocryphal is not incorrect then it is non-sessile. sent5: the fact that the brethren is not Beethovenian is right. sent6: if something does cane Coventry then it is not sessile. sent7: if the nipa canes breakage and is a ED then it does not light speakership.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({D}x v {A}x) sent2: ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent3: (x): {A}x -> (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent4: (x): (¬{B}x & {C}x) -> ¬{D}x sent5: ¬{B}{a} sent6: (x): {A}x -> ¬{D}x sent7: ({G}{b} & {F}{b}) -> ¬{E}{b}
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: if that the brethren is not Beethovenian and is apocryphal is not incorrect then it is not sessile.;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> int1: (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a};"
] |
the fact that the know-it-all is not sessile is not wrong.
|
¬{D}{bj}
|
[
"sent6 -> int2: if the fact that the know-it-all canes Coventry is true it is not sessile.;"
] | 6 | 2 | null | 5 | 0 | 5 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the brethren is not sessile. ; $context$ = sent1: something is sessile or does cane Coventry or both if it is non-Beethovenian. sent2: the brethren is not sessile if it is Beethovenian and it is apocryphal. sent3: if there exists something such that it canes Coventry then the brethren is not Beethovenian but it is apocryphal. sent4: if that something is not Beethovenian but it is apocryphal is not incorrect then it is non-sessile. sent5: the fact that the brethren is not Beethovenian is right. sent6: if something does cane Coventry then it is not sessile. sent7: if the nipa canes breakage and is a ED then it does not light speakership. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> int1: if that the brethren is not Beethovenian and is apocryphal is not incorrect then it is not sessile.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the ordinariness happens and the ennoblement occurs.
|
({D} & {E})
|
sent1: if the fact that the indecentness does not occur is not wrong that both the tinning and the ennoblement occurs is not right. sent2: the worthy happens if the pooling sapodilla happens. sent3: if the gambling occurs the indelicateness happens. sent4: the ennoblement occurs if the fact that the tinning occurs but the ennoblement does not occur does not hold. sent5: the caning disproof happens. sent6: the indecentness does not occur. sent7: that the intracranialness and/or the ineligibleness happens hold. sent8: if the indecentness does not occur then that the tinning occurs but the ennoblement does not occur is incorrect. sent9: if the Low occurs then the fact that the worthy happens hold. sent10: the lighting dosimetry and/or the syncarpousness happens. sent11: the ordinariness occurs if the worthiness occurs.
|
sent1: ¬{F} -> ¬({G} & {E}) sent2: {A} -> {C} sent3: {GQ} -> {CT} sent4: ¬({G} & ¬{E}) -> {E} sent5: {JC} sent6: ¬{F} sent7: ({FR} v {IQ}) sent8: ¬{F} -> ¬({G} & ¬{E}) sent9: {B} -> {C} sent10: ({AL} v {CL}) sent11: {C} -> {D}
|
[
"sent8 & sent6 -> int1: the fact that the tinning happens and the ennoblement does not occur is false.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: the ennoblement occurs.;"
] |
[
"sent8 & sent6 -> int1: ¬({G} & ¬{E}); sent4 & int1 -> int2: {E};"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | null | 5 | 0 | 5 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the ordinariness happens and the ennoblement occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the indecentness does not occur is not wrong that both the tinning and the ennoblement occurs is not right. sent2: the worthy happens if the pooling sapodilla happens. sent3: if the gambling occurs the indelicateness happens. sent4: the ennoblement occurs if the fact that the tinning occurs but the ennoblement does not occur does not hold. sent5: the caning disproof happens. sent6: the indecentness does not occur. sent7: that the intracranialness and/or the ineligibleness happens hold. sent8: if the indecentness does not occur then that the tinning occurs but the ennoblement does not occur is incorrect. sent9: if the Low occurs then the fact that the worthy happens hold. sent10: the lighting dosimetry and/or the syncarpousness happens. sent11: the ordinariness occurs if the worthiness occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 & sent6 -> int1: the fact that the tinning happens and the ennoblement does not occur is false.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: the ennoblement occurs.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the bracket is not a kind of a alkalimetry and is a Mordva.
|
(¬{F}{c} & {E}{c})
|
sent1: there exists something such that it is a confinement. sent2: that something is both not a alkalimetry and a Mordva is wrong if it is a kind of a confinement. sent3: the cowage does not jiggle. sent4: the bracket is not a kind of a alkalimetry and is a Mordva if the fact that the coelacanth jiggles does not hold. sent5: the fact that the cowage is a nominal and it canes aquatic is wrong if there is something such that it is a confinement. sent6: the tellurian does not jiggle. sent7: if the cowage is a confinement then the bracket is a confinement. sent8: the fact that the coelacanth does cane aquatic and is a nominal does not hold if there exists something such that the fact that it does not jiggle is not right. sent9: the bracket is not a alkalimetry.
|
sent1: (Ex): {A}x sent2: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{F}x & {E}x) sent3: ¬{D}{a} sent4: ¬{D}{b} -> (¬{F}{c} & {E}{c}) sent5: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent6: ¬{D}{ff} sent7: {A}{a} -> {A}{c} sent8: (x): {D}x -> ¬({C}{b} & {B}{b}) sent9: ¬{F}{c}
|
[
"sent1 & sent5 -> int1: the fact that the cowage is a nominal and it canes aquatic is incorrect.;"
] |
[
"sent1 & sent5 -> int1: ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a});"
] |
that the bracket is not a alkalimetry and is a kind of a Mordva is false.
|
¬(¬{F}{c} & {E}{c})
|
[
"sent2 -> int2: if the bracket is a confinement that it is not a alkalimetry and it is a Mordva does not hold.;"
] | 5 | 3 | null | 6 | 0 | 6 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the bracket is not a kind of a alkalimetry and is a Mordva. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is a confinement. sent2: that something is both not a alkalimetry and a Mordva is wrong if it is a kind of a confinement. sent3: the cowage does not jiggle. sent4: the bracket is not a kind of a alkalimetry and is a Mordva if the fact that the coelacanth jiggles does not hold. sent5: the fact that the cowage is a nominal and it canes aquatic is wrong if there is something such that it is a confinement. sent6: the tellurian does not jiggle. sent7: if the cowage is a confinement then the bracket is a confinement. sent8: the fact that the coelacanth does cane aquatic and is a nominal does not hold if there exists something such that the fact that it does not jiggle is not right. sent9: the bracket is not a alkalimetry. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 & sent5 -> int1: the fact that the cowage is a nominal and it canes aquatic is incorrect.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the firebrat is a quarterly.
|
{B}{a}
|
sent1: there exists something such that it is non-quarterly. sent2: if something is not a kind of a hate and does start it is quarterly. sent3: the firebrat is not unstuck if the bibliophile either does cane bibliophile or is not follicular or both. sent4: there exists something such that it does not start. sent5: the Terry is not a trill but it is a blackbird. sent6: there is something such that it does not hate. sent7: the firebrat does not transitivize. sent8: that the firebrat is non-surfacing thing that is nervous is true. sent9: that if the fact that something does pool demander but it does not cane bibliophile is not right that it does cane bibliophile is not false is true. sent10: the lion-hunter is not a quarterly. sent11: if there exists something such that it does not start the firebrat is not quarterly but a hate. sent12: there exists something such that that it does not cane tri-iodothyronine and is not iridaceous is false. sent13: the firebrat does not layer roadman and is a Maxwell. sent14: if something is not a ball that it does pool demander and it does not cane bibliophile is not right. sent15: the dynamite does not cane Lausanne and is a start. sent16: the firebrat is non-pharmacological a sudatorium if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a quarterly. sent17: something is a hate. sent18: the arame is not a hate but it is a kind of a sudatorium. sent19: something is not a kind of a hate and is a start if it is not unstuck. sent20: that the firebrat does layer dynamite is not incorrect. sent21: the patchcord is both not a metier and a yak.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬{B}x sent2: (x): (¬{C}x & {A}x) -> {B}x sent3: ({E}{b} v ¬{F}{b}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent4: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent5: (¬{BO}{hp} & {GD}{hp}) sent6: (Ex): ¬{C}x sent7: ¬{IH}{a} sent8: (¬{N}{a} & {BT}{a}) sent9: (x): ¬({G}x & ¬{E}x) -> {E}x sent10: ¬{B}{gt} sent11: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent12: (Ex): ¬(¬{J}x & ¬{I}x) sent13: (¬{DC}{a} & {M}{a}) sent14: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬({G}x & ¬{E}x) sent15: (¬{CH}{da} & {A}{da}) sent16: (x): ¬{B}x -> (¬{EC}{a} & {HT}{a}) sent17: (Ex): {C}x sent18: (¬{C}{fs} & {HT}{fs}) sent19: (x): ¬{D}x -> (¬{C}x & {A}x) sent20: {BJ}{a} sent21: (¬{FJ}{is} & {EM}{is})
|
[
"sent4 & sent11 -> int1: the firebrat is not quarterly but a hate.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 & sent11 -> int1: (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the firebrat is a quarterly.
|
{B}{a}
|
[
"sent2 -> int2: if the firebrat does not hate but it is a start then it is a quarterly.; sent19 -> int3: the firebrat is not a kind of a hate but it is a kind of a start if it is not unstuck.; sent9 -> int4: the bibliophile canes bibliophile if the fact that it pools demander and does not canes bibliophile does not hold.; sent14 -> int5: the fact that the bibliophile pools demander and does not cane bibliophile is not right if it is not a ball.;"
] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the firebrat is a quarterly. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is non-quarterly. sent2: if something is not a kind of a hate and does start it is quarterly. sent3: the firebrat is not unstuck if the bibliophile either does cane bibliophile or is not follicular or both. sent4: there exists something such that it does not start. sent5: the Terry is not a trill but it is a blackbird. sent6: there is something such that it does not hate. sent7: the firebrat does not transitivize. sent8: that the firebrat is non-surfacing thing that is nervous is true. sent9: that if the fact that something does pool demander but it does not cane bibliophile is not right that it does cane bibliophile is not false is true. sent10: the lion-hunter is not a quarterly. sent11: if there exists something such that it does not start the firebrat is not quarterly but a hate. sent12: there exists something such that that it does not cane tri-iodothyronine and is not iridaceous is false. sent13: the firebrat does not layer roadman and is a Maxwell. sent14: if something is not a ball that it does pool demander and it does not cane bibliophile is not right. sent15: the dynamite does not cane Lausanne and is a start. sent16: the firebrat is non-pharmacological a sudatorium if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a quarterly. sent17: something is a hate. sent18: the arame is not a hate but it is a kind of a sudatorium. sent19: something is not a kind of a hate and is a start if it is not unstuck. sent20: that the firebrat does layer dynamite is not incorrect. sent21: the patchcord is both not a metier and a yak. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 & sent11 -> int1: the firebrat is not quarterly but a hate.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Basotho does not cane third-rater.
|
¬{D}{c}
|
sent1: the fact that the clipboard is a kind of a pogrom is not wrong. sent2: the organ-grinder is not a kind of a frost. sent3: the organ-grinder does not cane third-rater and it is not a kind of a frost. sent4: the fact that the Presbyterian is a kind of a pogrom and it raffles is false. sent5: the bollard is not a levanter and it is not a Laniidae. sent6: the selenium does not pool Jew's-ear and is not a minnow if that the organ-grinder does not pool Jew's-ear is not false. sent7: something that either is a minnow or is not a Asian or both does not pool Jew's-ear. sent8: the selenium is not a minnow if there is something such that the fact that it is not octangular and it is a Asian is not true. sent9: that the selenium is not a minnow is right if the organ-grinder does not pool Jew's-ear. sent10: if something is a pogrom it is a kind of a raffle. sent11: if the clipboard is octangular the centerfielder is a minnow. sent12: the Basotho does cane third-rater if the organ-grinder cane third-rater. sent13: something canes third-rater if that it does not canes third-rater and is not a kind of a frost is not correct. sent14: the organ-grinder does not pool Jew's-ear and is not a frost. sent15: if there is something such that it does raffle the fact that the centerfielder is not octangular but it is a Asian does not hold. sent16: the selenium is not a kind of a minnow. sent17: the Basotho does not pool Jew's-ear if the organ-grinder does not cane third-rater and does not frost. sent18: if the selenium does not pool Jew's-ear and is a kind of a minnow then the Basotho does not cane third-rater. sent19: the selenium does not cane third-rater and it is not a minnow. sent20: the clipboard is octangular if there is something such that that it is a pogrom and it does raffle is not true. sent21: if the selenium does not pool Jew's-ear and it is not a minnow then the Basotho does not cane third-rater. sent22: the selenium is not a frost if the organ-grinder does not pool Jew's-ear and does not cane third-rater.
|
sent1: {H}{e} sent2: ¬{B}{a} sent3: (¬{D}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent4: ¬({H}{f} & {G}{f}) sent5: (¬{JK}{ce} & ¬{BC}{ce}) sent6: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent7: (x): ({C}x v ¬{E}x) -> ¬{A}x sent8: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & {E}x) -> ¬{C}{b} sent9: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{C}{b} sent10: (x): {H}x -> {G}x sent11: {F}{e} -> {C}{d} sent12: {D}{a} -> {D}{c} sent13: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{B}x) -> {D}x sent14: (¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent15: (x): {G}x -> ¬(¬{F}{d} & {E}{d}) sent16: ¬{C}{b} sent17: (¬{D}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{A}{c} sent18: (¬{A}{b} & {C}{b}) -> ¬{D}{c} sent19: (¬{D}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent20: (x): ¬({H}x & {G}x) -> {F}{e} sent21: (¬{A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> ¬{D}{c} sent22: (¬{A}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b}
|
[
"sent14 -> int1: the organ-grinder does not pool Jew's-ear.; sent6 & int1 -> int2: the selenium does not pool Jew's-ear and is not a minnow.; sent21 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent14 -> int1: ¬{A}{a}; sent6 & int1 -> int2: (¬{A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}); sent21 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the Basotho canes third-rater.
|
{D}{c}
|
[
"sent13 -> int3: if that the organ-grinder does not cane third-rater and it does not frost is wrong then it does cane third-rater.; sent7 -> int4: the selenium does not pool Jew's-ear if either it is a kind of a minnow or it is not a Asian or both.; sent4 -> int5: there exists something such that the fact that it is a pogrom and it does raffle is not correct.; int5 & sent20 -> int6: the clipboard is octangular.; sent11 & int6 -> int7: the centerfielder is a minnow.; int7 -> int8: something is a minnow.;"
] | 9 | 3 | 3 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the Basotho does not cane third-rater. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the clipboard is a kind of a pogrom is not wrong. sent2: the organ-grinder is not a kind of a frost. sent3: the organ-grinder does not cane third-rater and it is not a kind of a frost. sent4: the fact that the Presbyterian is a kind of a pogrom and it raffles is false. sent5: the bollard is not a levanter and it is not a Laniidae. sent6: the selenium does not pool Jew's-ear and is not a minnow if that the organ-grinder does not pool Jew's-ear is not false. sent7: something that either is a minnow or is not a Asian or both does not pool Jew's-ear. sent8: the selenium is not a minnow if there is something such that the fact that it is not octangular and it is a Asian is not true. sent9: that the selenium is not a minnow is right if the organ-grinder does not pool Jew's-ear. sent10: if something is a pogrom it is a kind of a raffle. sent11: if the clipboard is octangular the centerfielder is a minnow. sent12: the Basotho does cane third-rater if the organ-grinder cane third-rater. sent13: something canes third-rater if that it does not canes third-rater and is not a kind of a frost is not correct. sent14: the organ-grinder does not pool Jew's-ear and is not a frost. sent15: if there is something such that it does raffle the fact that the centerfielder is not octangular but it is a Asian does not hold. sent16: the selenium is not a kind of a minnow. sent17: the Basotho does not pool Jew's-ear if the organ-grinder does not cane third-rater and does not frost. sent18: if the selenium does not pool Jew's-ear and is a kind of a minnow then the Basotho does not cane third-rater. sent19: the selenium does not cane third-rater and it is not a minnow. sent20: the clipboard is octangular if there is something such that that it is a pogrom and it does raffle is not true. sent21: if the selenium does not pool Jew's-ear and it is not a minnow then the Basotho does not cane third-rater. sent22: the selenium is not a frost if the organ-grinder does not pool Jew's-ear and does not cane third-rater. ; $proof$ =
|
sent14 -> int1: the organ-grinder does not pool Jew's-ear.; sent6 & int1 -> int2: the selenium does not pool Jew's-ear and is not a minnow.; sent21 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the pore is both botanic and sustentacular.
|
({D}{b} & {C}{b})
|
sent1: if the fact that the AAS is not acetylic is correct it layers heaves and it does seal. sent2: if that the AAS is not a kind of an australopithecine hold it is both non-sustentacular and not acetylic. sent3: the AAS lights Seanad and it does fatten if something is a kind of a geology. sent4: something is a geology. sent5: the pore layers clearness. sent6: the pore is a seal if the mealybug is not acetylic. sent7: everything is both not a homebrew and not mucopurulent. sent8: if something does layer clearness and is non-botanic then it is lexicostatistics. sent9: The clearness layers pore. sent10: if the mealybug is not acetylic the pore is sustentacular and it does seal. sent11: if the pore does layer clearness that it is botanic is true. sent12: if something that is not a kind of a homebrew is not mucopurulent then it is not a kind of an australopithecine. sent13: if the mealybug does not cane nativist it is not acetylic. sent14: the mealybug is not acetylic if that it is a mammalogy that does cane nativist is wrong. sent15: something that does light Seanad layers clearness and is not botanic. sent16: that the pore does seal hold.
|
sent1: ¬{B}{ha} -> ({K}{ha} & {A}{ha}) sent2: ¬{I}{ha} -> (¬{C}{ha} & ¬{B}{ha}) sent3: (x): {H}x -> ({F}{ha} & {G}{ha}) sent4: (Ex): {H}x sent5: {E}{b} sent6: ¬{B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent7: (x): (¬{J}x & ¬{L}x) sent8: (x): ({E}x & ¬{D}x) -> {ER}x sent9: {AC}{aa} sent10: ¬{B}{a} -> ({C}{b} & {A}{b}) sent11: {E}{b} -> {D}{b} sent12: (x): (¬{J}x & ¬{L}x) -> ¬{I}x sent13: ¬{AB}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent14: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent15: (x): {F}x -> ({E}x & ¬{D}x) sent16: {A}{b}
|
[
"sent11 & sent5 -> int1: that the pore is botanic hold.;"
] |
[
"sent11 & sent5 -> int1: {D}{b};"
] |
the AAS layers heaves and is lexicostatistics.
|
({K}{ha} & {ER}{ha})
|
[
"sent8 -> int2: if the AAS layers clearness but it is not botanic it is lexicostatistics.; sent15 -> int3: the AAS layers clearness and is non-botanic if it lights Seanad.; sent4 & sent3 -> int4: the AAS does light Seanad and does fatten.; int4 -> int5: the AAS lights Seanad.; int3 & int5 -> int6: the AAS does layer clearness but it is non-botanic.; int2 & int6 -> int7: the AAS is lexicostatistics.; sent12 -> int8: if the mealybug is not a homebrew and is not mucopurulent it is not a kind of an australopithecine.; sent7 -> int9: the mealybug is not a kind of a homebrew and it is not mucopurulent.; int8 & int9 -> int10: the mealybug is not a kind of an australopithecine.; int10 -> int11: everything is not a kind of an australopithecine.; int11 -> int12: the AAS is not an australopithecine.; sent2 & int12 -> int13: the AAS is a kind of non-sustentacular thing that is not acetylic.; int13 -> int14: the AAS is not acetylic.; sent1 & int14 -> int15: the AAS layers heaves and it is a seal.; int15 -> int16: the AAS layers heaves.; int7 & int16 -> hypothesis;"
] | 9 | 4 | null | 12 | 0 | 12 |
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the pore is both botanic and sustentacular. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the AAS is not acetylic is correct it layers heaves and it does seal. sent2: if that the AAS is not a kind of an australopithecine hold it is both non-sustentacular and not acetylic. sent3: the AAS lights Seanad and it does fatten if something is a kind of a geology. sent4: something is a geology. sent5: the pore layers clearness. sent6: the pore is a seal if the mealybug is not acetylic. sent7: everything is both not a homebrew and not mucopurulent. sent8: if something does layer clearness and is non-botanic then it is lexicostatistics. sent9: The clearness layers pore. sent10: if the mealybug is not acetylic the pore is sustentacular and it does seal. sent11: if the pore does layer clearness that it is botanic is true. sent12: if something that is not a kind of a homebrew is not mucopurulent then it is not a kind of an australopithecine. sent13: if the mealybug does not cane nativist it is not acetylic. sent14: the mealybug is not acetylic if that it is a mammalogy that does cane nativist is wrong. sent15: something that does light Seanad layers clearness and is not botanic. sent16: that the pore does seal hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent11 & sent5 -> int1: that the pore is botanic hold.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Terry canes Balfour.
|
{A}{a}
|
sent1: the lambkin is not a linnet. sent2: the Terry does not light salutation. sent3: the sketcher is not a kind of a Cercosporella but it does cane Balfour. sent4: if something that is not a Cercosporella is a framing then that it is not a linnet hold. sent5: the sketcher is not a kind of a linnet if it is a Cercosporella and is a framing. sent6: if something does not pool Yellowstone then it is both not a linnet and natal. sent7: the Terry is not underhand. sent8: if the ureter is not a kind of a Bethlehem it is not a kind of a rumrunner. sent9: the Terry is natal and is a kind of a linnet. sent10: the sketcher is not natal. sent11: if the Terry canes neckpiece then it does not pool Yellowstone and discriminates. sent12: the Terry is a kind of a Cercosporella. sent13: the Terry is a linnet. sent14: the Terry is a Cercosporella if the sketcher is not a Cercosporella. sent15: if something that is not a linnet is not non-natal then the fact that it is not a kind of a Cercosporella is not false. sent16: the groover is non-natal. sent17: the deerstalker is not a linnet. sent18: if the Terry is not natal it does not cane Balfour and is a linnet. sent19: if the sketcher is not natal then it is not a Cercosporella and is a framing. sent20: the line does not cane Balfour. sent21: the Terry does not cane hugger-mugger.
|
sent1: ¬{B}{eu} sent2: ¬{CS}{a} sent3: (¬{AA}{aa} & {A}{aa}) sent4: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent5: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent6: (x): ¬{D}x -> (¬{B}x & {C}x) sent7: ¬{IQ}{a} sent8: ¬{FS}{dd} -> ¬{DS}{dd} sent9: ({C}{a} & {B}{a}) sent10: ¬{C}{aa} sent11: {F}{a} -> (¬{D}{a} & {E}{a}) sent12: {AA}{a} sent13: {B}{a} sent14: ¬{AA}{aa} -> {AA}{a} sent15: (x): (¬{B}x & {C}x) -> ¬{AA}x sent16: ¬{C}{in} sent17: ¬{B}{hl} sent18: ¬{C}{a} -> (¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent19: ¬{C}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent20: ¬{A}{hq} sent21: ¬{Q}{a}
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: if the sketcher is not a Cercosporella but it does frame it is not a kind of a linnet.; sent19 & sent10 -> int2: the sketcher is not a Cercosporella but a framing.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the sketcher is not a linnet.;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> int1: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; sent19 & sent10 -> int2: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬{B}{aa};"
] |
the Terry does not cane Balfour.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
[
"sent6 -> int4: the Terry is not a linnet and is natal if it does not pool Yellowstone.;"
] | 5 | 4 | null | 18 | 0 | 18 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the Terry canes Balfour. ; $context$ = sent1: the lambkin is not a linnet. sent2: the Terry does not light salutation. sent3: the sketcher is not a kind of a Cercosporella but it does cane Balfour. sent4: if something that is not a Cercosporella is a framing then that it is not a linnet hold. sent5: the sketcher is not a kind of a linnet if it is a Cercosporella and is a framing. sent6: if something does not pool Yellowstone then it is both not a linnet and natal. sent7: the Terry is not underhand. sent8: if the ureter is not a kind of a Bethlehem it is not a kind of a rumrunner. sent9: the Terry is natal and is a kind of a linnet. sent10: the sketcher is not natal. sent11: if the Terry canes neckpiece then it does not pool Yellowstone and discriminates. sent12: the Terry is a kind of a Cercosporella. sent13: the Terry is a linnet. sent14: the Terry is a Cercosporella if the sketcher is not a Cercosporella. sent15: if something that is not a linnet is not non-natal then the fact that it is not a kind of a Cercosporella is not false. sent16: the groover is non-natal. sent17: the deerstalker is not a linnet. sent18: if the Terry is not natal it does not cane Balfour and is a linnet. sent19: if the sketcher is not natal then it is not a Cercosporella and is a framing. sent20: the line does not cane Balfour. sent21: the Terry does not cane hugger-mugger. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> int1: if the sketcher is not a Cercosporella but it does frame it is not a kind of a linnet.; sent19 & sent10 -> int2: the sketcher is not a Cercosporella but a framing.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the sketcher is not a linnet.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the electrolyticness does not occur.
|
¬{D}
|
sent1: the melioration prevents the non-affirmativeness. sent2: if the Wiccan happens then the melioration does not occur. sent3: if the logrolling happens and/or the lighting Guam occurs the lowland does not occur. sent4: the melioration does not occur if the piggyback or the Wiccanness or both occurs. sent5: if the fact that the lighting Coloradan happens and the affirmative happens does not hold the electrolytic does not occur. sent6: if that the placentalness occurs and the laryngopharyngealness occurs is incorrect the fact that the naught does not occur is correct. sent7: if the affirmativeness occurs the electrolytic occurs. sent8: the fact that the lighting Coloradan happens and the affirmativeness occurs is not true if the melioration does not occur.
|
sent1: {B} -> {A} sent2: {AB} -> ¬{B} sent3: ({GA} v {AC}) -> ¬{IT} sent4: ({AA} v {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent5: ¬({C} & {A}) -> ¬{D} sent6: ¬({GR} & {K}) -> ¬{HK} sent7: {A} -> {D} sent8: ¬{B} -> ¬({C} & {A})
|
[] |
[] |
the electrolyticness happens.
|
{D}
|
[] | 7 | 3 | null | 5 | 0 | 5 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the electrolyticness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the melioration prevents the non-affirmativeness. sent2: if the Wiccan happens then the melioration does not occur. sent3: if the logrolling happens and/or the lighting Guam occurs the lowland does not occur. sent4: the melioration does not occur if the piggyback or the Wiccanness or both occurs. sent5: if the fact that the lighting Coloradan happens and the affirmative happens does not hold the electrolytic does not occur. sent6: if that the placentalness occurs and the laryngopharyngealness occurs is incorrect the fact that the naught does not occur is correct. sent7: if the affirmativeness occurs the electrolytic occurs. sent8: the fact that the lighting Coloradan happens and the affirmativeness occurs is not true if the melioration does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it lights weatherliness then it is a kind of a file.
|
(Ex): {A}x -> {C}x
|
sent1: if the ex-husband does layer Pugin then it does light weatherliness. sent2: the ex-husband is a file if it lights weatherliness. sent3: the ex-husband is a file if it is a WV. sent4: there exists something such that if that it devolves is correct that it is genic is not wrong. sent5: there is something such that if it is a Macon then it does layer Nestorian. sent6: the ex-husband does light weatherliness if it is astronautic. sent7: there exists something such that if it is a hematocyst then that it layers Ostrogoth is correct. sent8: the ex-husband is a kind of a Mormon if it is a file. sent9: the ex-husband layers SSS if it is a bow. sent10: there is something such that if that it is a Macon is not false then it is a Cracow. sent11: there exists something such that if it is a satchel then it is a TKO. sent12: if the ex-husband is relativistic it is a file. sent13: if something does bow then it layers embryology.
|
sent1: {HA}{aa} -> {A}{aa} sent2: {A}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent3: {EK}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent4: (Ex): {CU}x -> {GC}x sent5: (Ex): {DT}x -> {AQ}x sent6: {BJ}{aa} -> {A}{aa} sent7: (Ex): {BU}x -> {AF}x sent8: {C}{aa} -> {BE}{aa} sent9: {ED}{aa} -> {GI}{aa} sent10: (Ex): {DT}x -> {EN}x sent11: (Ex): {GL}x -> {HT}x sent12: {AU}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent13: (x): {ED}x -> {IU}x
|
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there exists something such that if it is a bow then it layers embryology.
|
(Ex): {ED}x -> {IU}x
|
[
"sent13 -> int1: the Nestorian does layer embryology if it is a kind of a bow.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it lights weatherliness then it is a kind of a file. ; $context$ = sent1: if the ex-husband does layer Pugin then it does light weatherliness. sent2: the ex-husband is a file if it lights weatherliness. sent3: the ex-husband is a file if it is a WV. sent4: there exists something such that if that it devolves is correct that it is genic is not wrong. sent5: there is something such that if it is a Macon then it does layer Nestorian. sent6: the ex-husband does light weatherliness if it is astronautic. sent7: there exists something such that if it is a hematocyst then that it layers Ostrogoth is correct. sent8: the ex-husband is a kind of a Mormon if it is a file. sent9: the ex-husband layers SSS if it is a bow. sent10: there is something such that if that it is a Macon is not false then it is a Cracow. sent11: there exists something such that if it is a satchel then it is a TKO. sent12: if the ex-husband is relativistic it is a file. sent13: if something does bow then it layers embryology. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if it is non-allotropic then it is both not doctoral and purposeful.
|
(Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x)
|
sent1: the sagittate-leaf is non-doctoral but it is purposeful if it is not allotropic. sent2: there exists something such that if it is allotropic then that it is not doctoral and it is purposeful is true.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent2: (Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x)
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is non-allotropic then it is both not doctoral and purposeful. ; $context$ = sent1: the sagittate-leaf is non-doctoral but it is purposeful if it is not allotropic. sent2: there exists something such that if it is allotropic then that it is not doctoral and it is purposeful is true. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the layering weeper does not occur.
|
¬{D}
|
sent1: that the miscalculation and the venesection happens causes that the lighting sanction does not occur. sent2: if the fact that the caning rough and the anatomy occurs is not true the sledding does not occur. sent3: the lighting sanction happens. sent4: the layering Red occurs or the Americanism happens or both. sent5: the caning rough does not occur. sent6: if the miscalculation happens then the fact that the layering weeper does not occur is right. sent7: the improvement and the lighting sanction happens. sent8: if the sledding occurs the venesection happens. sent9: if the venesection occurs the lighting sanction does not occur and the miscalculation does not occur. sent10: the fact that the miscalculation is prevented by that the layering weeper occurs and the venesection does not occur is correct. sent11: either the gravure occurs or the Ascension occurs or both. sent12: the fact that the sledding does not occur and the anatomy happens is not right if the caning rough happens. sent13: the fact that the sledding does not occur does not hold if the fact that not the sledding but the anatomy occurs is not true. sent14: the layering weeper and the improvement occurs if the lighting sanction does not occur. sent15: the fact that both the caning rough and the anatomy occurs is false. sent16: the cumulus occurs. sent17: the allomorphicness and the lighting sanction occurs if the miscalculation does not occur. sent18: if the Americanism does not occur then the caning rough and the intolerantness happens. sent19: the Americanism does not occur and the hop-step-and-jump does not occur if the bob does not occur. sent20: the layering manumission occurs and the habanera happens.
|
sent1: ({C} & {E}) -> ¬{B} sent2: ¬({G} & {H}) -> ¬{F} sent3: {B} sent4: ({IM} v {J}) sent5: ¬{G} sent6: {C} -> ¬{D} sent7: ({A} & {B}) sent8: {F} -> {E} sent9: {E} -> (¬{B} & ¬{C}) sent10: ({D} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{C} sent11: ({JE} v {CL}) sent12: {G} -> ¬(¬{F} & {H}) sent13: ¬(¬{F} & {H}) -> {F} sent14: ¬{B} -> ({D} & {A}) sent15: ¬({G} & {H}) sent16: {BK} sent17: ¬{C} -> ({R} & {B}) sent18: ¬{J} -> ({G} & {I}) sent19: ¬{L} -> (¬{J} & ¬{K}) sent20: ({HS} & {CT})
|
[
"sent7 -> int1: the improvement happens.; int1 -> int2: the improvement and/or the miscalculation happens.;"
] |
[
"sent7 -> int1: {A}; int1 -> int2: ({A} v {C});"
] |
the layering weeper happens.
|
{D}
|
[] | 12 | 3 | null | 19 | 0 | 19 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the layering weeper does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the miscalculation and the venesection happens causes that the lighting sanction does not occur. sent2: if the fact that the caning rough and the anatomy occurs is not true the sledding does not occur. sent3: the lighting sanction happens. sent4: the layering Red occurs or the Americanism happens or both. sent5: the caning rough does not occur. sent6: if the miscalculation happens then the fact that the layering weeper does not occur is right. sent7: the improvement and the lighting sanction happens. sent8: if the sledding occurs the venesection happens. sent9: if the venesection occurs the lighting sanction does not occur and the miscalculation does not occur. sent10: the fact that the miscalculation is prevented by that the layering weeper occurs and the venesection does not occur is correct. sent11: either the gravure occurs or the Ascension occurs or both. sent12: the fact that the sledding does not occur and the anatomy happens is not right if the caning rough happens. sent13: the fact that the sledding does not occur does not hold if the fact that not the sledding but the anatomy occurs is not true. sent14: the layering weeper and the improvement occurs if the lighting sanction does not occur. sent15: the fact that both the caning rough and the anatomy occurs is false. sent16: the cumulus occurs. sent17: the allomorphicness and the lighting sanction occurs if the miscalculation does not occur. sent18: if the Americanism does not occur then the caning rough and the intolerantness happens. sent19: the Americanism does not occur and the hop-step-and-jump does not occur if the bob does not occur. sent20: the layering manumission occurs and the habanera happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 -> int1: the improvement happens.; int1 -> int2: the improvement and/or the miscalculation happens.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the lekvar is abnormal is not false.
|
{C}{b}
|
sent1: there exists something such that it is not Audenesque and it canes Hoover. sent2: if the fact that something is not citrous and it does not light Moliere does not hold it is abnormal. sent3: if the fact that something is not Audenesque but it does cane Hoover is not incorrect then the Hoover does not light Moliere. sent4: if the Hoover does not light Moliere that that the lekvar is not citrous and it does not light Moliere is not false is incorrect.
|
sent1: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent2: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) -> {C}x sent3: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{B}{b} & ¬{A}{b})
|
[
"sent1 & sent3 -> int1: the Hoover does not light Moliere.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: that the lekvar is a kind of non-citrous thing that does not light Moliere is not right.; sent2 -> int3: the lekvar is abnormal if the fact that it is not citrous and it does not light Moliere is not true.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 & sent3 -> int1: ¬{A}{a}; int1 & sent4 -> int2: ¬(¬{B}{b} & ¬{A}{b}); sent2 -> int3: ¬(¬{B}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) -> {C}{b}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the lekvar is abnormal is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is not Audenesque and it canes Hoover. sent2: if the fact that something is not citrous and it does not light Moliere does not hold it is abnormal. sent3: if the fact that something is not Audenesque but it does cane Hoover is not incorrect then the Hoover does not light Moliere. sent4: if the Hoover does not light Moliere that that the lekvar is not citrous and it does not light Moliere is not false is incorrect. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 & sent3 -> int1: the Hoover does not light Moliere.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: that the lekvar is a kind of non-citrous thing that does not light Moliere is not right.; sent2 -> int3: the lekvar is abnormal if the fact that it is not citrous and it does not light Moliere is not true.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the inexactness but not the caning laelia happens.
|
({AA} & ¬{AB})
|
sent1: the encoring happens but the lighting extraction does not occur if the fact that the drip occurs hold. sent2: if the importunity happens that the pleasing happens and the debacle does not occur is not right. sent3: that the inexactness happens but the caning laelia does not occur is caused by that the importunity does not occur. sent4: the dripping happens if that the caning compensation but not the pooling reenactment happens is correct. sent5: that the inexactness and the caning laelia occurs is wrong. sent6: the fact that the caning tune but not the ophthalmectomy happens does not hold. sent7: that the engraving but not the scheduling occurs is not true. sent8: that the chancroidalness happens and the waterspout does not occur is wrong. sent9: the fact that the layering nutshell and the illegitimateness happens does not hold. sent10: that the caning compensation but not the pooling reenactment occurs is caused by that the lighting calefaction does not occur. sent11: that the bidding and the non-semanticsness happens does not hold. sent12: the fact that the caning midsummer occurs and the veering does not occur is incorrect. sent13: the fact that the layering Tutsi and the intransitiveness happens is incorrect. sent14: that the interrupting but not the layering saute occurs is not true. sent15: the caulescentness and the non-Scythianness happens if the fact that the lighting extraction does not occur is right. sent16: that the caulescentness but not the Scythian happens prevents the importunity. sent17: the fact that the caning tune and the non-parenteralness happens is wrong. sent18: the fact that the inexactness but not the caning laelia occurs is not true.
|
sent1: {F} -> ({E} & ¬{D}) sent2: {A} -> ¬({FK} & ¬{AL}) sent3: ¬{A} -> ({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent4: ({H} & ¬{G}) -> {F} sent5: ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent6: ¬({BS} & ¬{EG}) sent7: ¬({EA} & ¬{EQ}) sent8: ¬({BN} & ¬{T}) sent9: ¬({BA} & ¬{IQ}) sent10: ¬{I} -> ({H} & ¬{G}) sent11: ¬({AP} & ¬{BB}) sent12: ¬({GB} & ¬{DD}) sent13: ¬({FH} & ¬{R}) sent14: ¬({II} & ¬{HC}) sent15: ¬{D} -> ({B} & ¬{C}) sent16: ({B} & ¬{C}) -> ¬{A} sent17: ¬({BS} & ¬{DR}) sent18: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB})
|
[
"sent18 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent18 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the pleasing but not the debacle happens is wrong.
|
¬({FK} & ¬{AL})
|
[] | 6 | 1 | 0 | 17 | 0 | 17 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the inexactness but not the caning laelia happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the encoring happens but the lighting extraction does not occur if the fact that the drip occurs hold. sent2: if the importunity happens that the pleasing happens and the debacle does not occur is not right. sent3: that the inexactness happens but the caning laelia does not occur is caused by that the importunity does not occur. sent4: the dripping happens if that the caning compensation but not the pooling reenactment happens is correct. sent5: that the inexactness and the caning laelia occurs is wrong. sent6: the fact that the caning tune but not the ophthalmectomy happens does not hold. sent7: that the engraving but not the scheduling occurs is not true. sent8: that the chancroidalness happens and the waterspout does not occur is wrong. sent9: the fact that the layering nutshell and the illegitimateness happens does not hold. sent10: that the caning compensation but not the pooling reenactment occurs is caused by that the lighting calefaction does not occur. sent11: that the bidding and the non-semanticsness happens does not hold. sent12: the fact that the caning midsummer occurs and the veering does not occur is incorrect. sent13: the fact that the layering Tutsi and the intransitiveness happens is incorrect. sent14: that the interrupting but not the layering saute occurs is not true. sent15: the caulescentness and the non-Scythianness happens if the fact that the lighting extraction does not occur is right. sent16: that the caulescentness but not the Scythian happens prevents the importunity. sent17: the fact that the caning tune and the non-parenteralness happens is wrong. sent18: the fact that the inexactness but not the caning laelia occurs is not true. ; $proof$ =
|
sent18 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the infructescence is anticoagulative.
|
{C}{b}
|
sent1: the animalcule is anticoagulative and is caprine. sent2: the infructescence does not citify. sent3: the animalcule is caprine and it citifies. sent4: that the infructescence does not citify is not incorrect if the animalcule citify. sent5: the photogravure is a calamus that does suck. sent6: if the infructescence citifies then the animalcule does not citifies and is anticoagulative. sent7: if the animalcule is non-caprine then the infructescence is not anticoagulative. sent8: the animalcule is caprine.
|
sent1: ({C}{a} & {A}{a}) sent2: ¬{B}{b} sent3: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent4: {B}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent5: ({I}{eq} & {CT}{eq}) sent6: {B}{b} -> (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent7: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{C}{b} sent8: {A}{a}
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: the animalcule does citify.;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> int1: {B}{a};"
] |
the infructescence is not anticoagulative.
|
¬{C}{b}
|
[] | 5 | 3 | null | 7 | 0 | 7 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the infructescence is anticoagulative. ; $context$ = sent1: the animalcule is anticoagulative and is caprine. sent2: the infructescence does not citify. sent3: the animalcule is caprine and it citifies. sent4: that the infructescence does not citify is not incorrect if the animalcule citify. sent5: the photogravure is a calamus that does suck. sent6: if the infructescence citifies then the animalcule does not citifies and is anticoagulative. sent7: if the animalcule is non-caprine then the infructescence is not anticoagulative. sent8: the animalcule is caprine. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> int1: the animalcule does citify.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the conidiophore does not cane quadrumvirate is correct.
|
¬{D}{b}
|
sent1: if the grip is a kind of a masted but it is constitutional then the conidiophore does not cane quadrumvirate. sent2: there is something such that that it is both not a travel and not binucleate does not hold. sent3: the grip is oleaceous and a masted.
|
sent1: ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent2: (Ex): ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{F}x) sent3: ({A}{a} & {B}{a})
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: the grip is a masted.;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> int1: {B}{a};"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | null | 0 | 0 | 0 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the conidiophore does not cane quadrumvirate is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the grip is a kind of a masted but it is constitutional then the conidiophore does not cane quadrumvirate. sent2: there is something such that that it is both not a travel and not binucleate does not hold. sent3: the grip is oleaceous and a masted. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> int1: the grip is a masted.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there exists something such that if it is both not a date and composite then it is not a straight is not true.
|
¬((Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x)
|
sent1: there exists something such that if it does date and it is a composite it is not straight. sent2: there is something such that if that it is not a date and is a kind of a composite is not wrong it is straight. sent3: if the know-it-all is not a jaeger and does debate then it is a composite. sent4: something that does not light hydropathy and is a composite is not a whip. sent5: if the Cherokee dates and is composite then it is non-straight. sent6: there is something such that if it is an immunologist and it is anestrous the fact that it is not a kind of a hiss is not false. sent7: the Cherokee is not non-straight if it is not a date but a composite. sent8: the fact that the Cherokee is not a straight is true if it is not a date but composite. sent9: if that the Cherokee is not composite but a estivation is not false then it does not layer fourpence. sent10: there is something such that if that it is a kind of a roble that does light hydropathy is right it is not reticulate. sent11: there is something such that if it is a FTO and it is a kind of a nutshell then it is not choragic. sent12: the Cherokee is not a kind of a heraldry if it is not a date and it bows. sent13: there exists something such that if it lights nutshell and is a documentation then it is not a kind of a Siouan. sent14: there is something such that if it is pedunculate and it is palpebrate then it is not a kind of a pentacle. sent15: if the Cherokee does not layer dough and is a date then it does teeter-totter. sent16: the Cherokee is not straight if it is both not a trustbuster and a front. sent17: if the Cherokee is both not a date and a brachycephaly it does plasticize.
|
sent1: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent2: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent3: (¬{JH}{cb} & {EJ}{cb}) -> {AB}{cb} sent4: (x): (¬{DL}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{GI}x sent5: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent6: (Ex): ({BF}x & {AD}x) -> ¬{FH}x sent7: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent8: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent9: (¬{AB}{aa} & {IP}{aa}) -> ¬{AS}{aa} sent10: (Ex): ({GJ}x & {DL}x) -> ¬{HA}x sent11: (Ex): ({HU}x & {BJ}x) -> ¬{BS}x sent12: (¬{AA}{aa} & {DS}{aa}) -> ¬{JC}{aa} sent13: (Ex): ({C}x & {FB}x) -> ¬{HF}x sent14: (Ex): ({CN}x & {EO}x) -> ¬{BR}x sent15: (¬{FM}{aa} & {AA}{aa}) -> {D}{aa} sent16: (¬{N}{aa} & {HB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent17: (¬{AA}{aa} & {IJ}{aa}) -> {BU}{aa}
|
[
"sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] |
if the nonagenarian does not light hydropathy but it is a composite it is not a whip.
|
(¬{DL}{hn} & {AB}{hn}) -> ¬{GI}{hn}
|
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 16 | 0 | 16 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if it is both not a date and composite then it is not a straight is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it does date and it is a composite it is not straight. sent2: there is something such that if that it is not a date and is a kind of a composite is not wrong it is straight. sent3: if the know-it-all is not a jaeger and does debate then it is a composite. sent4: something that does not light hydropathy and is a composite is not a whip. sent5: if the Cherokee dates and is composite then it is non-straight. sent6: there is something such that if it is an immunologist and it is anestrous the fact that it is not a kind of a hiss is not false. sent7: the Cherokee is not non-straight if it is not a date but a composite. sent8: the fact that the Cherokee is not a straight is true if it is not a date but composite. sent9: if that the Cherokee is not composite but a estivation is not false then it does not layer fourpence. sent10: there is something such that if that it is a kind of a roble that does light hydropathy is right it is not reticulate. sent11: there is something such that if it is a FTO and it is a kind of a nutshell then it is not choragic. sent12: the Cherokee is not a kind of a heraldry if it is not a date and it bows. sent13: there exists something such that if it lights nutshell and is a documentation then it is not a kind of a Siouan. sent14: there is something such that if it is pedunculate and it is palpebrate then it is not a kind of a pentacle. sent15: if the Cherokee does not layer dough and is a date then it does teeter-totter. sent16: the Cherokee is not straight if it is both not a trustbuster and a front. sent17: if the Cherokee is both not a date and a brachycephaly it does plasticize. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it does not cane self-help then the fact that it does canter and it does not transform is not right.
|
(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
sent1: the fact that the worsted does cane disclosure but it is not aquatics is wrong if that it does not cane self-help is correct. sent2: there exists something such that if it does not light bacteriology then the fact that it is a kind of thick thing that is not a novelty does not hold. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a Phanerozoic then it canes thousandth and it does not layer Melampsoraceae. sent4: the worsted is a hyaline and does not swag if it does not evanesce. sent5: if something is not a freewheeler the fact that it is not non-catechetical and it is not a cantering is wrong. sent6: if the worsted does not cane self-help that it is a cantering and does not transform does not hold. sent7: the fact that there is something such that if it does not cane self-help that it is a cantering and does transform is incorrect hold.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({BK}{aa} & ¬{AM}{aa}) sent2: (Ex): ¬{GS}x -> ¬({IS}x & ¬{IP}x) sent3: (Ex): ¬{B}x -> ({EP}x & ¬{IB}x) sent4: ¬{IJ}{aa} -> ({HU}{aa} & ¬{EN}{aa}) sent5: (x): ¬{FF}x -> ¬({GK}x & ¬{AA}x) sent6: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent7: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x)
|
[
"sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the flatfoot is catechetical and is not a cantering is not right if it is not a freewheeler.
|
¬{FF}{fe} -> ¬({GK}{fe} & ¬{AA}{fe})
|
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 6 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it does not cane self-help then the fact that it does canter and it does not transform is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the worsted does cane disclosure but it is not aquatics is wrong if that it does not cane self-help is correct. sent2: there exists something such that if it does not light bacteriology then the fact that it is a kind of thick thing that is not a novelty does not hold. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a Phanerozoic then it canes thousandth and it does not layer Melampsoraceae. sent4: the worsted is a hyaline and does not swag if it does not evanesce. sent5: if something is not a freewheeler the fact that it is not non-catechetical and it is not a cantering is wrong. sent6: if the worsted does not cane self-help that it is a cantering and does not transform does not hold. sent7: the fact that there is something such that if it does not cane self-help that it is a cantering and does transform is incorrect hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the bur is not postal.
|
¬{C}{c}
|
sent1: if a postal thing is not restless the mirror is not obtuse. sent2: the bur is not postal if the fact that the fact that the vicar is not restless and is obtuse does not hold is true. sent3: if the mirror is not restless then that the vicar is a kind of restless thing that is obtuse does not hold. sent4: there exists something such that it is figurative thing that does not layer argon. sent5: the mirror is not restless if something is figurative but it does not layer argon. sent6: that the mirror is not postal but it is restless is false.
|
sent1: (x): ({C}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{B}{a} sent2: ¬(¬{A}{b} & {B}{b}) -> ¬{C}{c} sent3: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{A}{b} & {B}{b}) sent4: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent5: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent6: ¬(¬{C}{a} & {A}{a})
|
[
"sent4 & sent5 -> int1: the mirror is not restless.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the vicar is not restless and is obtuse does not hold.; sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 & sent5 -> int1: ¬{A}{a}; sent3 & int1 -> int2: ¬(¬{A}{b} & {B}{b}); sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the bur is not postal. ; $context$ = sent1: if a postal thing is not restless the mirror is not obtuse. sent2: the bur is not postal if the fact that the fact that the vicar is not restless and is obtuse does not hold is true. sent3: if the mirror is not restless then that the vicar is a kind of restless thing that is obtuse does not hold. sent4: there exists something such that it is figurative thing that does not layer argon. sent5: the mirror is not restless if something is figurative but it does not layer argon. sent6: that the mirror is not postal but it is restless is false. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 & sent5 -> int1: the mirror is not restless.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the vicar is not restless and is obtuse does not hold.; sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the inositol is a Etna.
|
{A}{aa}
|
sent1: the herm is a Etna. sent2: the polymastigote does not cohere. sent3: if something is not aggressive but it is symmetrical then it coheres. sent4: if something that is aggressive is symmetrical it coheres. sent5: if there is something such that that it is not surface-to-air is true then the inositol is not aggressive but it is symmetrical. sent6: the fact that the inositol is fortunate hold. sent7: the lumber is symmetrical. sent8: the fact that the inositol is not pneumococcal is not wrong. sent9: if something is a work it is a heavy. sent10: something is a Etna if it does cohere.
|
sent1: {A}{br} sent2: ¬{B}{bn} sent3: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent4: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent5: (x): ¬{C}x -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent6: {HM}{aa} sent7: {AB}{jc} sent8: ¬{JH}{aa} sent9: (x): {IR}x -> {BH}x sent10: (x): {B}x -> {A}x
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: if the inositol is not aggressive but it is symmetrical then it coheres.; sent10 -> int2: the inositol is a Etna if it does cohere.;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> int1: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; sent10 -> int2: {B}{aa} -> {A}{aa};"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | null | 7 | 0 | 7 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the inositol is a Etna. ; $context$ = sent1: the herm is a Etna. sent2: the polymastigote does not cohere. sent3: if something is not aggressive but it is symmetrical then it coheres. sent4: if something that is aggressive is symmetrical it coheres. sent5: if there is something such that that it is not surface-to-air is true then the inositol is not aggressive but it is symmetrical. sent6: the fact that the inositol is fortunate hold. sent7: the lumber is symmetrical. sent8: the fact that the inositol is not pneumococcal is not wrong. sent9: if something is a work it is a heavy. sent10: something is a Etna if it does cohere. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> int1: if the inositol is not aggressive but it is symmetrical then it coheres.; sent10 -> int2: the inositol is a Etna if it does cohere.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the confidante is a cacique if it is a antheridiophore.
|
{A}{a} -> {B}{a}
|
sent1: if the confidante is a antheridiophore then it does not stiffen and it canes Chelone. sent2: if something does not stiffen and does cane Chelone it is a cacique.
|
sent1: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent2: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the confidante is a antheridiophore.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the confidante does not stiffen and canes Chelone.; sent2 -> int2: the confidante is a cacique if it does not stiffen and canes Chelone.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the confidante is a cacique.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}{a}; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}); sent2 -> int2: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {B}{a}; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the confidante is a cacique if it is a antheridiophore. ; $context$ = sent1: if the confidante is a antheridiophore then it does not stiffen and it canes Chelone. sent2: if something does not stiffen and does cane Chelone it is a cacique. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the confidante is a antheridiophore.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the confidante does not stiffen and canes Chelone.; sent2 -> int2: the confidante is a cacique if it does not stiffen and canes Chelone.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the confidante is a cacique.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if it is headless then it retires.
|
(Ex): {A}x -> {C}x
|
sent1: the gravestone canes phoneme if it retires. sent2: there exists something such that if the fact that it is a kind of a petrifaction hold then it is a kind of a cochineal. sent3: there is something such that if it is a Bethune it is calcitic. sent4: there exists something such that if it lights leprosy the fact that it does reel is not false. sent5: the Coloradan is a Esther if it is headless. sent6: the Coloradan retires if it is flimsy. sent7: if the Coloradan canes officiant it does light opus. sent8: something is incomprehensible if it does cane kumquat. sent9: there exists something such that if it does light gravestone then it is uninfluential. sent10: the Coloradan does retire if that it is headless is true. sent11: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a mugging it is photomechanical. sent12: if the thiocyanate does retire that it is a graining is correct. sent13: if something is hand-held then it is a kind of a amrinone.
|
sent1: {C}{dl} -> {FE}{dl} sent2: (Ex): {FM}x -> {EM}x sent3: (Ex): {CD}x -> {FD}x sent4: (Ex): {DE}x -> {IC}x sent5: {A}{aa} -> {DN}{aa} sent6: {EG}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent7: {BD}{aa} -> {EC}{aa} sent8: (x): {BA}x -> {IP}x sent9: (Ex): {CU}x -> {AQ}x sent10: {A}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent11: (Ex): {EB}x -> {BF}x sent12: {C}{ib} -> {HO}{ib} sent13: (x): {FQ}x -> {EL}x
|
[
"sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there exists something such that if it is hand-held it is a amrinone.
|
(Ex): {FQ}x -> {EL}x
|
[
"sent13 -> int1: that the officiant is the amrinone if the officiant is hand-held is not incorrect.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is headless then it retires. ; $context$ = sent1: the gravestone canes phoneme if it retires. sent2: there exists something such that if the fact that it is a kind of a petrifaction hold then it is a kind of a cochineal. sent3: there is something such that if it is a Bethune it is calcitic. sent4: there exists something such that if it lights leprosy the fact that it does reel is not false. sent5: the Coloradan is a Esther if it is headless. sent6: the Coloradan retires if it is flimsy. sent7: if the Coloradan canes officiant it does light opus. sent8: something is incomprehensible if it does cane kumquat. sent9: there exists something such that if it does light gravestone then it is uninfluential. sent10: the Coloradan does retire if that it is headless is true. sent11: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a mugging it is photomechanical. sent12: if the thiocyanate does retire that it is a graining is correct. sent13: if something is hand-held then it is a kind of a amrinone. ; $proof$ =
|
sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the corral does light merit or is not lunar or both is wrong.
|
¬({B}{a} v ¬{C}{a})
|
sent1: that something is electromechanical and/or it does not light renter does not hold if it does pool wasp. sent2: the fact that something either lights merit or is not lunar or both is incorrect if it drugs. sent3: if something is not a kind of a drug it does light merit and/or is not lunar. sent4: the fact that something is a kind of a rounding hold if it is lunar. sent5: if the bayberry is non-calisthenic then it does light merit or it is not a drug or both. sent6: the corral is a kind of lunar thing that is Creole. sent7: there are non-bivalent things. sent8: there exists something such that it is apocalyptic and is non-bivalent. sent9: that the wasp is a kind of Creole thing that is not a kind of a Berkeley does not hold. sent10: if something is not a Creole the fact that it is non-calisthenic a drug is false. sent11: the corral does drug if something that is apocalyptic is not bivalent.
|
sent1: (x): {DQ}x -> ¬({S}x v ¬{BH}x) sent2: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}x v ¬{C}x) sent3: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({B}x v ¬{C}x) sent4: (x): {C}x -> {AH}x sent5: ¬{E}{b} -> ({B}{b} v ¬{A}{b}) sent6: ({C}{a} & {D}{a}) sent7: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent8: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent9: ¬({D}{c} & ¬{F}{c}) sent10: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & {A}x) sent11: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a}
|
[
"sent8 & sent11 -> int1: the corral is a drug.; sent2 -> int2: the fact that the fact that the corral lights merit or is not lunar or both hold is not right if it is a kind of a drug.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 & sent11 -> int1: {A}{a}; sent2 -> int2: {A}{a} -> ¬({B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}); int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there is something such that it is a rounding that is non-pyretic.
|
(Ex): ({AH}x & ¬{HO}x)
|
[
"sent4 -> int3: the corral is a rounding if it is lunar.; sent6 -> int4: the corral is lunar.; int3 & int4 -> int5: that the corral does round hold.;"
] | 5 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the corral does light merit or is not lunar or both is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is electromechanical and/or it does not light renter does not hold if it does pool wasp. sent2: the fact that something either lights merit or is not lunar or both is incorrect if it drugs. sent3: if something is not a kind of a drug it does light merit and/or is not lunar. sent4: the fact that something is a kind of a rounding hold if it is lunar. sent5: if the bayberry is non-calisthenic then it does light merit or it is not a drug or both. sent6: the corral is a kind of lunar thing that is Creole. sent7: there are non-bivalent things. sent8: there exists something such that it is apocalyptic and is non-bivalent. sent9: that the wasp is a kind of Creole thing that is not a kind of a Berkeley does not hold. sent10: if something is not a Creole the fact that it is non-calisthenic a drug is false. sent11: the corral does drug if something that is apocalyptic is not bivalent. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 & sent11 -> int1: the corral is a drug.; sent2 -> int2: the fact that the fact that the corral lights merit or is not lunar or both hold is not right if it is a kind of a drug.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the halfness does not occur.
|
¬{A}
|
sent1: the celiacness occurs. sent2: the stipulation occurs. sent3: the zygoticness happens and the caning centennial happens. sent4: the searching happens. sent5: the halfness happens and the compressibleness occurs. sent6: the unsoldness and the decline happens. sent7: the hedgehoping occurs and the caning centennial happens. sent8: the pop-up occurs. sent9: the squeaker happens. sent10: both the diaphysealness and the cytokineticness happens. sent11: the layering call-out and the layering Ebola occurs. sent12: the vocalness occurs. sent13: the compulsion occurs.
|
sent1: {CE} sent2: {EU} sent3: ({AH} & {Q}) sent4: {GH} sent5: ({A} & {B}) sent6: ({BI} & {HC}) sent7: ({DC} & {Q}) sent8: {JC} sent9: {DK} sent10: ({IP} & {AS}) sent11: ({BO} & {JI}) sent12: {HK} sent13: {EC}
|
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the halfness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the celiacness occurs. sent2: the stipulation occurs. sent3: the zygoticness happens and the caning centennial happens. sent4: the searching happens. sent5: the halfness happens and the compressibleness occurs. sent6: the unsoldness and the decline happens. sent7: the hedgehoping occurs and the caning centennial happens. sent8: the pop-up occurs. sent9: the squeaker happens. sent10: both the diaphysealness and the cytokineticness happens. sent11: the layering call-out and the layering Ebola occurs. sent12: the vocalness occurs. sent13: the compulsion occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the bioelectricity does not occur.
|
¬{D}
|
sent1: the fewerness happens and the subdivision occurs. sent2: the unoriginalness does not occur. sent3: the subdivision occurs. sent4: the bioelectricity does not occur if both the fewerness and the minister occurs. sent5: if the subdivision does not occur then the anthropometry does not occur but the fewerness occurs. sent6: the anthropometry occurs. sent7: the Caliphate and the lockup occurs. sent8: if the fact that the acupressure does not occur is not incorrect then the hat happens but the subdivision does not occur. sent9: the lighting entomion occurs if the anthropometry happens. sent10: the bioelectricity and the ministering occurs if the anthropometry does not occur. sent11: the deforestation occurs and the waggery happens. sent12: the ministering occurs and the anthropometry occurs. sent13: if the hat occurs then the subdivision occurs and the fewerness does not occur.
|
sent1: ({C} & {E}) sent2: ¬{IB} sent3: {E} sent4: ({C} & {A}) -> ¬{D} sent5: ¬{E} -> (¬{B} & {C}) sent6: {B} sent7: ({JD} & {K}) sent8: ¬{G} -> ({F} & ¬{E}) sent9: {B} -> {FE} sent10: ¬{B} -> ({D} & {A}) sent11: ({JK} & {DH}) sent12: ({A} & {B}) sent13: {F} -> ({E} & ¬{C})
|
[
"sent12 -> int1: the ministering happens.; sent1 -> int2: the fewerness happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fewerness and the minister happens.; int3 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent12 -> int1: {A}; sent1 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({C} & {A}); int3 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the bioelectricity occurs.
|
{D}
|
[] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the bioelectricity does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the fewerness happens and the subdivision occurs. sent2: the unoriginalness does not occur. sent3: the subdivision occurs. sent4: the bioelectricity does not occur if both the fewerness and the minister occurs. sent5: if the subdivision does not occur then the anthropometry does not occur but the fewerness occurs. sent6: the anthropometry occurs. sent7: the Caliphate and the lockup occurs. sent8: if the fact that the acupressure does not occur is not incorrect then the hat happens but the subdivision does not occur. sent9: the lighting entomion occurs if the anthropometry happens. sent10: the bioelectricity and the ministering occurs if the anthropometry does not occur. sent11: the deforestation occurs and the waggery happens. sent12: the ministering occurs and the anthropometry occurs. sent13: if the hat occurs then the subdivision occurs and the fewerness does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent12 -> int1: the ministering happens.; sent1 -> int2: the fewerness happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fewerness and the minister happens.; int3 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that something is side-to-side thing that slithers is not right.
|
¬((Ex): ({C}x & {A}x))
|
sent1: if the Nestorian does not slither then the fact that it is a kind of a horn that is not side-to-side is incorrect. sent2: the Nestorian does light spontaneity. sent3: there exists something such that it slithers. sent4: the Nestorian does slither and it does descant. sent5: the whinchat does light leprosy. sent6: the fact that the Nestorian lights leprosy is not wrong. sent7: the Nestorian descants. sent8: something is side-to-side. sent9: the airdock is a kind of a horn if that the Nestorian horn but it is not side-to-side is incorrect. sent10: the Nestorian does light leprosy and it is side-to-side.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({DB}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent2: {JG}{a} sent3: (Ex): {A}x sent4: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent5: {D}{ce} sent6: {D}{a} sent7: {B}{a} sent8: (Ex): {C}x sent9: ¬({DB}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {DB}{al} sent10: ({D}{a} & {C}{a})
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: that the Nestorian does not slither is wrong.; sent10 -> int2: that the Nestorian is side-to-side is correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the Nestorian is side-to-side and it slithers is right.; int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> int1: {A}{a}; sent10 -> int2: {C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({C}{a} & {A}{a}); int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the airdock is a kind of a horn that is a kind of a depravity.
|
({DB}{al} & {DR}{al})
|
[] | 5 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that something is side-to-side thing that slithers is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Nestorian does not slither then the fact that it is a kind of a horn that is not side-to-side is incorrect. sent2: the Nestorian does light spontaneity. sent3: there exists something such that it slithers. sent4: the Nestorian does slither and it does descant. sent5: the whinchat does light leprosy. sent6: the fact that the Nestorian lights leprosy is not wrong. sent7: the Nestorian descants. sent8: something is side-to-side. sent9: the airdock is a kind of a horn if that the Nestorian horn but it is not side-to-side is incorrect. sent10: the Nestorian does light leprosy and it is side-to-side. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> int1: that the Nestorian does not slither is wrong.; sent10 -> int2: that the Nestorian is side-to-side is correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the Nestorian is side-to-side and it slithers is right.; int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the loam is not mass-spectrometric.
|
¬{D}{b}
|
sent1: the jack either is mass-spectrometric or canes severalty or both if there is something such that it is a belly. sent2: that something is both a belly and not improvident is false if it does not cane severalty. sent3: that there is something such that it is a creeps is not false. sent4: the loam is improvident if the jack does belly. sent5: there is something such that it is improvident. sent6: if there exists something such that it is improvident then that the jack bellies and/or canes severalty hold. sent7: if something is not campanulate the fact that it is away and/or it canes Hardy does not hold. sent8: the jack does not cane severalty if the fact that the gristmill is away and/or it canes Hardy is not right. sent9: the fact that that the primitive is a croak and does prank is wrong hold if something creeps. sent10: if something is mass-spectrometric then it is a belly. sent11: the loam is mass-spectrometric if the fact that the jack is a belly hold. sent12: there are campanulate and non-Cuban things. sent13: there exists something such that it does cane severalty. sent14: something either is a belly or is not improvident or both if it does cane severalty. sent15: if the fact that the jack is not away and does not cane severalty is not true then it cane severalty. sent16: if that the primitive is a croak and it does prank is not right then it is not Cuban. sent17: if the jack canes severalty the loam is mass-spectrometric.
|
sent1: (x): {B}x -> ({D}{a} v {C}{a}) sent2: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{A}x) sent3: (Ex): {K}x sent4: {B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent5: (Ex): {A}x sent6: (x): {A}x -> ({B}{a} v {C}{a}) sent7: (x): ¬{G}x -> ¬({F}x v {E}x) sent8: ¬({F}{c} v {E}{c}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent9: (x): {K}x -> ¬({I}{d} & {J}{d}) sent10: (x): {D}x -> {B}x sent11: {B}{a} -> {D}{b} sent12: (Ex): ({G}x & ¬{H}x) sent13: (Ex): {C}x sent14: (x): {C}x -> ({B}x v ¬{A}x) sent15: ¬(¬{F}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {C}{a} sent16: ¬({I}{d} & {J}{d}) -> ¬{H}{d} sent17: {C}{a} -> {D}{b}
|
[
"sent5 & sent6 -> int1: either the jack bellies or it canes severalty or both.; int1 & sent11 & sent17 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 & sent6 -> int1: ({B}{a} v {C}{a}); int1 & sent11 & sent17 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the loam is not mass-spectrometric.
|
¬{D}{b}
|
[
"sent14 -> int2: if the jack does cane severalty then it either is a kind of a belly or is not improvident or both.;"
] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the loam is not mass-spectrometric. ; $context$ = sent1: the jack either is mass-spectrometric or canes severalty or both if there is something such that it is a belly. sent2: that something is both a belly and not improvident is false if it does not cane severalty. sent3: that there is something such that it is a creeps is not false. sent4: the loam is improvident if the jack does belly. sent5: there is something such that it is improvident. sent6: if there exists something such that it is improvident then that the jack bellies and/or canes severalty hold. sent7: if something is not campanulate the fact that it is away and/or it canes Hardy does not hold. sent8: the jack does not cane severalty if the fact that the gristmill is away and/or it canes Hardy is not right. sent9: the fact that that the primitive is a croak and does prank is wrong hold if something creeps. sent10: if something is mass-spectrometric then it is a belly. sent11: the loam is mass-spectrometric if the fact that the jack is a belly hold. sent12: there are campanulate and non-Cuban things. sent13: there exists something such that it does cane severalty. sent14: something either is a belly or is not improvident or both if it does cane severalty. sent15: if the fact that the jack is not away and does not cane severalty is not true then it cane severalty. sent16: if that the primitive is a croak and it does prank is not right then it is not Cuban. sent17: if the jack canes severalty the loam is mass-spectrometric. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 & sent6 -> int1: either the jack bellies or it canes severalty or both.; int1 & sent11 & sent17 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the hypersecretion is not Nazarene.
|
¬{D}{b}
|
sent1: the compressor is not gravitational and it is not Nazarene. sent2: there exists something such that it is not gravitational and it lights nondescript. sent3: something does light nondescript but it is non-Nazarene. sent4: if there exists something such that that it is not gravitational is right the compressor is not a kind of a Nazarene. sent5: something is a moneyed and is not Aboriginal. sent6: the hypersecretion is gravitational if something that does not light nondescript is not a kind of a Nazarene. sent7: something does not layer hypersecretion. sent8: the compressor is not gravitational and does not light nondescript if there is something such that it does not layer hypersecretion. sent9: if something that is not a kind of a Nazarene lights nondescript then the hypersecretion is gravitational. sent10: if that something does not layer hypersecretion and/or it is not gravitational does not hold it is not a kind of a Nazarene. sent11: the fact that if something is not gravitational and does not light nondescript the hypersecretion is Nazarene hold. sent12: the compressor is a reaffiliation. sent13: if the hypersecretion does not light nondescript that it does not layer hypersecretion and/or is not gravitational does not hold. sent14: the fact that the compressor is not a kind of a restlessness but it is a kind of a moneyed does not hold if the Altaic is a bohemianism.
|
sent1: (¬{B}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent2: (Ex): (¬{B}x & {C}x) sent3: (Ex): ({C}x & ¬{D}x) sent4: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{D}{a} sent5: (Ex): ({E}x & ¬{CR}x) sent6: (x): (¬{C}x & ¬{D}x) -> {B}{b} sent7: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent8: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent9: (x): (¬{D}x & {C}x) -> {B}{b} sent10: (x): ¬(¬{A}x v ¬{B}x) -> ¬{D}x sent11: (x): (¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) -> {D}{b} sent12: {CT}{a} sent13: ¬{C}{b} -> ¬(¬{A}{b} v ¬{B}{b}) sent14: {G}{c} -> ¬(¬{F}{a} & {E}{a})
|
[
"sent7 & sent8 -> int1: the compressor is a kind of non-gravitational thing that does not light nondescript.; int1 -> int2: something is a kind of non-gravitational thing that does not light nondescript.; int2 & sent11 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent7 & sent8 -> int1: (¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): (¬{B}x & ¬{C}x); int2 & sent11 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the hypersecretion is not Nazarene.
|
¬{D}{b}
|
[
"sent10 -> int3: if the fact that the hypersecretion does not layer hypersecretion or is not gravitational or both is false then it is not a Nazarene.;"
] | 7 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the hypersecretion is not Nazarene. ; $context$ = sent1: the compressor is not gravitational and it is not Nazarene. sent2: there exists something such that it is not gravitational and it lights nondescript. sent3: something does light nondescript but it is non-Nazarene. sent4: if there exists something such that that it is not gravitational is right the compressor is not a kind of a Nazarene. sent5: something is a moneyed and is not Aboriginal. sent6: the hypersecretion is gravitational if something that does not light nondescript is not a kind of a Nazarene. sent7: something does not layer hypersecretion. sent8: the compressor is not gravitational and does not light nondescript if there is something such that it does not layer hypersecretion. sent9: if something that is not a kind of a Nazarene lights nondescript then the hypersecretion is gravitational. sent10: if that something does not layer hypersecretion and/or it is not gravitational does not hold it is not a kind of a Nazarene. sent11: the fact that if something is not gravitational and does not light nondescript the hypersecretion is Nazarene hold. sent12: the compressor is a reaffiliation. sent13: if the hypersecretion does not light nondescript that it does not layer hypersecretion and/or is not gravitational does not hold. sent14: the fact that the compressor is not a kind of a restlessness but it is a kind of a moneyed does not hold if the Altaic is a bohemianism. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 & sent8 -> int1: the compressor is a kind of non-gravitational thing that does not light nondescript.; int1 -> int2: something is a kind of non-gravitational thing that does not light nondescript.; int2 & sent11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there exists something such that if it is not a shrug it is not ineligible and is a kind of a SOB is wrong.
|
¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x))
|
sent1: the sweetleaf does not cane wingstem but it is a SOB if it is not weedless. sent2: there exists something such that if that it does not shrug is not wrong then it is not ineligible. sent3: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a kind of a shrug hold it is not eligible but a SOB. sent4: the aperture is not a kind of a discussant but it is ineligible if it does not cane nondisjunction. sent5: there exists something such that if it does not shrug it is a SOB. sent6: if the sweetleaf does not shrug then it is ineligible and a SOB. sent7: if the sweetleaf shrugs then it is not ineligible and it is a kind of a SOB. sent8: there exists something such that if it is a shrug it is eligible and it is a SOB. sent9: the sweetleaf is not ineligible and is a SOB if it is not a shrug. sent10: the sweetleaf is a kind of a SOB if it is not a shrug. sent11: if something is not a Kreisler then it is not tidal and it is harmonious. sent12: the strongroom is both not clad and a shrug if it is not a kind of a SCLK. sent13: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a polypropenonitrile it does not light lights-out and is onomatopoeic.
|
sent1: ¬{CI}{aa} -> (¬{DD}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent2: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬{AA}x sent3: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent4: ¬{CQ}{r} -> (¬{E}{r} & {AA}{r}) sent5: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> {AB}x sent6: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent7: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent8: (Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent9: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent10: ¬{A}{aa} -> {AB}{aa} sent11: (x): ¬{DL}x -> (¬{FL}x & {HJ}x) sent12: ¬{AS}{fk} -> (¬{GI}{fk} & {A}{fk}) sent13: (Ex): ¬{EQ}x -> (¬{FD}x & {HS}x)
|
[
"sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there is something such that if it is not a Kreisler then it is both not tidal and harmonious.
|
(Ex): ¬{DL}x -> (¬{FL}x & {HJ}x)
|
[
"sent11 -> int1: the horsecloth is a kind of non-tidal thing that is harmonious if it is not a Kreisler.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if it is not a shrug it is not ineligible and is a kind of a SOB is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the sweetleaf does not cane wingstem but it is a SOB if it is not weedless. sent2: there exists something such that if that it does not shrug is not wrong then it is not ineligible. sent3: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a kind of a shrug hold it is not eligible but a SOB. sent4: the aperture is not a kind of a discussant but it is ineligible if it does not cane nondisjunction. sent5: there exists something such that if it does not shrug it is a SOB. sent6: if the sweetleaf does not shrug then it is ineligible and a SOB. sent7: if the sweetleaf shrugs then it is not ineligible and it is a kind of a SOB. sent8: there exists something such that if it is a shrug it is eligible and it is a SOB. sent9: the sweetleaf is not ineligible and is a SOB if it is not a shrug. sent10: the sweetleaf is a kind of a SOB if it is not a shrug. sent11: if something is not a Kreisler then it is not tidal and it is harmonious. sent12: the strongroom is both not clad and a shrug if it is not a kind of a SCLK. sent13: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a polypropenonitrile it does not light lights-out and is onomatopoeic. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the herm is not allographic and it is not a Stephenson.
|
(¬{E}{d} & ¬{D}{d})
|
sent1: if the liar is not non-cardiovascular then the tortrix is a Stephenson. sent2: either the herm is a Stephenson or it is cardiovascular or both. sent3: the enzyme is allographic. sent4: the fusil is allographic. sent5: if the herm is cardiovascular then the liar is a Stephenson. sent6: if the enzyme is a kind of a Stephenson then the fact that the tortrix is chalky hold. sent7: the enzyme is a kind of a Stephenson if the herm is allographic. sent8: if the tortrix is an old the herm is not a Stephenson and it is not an old. sent9: the fact that the herm is not allographic is not wrong. sent10: either the herm does hand or it is chalky or both. sent11: that the liar is not non-old is right. sent12: the herm is not chalky and it is not a enucleation. sent13: the herm is a kind of non-allographic thing that is not a Stephenson if the tortrix is a Stephenson. sent14: the Igbo is not flimsy and it is not cardiovascular. sent15: the officiant is chalky. sent16: if that the tortrix is a brilliance but it does not light neurohormone is false then the enzyme is not a kind of a brilliance. sent17: the enzyme is a Stephenson if the tortrix is old. sent18: the liar is a kind of a Stephenson if the tortrix is cardiovascular. sent19: if the enzyme is an old then the liar is cardiovascular. sent20: if the enzyme is chalky then the liar is cardiovascular. sent21: the enzyme is an old and/or it is chalky. sent22: the fact that something is not allographic and it is not a Stephenson is wrong if it is old. sent23: the tortrix is a Stephenson and/or is allographic. sent24: the herm is not allographic if the tortrix is a Stephenson. sent25: if the enzyme is a kind of an old then the tortrix is not a Stephenson and it is old.
|
sent1: {C}{c} -> {D}{b} sent2: ({D}{d} v {C}{d}) sent3: {E}{a} sent4: {E}{ac} sent5: {C}{d} -> {D}{c} sent6: {D}{a} -> {B}{b} sent7: {E}{d} -> {D}{a} sent8: {A}{b} -> (¬{D}{d} & ¬{A}{d}) sent9: ¬{E}{d} sent10: ({GB}{d} v {B}{d}) sent11: {A}{c} sent12: (¬{B}{d} & ¬{JA}{d}) sent13: {D}{b} -> (¬{E}{d} & ¬{D}{d}) sent14: (¬{AR}{n} & ¬{C}{n}) sent15: {B}{gn} sent16: ¬({F}{b} & ¬{H}{b}) -> ¬{F}{a} sent17: {A}{b} -> {D}{a} sent18: {C}{b} -> {D}{c} sent19: {A}{a} -> {C}{c} sent20: {B}{a} -> {C}{c} sent21: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}) sent22: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{D}x) sent23: ({D}{b} v {E}{b}) sent24: {D}{b} -> ¬{E}{d} sent25: {A}{a} -> (¬{D}{b} & ¬{A}{b})
|
[
"sent21 & sent19 & sent20 -> int1: the liar is cardiovascular.; sent1 & int1 -> int2: the tortrix is a Stephenson.; sent13 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent21 & sent19 & sent20 -> int1: {C}{c}; sent1 & int1 -> int2: {D}{b}; sent13 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the herm is not allographic and it is not a Stephenson is wrong.
|
¬(¬{E}{d} & ¬{D}{d})
|
[
"sent22 -> int3: if the herm is a kind of an old then the fact that it is not allographic and is not a kind of a Stephenson does not hold.;"
] | 5 | 3 | 3 | 20 | 0 | 20 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the herm is not allographic and it is not a Stephenson. ; $context$ = sent1: if the liar is not non-cardiovascular then the tortrix is a Stephenson. sent2: either the herm is a Stephenson or it is cardiovascular or both. sent3: the enzyme is allographic. sent4: the fusil is allographic. sent5: if the herm is cardiovascular then the liar is a Stephenson. sent6: if the enzyme is a kind of a Stephenson then the fact that the tortrix is chalky hold. sent7: the enzyme is a kind of a Stephenson if the herm is allographic. sent8: if the tortrix is an old the herm is not a Stephenson and it is not an old. sent9: the fact that the herm is not allographic is not wrong. sent10: either the herm does hand or it is chalky or both. sent11: that the liar is not non-old is right. sent12: the herm is not chalky and it is not a enucleation. sent13: the herm is a kind of non-allographic thing that is not a Stephenson if the tortrix is a Stephenson. sent14: the Igbo is not flimsy and it is not cardiovascular. sent15: the officiant is chalky. sent16: if that the tortrix is a brilliance but it does not light neurohormone is false then the enzyme is not a kind of a brilliance. sent17: the enzyme is a Stephenson if the tortrix is old. sent18: the liar is a kind of a Stephenson if the tortrix is cardiovascular. sent19: if the enzyme is an old then the liar is cardiovascular. sent20: if the enzyme is chalky then the liar is cardiovascular. sent21: the enzyme is an old and/or it is chalky. sent22: the fact that something is not allographic and it is not a Stephenson is wrong if it is old. sent23: the tortrix is a Stephenson and/or is allographic. sent24: the herm is not allographic if the tortrix is a Stephenson. sent25: if the enzyme is a kind of an old then the tortrix is not a Stephenson and it is old. ; $proof$ =
|
sent21 & sent19 & sent20 -> int1: the liar is cardiovascular.; sent1 & int1 -> int2: the tortrix is a Stephenson.; sent13 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
not the defloration but the detribalization occurs.
|
(¬{B} & {A})
|
sent1: the subsidence does not occur if the fact that the subsidence happens but the layout does not occur is not right. sent2: the defloration does not occur if the wrinkle occurs and the pooling seeking occurs. sent3: if the layering Gilgamesh does not occur that the defloration does not occur and the detribalization happens does not hold. sent4: the caning labor is prevented by that the expectorating occurs and the pooling bow-tie does not occur. sent5: that the subsidence does not occur causes that the expectorating but not the pooling bow-tie occurs. sent6: both the wrinkle and the pooling seeking happens. sent7: if both the layering predicament and the securing occurs then the biauricularness does not occur. sent8: the fact that that the lighting accession does not occur and the pooling fluorescein occurs is wrong hold if the lighting gowned does not occur. sent9: that the caning labor does not occur results in that both the caning Chloroxylon and the lighting seismography happens. sent10: if the caning Chloroxylon happens then the layering Gilgamesh does not occur. sent11: if the fact that the lighting neurohormone does not occur and the caning clinician does not occur does not hold the onymousness does not occur. sent12: if the biauricularness does not occur then the fact that the Norwegian does not occur and/or the cock-a-doodle-doo does not occur is right. sent13: the fact that the lighting neurohormone does not occur and the caning clinician does not occur is incorrect if the wrinkle does not occur. sent14: the spangling occurs if the fact that the defloration happens but the spangling does not occur is false. sent15: the wrinkling occurs. sent16: if the lighting accession occurs the lighting bellwether happens. sent17: if the fact that the lighting bellwether happens is not wrong then that the subsidence happens but the layout does not occur does not hold. sent18: if the onymousness does not occur then not the biauricularness but the intramolecularness happens. sent19: the layering Gilgamesh happens. sent20: the lighting accession occurs if that the lighting accession does not occur and the pooling fluorescein happens is not true.
|
sent1: ¬({I} & ¬{K}) -> ¬{I} sent2: ({AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent3: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{B} & {A}) sent4: ({G} & ¬{H}) -> ¬{F} sent5: ¬{I} -> ({G} & ¬{H}) sent6: ({AA} & {AB}) sent7: ({HI} & {CS}) -> ¬{Q} sent8: ¬{N} -> ¬(¬{L} & {M}) sent9: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) sent10: {D} -> ¬{C} sent11: ¬(¬{T} & ¬{U}) -> ¬{S} sent12: ¬{Q} -> (¬{O} v ¬{P}) sent13: ¬{AA} -> ¬(¬{T} & ¬{U}) sent14: ¬({B} & ¬{EU}) -> {EU} sent15: {AA} sent16: {L} -> {J} sent17: {J} -> ¬({I} & ¬{K}) sent18: ¬{S} -> (¬{Q} & {R}) sent19: {C} sent20: ¬(¬{L} & {M}) -> {L}
|
[
"sent2 & sent6 -> int1: the defloration does not occur.;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent6 -> int1: ¬{B};"
] |
that not the defloration but the detribalization happens does not hold.
|
¬(¬{B} & {A})
|
[] | 19 | 2 | null | 18 | 0 | 18 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = not the defloration but the detribalization occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the subsidence does not occur if the fact that the subsidence happens but the layout does not occur is not right. sent2: the defloration does not occur if the wrinkle occurs and the pooling seeking occurs. sent3: if the layering Gilgamesh does not occur that the defloration does not occur and the detribalization happens does not hold. sent4: the caning labor is prevented by that the expectorating occurs and the pooling bow-tie does not occur. sent5: that the subsidence does not occur causes that the expectorating but not the pooling bow-tie occurs. sent6: both the wrinkle and the pooling seeking happens. sent7: if both the layering predicament and the securing occurs then the biauricularness does not occur. sent8: the fact that that the lighting accession does not occur and the pooling fluorescein occurs is wrong hold if the lighting gowned does not occur. sent9: that the caning labor does not occur results in that both the caning Chloroxylon and the lighting seismography happens. sent10: if the caning Chloroxylon happens then the layering Gilgamesh does not occur. sent11: if the fact that the lighting neurohormone does not occur and the caning clinician does not occur does not hold the onymousness does not occur. sent12: if the biauricularness does not occur then the fact that the Norwegian does not occur and/or the cock-a-doodle-doo does not occur is right. sent13: the fact that the lighting neurohormone does not occur and the caning clinician does not occur is incorrect if the wrinkle does not occur. sent14: the spangling occurs if the fact that the defloration happens but the spangling does not occur is false. sent15: the wrinkling occurs. sent16: if the lighting accession occurs the lighting bellwether happens. sent17: if the fact that the lighting bellwether happens is not wrong then that the subsidence happens but the layout does not occur does not hold. sent18: if the onymousness does not occur then not the biauricularness but the intramolecularness happens. sent19: the layering Gilgamesh happens. sent20: the lighting accession occurs if that the lighting accession does not occur and the pooling fluorescein happens is not true. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent6 -> int1: the defloration does not occur.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the sweetening happens but the layering samite does not occur does not hold.
|
¬({A} & ¬{C})
|
sent1: the likeness and the bodywork happens if the sweetening does not occur. sent2: the fact that the zymoidness happens hold if that the ursineness but not the zymoidness happens does not hold. sent3: if the shouldering does not occur then that the ursineness and the non-zymoidness happens is incorrect. sent4: both the sweetening and the hydrostaticsness happens. sent5: if both the zymoidness and the non-ursineness happens then the layering samite does not occur. sent6: the zymoidness but not the ursineness happens. sent7: if the hydrostaticsness does not occur and the layering samite does not occur the sweetening does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬{A} -> ({ID} & {FE}) sent2: ¬({E} & ¬{D}) -> {D} sent3: ¬{F} -> ¬({E} & ¬{D}) sent4: ({A} & {B}) sent5: ({D} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{C} sent6: ({D} & ¬{E}) sent7: (¬{B} & ¬{C}) -> ¬{A}
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: the sweetening occurs.; sent5 & sent6 -> int2: the layering samite does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> int1: {A}; sent5 & sent6 -> int2: ¬{C}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the liking occurs and the bodywork happens.
|
({ID} & {FE})
|
[] | 9 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the sweetening happens but the layering samite does not occur does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the likeness and the bodywork happens if the sweetening does not occur. sent2: the fact that the zymoidness happens hold if that the ursineness but not the zymoidness happens does not hold. sent3: if the shouldering does not occur then that the ursineness and the non-zymoidness happens is incorrect. sent4: both the sweetening and the hydrostaticsness happens. sent5: if both the zymoidness and the non-ursineness happens then the layering samite does not occur. sent6: the zymoidness but not the ursineness happens. sent7: if the hydrostaticsness does not occur and the layering samite does not occur the sweetening does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> int1: the sweetening occurs.; sent5 & sent6 -> int2: the layering samite does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the Haida is a kind of a symbolist is not incorrect.
|
{A}{a}
|
sent1: something is not a kind of a symbolist if the fact that it is not realistic is right. sent2: the Stellite is a symbolist. sent3: the brocket is not realistic if the Haida is benevolent but it is not a vinegariness. sent4: the Haida is a symbolist. sent5: if something is not realistic then it is a kind of a symbolist.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{A}x sent2: {A}{ae} sent3: ({D}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{B}{p} sent4: {A}{a} sent5: (x): ¬{B}x -> {A}x
|
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the brocket is a kind of a symbolist.
|
{A}{p}
|
[
"sent5 -> int1: the brocket is a symbolist if it is not realistic.;"
] | 5 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the Haida is a kind of a symbolist is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not a kind of a symbolist if the fact that it is not realistic is right. sent2: the Stellite is a symbolist. sent3: the brocket is not realistic if the Haida is benevolent but it is not a vinegariness. sent4: the Haida is a symbolist. sent5: if something is not realistic then it is a kind of a symbolist. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the caning 120 does not occur.
|
¬{C}
|
sent1: if that the triage occurs and the Cartesianness occurs hold the fact that the recessionariness does not occur is correct. sent2: the triage occurs and the Cartesian happens. sent3: the yoking occurs and the enterprise occurs. sent4: the caning 120 happens if both the non-recessionaryness and the yoke happens.
|
sent1: ({AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent2: ({AA} & {AB}) sent3: ({A} & {D}) sent4: (¬{B} & {A}) -> {C}
|
[
"sent1 & sent2 -> int1: the recessionariness does not occur.; sent3 -> int2: the yoke occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the non-recessionaryness and the yoking happens.; int3 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 & sent2 -> int1: ¬{B}; sent3 -> int2: {A}; int1 & int2 -> int3: (¬{B} & {A}); int3 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the caning 120 does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the triage occurs and the Cartesianness occurs hold the fact that the recessionariness does not occur is correct. sent2: the triage occurs and the Cartesian happens. sent3: the yoking occurs and the enterprise occurs. sent4: the caning 120 happens if both the non-recessionaryness and the yoke happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 & sent2 -> int1: the recessionariness does not occur.; sent3 -> int2: the yoke occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the non-recessionaryness and the yoking happens.; int3 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there is something such that it does not light clearness and is not a downfall is wrong.
|
¬((Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x))
|
sent1: if the earthworm is not plantar then it does not light clearness. sent2: the violinist is a pastness and it is calculous. sent3: there is something such that it does not light clearness. sent4: something that is not a kaki is a pox and does not layer seigniory. sent5: there is something such that it is not a kind of a downfall. sent6: the horsecloth is not a downfall. sent7: the earthworm does not light clearness. sent8: if something is a kind of a pastness and it is a Thamnophilus then it is not a kind of a kaki. sent9: something lights clearness and is not a kind of a downfall. sent10: the earthworm is non-plantar. sent11: something is not a kind of a peat and it is not geomorphologic. sent12: there exists something such that that it does not light clearness and it is a downfall is not wrong. sent13: that the Terry does not layer Terry and it is not plantar if the Terry is not a kind of a OR is not wrong. sent14: if the earthworm is not a flagellate it is not a downfall and not a Vouvray. sent15: something does not light Esther and it is not a Halictidae if it is not plantar. sent16: if the fact that the earthworm is not plantar hold it does not light clearness and is not a downfall. sent17: a pox that does not layer seigniory is not plantar.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{AA}{a} sent2: ({E}{fh} & {G}{fh}) sent3: (Ex): ¬{AA}x sent4: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({C}x & ¬{B}x) sent5: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent6: ¬{AB}{d} sent7: ¬{AA}{a} sent8: (x): ({E}x & {F}x) -> ¬{D}x sent9: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent10: ¬{A}{a} sent11: (Ex): (¬{T}x & ¬{CO}x) sent12: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent13: ¬{IT}{p} -> (¬{CD}{p} & ¬{A}{p}) sent14: ¬{EM}{a} -> (¬{AB}{a} & ¬{CG}{a}) sent15: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{DJ}x & ¬{IA}x) sent16: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent17: (x): ({C}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{A}x
|
[
"sent16 & sent10 -> int1: the earthworm does not light clearness and is not a downfall.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent16 & sent10 -> int1: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the violinist does not light Esther and is not a Halictidae.
|
(¬{DJ}{fh} & ¬{IA}{fh})
|
[
"sent15 -> int2: if the violinist is not plantar then it does not light Esther and it is not a kind of a Halictidae.; sent17 -> int3: if the violinist is a kind of a pox but it does not layer seigniory it is not plantar.; sent4 -> int4: the violinist is a pox but it does not layer seigniory if that it is not a kind of a kaki is not false.; sent8 -> int5: if the violinist is a pastness and is a kind of a Thamnophilus it is not a kaki.; sent2 -> int6: the violinist is a pastness.;"
] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that it does not light clearness and is not a downfall is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the earthworm is not plantar then it does not light clearness. sent2: the violinist is a pastness and it is calculous. sent3: there is something such that it does not light clearness. sent4: something that is not a kaki is a pox and does not layer seigniory. sent5: there is something such that it is not a kind of a downfall. sent6: the horsecloth is not a downfall. sent7: the earthworm does not light clearness. sent8: if something is a kind of a pastness and it is a Thamnophilus then it is not a kind of a kaki. sent9: something lights clearness and is not a kind of a downfall. sent10: the earthworm is non-plantar. sent11: something is not a kind of a peat and it is not geomorphologic. sent12: there exists something such that that it does not light clearness and it is a downfall is not wrong. sent13: that the Terry does not layer Terry and it is not plantar if the Terry is not a kind of a OR is not wrong. sent14: if the earthworm is not a flagellate it is not a downfall and not a Vouvray. sent15: something does not light Esther and it is not a Halictidae if it is not plantar. sent16: if the fact that the earthworm is not plantar hold it does not light clearness and is not a downfall. sent17: a pox that does not layer seigniory is not plantar. ; $proof$ =
|
sent16 & sent10 -> int1: the earthworm does not light clearness and is not a downfall.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the lorgnette is an eviction but it is not a HMO is not wrong.
|
({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})
|
sent1: the fact that something is a HMO and it is an eviction is not right if it is a dig. sent2: if the lorgnette does not layer goldmine then the fact that either it is a ratiocination or it is apopemptic or both is not wrong. sent3: if the plate is a dig then the lorgnette does cane benevolence. sent4: the plate does not cane benevolence if the graphologist is not a kind of a dig and does cane benevolence. sent5: if the lorgnette digs the plate is a kind of an eviction. sent6: the plate does dig. sent7: that the lorgnette is a kind of a HMO and it is a dig is wrong. sent8: something is not a ratiocination and/or it is apopemptic if it does layer goldmine. sent9: the chair is not a Viyella. sent10: that that the lorgnette is both an eviction and a HMO is not false is false if it canes benevolence. sent11: the goldmine is a kind of an eviction if that the plate does not cane benevolence hold. sent12: the graphologist is not a dig but it canes benevolence if the optometrist is not a ratiocination. sent13: the fact that everything does not layer goldmine hold. sent14: if something canes benevolence then that it is an eviction but not a HMO does not hold. sent15: the lorgnette is a monopsony.
|
sent1: (x): {B}x -> ¬({AB}x & {AA}x) sent2: ¬{E}{aa} -> ({C}{aa} v {D}{aa}) sent3: {B}{a} -> {A}{aa} sent4: (¬{B}{b} & {A}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent5: {B}{aa} -> {AA}{a} sent6: {B}{a} sent7: ¬({AB}{aa} & {B}{aa}) sent8: (x): {E}x -> (¬{C}x v {D}x) sent9: ¬{G}{e} sent10: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent11: ¬{A}{a} -> {AA}{cm} sent12: ¬{C}{c} -> (¬{B}{b} & {A}{b}) sent13: (x): ¬{E}x sent14: (x): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent15: {JE}{aa}
|
[
"sent14 -> int1: if the lorgnette does cane benevolence that it is an eviction that is not a HMO does not hold.; sent3 & sent6 -> int2: the lorgnette canes benevolence.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent14 -> int1: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); sent3 & sent6 -> int2: {A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the lorgnette is an eviction and not a HMO.
|
({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})
|
[
"sent13 -> int3: the lorgnette does not layer goldmine.; sent2 & int3 -> int4: the lorgnette is a kind of a ratiocination and/or is apopemptic.;"
] | 4 | 2 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the lorgnette is an eviction but it is not a HMO is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is a HMO and it is an eviction is not right if it is a dig. sent2: if the lorgnette does not layer goldmine then the fact that either it is a ratiocination or it is apopemptic or both is not wrong. sent3: if the plate is a dig then the lorgnette does cane benevolence. sent4: the plate does not cane benevolence if the graphologist is not a kind of a dig and does cane benevolence. sent5: if the lorgnette digs the plate is a kind of an eviction. sent6: the plate does dig. sent7: that the lorgnette is a kind of a HMO and it is a dig is wrong. sent8: something is not a ratiocination and/or it is apopemptic if it does layer goldmine. sent9: the chair is not a Viyella. sent10: that that the lorgnette is both an eviction and a HMO is not false is false if it canes benevolence. sent11: the goldmine is a kind of an eviction if that the plate does not cane benevolence hold. sent12: the graphologist is not a dig but it canes benevolence if the optometrist is not a ratiocination. sent13: the fact that everything does not layer goldmine hold. sent14: if something canes benevolence then that it is an eviction but not a HMO does not hold. sent15: the lorgnette is a monopsony. ; $proof$ =
|
sent14 -> int1: if the lorgnette does cane benevolence that it is an eviction that is not a HMO does not hold.; sent3 & sent6 -> int2: the lorgnette canes benevolence.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the elder is insecticidal if the fitting is a Romanian.
|
{A}{a} -> {B}{b}
|
sent1: if the fitting is not non-Romanian then it is a orientalism and it is not unsocial. sent2: the elder is a romance that is not Caroline. sent3: the Ute is insecticidal thing that is not pyrogenic. sent4: if the elder is insecticidal it is a orientalism that is not unsocial. sent5: the fitting is not unsocial. sent6: the elder is not non-cardiographic but it is not insecticidal. sent7: the fitting is not unsocial if it is a kind of a Romanian. sent8: the elder is insecticidal if the fitting is a kind of a orientalism and it is unsocial. sent9: if the fitting is insecticidal then the elder is a orientalism. sent10: the crabs is Romanian but it does not spook. sent11: if the eutrophication infiltrates then it is a kind of Romanian thing that is non-adjectival. sent12: the carbonyl is a orientalism. sent13: the blackpoll is insecticidal. sent14: if the fitting is a orientalism and not unsocial then the elder is insecticidal. sent15: the elder is a orientalism if the fitting is Romanian thing that is not unsocial. sent16: the fitting disguises. sent17: the elder is pyrogenic.
|
sent1: {A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent2: ({JE}{b} & ¬{S}{b}) sent3: ({B}{af} & ¬{FA}{af}) sent4: {B}{b} -> ({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent5: ¬{AB}{a} sent6: ({FC}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent7: {A}{a} -> ¬{AB}{a} sent8: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent9: {B}{a} -> {AA}{b} sent10: ({A}{hj} & ¬{IF}{hj}) sent11: {HG}{bi} -> ({A}{bi} & ¬{FD}{bi}) sent12: {AA}{gm} sent13: {B}{eg} sent14: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent15: ({A}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {AA}{b} sent16: {F}{a} sent17: {FA}{b}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fitting is Romanian.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the fitting is a orientalism but it is not unsocial.; sent14 & int1 -> int2: the elder is insecticidal.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}{a}; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); sent14 & int1 -> int2: {B}{b}; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the elder is insecticidal if the fitting is a Romanian. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fitting is not non-Romanian then it is a orientalism and it is not unsocial. sent2: the elder is a romance that is not Caroline. sent3: the Ute is insecticidal thing that is not pyrogenic. sent4: if the elder is insecticidal it is a orientalism that is not unsocial. sent5: the fitting is not unsocial. sent6: the elder is not non-cardiographic but it is not insecticidal. sent7: the fitting is not unsocial if it is a kind of a Romanian. sent8: the elder is insecticidal if the fitting is a kind of a orientalism and it is unsocial. sent9: if the fitting is insecticidal then the elder is a orientalism. sent10: the crabs is Romanian but it does not spook. sent11: if the eutrophication infiltrates then it is a kind of Romanian thing that is non-adjectival. sent12: the carbonyl is a orientalism. sent13: the blackpoll is insecticidal. sent14: if the fitting is a orientalism and not unsocial then the elder is insecticidal. sent15: the elder is a orientalism if the fitting is Romanian thing that is not unsocial. sent16: the fitting disguises. sent17: the elder is pyrogenic. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fitting is Romanian.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the fitting is a orientalism but it is not unsocial.; sent14 & int1 -> int2: the elder is insecticidal.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there is something such that if it is not satiate and/or is not a kind of a specific it does not cane feist is not correct.
|
¬((Ex): (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x)
|
sent1: there is something such that if it is not a Sotho then it is not a warble. sent2: if the handbarrow is not an easterner then it does not layer trundle. sent3: something is aeromechanics if it is not a aneroid and/or does not light hairline. sent4: if something does not light Sabaoth or it is not Episcopal or both it layers siren. sent5: the handbarrow does cane feist if it is insatiate and/or it is not a specific. sent6: there exists something such that if that it is not archidiaconal is correct it is not a hurry. sent7: the handbarrow is not a kind of a warble if it is a map-reader and/or it does not tighten. sent8: the violinist does not reign if it is an expense and/or it is nonspecific. sent9: if either something is not satiate or it is nonspecific or both then it does not cane feist. sent10: the fact that there is something such that if it is not automotive then it is not a kind of a barberry is true. sent11: there is something such that if it is not satiate and/or it is specific it does not cane feist. sent12: the fact that the postilion does not layer part-timer is not false if it does not stalemate or it does not theorize or both. sent13: there exists something such that if it does not investigate it is not a clue. sent14: if the handbarrow does not satiate and/or is not Episcopal then it is not full-term. sent15: there exists something such that if it is not a catarrhine or does not layer siren or both it is Soviet. sent16: the handbarrow is not a reuptake if it is not a kind of a warble. sent17: there is something such that if it is satiate or not a specific or both it does not cane feist. sent18: there exists something such that if it does not mortify and/or it is not field-crop then it is not a kind of a swale.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬{GI}x -> ¬{IL}x sent2: ¬{BU}{aa} -> ¬{AE}{aa} sent3: (x): (¬{M}x v ¬{JH}x) -> {JI}x sent4: (x): (¬{DD}x v ¬{GQ}x) -> {JB}x sent5: (¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent6: (Ex): ¬{DN}x -> ¬{FB}x sent7: ({CR}{aa} v ¬{CG}{aa}) -> ¬{IL}{aa} sent8: ({HD}{c} v ¬{AB}{c}) -> ¬{DR}{c} sent9: (x): (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent10: (Ex): ¬{IK}x -> ¬{HN}x sent11: (Ex): (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent12: (¬{FS}{s} v ¬{BG}{s}) -> ¬{FI}{s} sent13: (Ex): ¬{EE}x -> ¬{H}x sent14: (¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{GQ}{aa}) -> ¬{AR}{aa} sent15: (Ex): (¬{FQ}x v ¬{JB}x) -> {CN}x sent16: ¬{IL}{aa} -> ¬{FG}{aa} sent17: (Ex): ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent18: (Ex): (¬{ED}x v ¬{AK}x) -> ¬{EJ}x
|
[
"sent9 -> int1: if the handbarrow is not satiate or not a specific or both then it does not cane feist.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 -> int1: (¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 17 | 0 | 17 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if it is not satiate and/or is not a kind of a specific it does not cane feist is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is not a Sotho then it is not a warble. sent2: if the handbarrow is not an easterner then it does not layer trundle. sent3: something is aeromechanics if it is not a aneroid and/or does not light hairline. sent4: if something does not light Sabaoth or it is not Episcopal or both it layers siren. sent5: the handbarrow does cane feist if it is insatiate and/or it is not a specific. sent6: there exists something such that if that it is not archidiaconal is correct it is not a hurry. sent7: the handbarrow is not a kind of a warble if it is a map-reader and/or it does not tighten. sent8: the violinist does not reign if it is an expense and/or it is nonspecific. sent9: if either something is not satiate or it is nonspecific or both then it does not cane feist. sent10: the fact that there is something such that if it is not automotive then it is not a kind of a barberry is true. sent11: there is something such that if it is not satiate and/or it is specific it does not cane feist. sent12: the fact that the postilion does not layer part-timer is not false if it does not stalemate or it does not theorize or both. sent13: there exists something such that if it does not investigate it is not a clue. sent14: if the handbarrow does not satiate and/or is not Episcopal then it is not full-term. sent15: there exists something such that if it is not a catarrhine or does not layer siren or both it is Soviet. sent16: the handbarrow is not a reuptake if it is not a kind of a warble. sent17: there is something such that if it is satiate or not a specific or both it does not cane feist. sent18: there exists something such that if it does not mortify and/or it is not field-crop then it is not a kind of a swale. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 -> int1: if the handbarrow is not satiate or not a specific or both then it does not cane feist.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the skyscraper is earlier.
|
{C}{b}
|
sent1: something does not refrigerate CTC. sent2: the fact that the solitary does not refrigerate Kyphosus but it is a bedside if the wellpoint does refrigerate Kyphosus is not incorrect. sent3: if that something does not refrigerate Kyphosus and is not a bedside is not correct the fact that it is earlier is not false. sent4: if the wellpoint does refrigerate Kyphosus then the solitary does not refrigerate Kyphosus. sent5: something refrigerates Kyphosus if it does crash fussiness. sent6: something does refrigerate CTC. sent7: the fact that the wellpoint is both not earlier and a iodotyrosine does not hold. sent8: something refrigerates Kyphosus if that it is not unknowable and it does not crash fussiness is incorrect. sent9: if there is something such that it does not refrigerate CTC then that the wellpoint is not unknowable and it does not crash fussiness is incorrect. sent10: if something does not refrigerate CTC that that the wellpoint is not unknowable but it crashes fussiness is not right is correct.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬{D}x sent2: {B}{aa} -> (¬{B}{a} & {A}{a}) sent3: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) -> {C}x sent4: {B}{aa} -> ¬{B}{a} sent5: (x): {AB}x -> {B}x sent6: (Ex): {D}x sent7: ¬(¬{C}{aa} & {EE}{aa}) sent8: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent9: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent10: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})
|
[
"sent8 -> int1: if the fact that the wellpoint is a kind of knowable thing that does not crash fussiness is not right it does refrigerate Kyphosus.; sent1 & sent9 -> int2: that the wellpoint is not unknowable and it does not crash fussiness is false.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the wellpoint refrigerates Kyphosus.; int3 & sent2 -> int4: the solitary does not refrigerate Kyphosus and is a kind of a bedside.;"
] |
[
"sent8 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; sent1 & sent9 -> int2: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> int3: {B}{aa}; int3 & sent2 -> int4: (¬{B}{a} & {A}{a});"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 4 | null | 6 | 0 | 6 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the skyscraper is earlier. ; $context$ = sent1: something does not refrigerate CTC. sent2: the fact that the solitary does not refrigerate Kyphosus but it is a bedside if the wellpoint does refrigerate Kyphosus is not incorrect. sent3: if that something does not refrigerate Kyphosus and is not a bedside is not correct the fact that it is earlier is not false. sent4: if the wellpoint does refrigerate Kyphosus then the solitary does not refrigerate Kyphosus. sent5: something refrigerates Kyphosus if it does crash fussiness. sent6: something does refrigerate CTC. sent7: the fact that the wellpoint is both not earlier and a iodotyrosine does not hold. sent8: something refrigerates Kyphosus if that it is not unknowable and it does not crash fussiness is incorrect. sent9: if there is something such that it does not refrigerate CTC then that the wellpoint is not unknowable and it does not crash fussiness is incorrect. sent10: if something does not refrigerate CTC that that the wellpoint is not unknowable but it crashes fussiness is not right is correct. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 -> int1: if the fact that the wellpoint is a kind of knowable thing that does not crash fussiness is not right it does refrigerate Kyphosus.; sent1 & sent9 -> int2: that the wellpoint is not unknowable and it does not crash fussiness is false.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the wellpoint refrigerates Kyphosus.; int3 & sent2 -> int4: the solitary does not refrigerate Kyphosus and is a kind of a bedside.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the selvage does not muff brioche.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
sent1: the fact that the brioche crows but it is not prejudicial is incorrect. sent2: that the brioche does muff brioche and is not prejudicial is wrong. sent3: if there exists something such that it is prejudicial then the selvage does not muff brioche.
|
sent1: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent2: ¬({A}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent3: (x): {AB}x -> ¬{A}{a}
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: there is something such that that it is a crow and it is not prejudicial is not true.;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x);"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | null | 2 | 0 | 2 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the selvage does not muff brioche. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the brioche crows but it is not prejudicial is incorrect. sent2: that the brioche does muff brioche and is not prejudicial is wrong. sent3: if there exists something such that it is prejudicial then the selvage does not muff brioche. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: there is something such that that it is a crow and it is not prejudicial is not true.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the microphoning is a Suillus.
|
{C}{b}
|
sent1: the microphoning intonates and it does squirt. sent2: the starship is a Aragon if the minicab is not robust. sent3: that the microphoning does refrigerate yellowwood hold. sent4: the microphoning is not a congou and/or it hefts if that the starship is a Aragon is not wrong. sent5: that the starship is a Suillus hold if the microphoning does heft. sent6: the microphoning is a congou. sent7: if that the freewheel steadies and is a reharmonization does not hold the fact that the minicab is not robust is right. sent8: if the starship is a congou the microphoning is a Suillus. sent9: if the starship is a kind of a Suillus the microphoning is a congou. sent10: the starship does heft and it is a congou. sent11: the starship is a heft. sent12: that something is not a Suillus is not incorrect if either it is not a kind of a congou or it is a heft or both. sent13: if the microphoning is a congou then the starship does heft.
|
sent1: ({DC}{b} & {FJ}{b}) sent2: ¬{E}{c} -> {D}{a} sent3: {EJ}{b} sent4: {D}{a} -> (¬{B}{b} v {A}{b}) sent5: {A}{b} -> {C}{a} sent6: {B}{b} sent7: ¬({F}{d} & {G}{d}) -> ¬{E}{c} sent8: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent9: {C}{a} -> {B}{b} sent10: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent11: {A}{a} sent12: (x): (¬{B}x v {A}x) -> ¬{C}x sent13: {B}{b} -> {A}{a}
|
[
"sent10 -> int1: the starship is a congou.; sent8 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent10 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent8 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the microphoning is not a Suillus.
|
¬{C}{b}
|
[
"sent12 -> int2: if the fact that the microphoning either is not a kind of a congou or is a heft or both hold it is not a kind of a Suillus.;"
] | 8 | 2 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the microphoning is a Suillus. ; $context$ = sent1: the microphoning intonates and it does squirt. sent2: the starship is a Aragon if the minicab is not robust. sent3: that the microphoning does refrigerate yellowwood hold. sent4: the microphoning is not a congou and/or it hefts if that the starship is a Aragon is not wrong. sent5: that the starship is a Suillus hold if the microphoning does heft. sent6: the microphoning is a congou. sent7: if that the freewheel steadies and is a reharmonization does not hold the fact that the minicab is not robust is right. sent8: if the starship is a congou the microphoning is a Suillus. sent9: if the starship is a kind of a Suillus the microphoning is a congou. sent10: the starship does heft and it is a congou. sent11: the starship is a heft. sent12: that something is not a Suillus is not incorrect if either it is not a kind of a congou or it is a heft or both. sent13: if the microphoning is a congou then the starship does heft. ; $proof$ =
|
sent10 -> int1: the starship is a congou.; sent8 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there exists something such that the fact that it does oppose khaki and it is not cardiopulmonary is wrong does not hold.
|
¬((Ex): ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x))
|
sent1: there exists something such that it does crash MArch and is not riparian. sent2: if that something does not oppose khaki but it is not non-cardiopulmonary hold then it does depopulate. sent3: if there exists something such that it depopulates then that the origanum opposes khaki and is not cardiopulmonary is not correct. sent4: there is something such that it does depopulate. sent5: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a decorativeness that is a Carpocapsa is not true. sent6: if there is something such that it is a heliotherapy then the fact that the origanum is a Solenidae but it is not nonrepresentative is wrong. sent7: if something does depopulate the fact that it is a kind of a stick that is not a money is false. sent8: the fact that the origanum is a oilstove and is not cardiopulmonary is incorrect. sent9: there exists something such that the fact that it is full and it does not refrigerate timepiece is not correct. sent10: there exists something such that it is a abstractness. sent11: that the origanum opposes khaki and it is inoperable is not correct if there exists something such that it is a kind of a amarelle. sent12: if there is something such that it is a kind of a tribuneship that the origanum opposes khaki but it is not a kind of a thoughtfulness is not true. sent13: that that the origanum is choreographic and does predate hold is incorrect. sent14: there is something such that it opposes khaki and is not cardiopulmonary. sent15: there is something such that that it does oppose drugget and is a kind of a Athena is not right. sent16: the fact that the origanum is a kind of a abstractness that does not oppose goral is not correct. sent17: there exists something such that the fact that it is a Chancellorsville and it is not a unsociability does not hold. sent18: something is nephritic but it is not a thebe. sent19: that the swimsuit is a fedelline that does oppose khaki is wrong.
|
sent1: (Ex): ({EK}x & ¬{DJ}x) sent2: (x): (¬{B}x & {C}x) -> {A}x sent3: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent4: (Ex): {A}x sent5: (Ex): ¬({FR}x & {DK}x) sent6: (x): {DN}x -> ¬({BB}{a} & ¬{GU}{a}) sent7: (x): {A}x -> ¬({IG}x & ¬{CE}x) sent8: ¬({K}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent9: (Ex): ¬({JD}x & ¬{ET}x) sent10: (Ex): {HA}x sent11: (x): {GA}x -> ¬({B}{a} & {JC}{a}) sent12: (x): {IM}x -> ¬({B}{a} & ¬{IC}{a}) sent13: ¬({JF}{a} & {AN}{a}) sent14: (Ex): ({B}x & ¬{C}x) sent15: (Ex): ¬({H}x & {J}x) sent16: ¬({HA}{a} & ¬{FK}{a}) sent17: (Ex): ¬({BO}x & ¬{R}x) sent18: (Ex): ({EG}x & ¬{FU}x) sent19: ¬({AI}{bo} & {B}{bo})
|
[
"sent4 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the fact that the origanum does oppose khaki and is not cardiopulmonary does not hold is not wrong.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 & sent3 -> int1: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there exists something such that that it is a stick and is not a money is not true.
|
(Ex): ¬({IG}x & ¬{CE}x)
|
[
"sent7 -> int2: the fact that the origanum is a kind of a stick that is not a money is not true if it does depopulate.; sent2 -> int3: if the origanum does not oppose khaki and is cardiopulmonary it depopulates.;"
] | 5 | 2 | 2 | 17 | 0 | 17 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that the fact that it does oppose khaki and it is not cardiopulmonary is wrong does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it does crash MArch and is not riparian. sent2: if that something does not oppose khaki but it is not non-cardiopulmonary hold then it does depopulate. sent3: if there exists something such that it depopulates then that the origanum opposes khaki and is not cardiopulmonary is not correct. sent4: there is something such that it does depopulate. sent5: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a decorativeness that is a Carpocapsa is not true. sent6: if there is something such that it is a heliotherapy then the fact that the origanum is a Solenidae but it is not nonrepresentative is wrong. sent7: if something does depopulate the fact that it is a kind of a stick that is not a money is false. sent8: the fact that the origanum is a oilstove and is not cardiopulmonary is incorrect. sent9: there exists something such that the fact that it is full and it does not refrigerate timepiece is not correct. sent10: there exists something such that it is a abstractness. sent11: that the origanum opposes khaki and it is inoperable is not correct if there exists something such that it is a kind of a amarelle. sent12: if there is something such that it is a kind of a tribuneship that the origanum opposes khaki but it is not a kind of a thoughtfulness is not true. sent13: that that the origanum is choreographic and does predate hold is incorrect. sent14: there is something such that it opposes khaki and is not cardiopulmonary. sent15: there is something such that that it does oppose drugget and is a kind of a Athena is not right. sent16: the fact that the origanum is a kind of a abstractness that does not oppose goral is not correct. sent17: there exists something such that the fact that it is a Chancellorsville and it is not a unsociability does not hold. sent18: something is nephritic but it is not a thebe. sent19: that the swimsuit is a fedelline that does oppose khaki is wrong. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the fact that the origanum does oppose khaki and is not cardiopulmonary does not hold is not wrong.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the checkrein is inductive.
|
{D}{a}
|
sent1: the checkrein is inductive if it is a kind of non-new thing that amplifies. sent2: the fact that the brakes is anasarcous but it does not refrigerate rockslide is not right if it is a rapeseed. sent3: there is something such that it is mutagenic. sent4: if the fact that something is anasarcous but it does not refrigerate rockslide does not hold it is not anasarcous. sent5: the checkrein is a kind of a rapeseed. sent6: the checkrein is a kind of a rapeseed if there is something such that it is mutagenic. sent7: something is inductive if it is non-anasarcous a rapeseed. sent8: the harvest is mutagenic if it is not a Dicrostonyx and it is a runner-up. sent9: if something is mutagenic the checkrein is not anasarcous but it is a kind of a rapeseed.
|
sent1: (¬{FU}{a} & {J}{a}) -> {D}{a} sent2: {C}{c} -> ¬({B}{c} & ¬{E}{c}) sent3: (Ex): {A}x sent4: (x): ¬({B}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{B}x sent5: {C}{a} sent6: (x): {A}x -> {C}{a} sent7: (x): (¬{B}x & {C}x) -> {D}x sent8: (¬{EQ}{hd} & {JH}{hd}) -> {A}{hd} sent9: (x): {A}x -> (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a})
|
[
"sent3 & sent9 -> int1: the checkrein is not anasarcous but it is a kind of a rapeseed.; sent7 -> int2: the checkrein is inductive if it is not anasarcous and is a kind of a rapeseed.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent9 -> int1: (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}); sent7 -> int2: (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) -> {D}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the checkrein is not inductive.
|
¬{D}{a}
|
[
"sent4 -> int3: if the fact that the brakes is anasarcous thing that does not refrigerate rockslide is incorrect then it is not anasarcous.;"
] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 6 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the checkrein is inductive. ; $context$ = sent1: the checkrein is inductive if it is a kind of non-new thing that amplifies. sent2: the fact that the brakes is anasarcous but it does not refrigerate rockslide is not right if it is a rapeseed. sent3: there is something such that it is mutagenic. sent4: if the fact that something is anasarcous but it does not refrigerate rockslide does not hold it is not anasarcous. sent5: the checkrein is a kind of a rapeseed. sent6: the checkrein is a kind of a rapeseed if there is something such that it is mutagenic. sent7: something is inductive if it is non-anasarcous a rapeseed. sent8: the harvest is mutagenic if it is not a Dicrostonyx and it is a runner-up. sent9: if something is mutagenic the checkrein is not anasarcous but it is a kind of a rapeseed. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent9 -> int1: the checkrein is not anasarcous but it is a kind of a rapeseed.; sent7 -> int2: the checkrein is inductive if it is not anasarcous and is a kind of a rapeseed.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the flamboyant is not a heterospory is not wrong.
|
¬{C}{a}
|
sent1: if there exists something such that it is not immutable the challah is both cytogenetic and Dostoevskian. sent2: the fact that the juror is a kind of a gaudy is not wrong. sent3: the flamboyant is offshore or it is not worthless or both. sent4: if something is not worthless and/or is not a kind of a necessity the fact that it is a kind of a heterospory hold. sent5: the flamboyant is worthless and/or it is not a necessity. sent6: the flamboyant is a kind of a heterospory if it is not worthless. sent7: if something is not worthless the fact that it is a kind of a necessity that is a kind of a heterospory is not correct. sent8: the flamboyant is not a necessity. sent9: the fascista is a kind of a pastoral if it is either non-indusial or not a necessity or both. sent10: the fothergilla is not asexual and/or it is worthless. sent11: the juror is a Linum if the challah is cytogenetic. sent12: the vaccine is not immutable. sent13: if something is a Linum but it is not phenomenal it is valuable. sent14: something is a heterospory if it is not worthless. sent15: if that the juror is a seaward and/or it is not a cone does not hold then it is not phenomenal. sent16: if that the juror is a gaudy is not incorrect the fact that that either it is seaward or it is not a kind of a cone or both is right is not correct.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{H}x -> ({F}{c} & {G}{c}) sent2: {K}{b} sent3: ({FA}{a} v ¬{A}{a}) sent4: (x): (¬{A}x v ¬{B}x) -> {C}x sent5: ({A}{a} v ¬{B}{a}) sent6: ¬{A}{a} -> {C}{a} sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}x & {C}x) sent8: ¬{B}{a} sent9: (¬{CD}{cp} v ¬{B}{cp}) -> {CT}{cp} sent10: (¬{HN}{ek} v {A}{ek}) sent11: {F}{c} -> {D}{b} sent12: ¬{H}{d} sent13: (x): ({D}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{A}x sent14: (x): ¬{A}x -> {C}x sent15: ¬({J}{b} v ¬{I}{b}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent16: {K}{b} -> ¬({J}{b} v ¬{I}{b})
|
[
"sent8 -> int1: the flamboyant is not worthless and/or it is not a necessity.; sent4 -> int2: the flamboyant is a kind of a heterospory if it is not worthless and/or is not a necessity.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 -> int1: (¬{A}{a} v ¬{B}{a}); sent4 -> int2: (¬{A}{a} v ¬{B}{a}) -> {C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the flamboyant is not a heterospory.
|
¬{C}{a}
|
[
"sent7 -> int3: if the juror is not worthless then the fact that it is a necessity and it is a heterospory does not hold.; sent13 -> int4: the fact that if the juror is the Linum but it is not phenomenal then the juror is not worthless hold.; sent12 -> int5: something is not immutable.; int5 & sent1 -> int6: the challah is a kind of cytogenetic thing that is Dostoevskian.; int6 -> int7: the challah is cytogenetic.; sent11 & int7 -> int8: the juror is a Linum.; sent16 & sent2 -> int9: the fact that the juror is a kind of a seaward and/or is not a kind of a cone is not true.; sent15 & int9 -> int10: the juror is not phenomenal.; int8 & int10 -> int11: the juror is a kind of a Linum and is not phenomenal.; int4 & int11 -> int12: the juror is not worthless.; int3 & int12 -> int13: the fact that the fact that the juror is a necessity and is a heterospory is true is not right.; int13 -> int14: there is something such that the fact that it is a necessity and it is a heterospory is not correct.;"
] | 9 | 2 | 2 | 14 | 0 | 14 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the flamboyant is not a heterospory is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that it is not immutable the challah is both cytogenetic and Dostoevskian. sent2: the fact that the juror is a kind of a gaudy is not wrong. sent3: the flamboyant is offshore or it is not worthless or both. sent4: if something is not worthless and/or is not a kind of a necessity the fact that it is a kind of a heterospory hold. sent5: the flamboyant is worthless and/or it is not a necessity. sent6: the flamboyant is a kind of a heterospory if it is not worthless. sent7: if something is not worthless the fact that it is a kind of a necessity that is a kind of a heterospory is not correct. sent8: the flamboyant is not a necessity. sent9: the fascista is a kind of a pastoral if it is either non-indusial or not a necessity or both. sent10: the fothergilla is not asexual and/or it is worthless. sent11: the juror is a Linum if the challah is cytogenetic. sent12: the vaccine is not immutable. sent13: if something is a Linum but it is not phenomenal it is valuable. sent14: something is a heterospory if it is not worthless. sent15: if that the juror is a seaward and/or it is not a cone does not hold then it is not phenomenal. sent16: if that the juror is a gaudy is not incorrect the fact that that either it is seaward or it is not a kind of a cone or both is right is not correct. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 -> int1: the flamboyant is not worthless and/or it is not a necessity.; sent4 -> int2: the flamboyant is a kind of a heterospory if it is not worthless and/or is not a necessity.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the wet-nurse does not muff leapfrog.
|
¬{C}{a}
|
sent1: the wet-nurse does muff leapfrog and it is enzymatic if the packsaddle is not nonphotosynthetic. sent2: if the fact that the abrasive is three-piece is not wrong then it is toneless. sent3: the wet-nurse is enzymatic. sent4: the partridgeberry is nonphotosynthetic. sent5: if something that is enzymatic is not nonphotosynthetic it does not muff leapfrog. sent6: that the phonologist is not a CDC but nonphotosynthetic does not hold if the lappet does not kick. sent7: if the lappet is not an alsatian the fact that that the phonologist is not a kick and it is not a kind of a CDC is not right hold. sent8: the wet-nurse muffs leapfrog if that the packsaddle is enzymatic thing that does not muffs leapfrog does not hold. sent9: if something is mercurial and it is an alsatian the lappet does not kick. sent10: if the fact that something is not a CDC and is nonphotosynthetic is false then it is nonphotosynthetic. sent11: the lappet does refrigerate Limnobium if the abrasive is toneless. sent12: the abrasive is both mercurial and an alsatian. sent13: if something refrigerates Limnobium it is not an alsatian and it is not mercurial.
|
sent1: ¬{B}{b} -> ({C}{a} & {A}{a}) sent2: {J}{e} -> {I}{e} sent3: {A}{a} sent4: {B}{in} sent5: (x): ({A}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{C}x sent6: ¬{D}{d} -> ¬(¬{E}{c} & {B}{c}) sent7: ¬{F}{d} -> ¬(¬{D}{c} & ¬{E}{c}) sent8: ¬({A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> {C}{a} sent9: (x): ({G}x & {F}x) -> ¬{D}{d} sent10: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & {B}x) -> ¬{B}x sent11: {I}{e} -> {H}{d} sent12: ({G}{e} & {F}{e}) sent13: (x): {H}x -> (¬{F}x & ¬{G}x)
|
[
"sent5 -> int1: the wet-nurse does not muff leapfrog if it is enzymatic and it is not nonphotosynthetic.;"
] |
[
"sent5 -> int1: ({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{a};"
] |
the wet-nurse does muff leapfrog.
|
{C}{a}
|
[
"sent10 -> int2: if that the phonologist is not a CDC but it is nonphotosynthetic does not hold the fact that it is not nonphotosynthetic is true.; sent12 -> int3: there is something such that it is a kind of mercurial thing that is an alsatian.; int3 & sent9 -> int4: the lappet is not a kick.; sent6 & int4 -> int5: the fact that the fact that the phonologist is not a CDC but it is not photosynthetic hold is not right.; int2 & int5 -> int6: the phonologist is not nonphotosynthetic.;"
] | 8 | 2 | null | 11 | 0 | 11 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the wet-nurse does not muff leapfrog. ; $context$ = sent1: the wet-nurse does muff leapfrog and it is enzymatic if the packsaddle is not nonphotosynthetic. sent2: if the fact that the abrasive is three-piece is not wrong then it is toneless. sent3: the wet-nurse is enzymatic. sent4: the partridgeberry is nonphotosynthetic. sent5: if something that is enzymatic is not nonphotosynthetic it does not muff leapfrog. sent6: that the phonologist is not a CDC but nonphotosynthetic does not hold if the lappet does not kick. sent7: if the lappet is not an alsatian the fact that that the phonologist is not a kick and it is not a kind of a CDC is not right hold. sent8: the wet-nurse muffs leapfrog if that the packsaddle is enzymatic thing that does not muffs leapfrog does not hold. sent9: if something is mercurial and it is an alsatian the lappet does not kick. sent10: if the fact that something is not a CDC and is nonphotosynthetic is false then it is nonphotosynthetic. sent11: the lappet does refrigerate Limnobium if the abrasive is toneless. sent12: the abrasive is both mercurial and an alsatian. sent13: if something refrigerates Limnobium it is not an alsatian and it is not mercurial. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 -> int1: the wet-nurse does not muff leapfrog if it is enzymatic and it is not nonphotosynthetic.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if that it does not refrigerate Panama is true that it is not scapulohumeral and it is not a PVC does not hold.
|
(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
sent1: there is something such that if it does not refrigerate screen then it is not commons and does not muff boutique. sent2: that the fact that the aspirin is not scapulohumeral and is not a PVC is right is not true if the fact that it refrigerates Panama is right. sent3: if the aspirin is not tractive then that it does refrigerate Panama and does not refrigerate chub is not true. sent4: if the aspirin is not a PVC the fact that it does oppose greenbelt and does not muff dermatoglyphics is not right. sent5: there is something such that if that it does oppose greenbelt hold then the fact that it is not a Euglenaceae and it is not doctoral is not true. sent6: if the deflector does not refrigerate chub then it is not a kind of a sidestep and it is not a Benedictine. sent7: there exists something such that if it is not varicelliform then the fact that it is not a kind of an instrumentation and does not muff rocambole is false. sent8: if the aspirin does not refrigerate Panama that it is a kind of non-scapulohumeral thing that is not a PVC is not true. sent9: the vasoconstrictor is not a wrestle and it is not a PVC if it does not oppose aspirin. sent10: the chartist does not refrigerate Panama and is not a paroxytone if that it opposes glacier is false. sent11: there exists something such that if it is not basidiomycetous that it is a reliever and is not a variable is not true. sent12: there exists something such that if that it is not a Euglenaceae hold that it is a kind of non-Olympics thing that is postmodernist is not true. sent13: if the headstock is not a PVC then the fact that it does muff rocambole and it does not oppose glacier is not right. sent14: the fact that if the aspirin does not refrigerate Panama then that the aspirin is non-scapulohumeral a PVC does not hold hold. sent15: the langbeinite is not scapulohumeral and does not oppose dropper if it is not a kind of a redact. sent16: that something is not attitudinal and it does not oppose Solresol is incorrect if it is not Columbian. sent17: there is something such that if it is non-woolen the fact that it is not a kind of a Dodecanese and does not refrigerate chub is not right. sent18: there is something such that if it does not oppose knowledgeability then it is not saccadic and it is not a kind of a Exocoetidae.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬{B}x -> (¬{CR}x & ¬{IL}x) sent2: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent3: ¬{DI}{aa} -> ¬({A}{aa} & ¬{EF}{aa}) sent4: ¬{AB}{aa} -> ¬({JJ}{aa} & ¬{GU}{aa}) sent5: (Ex): {JJ}x -> ¬(¬{BJ}x & ¬{IC}x) sent6: ¬{EF}{he} -> (¬{AG}{he} & ¬{DG}{he}) sent7: (Ex): ¬{DJ}x -> ¬(¬{G}x & ¬{ET}x) sent8: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent9: ¬{GQ}{ij} -> (¬{IK}{ij} & ¬{AB}{ij}) sent10: ¬{FT}{hl} -> (¬{A}{hl} & ¬{CS}{hl}) sent11: (Ex): ¬{FQ}x -> ¬({FE}x & ¬{DH}x) sent12: (Ex): ¬{BJ}x -> ¬(¬{BE}x & {FH}x) sent13: ¬{AB}{da} -> ¬({ET}{da} & ¬{FT}{da}) sent14: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent15: ¬{Q}{ed} -> (¬{AA}{ed} & ¬{IE}{ed}) sent16: (x): ¬{P}x -> ¬(¬{HF}x & ¬{HO}x) sent17: (Ex): ¬{BM}x -> ¬(¬{AR}x & ¬{EF}x) sent18: (Ex): ¬{E}x -> (¬{EE}x & ¬{FO}x)
|
[
"sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there exists something such that if it is not Columbian that it is not attitudinal and it does not oppose Solresol does not hold.
|
(Ex): ¬{P}x -> ¬(¬{HF}x & ¬{HO}x)
|
[
"sent16 -> int1: if the bib is not Columbian then that it is a kind of non-attitudinal thing that does not oppose Solresol does not hold.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 17 | 0 | 17 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if that it does not refrigerate Panama is true that it is not scapulohumeral and it is not a PVC does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it does not refrigerate screen then it is not commons and does not muff boutique. sent2: that the fact that the aspirin is not scapulohumeral and is not a PVC is right is not true if the fact that it refrigerates Panama is right. sent3: if the aspirin is not tractive then that it does refrigerate Panama and does not refrigerate chub is not true. sent4: if the aspirin is not a PVC the fact that it does oppose greenbelt and does not muff dermatoglyphics is not right. sent5: there is something such that if that it does oppose greenbelt hold then the fact that it is not a Euglenaceae and it is not doctoral is not true. sent6: if the deflector does not refrigerate chub then it is not a kind of a sidestep and it is not a Benedictine. sent7: there exists something such that if it is not varicelliform then the fact that it is not a kind of an instrumentation and does not muff rocambole is false. sent8: if the aspirin does not refrigerate Panama that it is a kind of non-scapulohumeral thing that is not a PVC is not true. sent9: the vasoconstrictor is not a wrestle and it is not a PVC if it does not oppose aspirin. sent10: the chartist does not refrigerate Panama and is not a paroxytone if that it opposes glacier is false. sent11: there exists something such that if it is not basidiomycetous that it is a reliever and is not a variable is not true. sent12: there exists something such that if that it is not a Euglenaceae hold that it is a kind of non-Olympics thing that is postmodernist is not true. sent13: if the headstock is not a PVC then the fact that it does muff rocambole and it does not oppose glacier is not right. sent14: the fact that if the aspirin does not refrigerate Panama then that the aspirin is non-scapulohumeral a PVC does not hold hold. sent15: the langbeinite is not scapulohumeral and does not oppose dropper if it is not a kind of a redact. sent16: that something is not attitudinal and it does not oppose Solresol is incorrect if it is not Columbian. sent17: there is something such that if it is non-woolen the fact that it is not a kind of a Dodecanese and does not refrigerate chub is not right. sent18: there is something such that if it does not oppose knowledgeability then it is not saccadic and it is not a kind of a Exocoetidae. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the grazing is a kind of a bursary.
|
{B}{b}
|
sent1: if the repairman is a kind it is kafkaesque. sent2: the repairman is not kafkaesque if there is something such that that it is not a language and/or is unfriendly does not hold. sent3: the fact that that the bleachers is kafkaesque does not hold if there is something such that the fact that it is unfriendly and/or it is a bursary is not true is not false. sent4: there are kafkaesque things. sent5: the grazing is a bursary if the bleachers is not a language and/or it is unfriendly.
|
sent1: {C}{a} -> {A}{a} sent2: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent3: (x): ¬({AB}x v {B}x) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent4: (Ex): {A}x sent5: (¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{b}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the bleachers is not a kind of a language or it is unfriendly or both is not right.; assump1 -> int1: there is something such that the fact that it is not a language and/or it is unfriendly does not hold.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the repairman is not kafkaesque.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}); assump1 -> int1: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x); int1 & sent2 -> int2: ¬{A}{a};"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 4 | null | 2 | 0 | 2 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the grazing is a kind of a bursary. ; $context$ = sent1: if the repairman is a kind it is kafkaesque. sent2: the repairman is not kafkaesque if there is something such that that it is not a language and/or is unfriendly does not hold. sent3: the fact that that the bleachers is kafkaesque does not hold if there is something such that the fact that it is unfriendly and/or it is a bursary is not true is not false. sent4: there are kafkaesque things. sent5: the grazing is a bursary if the bleachers is not a language and/or it is unfriendly. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the bleachers is not a kind of a language or it is unfriendly or both is not right.; assump1 -> int1: there is something such that the fact that it is not a language and/or it is unfriendly does not hold.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the repairman is not kafkaesque.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it does not oppose perennial it is not bladdery.
|
(Ex): ¬{B}x -> ¬{C}x
|
sent1: the urial is bladdery if it does not refrigerate Rock. sent2: the efferent is not bladdery if it does not oppose perennial. sent3: that something does not oppose perennial is right if it is not fossiliferous.
|
sent1: ¬{HD}{hs} -> {C}{hs} sent2: ¬{B}{aa} -> ¬{C}{aa} sent3: (x): ¬{HR}x -> ¬{B}x
|
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the bailey does not oppose perennial if it is not fossiliferous.
|
¬{HR}{ed} -> ¬{B}{ed}
|
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it does not oppose perennial it is not bladdery. ; $context$ = sent1: the urial is bladdery if it does not refrigerate Rock. sent2: the efferent is not bladdery if it does not oppose perennial. sent3: that something does not oppose perennial is right if it is not fossiliferous. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.