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
|
that the caulk does examine is not incorrect.
|
{A}{a}
|
sent1: if something does scintillate macrame and it does scintillate seaward the macrame does not ogle. sent2: if the seeker does not scintillate seaward then it does scintillate macrame and it does not ogle. sent3: the fact that the caulk is Tasmanian is not false if the fact that it does examine hold. sent4: the ormer does examine. sent5: the anticoagulant examines. sent6: the saddlebill is not a kind of a arrester. sent7: the lentil is caudal if the fact that the seeker is caudal is not incorrect. sent8: the seeker does not scintillate seaward. sent9: if the seeker scintillates macrame but it does not ogle then the fact that the lentil is not mesonic is true. sent10: if something is not mesonic then that the leipoa is caudal and it prizes shared does not hold. sent11: the caulk is not Tasmanian. sent12: if there exists something such that the fact that it is caudal and it prizes shared is not right the plastique does not prizes shared. sent13: the leipoa is caudal if the lentil is caudal. sent14: if that the leipoa is caudal hold the plastique is Tasmanian. sent15: the seeker is caudal and it is mesonic if the macrame does not ogle. sent16: the caulk is not a consignee. sent17: if something is not a kind of a arrester the argon scintillates macrame and it scintillates seaward.
|
sent1: (x): ({G}x & {H}x) -> ¬{F}{g} sent2: ¬{H}{f} -> ({G}{f} & ¬{F}{f}) sent3: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent4: {A}{gj} sent5: {A}{cs} sent6: ¬{I}{i} sent7: {D}{f} -> {D}{e} sent8: ¬{H}{f} sent9: ({G}{f} & ¬{F}{f}) -> ¬{E}{e} sent10: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬({D}{d} & {C}{d}) sent11: ¬{B}{a} sent12: (x): ¬({D}x & {C}x) -> ¬{C}{c} sent13: {D}{e} -> {D}{d} sent14: {D}{d} -> {B}{c} sent15: ¬{F}{g} -> ({D}{f} & {E}{f}) sent16: ¬{JG}{a} sent17: (x): ¬{I}x -> ({G}{h} & {H}{h})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the caulk does examine.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the caulk is not non-Tasmanian.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}{a}; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: {B}{a}; int1 & sent11 -> int2: #F#; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the caulk is a kind of a oscine.
|
{IE}{a}
|
[
"sent2 & sent8 -> int3: the seeker scintillates macrame but it does not ogle.; sent9 & int3 -> int4: the lentil is not mesonic.; int4 -> int5: there is something such that it is not mesonic.; int5 & sent10 -> int6: the fact that the leipoa is caudal and it does prize shared does not hold.; int6 -> int7: there is something such that the fact that it is caudal and it prizes shared is wrong.; int7 & sent12 -> int8: the plastique does not prize shared.; int8 -> int9: there exists something such that it does not prize shared.;"
] | 10 | 3 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the caulk does examine is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does scintillate macrame and it does scintillate seaward the macrame does not ogle. sent2: if the seeker does not scintillate seaward then it does scintillate macrame and it does not ogle. sent3: the fact that the caulk is Tasmanian is not false if the fact that it does examine hold. sent4: the ormer does examine. sent5: the anticoagulant examines. sent6: the saddlebill is not a kind of a arrester. sent7: the lentil is caudal if the fact that the seeker is caudal is not incorrect. sent8: the seeker does not scintillate seaward. sent9: if the seeker scintillates macrame but it does not ogle then the fact that the lentil is not mesonic is true. sent10: if something is not mesonic then that the leipoa is caudal and it prizes shared does not hold. sent11: the caulk is not Tasmanian. sent12: if there exists something such that the fact that it is caudal and it prizes shared is not right the plastique does not prizes shared. sent13: the leipoa is caudal if the lentil is caudal. sent14: if that the leipoa is caudal hold the plastique is Tasmanian. sent15: the seeker is caudal and it is mesonic if the macrame does not ogle. sent16: the caulk is not a consignee. sent17: if something is not a kind of a arrester the argon scintillates macrame and it scintillates seaward. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the caulk does examine.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the caulk is not non-Tasmanian.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the closeting chichipe happens if the scintillating Lermontov happens is false.
|
¬({A} -> {B})
|
sent1: the phrasing happens if that the self-induction does not occur or the viceroyship does not occur or both is wrong. sent2: if the annexationalness happens then the fact that either the non-censorialness or the non-sympatricness or both happens does not hold. sent3: the closeting chichipe occurs or the thyroidectomy does not occur or both if the servicing occurs. sent4: the fact that either the climax does not occur or the slaloming does not occur or both is wrong. sent5: the benignity is triggered by the helpdesk. sent6: if the fact that the sentencing does not occur and/or the injury does not occur is wrong the closeting chichipe occurs. sent7: the mudslide occurs if the path happens. sent8: if the aeromedicalness happens then the fact that the punch does not occur and/or the rentableness does not occur is incorrect. sent9: the managership occurs if the prizing butt-weld occurs. sent10: if the scintillating Lermontov does not occur then that the deregulating T-bill does not occur or the smallerness does not occur or both is wrong. sent11: if that the gastroesophagealness does not occur and/or the thanklessness does not occur is not true then the scintillating April occurs. sent12: the sentence occurs if the scintillating Lermontov occurs. sent13: the demurrage happens and the servicing occurs if the scintillating Tabriz does not occur. sent14: if the fact that the scintillating Lermontov happens is not incorrect then the fact that either the sentencing does not occur or the injury does not occur or both is not right. sent15: the closeting chichipe occurs if that the sentence happens and/or the injury does not occur is not right. sent16: the prizing Rhyacotriton occurs if that the deregulating venison occurs and/or the skinniness does not occur is false. sent17: the brotherliness happens.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{IJ} v ¬{JI}) -> {CE} sent2: {GQ} -> ¬(¬{GJ} v ¬{CS}) sent3: {D} -> ({B} v ¬{C}) sent4: ¬(¬{HG} v ¬{FF}) sent5: {GL} -> {GP} sent6: ¬(¬{AA} v ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent7: {HH} -> {DS} sent8: {DI} -> ¬(¬{FT} v ¬{BG}) sent9: {HT} -> {BC} sent10: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{CU} v ¬{BT}) sent11: ¬(¬{GK} v ¬{FA}) -> {AT} sent12: {A} -> {AA} sent13: ¬{F} -> ({E} & {D}) sent14: {A} -> ¬(¬{AA} v ¬{AB}) sent15: ¬({AA} v ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent16: ¬({FI} v ¬{DB}) -> {DR} sent17: {BK}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the scintillating Lermontov happens is right.; sent14 & assump1 -> int1: that the sentencing does not occur or the injury does not occur or both does not hold.; sent6 & int1 -> int2: the closeting chichipe occurs.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}; sent14 & assump1 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA} v ¬{AB}); sent6 & int1 -> int2: {B}; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that either the deregulating T-bill does not occur or the smallerness does not occur or both does not hold.
|
¬(¬{CU} v ¬{BT})
|
[] | 8 | 3 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the closeting chichipe happens if the scintillating Lermontov happens is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the phrasing happens if that the self-induction does not occur or the viceroyship does not occur or both is wrong. sent2: if the annexationalness happens then the fact that either the non-censorialness or the non-sympatricness or both happens does not hold. sent3: the closeting chichipe occurs or the thyroidectomy does not occur or both if the servicing occurs. sent4: the fact that either the climax does not occur or the slaloming does not occur or both is wrong. sent5: the benignity is triggered by the helpdesk. sent6: if the fact that the sentencing does not occur and/or the injury does not occur is wrong the closeting chichipe occurs. sent7: the mudslide occurs if the path happens. sent8: if the aeromedicalness happens then the fact that the punch does not occur and/or the rentableness does not occur is incorrect. sent9: the managership occurs if the prizing butt-weld occurs. sent10: if the scintillating Lermontov does not occur then that the deregulating T-bill does not occur or the smallerness does not occur or both is wrong. sent11: if that the gastroesophagealness does not occur and/or the thanklessness does not occur is not true then the scintillating April occurs. sent12: the sentence occurs if the scintillating Lermontov occurs. sent13: the demurrage happens and the servicing occurs if the scintillating Tabriz does not occur. sent14: if the fact that the scintillating Lermontov happens is not incorrect then the fact that either the sentencing does not occur or the injury does not occur or both is not right. sent15: the closeting chichipe occurs if that the sentence happens and/or the injury does not occur is not right. sent16: the prizing Rhyacotriton occurs if that the deregulating venison occurs and/or the skinniness does not occur is false. sent17: the brotherliness happens. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the scintillating Lermontov happens is right.; sent14 & assump1 -> int1: that the sentencing does not occur or the injury does not occur or both does not hold.; sent6 & int1 -> int2: the closeting chichipe occurs.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the platyrrhine is antemeridian.
|
{A}{c}
|
sent1: if the platyrrhine does not prize stadium the popularizer is antemeridian. sent2: if something is not a Down it does not prize stadium. sent3: if the placentation is not a Down and is synaptic the ureter is not a Down. sent4: the fact that that the altocumulus is a squaw but it does not prize elder is not true is not wrong if there exists something such that it is antemeridian. sent5: the blackberry does closet theme. sent6: the fact that something is not a hacek if the fact that it does not inherit and is a hacek is wrong is correct. sent7: if that something is synaptic but it does not hedgehop is wrong the fact that it is not synaptic is correct. sent8: if the popularizer does not prize elder then that the platyrrhine does prize elder and is not a squaw is not true. sent9: if the placentation is not a hacek it is a crabgrass and it is a Vedism. sent10: that the altocumulus is an adrenal and is not courteous is false. sent11: if the altocumulus is courteous that the popularizer prizes elder does not hold. sent12: if that the altocumulus is not a squaw and does prize elder is not correct the platyrrhine is not antemeridian. sent13: the fact that something is not a squaw but it prizes elder is false if that it does not prize stadium is not false. sent14: if there exists something such that it is not synaptic the fact that the popularizer is a Down but it is not patristic is false. sent15: something does not prize stadium if that it is patristic thing that does prize stadium is not correct. sent16: the placentation is synaptic if it does hedgehop. sent17: if the placentation is a kind of a crabgrass and it is a Vedism then the ureter is not a kind of a crabgrass. sent18: if the ureter is not a kind of a Down the fact that the platyrrhine is patristic and does prize stadium is false. sent19: the placentation is not a kind of a Down. sent20: if the fact that the altocumulus is both not non-adrenal and discourteous is not right the popularizer does not prize elder. sent21: if that the blackberry does not closet theme does not hold then that the placentation does not inherit but it is a hacek is incorrect. sent22: the fact that something is synaptic but it does not hedgehop is wrong if it is not a crabgrass.
|
sent1: ¬{D}{c} -> {A}{b} sent2: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬{D}x sent3: (¬{E}{e} & {G}{e}) -> ¬{E}{d} sent4: (x): {A}x -> ¬({C}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent5: {L}{f} sent6: (x): ¬(¬{M}x & {J}x) -> ¬{J}x sent7: (x): ¬({G}x & ¬{H}x) -> ¬{G}x sent8: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬({B}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) sent9: ¬{J}{e} -> ({I}{e} & {K}{e}) sent10: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent11: {AB}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent12: ¬(¬{C}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{A}{c} sent13: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & {B}x) sent14: (x): ¬{G}x -> ¬({E}{b} & ¬{F}{b}) sent15: (x): ¬({F}x & {D}x) -> ¬{D}x sent16: {H}{e} -> {G}{e} sent17: ({I}{e} & {K}{e}) -> ¬{I}{d} sent18: ¬{E}{d} -> ¬({F}{c} & {D}{c}) sent19: ¬{E}{e} sent20: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent21: {L}{f} -> ¬(¬{M}{e} & {J}{e}) sent22: (x): ¬{I}x -> ¬({G}x & ¬{H}x)
|
[
"sent20 & sent10 -> int1: the popularizer does not prize elder.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: that the fact that the platyrrhine does prize elder and is not a kind of a squaw is correct is false.;"
] |
[
"sent20 & sent10 -> int1: ¬{B}{b}; int1 & sent8 -> int2: ¬({B}{c} & ¬{C}{c});"
] |
the conacaste is not a kind of a squaw.
|
¬{C}{ht}
|
[
"sent15 -> int3: the platyrrhine does not prize stadium if that it is patristic and it does prize stadium is false.;"
] | 11 | 3 | null | 19 | 0 | 19 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the platyrrhine is antemeridian. ; $context$ = sent1: if the platyrrhine does not prize stadium the popularizer is antemeridian. sent2: if something is not a Down it does not prize stadium. sent3: if the placentation is not a Down and is synaptic the ureter is not a Down. sent4: the fact that that the altocumulus is a squaw but it does not prize elder is not true is not wrong if there exists something such that it is antemeridian. sent5: the blackberry does closet theme. sent6: the fact that something is not a hacek if the fact that it does not inherit and is a hacek is wrong is correct. sent7: if that something is synaptic but it does not hedgehop is wrong the fact that it is not synaptic is correct. sent8: if the popularizer does not prize elder then that the platyrrhine does prize elder and is not a squaw is not true. sent9: if the placentation is not a hacek it is a crabgrass and it is a Vedism. sent10: that the altocumulus is an adrenal and is not courteous is false. sent11: if the altocumulus is courteous that the popularizer prizes elder does not hold. sent12: if that the altocumulus is not a squaw and does prize elder is not correct the platyrrhine is not antemeridian. sent13: the fact that something is not a squaw but it prizes elder is false if that it does not prize stadium is not false. sent14: if there exists something such that it is not synaptic the fact that the popularizer is a Down but it is not patristic is false. sent15: something does not prize stadium if that it is patristic thing that does prize stadium is not correct. sent16: the placentation is synaptic if it does hedgehop. sent17: if the placentation is a kind of a crabgrass and it is a Vedism then the ureter is not a kind of a crabgrass. sent18: if the ureter is not a kind of a Down the fact that the platyrrhine is patristic and does prize stadium is false. sent19: the placentation is not a kind of a Down. sent20: if the fact that the altocumulus is both not non-adrenal and discourteous is not right the popularizer does not prize elder. sent21: if that the blackberry does not closet theme does not hold then that the placentation does not inherit but it is a hacek is incorrect. sent22: the fact that something is synaptic but it does not hedgehop is wrong if it is not a crabgrass. ; $proof$ =
|
sent20 & sent10 -> int1: the popularizer does not prize elder.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: that the fact that the platyrrhine does prize elder and is not a kind of a squaw is correct is false.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the perversion does not occur is right.
|
¬{C}
|
sent1: if the closeting selvage occurs then both the non-meritocraticness and the spluttering occurs. sent2: if the spluttering occurs then the whitecap occurs. sent3: if the somatosensoriness happens the deregulating duckboard occurs. sent4: the throw occurs. sent5: the Huxleyanness occurs if the prizing Secretariat occurs. sent6: the caudalness does not occur if the non-tetragonalness or the caudalnessness or both happens. sent7: the powerfulness does not occur if the Huxleyanness happens. sent8: if the investigation occurs both the non-auxinicness and the non-Sabineness occurs. sent9: the fact that the closeting selvage occurs is not wrong if the viricidalness happens. sent10: the squeeze does not occur if the fact that the clinker-builtness but not the closeting rhodium occurs is false. sent11: either that the tetragonalness does not occur or that the caudalness does not occur or both is triggered by the whitecap. sent12: that the powerfulness does not occur and the squeeze does not occur leads to the investigation. sent13: the viricidalness occurs if the deregulating duckboard happens. sent14: that the perversion does not occur is triggered by that the throw happens and the caudalness happens. sent15: the somatosensoriness and the scintillating colonoscope happens if the auxinicness does not occur. sent16: the non-caudalness causes that both the throwing and the perversion happens. sent17: the prizing Secretariat happens and the severance occurs.
|
sent1: {H} -> (¬{G} & {F}) sent2: {F} -> {D} sent3: {K} -> {J} sent4: {A} sent5: {U} -> {T} sent6: (¬{E} v ¬{B}) -> ¬{B} sent7: {T} -> ¬{Q} sent8: {O} -> (¬{M} & ¬{N}) sent9: {I} -> {H} sent10: ¬({S} & ¬{R}) -> ¬{P} sent11: {D} -> (¬{E} v ¬{B}) sent12: (¬{Q} & ¬{P}) -> {O} sent13: {J} -> {I} sent14: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent15: ¬{M} -> ({K} & {L}) sent16: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {C}) sent17: ({U} & {AA})
|
[] |
[] |
the fact that the perversion happens hold.
|
{C}
|
[
"sent17 -> int1: the prizing Secretariat happens.; sent5 & int1 -> int2: the Huxleyanness occurs.; sent7 & int2 -> int3: the powerfulness does not occur.;"
] | 19 | 2 | null | 15 | 0 | 15 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the perversion does not occur is right. ; $context$ = sent1: if the closeting selvage occurs then both the non-meritocraticness and the spluttering occurs. sent2: if the spluttering occurs then the whitecap occurs. sent3: if the somatosensoriness happens the deregulating duckboard occurs. sent4: the throw occurs. sent5: the Huxleyanness occurs if the prizing Secretariat occurs. sent6: the caudalness does not occur if the non-tetragonalness or the caudalnessness or both happens. sent7: the powerfulness does not occur if the Huxleyanness happens. sent8: if the investigation occurs both the non-auxinicness and the non-Sabineness occurs. sent9: the fact that the closeting selvage occurs is not wrong if the viricidalness happens. sent10: the squeeze does not occur if the fact that the clinker-builtness but not the closeting rhodium occurs is false. sent11: either that the tetragonalness does not occur or that the caudalness does not occur or both is triggered by the whitecap. sent12: that the powerfulness does not occur and the squeeze does not occur leads to the investigation. sent13: the viricidalness occurs if the deregulating duckboard happens. sent14: that the perversion does not occur is triggered by that the throw happens and the caudalness happens. sent15: the somatosensoriness and the scintillating colonoscope happens if the auxinicness does not occur. sent16: the non-caudalness causes that both the throwing and the perversion happens. sent17: the prizing Secretariat happens and the severance occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there exists something such that if it does not closet music then it does not stagger and does prize haggle is wrong.
|
¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x))
|
sent1: there exists something such that if it is algometric it does not scintillate plaster and prizes epitaph. sent2: something does not stagger but it does prize haggle if it does not closet music. sent3: there is something such that if it does not prize Canidae it does not deregulate Brockhouse and is amethystine. sent4: if something does not closet music then it prizes haggle. sent5: there exists something such that if it does not closet distressed then it does not closet bathing and is a shrimpfish. sent6: the hagiographer does prize haggle if it does not closet music. sent7: there is something such that if it does not closet music then it does stagger and does prize haggle. sent8: the hagiographer does not tell and closets nawab if it is not a Venus. sent9: there is something such that if it does not closet field then it is a tantalum. sent10: the fact that if the hagiographer does stagger the hagiographer does not deregulate lumbermill and is archidiaconal is not wrong. sent11: the field does not stagger and is a phycobilin if it is chauvinistic.
|
sent1: (Ex): {IL}x -> (¬{DK}x & {EK}x) sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: (Ex): ¬{CF}x -> (¬{JD}x & {BA}x) sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> {AB}x sent5: (Ex): ¬{EC}x -> (¬{FD}x & {IO}x) sent6: ¬{A}{aa} -> {AB}{aa} sent7: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent8: ¬{CT}{aa} -> (¬{DI}{aa} & {DM}{aa}) sent9: (Ex): ¬{BL}x -> {CM}x sent10: {AA}{aa} -> (¬{EN}{aa} & {DG}{aa}) sent11: {AP}{en} -> (¬{AA}{en} & {EA}{en})
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: if the hagiographer does not closet music it does not stagger and it does prize haggle.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it does not closet music then it does not stagger and does prize haggle is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it is algometric it does not scintillate plaster and prizes epitaph. sent2: something does not stagger but it does prize haggle if it does not closet music. sent3: there is something such that if it does not prize Canidae it does not deregulate Brockhouse and is amethystine. sent4: if something does not closet music then it prizes haggle. sent5: there exists something such that if it does not closet distressed then it does not closet bathing and is a shrimpfish. sent6: the hagiographer does prize haggle if it does not closet music. sent7: there is something such that if it does not closet music then it does stagger and does prize haggle. sent8: the hagiographer does not tell and closets nawab if it is not a Venus. sent9: there is something such that if it does not closet field then it is a tantalum. sent10: the fact that if the hagiographer does stagger the hagiographer does not deregulate lumbermill and is archidiaconal is not wrong. sent11: the field does not stagger and is a phycobilin if it is chauvinistic. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> int1: if the hagiographer does not closet music it does not stagger and it does prize haggle.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if that it does not bush is true the fact that it does scintillate trigonometry and does prize candy is not correct.
|
(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x)
|
sent1: there exists something such that if it does bush the fact that it does scintillate trigonometry and it prizes candy is false. sent2: there is something such that if it is not pro-life then it does bloviate and does closet claque. sent3: the page scintillates trigonometry and it does prize candy if the fact that it does not bush is correct. sent4: that the page scintillates transactinide and it does closet Stentor is incorrect if it is not a certificate. sent5: there exists something such that if it does scintillate page the fact that it is a uptime and it does prize iniquity is not correct. sent6: the fact that the page closets Babesiidae and it is a thirty does not hold if it does not prize candy. sent7: there is something such that if the fact that it does closet Halakah is not incorrect that it is a friendly and uninfluential is not true. sent8: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a shofar hold then the fact that it is a windowsill and it is an omnipotence is not wrong. sent9: there is something such that if it is not a Issachar then the fact that it does deregulate grisaille and is a kind of a uptime is not right. sent10: that there is something such that if it does not scintillate welding that it is a kind of a pectoral and deregulates grisaille is not correct is true. sent11: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a bushing then it scintillates trigonometry and prizes candy. sent12: there is something such that if it is not antheridial then the fact that it is equitable and it prizes headscarf is not true. sent13: if the page does not prize intrusion then that it is historical and it does prize candy does not hold. sent14: the page is a kind of a swathing and it scintillates trigonometry if it is not hot. sent15: if the page is not hot then it does scintillate page and is a payback. sent16: that the grisaille is a kind of a bushing that deregulates Hepburn is not true if it is not a saturniid. sent17: the fact that the page does scintillate trigonometry and it prizes candy is wrong if it does not bush. sent18: there is something such that if it is not a mass then the fact that it is a Sweet and it is an adobe is false. sent19: there exists something such that if it is not a Burundi then it is both successful and a Tanzanian. sent20: there exists something such that if that it is not a windowsill is right that it is a kind of a libertarian that is a Murmansk does not hold.
|
sent1: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent2: (Ex): ¬{DU}x -> ({DQ}x & {FN}x) sent3: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent4: ¬{FP}{aa} -> ¬({S}{aa} & {JG}{aa}) sent5: (Ex): {AM}x -> ¬({HE}x & {AJ}x) sent6: ¬{AB}{aa} -> ¬({JF}{aa} & {CC}{aa}) sent7: (Ex): {IG}x -> ¬({AL}x & {EF}x) sent8: (Ex): ¬{GK}x -> ({DL}x & {IR}x) sent9: (Ex): ¬{JK}x -> ¬({DB}x & {HE}x) sent10: (Ex): ¬{EJ}x -> ¬({BE}x & {DB}x) sent11: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent12: (Ex): ¬{AH}x -> ¬({IL}x & {CB}x) sent13: ¬{GD}{aa} -> ¬({HF}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent14: ¬{HC}{aa} -> ({EA}{aa} & {AA}{aa}) sent15: ¬{HC}{aa} -> ({AM}{aa} & {JE}{aa}) sent16: ¬{EI}{r} -> ¬({A}{r} & {IQ}{r}) sent17: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent18: (Ex): ¬{EE}x -> ¬({AQ}x & {FG}x) sent19: (Ex): ¬{GF}x -> ({DH}x & {AT}x) sent20: (Ex): ¬{DL}x -> ¬({GJ}x & {CQ}x)
|
[
"sent17 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent17 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if that it does not bush is true the fact that it does scintillate trigonometry and does prize candy is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it does bush the fact that it does scintillate trigonometry and it prizes candy is false. sent2: there is something such that if it is not pro-life then it does bloviate and does closet claque. sent3: the page scintillates trigonometry and it does prize candy if the fact that it does not bush is correct. sent4: that the page scintillates transactinide and it does closet Stentor is incorrect if it is not a certificate. sent5: there exists something such that if it does scintillate page the fact that it is a uptime and it does prize iniquity is not correct. sent6: the fact that the page closets Babesiidae and it is a thirty does not hold if it does not prize candy. sent7: there is something such that if the fact that it does closet Halakah is not incorrect that it is a friendly and uninfluential is not true. sent8: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a shofar hold then the fact that it is a windowsill and it is an omnipotence is not wrong. sent9: there is something such that if it is not a Issachar then the fact that it does deregulate grisaille and is a kind of a uptime is not right. sent10: that there is something such that if it does not scintillate welding that it is a kind of a pectoral and deregulates grisaille is not correct is true. sent11: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a bushing then it scintillates trigonometry and prizes candy. sent12: there is something such that if it is not antheridial then the fact that it is equitable and it prizes headscarf is not true. sent13: if the page does not prize intrusion then that it is historical and it does prize candy does not hold. sent14: the page is a kind of a swathing and it scintillates trigonometry if it is not hot. sent15: if the page is not hot then it does scintillate page and is a payback. sent16: that the grisaille is a kind of a bushing that deregulates Hepburn is not true if it is not a saturniid. sent17: the fact that the page does scintillate trigonometry and it prizes candy is wrong if it does not bush. sent18: there is something such that if it is not a mass then the fact that it is a Sweet and it is an adobe is false. sent19: there exists something such that if it is not a Burundi then it is both successful and a Tanzanian. sent20: there exists something such that if that it is not a windowsill is right that it is a kind of a libertarian that is a Murmansk does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent17 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the wood-fern is not pyroligneous.
|
¬{D}{b}
|
sent1: the wood-fern scintillates Rhyacotriton if the decoration scintillates croissant. sent2: if something does scintillate Rhyacotriton or it is eukaryotic or both it is not pyroligneous. sent3: there exists something such that that it is a Ruscus and it is not a chancel is not right.
|
sent1: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent2: (x): ({B}x v {C}x) -> ¬{D}x sent3: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: the wood-fern is not pyroligneous if either it does scintillate Rhyacotriton or it is eukaryotic or both.;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> int1: ({B}{b} v {C}{b}) -> ¬{D}{b};"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 4 | null | 0 | 0 | 0 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the wood-fern is not pyroligneous. ; $context$ = sent1: the wood-fern scintillates Rhyacotriton if the decoration scintillates croissant. sent2: if something does scintillate Rhyacotriton or it is eukaryotic or both it is not pyroligneous. sent3: there exists something such that that it is a Ruscus and it is not a chancel is not right. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> int1: the wood-fern is not pyroligneous if either it does scintillate Rhyacotriton or it is eukaryotic or both.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the savin is not a kind of a bohrium but it is a kind of a cancroid.
|
(¬{C}{b} & {D}{b})
|
sent1: if something is not a fingerpaint then it is stemless and it interferes. sent2: the fact that something does closet threshold is not incorrect if it is not non-bionic. sent3: if the hoe does not interfere then the savin is stemless. sent4: if something interferes it is not a bohrium. sent5: if the esthete does closet threshold the fact that the hoe does not closet threshold is not correct. sent6: something is not a fingerpaint if it does closet threshold. sent7: if the savin does interfere the fact that it is not a kind of a bohrium is not wrong. sent8: if the hoe is stemless the fact that the savin is not a kind of a bohrium and is cancroid does not hold. sent9: if something does interfere it is not a bohrium and is a kind of a cancroid. sent10: the hoe does interfere. sent11: the savin does not prize Balanchine but it is dysphemistic. sent12: if the hoe is not stemless then the savin does interfere. sent13: the hoe is not stemless. sent14: the savin is not a bohrium.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({A}x & {B}x) sent2: (x): {G}x -> {F}x sent3: ¬{B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent4: (x): {B}x -> ¬{C}x sent5: {F}{c} -> {F}{a} sent6: (x): {F}x -> ¬{E}x sent7: {B}{b} -> ¬{C}{b} sent8: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{C}{b} & {D}{b}) sent9: (x): {B}x -> (¬{C}x & {D}x) sent10: {B}{a} sent11: (¬{AM}{b} & {GO}{b}) sent12: ¬{A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent13: ¬{A}{a} sent14: ¬{C}{b}
|
[
"sent12 & sent13 -> int1: the savin interferes.; sent9 -> int2: if the savin interferes it is not a bohrium and it is a cancroid.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent12 & sent13 -> int1: {B}{b}; sent9 -> int2: {B}{b} -> (¬{C}{b} & {D}{b}); int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the savin is not a kind of a bohrium but it is cancroid is not correct.
|
¬(¬{C}{b} & {D}{b})
|
[
"sent1 -> int3: if the hoe is not a kind of a fingerpaint then it is stemless and it interferes.; sent6 -> int4: if the hoe does closet threshold then it is not a fingerpaint.; sent2 -> int5: if the esthete is bionic then it closets threshold.;"
] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the savin is not a kind of a bohrium but it is a kind of a cancroid. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not a fingerpaint then it is stemless and it interferes. sent2: the fact that something does closet threshold is not incorrect if it is not non-bionic. sent3: if the hoe does not interfere then the savin is stemless. sent4: if something interferes it is not a bohrium. sent5: if the esthete does closet threshold the fact that the hoe does not closet threshold is not correct. sent6: something is not a fingerpaint if it does closet threshold. sent7: if the savin does interfere the fact that it is not a kind of a bohrium is not wrong. sent8: if the hoe is stemless the fact that the savin is not a kind of a bohrium and is cancroid does not hold. sent9: if something does interfere it is not a bohrium and is a kind of a cancroid. sent10: the hoe does interfere. sent11: the savin does not prize Balanchine but it is dysphemistic. sent12: if the hoe is not stemless then the savin does interfere. sent13: the hoe is not stemless. sent14: the savin is not a bohrium. ; $proof$ =
|
sent12 & sent13 -> int1: the savin interferes.; sent9 -> int2: if the savin interferes it is not a bohrium and it is a cancroid.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there is something such that if the fact that it is a capillary and/or it does not scintillate patchwork is not true then it is not homeopathic does not hold.
|
¬((Ex): ¬({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x)
|
sent1: there is something such that if the fact that it does sadden and/or it is not a portable does not hold it is not a Herbart. sent2: if the menorah either is homeopathic or is not a kind of a follow-through or both it does not scintillate ballot. sent3: if the menorah does closet Shute and/or is not awkward then it is not a capillary. sent4: if that the menorah is a capillary and/or it does not scintillate patchwork does not hold then it is homeopathic. sent5: the menorah does not closet Lander if that it does scintillate Tartary and/or does sadden does not hold. sent6: there is something such that if the fact that it is useless and/or it does not scintillate senator does not hold that it is fissionable is not false. sent7: if the fact that the memory is scopal and/or it is a kind of a Scomber does not hold it does not scintillate personableness. sent8: if that either the menorah is a kind of a capillary or it does not scintillate patchwork or both does not hold the fact that it is not homeopathic hold. sent9: the fridge does not closet evangelism if the fact that it does scintillate patchwork and/or it is a flavor is not right. sent10: the menorah is not homeopathic if the fact that it is a phenylpropanolamine or it is a kind of a dumpcart or both is not correct. sent11: the menorah does not prize Benchley if that it does scintillate rescript and/or it is not a capillary is not true. sent12: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a capillary and/or it does not scintillate patchwork then it is not homeopathic. sent13: there exists something such that if that it is a Herbart and/or is not a Gadidae is wrong it is transitional. sent14: if the fact that something is rabid or it is not meaningful or both is false the fact that it does not closet dried hold. sent15: if the menorah is homeopathic and/or it is non-conservative then it is not subtractive. sent16: if that either the senator is a noon or it is not useless or both is incorrect it is not a kind of a waterfowl. sent17: if that the menorah sleeps and/or does not scintillate rescript is not right then it is not a lacteal. sent18: there is something such that if the fact that it is a wassailer and/or is an aircraft is false then it is not a marblewood. sent19: there exists something such that if that it does twig and/or does not scintillate lend-lease does not hold it is not a Westernization.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬({DS}x v ¬{HK}x) -> ¬{BP}x sent2: ({B}{aa} v ¬{BD}{aa}) -> ¬{K}{aa} sent3: ({AG}{aa} v ¬{AS}{aa}) -> ¬{AA}{aa} sent4: ¬({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent5: ¬({AK}{aa} v {DS}{aa}) -> ¬{BR}{aa} sent6: (Ex): ¬({FO}x v ¬{HE}x) -> {DC}x sent7: ¬({AM}{bt} v {FH}{bt}) -> ¬{IM}{bt} sent8: ¬({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent9: ¬({AB}{hf} v {DN}{hf}) -> ¬{FP}{hf} sent10: ¬({GD}{aa} v {HQ}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent11: ¬({ER}{aa} v ¬{AA}{aa}) -> ¬{HU}{aa} sent12: (Ex): ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent13: (Ex): ¬({BP}x v ¬{GN}x) -> {AD}x sent14: (x): ¬({HC}x v ¬{I}x) -> ¬{EL}x sent15: ({B}{aa} v ¬{BL}{aa}) -> ¬{BJ}{aa} sent16: ¬({JJ}{is} v ¬{FO}{is}) -> ¬{G}{is} sent17: ¬({CF}{aa} v ¬{ER}{aa}) -> ¬{GE}{aa} sent18: (Ex): ¬({EF}x v {HL}x) -> ¬{BT}x sent19: (Ex): ¬({FD}x v ¬{IU}x) -> ¬{EQ}x
|
[
"sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there is something such that if the fact that it is rabid or not meaningful or both does not hold then it does not closet dried.
|
(Ex): ¬({HC}x v ¬{I}x) -> ¬{EL}x
|
[
"sent14 -> int1: the patchwork does not closet dried if the fact that it is rabid and/or it is not meaningful is wrong.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if the fact that it is a capillary and/or it does not scintillate patchwork is not true then it is not homeopathic does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if the fact that it does sadden and/or it is not a portable does not hold it is not a Herbart. sent2: if the menorah either is homeopathic or is not a kind of a follow-through or both it does not scintillate ballot. sent3: if the menorah does closet Shute and/or is not awkward then it is not a capillary. sent4: if that the menorah is a capillary and/or it does not scintillate patchwork does not hold then it is homeopathic. sent5: the menorah does not closet Lander if that it does scintillate Tartary and/or does sadden does not hold. sent6: there is something such that if the fact that it is useless and/or it does not scintillate senator does not hold that it is fissionable is not false. sent7: if the fact that the memory is scopal and/or it is a kind of a Scomber does not hold it does not scintillate personableness. sent8: if that either the menorah is a kind of a capillary or it does not scintillate patchwork or both does not hold the fact that it is not homeopathic hold. sent9: the fridge does not closet evangelism if the fact that it does scintillate patchwork and/or it is a flavor is not right. sent10: the menorah is not homeopathic if the fact that it is a phenylpropanolamine or it is a kind of a dumpcart or both is not correct. sent11: the menorah does not prize Benchley if that it does scintillate rescript and/or it is not a capillary is not true. sent12: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a capillary and/or it does not scintillate patchwork then it is not homeopathic. sent13: there exists something such that if that it is a Herbart and/or is not a Gadidae is wrong it is transitional. sent14: if the fact that something is rabid or it is not meaningful or both is false the fact that it does not closet dried hold. sent15: if the menorah is homeopathic and/or it is non-conservative then it is not subtractive. sent16: if that either the senator is a noon or it is not useless or both is incorrect it is not a kind of a waterfowl. sent17: if that the menorah sleeps and/or does not scintillate rescript is not right then it is not a lacteal. sent18: there is something such that if the fact that it is a wassailer and/or is an aircraft is false then it is not a marblewood. sent19: there exists something such that if that it does twig and/or does not scintillate lend-lease does not hold it is not a Westernization. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the supersonicness does not occur.
|
¬{C}
|
sent1: the fact that the supersonicness occurs hold if the shamanistness occurs. sent2: the shamanistness happens if the fact that the carrier does not occur and the spillover does not occur does not hold. sent3: the fact that the carrier does not occur and the spillover does not occur is not true if the shingling does not occur. sent4: the shingling does not occur.
|
sent1: {B} -> {C} sent2: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent3: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent4: ¬{A}
|
[
"sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the fact that the carrier does not occur and the spillover does not occur is false.; sent2 & int1 -> int2: the shamanistness happens.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent4 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}); sent2 & int1 -> int2: {B}; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the supersonicness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the supersonicness occurs hold if the shamanistness occurs. sent2: the shamanistness happens if the fact that the carrier does not occur and the spillover does not occur does not hold. sent3: the fact that the carrier does not occur and the spillover does not occur is not true if the shingling does not occur. sent4: the shingling does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the fact that the carrier does not occur and the spillover does not occur is false.; sent2 & int1 -> int2: the shamanistness happens.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Call prizes exponentiation.
|
{C}{a}
|
sent1: the Call is nonenzymatic and does scintillate earmark. sent2: the Call is nonenzymatic. sent3: the glyceride does prize exponentiation. sent4: the abator is a waffler if it does scintillate earmark. sent5: if the prickle-weed is noninvasive the scout is biliary. sent6: the berth prizes exponentiation if the fact that the Call does prizes exponentiation and is not nonenzymatic does not hold. sent7: something is nonenzymatic or it does not scintillate earmark or both if it is not a dialectic. sent8: if something does scintillate earmark it prizes exponentiation. sent9: the Call does corrode. sent10: the foram prizes exponentiation. sent11: the tunnel is nonenzymatic. sent12: the prickle-weed scintillates riptide if the wormwood either scintillates riptide or is not spiritualistic or both. sent13: the complement is nonenzymatic. sent14: the Call is a kind of a Florentine. sent15: the Call does not prize exponentiation if the fact that that the lampshade is not nonenzymatic and/or does not prize exponentiation is right is not correct. sent16: a biliary thing is non-dialectic thing that does not closet sloppiness. sent17: if the coralberry does scintillate earmark that the lampshade is not nonenzymatic or it does not prize exponentiation or both is not correct. sent18: if something scintillates earmark then it is nonenzymatic. sent19: if the lampshade does not scintillate earmark then the fact that the Call does prize exponentiation and is not nonenzymatic is incorrect. sent20: if something does scintillate riptide then it is noninvasive. sent21: the Call is a cancellation.
|
sent1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent2: {A}{a} sent3: {C}{ai} sent4: {B}{gf} -> {FJ}{gf} sent5: {G}{e} -> {F}{d} sent6: ¬({C}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> {C}{ds} sent7: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({A}x v ¬{B}x) sent8: (x): {B}x -> {C}x sent9: {FS}{a} sent10: {C}{bn} sent11: {A}{fn} sent12: ({H}{f} v ¬{I}{f}) -> {H}{e} sent13: {A}{el} sent14: {DB}{a} sent15: ¬(¬{A}{b} v ¬{C}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent16: (x): {F}x -> (¬{D}x & ¬{E}x) sent17: {B}{c} -> ¬(¬{A}{b} v ¬{C}{b}) sent18: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent19: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬({C}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent20: (x): {H}x -> {G}x sent21: {DQ}{a}
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: the Call does scintillate earmark.; sent8 -> int2: the Call does prize exponentiation if it scintillates earmark.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent8 -> int2: {B}{a} -> {C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the Call does not prize exponentiation.
|
¬{C}{a}
|
[
"sent16 -> int3: if the fact that the scout is biliary is not false then that it is not dialectic and does not closet sloppiness is correct.; sent20 -> int4: the prickle-weed is noninvasive if it does scintillate riptide.;"
] | 9 | 2 | 2 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the Call prizes exponentiation. ; $context$ = sent1: the Call is nonenzymatic and does scintillate earmark. sent2: the Call is nonenzymatic. sent3: the glyceride does prize exponentiation. sent4: the abator is a waffler if it does scintillate earmark. sent5: if the prickle-weed is noninvasive the scout is biliary. sent6: the berth prizes exponentiation if the fact that the Call does prizes exponentiation and is not nonenzymatic does not hold. sent7: something is nonenzymatic or it does not scintillate earmark or both if it is not a dialectic. sent8: if something does scintillate earmark it prizes exponentiation. sent9: the Call does corrode. sent10: the foram prizes exponentiation. sent11: the tunnel is nonenzymatic. sent12: the prickle-weed scintillates riptide if the wormwood either scintillates riptide or is not spiritualistic or both. sent13: the complement is nonenzymatic. sent14: the Call is a kind of a Florentine. sent15: the Call does not prize exponentiation if the fact that that the lampshade is not nonenzymatic and/or does not prize exponentiation is right is not correct. sent16: a biliary thing is non-dialectic thing that does not closet sloppiness. sent17: if the coralberry does scintillate earmark that the lampshade is not nonenzymatic or it does not prize exponentiation or both is not correct. sent18: if something scintillates earmark then it is nonenzymatic. sent19: if the lampshade does not scintillate earmark then the fact that the Call does prize exponentiation and is not nonenzymatic is incorrect. sent20: if something does scintillate riptide then it is noninvasive. sent21: the Call is a cancellation. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: the Call does scintillate earmark.; sent8 -> int2: the Call does prize exponentiation if it scintillates earmark.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the corselet is a Maxzide is right.
|
{AB}{a}
|
sent1: the stay is not a kind of a Maxzide. sent2: the corselet is a Portuguese. sent3: the corselet does not imbibe and it is not a Maxzide if it is a kind of a Portuguese.
|
sent1: ¬{AB}{de} sent2: {A}{a} sent3: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})
|
[
"sent3 & sent2 -> int1: the corselet does not imbibe and is not a Maxzide.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent2 -> int1: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the corselet is a Maxzide is right. ; $context$ = sent1: the stay is not a kind of a Maxzide. sent2: the corselet is a Portuguese. sent3: the corselet does not imbibe and it is not a Maxzide if it is a kind of a Portuguese. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent2 -> int1: the corselet does not imbibe and is not a Maxzide.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the run-up occurs.
|
{AA}
|
sent1: the unableness does not occur. sent2: the uncooperativeness does not occur and the rigmarole does not occur. sent3: the run-up does not occur and the unableness does not occur if that the thespianness does not occur is not false. sent4: the dolomiticness does not occur if either the ready-madeness occurs or the scintillating dime does not occur or both. sent5: that the reconnaissance does not occur and the luck does not occur is triggered by that the turbulence does not occur. sent6: the turbulence does not occur. sent7: that the scintillating personableness does not occur leads to that both the thespianness and the cogitativeness happens. sent8: the fact that if the luck does not occur and the dolomiticness does not occur then the bridging happens is not false. sent9: the scintillating personableness does not occur if the fact that the agreement and/or the non-obtrusiveness occurs is false. sent10: the fact that the agreement happens or the obtrusiveness does not occur or both is incorrect if that the bridging occurs is not false. sent11: the thespianness prevents that the run-up does not occur. sent12: the thespianness does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬{AB} sent2: (¬{HE} & ¬{EP}) sent3: ¬{A} -> (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent4: ({I} v ¬{J}) -> ¬{H} sent5: ¬{O} -> (¬{N} & ¬{G}) sent6: ¬{O} sent7: ¬{C} -> ({A} & {B}) sent8: (¬{G} & ¬{H}) -> {F} sent9: ¬({D} v ¬{E}) -> ¬{C} sent10: {F} -> ¬({D} v ¬{E}) sent11: {A} -> {AA} sent12: ¬{A}
|
[
"sent3 & sent12 -> int1: the run-up does not occur and the unableness does not occur.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent12 -> int1: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the run-up happens.
|
{AA}
|
[
"sent5 & sent6 -> int2: the reconnaissance does not occur and the luck does not occur.; int2 -> int3: the luck does not occur.;"
] | 11 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the run-up occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the unableness does not occur. sent2: the uncooperativeness does not occur and the rigmarole does not occur. sent3: the run-up does not occur and the unableness does not occur if that the thespianness does not occur is not false. sent4: the dolomiticness does not occur if either the ready-madeness occurs or the scintillating dime does not occur or both. sent5: that the reconnaissance does not occur and the luck does not occur is triggered by that the turbulence does not occur. sent6: the turbulence does not occur. sent7: that the scintillating personableness does not occur leads to that both the thespianness and the cogitativeness happens. sent8: the fact that if the luck does not occur and the dolomiticness does not occur then the bridging happens is not false. sent9: the scintillating personableness does not occur if the fact that the agreement and/or the non-obtrusiveness occurs is false. sent10: the fact that the agreement happens or the obtrusiveness does not occur or both is incorrect if that the bridging occurs is not false. sent11: the thespianness prevents that the run-up does not occur. sent12: the thespianness does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent12 -> int1: the run-up does not occur and the unableness does not occur.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it is not a kind of an electromagnetism then it is a kind of a lepton and it does closet fraud.
|
(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x)
|
sent1: the oxtongue is feline and is an electromagnetism if it is not unaggressive. sent2: there exists something such that if it is an electromagnetism then it is a lepton and it closets fraud. sent3: the gem is a lepton if it is not a kind of an electromagnetism. sent4: there is something such that if it is not an electromagnetism it does closet fraud. sent5: there is something such that if it is not an electromagnetism it is a lepton. sent6: there exists something such that if it is not lacrimatory then it is collarless. sent7: if the appendicle is not a examen it closets fraud. sent8: if something does not bear it does prize roomful and is a kind of a lepton. sent9: if the gem is not an electromagnetism then it is a lepton and it closets fraud.
|
sent1: ¬{JC}{ak} -> ({DS}{ak} & {A}{ak}) sent2: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: ¬{A}{aa} -> {AA}{aa} sent4: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> {AB}x sent5: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> {AA}x sent6: (Ex): ¬{EA}x -> {CN}x sent7: ¬{CT}{cf} -> {AB}{cf} sent8: (x): ¬{IG}x -> ({HO}x & {AA}x) sent9: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})
|
[
"sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the gem does prize roomful and it is a lepton if it is not a bore.
|
¬{IG}{aa} -> ({HO}{aa} & {AA}{aa})
|
[
"sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is not a kind of an electromagnetism then it is a kind of a lepton and it does closet fraud. ; $context$ = sent1: the oxtongue is feline and is an electromagnetism if it is not unaggressive. sent2: there exists something such that if it is an electromagnetism then it is a lepton and it closets fraud. sent3: the gem is a lepton if it is not a kind of an electromagnetism. sent4: there is something such that if it is not an electromagnetism it does closet fraud. sent5: there is something such that if it is not an electromagnetism it is a lepton. sent6: there exists something such that if it is not lacrimatory then it is collarless. sent7: if the appendicle is not a examen it closets fraud. sent8: if something does not bear it does prize roomful and is a kind of a lepton. sent9: if the gem is not an electromagnetism then it is a lepton and it closets fraud. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the trustbuster does closet prefabrication.
|
{C}{a}
|
sent1: there is something such that it is pyogenic. sent2: the trustbuster does closet ENE. sent3: the trustbuster does closet ENE if there are non-pyogenic things. sent4: the fact that the reluctance does not prize nebbish hold if that the fly is a bruise and it is a handicraft does not hold. sent5: there exists something such that it does not closet prefabrication. sent6: the official is not pyogenic if the fact that the Teton is not a uncommunicativeness and closets ENE is incorrect. sent7: there is something such that that it does not closet ENE hold. sent8: the fact that the Teton is not a uncommunicativeness but it closets ENE is incorrect if the reluctance does not prize nebbish. sent9: the allergen does scintillate Medicare and it does closet prefabrication. sent10: if the official is not pyogenic then the trustbuster does not closet prefabrication. sent11: the allergen is not pyogenic. sent12: the allergen does not closet ENE.
|
sent1: (Ex): {A}x sent2: {B}{a} sent3: (x): ¬{A}x -> {B}{a} sent4: ¬({F}{e} & {G}{e}) -> ¬{E}{d} sent5: (Ex): ¬{C}x sent6: ¬(¬{D}{c} & {B}{c}) -> ¬{A}{b} sent7: (Ex): ¬{B}x sent8: ¬{E}{d} -> ¬(¬{D}{c} & {B}{c}) sent9: ({CI}{aa} & {C}{aa}) sent10: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬{C}{a} sent11: ¬{A}{aa} sent12: ¬{B}{aa}
|
[
"sent11 -> int1: there exists something such that it is not pyogenic.;"
] |
[
"sent11 -> int1: (Ex): ¬{A}x;"
] |
the trustbuster does not closet prefabrication.
|
¬{C}{a}
|
[] | 7 | 3 | null | 11 | 0 | 11 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the trustbuster does closet prefabrication. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is pyogenic. sent2: the trustbuster does closet ENE. sent3: the trustbuster does closet ENE if there are non-pyogenic things. sent4: the fact that the reluctance does not prize nebbish hold if that the fly is a bruise and it is a handicraft does not hold. sent5: there exists something such that it does not closet prefabrication. sent6: the official is not pyogenic if the fact that the Teton is not a uncommunicativeness and closets ENE is incorrect. sent7: there is something such that that it does not closet ENE hold. sent8: the fact that the Teton is not a uncommunicativeness but it closets ENE is incorrect if the reluctance does not prize nebbish. sent9: the allergen does scintillate Medicare and it does closet prefabrication. sent10: if the official is not pyogenic then the trustbuster does not closet prefabrication. sent11: the allergen is not pyogenic. sent12: the allergen does not closet ENE. ; $proof$ =
|
sent11 -> int1: there exists something such that it is not pyogenic.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there is something such that it is strategics is not right.
|
¬((Ex): {C}x)
|
sent1: the specific is a kind of a missus and it is a debilitation. sent2: the neurosurgeon is strategics if the specific is a missus.
|
sent1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent2: {A}{a} -> {C}{b}
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: the specific is a missus.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the neurosurgeon is not non-strategics.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: {A}{a}; int1 & sent2 -> int2: {C}{b}; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that it is strategics is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the specific is a kind of a missus and it is a debilitation. sent2: the neurosurgeon is strategics if the specific is a missus. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: the specific is a missus.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the neurosurgeon is not non-strategics.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the abuse occurs.
|
{D}
|
sent1: if the fact that the abuse happens and the horariness occurs does not hold the abuse does not occur. sent2: if the damnation does not occur then the fact that both the abuse and the horariness occurs does not hold. sent3: that the echolocation does not occur triggers that the stress occurs and the cousinliness occurs. sent4: if the printableness occurs then the plan happens. sent5: that the fact that the unconditionalness happens but the instrumentation does not occur does not hold is correct if the abusing does not occur. sent6: if the prizing missus occurs the holozoicness happens. sent7: the prizing missus and the unquietness happens if the foreclosing does not occur. sent8: that the printableness occurs is brought about by the stress. sent9: if that the unconditionalness occurs or the instrumentation does not occur or both is false then the abusing occurs. sent10: if the planning occurs then the fact that both the non-anoxicness and the intimating occurs is false. sent11: if the mortuariness occurs then both the non-formularyness and the backup occurs. sent12: either the prizing Portuguese or that the closeting muton does not occur or both prevents that the damnation occurs. sent13: the prizing Portuguese occurs or the closeting muton does not occur or both if the holozoicness occurs. sent14: the foreclosing does not occur if the fact that the anoxicness does not occur but the intimating happens is false. sent15: that the pedesis occurs and/or the instilling does not occur is not right if the mortuariness does not occur. sent16: the mortuariness happens.
|
sent1: ¬({D} & {E}) -> ¬{D} sent2: ¬{F} -> ¬({D} & {E}) sent3: ¬{S} -> ({Q} & {R}) sent4: {P} -> {O} sent5: ¬{D} -> ¬({B} & ¬{C}) sent6: {J} -> {I} sent7: ¬{L} -> ({J} & {K}) sent8: {Q} -> {P} sent9: ¬({B} v ¬{C}) -> {D} sent10: {O} -> ¬(¬{N} & {M}) sent11: {A} -> (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent12: ({G} v ¬{H}) -> ¬{F} sent13: {I} -> ({G} v ¬{H}) sent14: ¬(¬{N} & {M}) -> ¬{L} sent15: ¬{A} -> ¬({AG} v ¬{AM}) sent16: {A}
|
[
"sent11 & sent16 -> int1: the non-formularyness and the backup happens.; int1 -> int2: the backup occurs.;"
] |
[
"sent11 & sent16 -> int1: (¬{AA} & {AB}); int1 -> int2: {AB};"
] |
that the pedesis happens and/or the instilling does not occur does not hold.
|
¬({AG} v ¬{AM})
|
[] | 18 | 4 | null | 13 | 0 | 13 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the abuse occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the abuse happens and the horariness occurs does not hold the abuse does not occur. sent2: if the damnation does not occur then the fact that both the abuse and the horariness occurs does not hold. sent3: that the echolocation does not occur triggers that the stress occurs and the cousinliness occurs. sent4: if the printableness occurs then the plan happens. sent5: that the fact that the unconditionalness happens but the instrumentation does not occur does not hold is correct if the abusing does not occur. sent6: if the prizing missus occurs the holozoicness happens. sent7: the prizing missus and the unquietness happens if the foreclosing does not occur. sent8: that the printableness occurs is brought about by the stress. sent9: if that the unconditionalness occurs or the instrumentation does not occur or both is false then the abusing occurs. sent10: if the planning occurs then the fact that both the non-anoxicness and the intimating occurs is false. sent11: if the mortuariness occurs then both the non-formularyness and the backup occurs. sent12: either the prizing Portuguese or that the closeting muton does not occur or both prevents that the damnation occurs. sent13: the prizing Portuguese occurs or the closeting muton does not occur or both if the holozoicness occurs. sent14: the foreclosing does not occur if the fact that the anoxicness does not occur but the intimating happens is false. sent15: that the pedesis occurs and/or the instilling does not occur is not right if the mortuariness does not occur. sent16: the mortuariness happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent11 & sent16 -> int1: the non-formularyness and the backup happens.; int1 -> int2: the backup occurs.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it is non-Babylonian then the fact that it is a fuel that is not a Nerva is not right.
|
(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
sent1: there is something such that if it does not encrust then the fact that it is a lubricant and it does chill does not hold. sent2: if the lady's-eardrop is not a kind of a Babylonian the fact that it fuels and it is not a Nerva is incorrect. sent3: that something is bibliotic but it does not deregulate Trojan does not hold if it is not ectodermal. sent4: there is something such that if the fact that it does not closet dehydroretinol is not false it does prize catabolism and is not a rendering. sent5: there exists something such that if it does not concern the fact that it is a place-kicker and a tanning is wrong. sent6: there exists something such that if it is not a curtailment then the fact that it resorts and it does gin is wrong. sent7: there is something such that if it is not a Babylonian the fact that it is a fuel and it is a Nerva does not hold. sent8: that the lady's-eardrop does closet chordophone and it is adjudicative does not hold if it is not elegiac.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬{HE}x -> ¬({GG}x & {R}x) sent2: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent3: (x): ¬{HJ}x -> ¬({JG}x & ¬{FD}x) sent4: (Ex): ¬{IF}x -> ({CG}x & ¬{GU}x) sent5: (Ex): ¬{CS}x -> ¬({HT}x & {ES}x) sent6: (Ex): ¬{FL}x -> ¬({FT}x & {IP}x) sent7: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent8: ¬{IR}{aa} -> ¬({HA}{aa} & {GS}{aa})
|
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there exists something such that if it is not ectodermal then the fact that it is bibliotic and does not deregulate Trojan is not true.
|
(Ex): ¬{HJ}x -> ¬({JG}x & ¬{FD}x)
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: that the macrame is bibliotic but it does not deregulate Trojan is incorrect if it is not ectodermal.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is non-Babylonian then the fact that it is a fuel that is not a Nerva is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it does not encrust then the fact that it is a lubricant and it does chill does not hold. sent2: if the lady's-eardrop is not a kind of a Babylonian the fact that it fuels and it is not a Nerva is incorrect. sent3: that something is bibliotic but it does not deregulate Trojan does not hold if it is not ectodermal. sent4: there is something such that if the fact that it does not closet dehydroretinol is not false it does prize catabolism and is not a rendering. sent5: there exists something such that if it does not concern the fact that it is a place-kicker and a tanning is wrong. sent6: there exists something such that if it is not a curtailment then the fact that it resorts and it does gin is wrong. sent7: there is something such that if it is not a Babylonian the fact that it is a fuel and it is a Nerva does not hold. sent8: that the lady's-eardrop does closet chordophone and it is adjudicative does not hold if it is not elegiac. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the Samoan is not a Mennonitism is not wrong.
|
¬{D}{a}
|
sent1: the Samoan prizes central and is telluric if there exists something such that it is a nomad. sent2: the Samoan is endermic. sent3: the fact that something does not prize central and is not a kind of a markup is incorrect if it is a Mennonitism. sent4: the Samoan is breakable and it is a Landau if there exists something such that it is stingy. sent5: that if something does prize central it is a Mennonitism is not false. sent6: something is not non-telluric if it prizes central. sent7: something is a nomad. sent8: something is a nomad if the fact that it is both not a nomad and telluric does not hold. sent9: if the fact that the fetus does not prize central and is not a markup is not true then the seersucker does not prize central. sent10: something does rationalize if it is a mouthpart. sent11: if something is a kind of a Mennonitism the amperage is a kind of a menorah that cocks. sent12: that the Samoan is not a nomad but it is telluric is not true if the seersucker does not prize central. sent13: the Samoan is a trip and is a Landau. sent14: if something is a nomad then the fact that it is a beltway is not false.
|
sent1: (x): {A}x -> ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent2: {EF}{a} sent3: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{E}x) sent4: (x): {DO}x -> ({BJ}{a} & {IQ}{a}) sent5: (x): {B}x -> {D}x sent6: (x): {B}x -> {C}x sent7: (Ex): {A}x sent8: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & {C}x) -> {A}x sent9: ¬(¬{B}{c} & ¬{E}{c}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent10: (x): {ET}x -> {ES}x sent11: (x): {D}x -> ({DM}{fe} & {CJ}{fe}) sent12: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬(¬{A}{a} & {C}{a}) sent13: ({FQ}{a} & {IQ}{a}) sent14: (x): {A}x -> {BB}x
|
[
"sent7 & sent1 -> int1: the Samoan does prize central and is telluric.; int1 -> int2: the fact that the Samoan does prize central hold.; sent5 -> int3: if the Samoan prizes central then it is a Mennonitism.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent7 & sent1 -> int1: ({B}{a} & {C}{a}); int1 -> int2: {B}{a}; sent5 -> int3: {B}{a} -> {D}{a}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there exists something such that it is a kind of a beltway.
|
(Ex): {BB}x
|
[
"sent14 -> int4: the Samoan is a beltway if it is a nomad.; sent8 -> int5: if the fact that the Samoan is not a nomad but it is telluric is wrong then it is a nomad.; sent3 -> int6: if the fact that the fetus is a kind of a Mennonitism hold the fact that it does not prize central and is not a markup does not hold.;"
] | 7 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the Samoan is not a Mennonitism is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the Samoan prizes central and is telluric if there exists something such that it is a nomad. sent2: the Samoan is endermic. sent3: the fact that something does not prize central and is not a kind of a markup is incorrect if it is a Mennonitism. sent4: the Samoan is breakable and it is a Landau if there exists something such that it is stingy. sent5: that if something does prize central it is a Mennonitism is not false. sent6: something is not non-telluric if it prizes central. sent7: something is a nomad. sent8: something is a nomad if the fact that it is both not a nomad and telluric does not hold. sent9: if the fact that the fetus does not prize central and is not a markup is not true then the seersucker does not prize central. sent10: something does rationalize if it is a mouthpart. sent11: if something is a kind of a Mennonitism the amperage is a kind of a menorah that cocks. sent12: that the Samoan is not a nomad but it is telluric is not true if the seersucker does not prize central. sent13: the Samoan is a trip and is a Landau. sent14: if something is a nomad then the fact that it is a beltway is not false. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 & sent1 -> int1: the Samoan does prize central and is telluric.; int1 -> int2: the fact that the Samoan does prize central hold.; sent5 -> int3: if the Samoan prizes central then it is a Mennonitism.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it does prize paraplegia then the fact that it is both not a France and participial is false.
|
(Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x)
|
sent1: if the fact that the sultriness is nonfissionable is not wrong then that it is a kind of subartesian thing that is bregmatic does not hold. sent2: the fact that the sultriness is both a rear and impermeable is incorrect if it is a pasty. sent3: there exists something such that if it scintillates arming then it is non-apostrophic thing that is a worry. sent4: that the sultriness is not a Angora but it is planetary is false if it is participial. sent5: if something is destructible then that it does not prize paraplegia and is dental does not hold. sent6: that there exists something such that if it does gape then it is non-phagocytic and it is a kind of a prizefighter is not wrong. sent7: the fact that the sultriness is not a France and deregulates Monophysitism does not hold if it begins. sent8: there exists something such that if it is reptilian then it does not bother and it is a kind of a jungle. sent9: if the cosmopolitan is efficient then the fact that it is a France and phagocytic does not hold. sent10: if the sultriness does prize paraplegia that it is both not a France and participial is not true. sent11: if the sultriness is a rimmed it is not a France and is a hold. sent12: if the overburden is participial then it does not scintillate cot and it is a Virgilia.
|
sent1: {BE}{aa} -> ¬({HM}{aa} & {GM}{aa}) sent2: {CT}{aa} -> ¬({DR}{aa} & {GT}{aa}) sent3: (Ex): {DF}x -> (¬{HG}x & {AE}x) sent4: {AB}{aa} -> ¬(¬{ET}{aa} & {DM}{aa}) sent5: (x): {J}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & {AD}x) sent6: (Ex): {AH}x -> (¬{CK}x & {EU}x) sent7: {CE}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {GN}{aa}) sent8: (Ex): {HF}x -> (¬{DK}x & {IM}x) sent9: {AR}{bl} -> ¬({AA}{bl} & {CK}{bl}) sent10: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent11: {CS}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {HB}{aa}) sent12: {AB}{cm} -> (¬{T}{cm} & {O}{cm})
|
[
"sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] |
if the fescue is destructible then that it does not prize paraplegia and it is dental is wrong.
|
{J}{in} -> ¬(¬{A}{in} & {AD}{in})
|
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it does prize paraplegia then the fact that it is both not a France and participial is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the sultriness is nonfissionable is not wrong then that it is a kind of subartesian thing that is bregmatic does not hold. sent2: the fact that the sultriness is both a rear and impermeable is incorrect if it is a pasty. sent3: there exists something such that if it scintillates arming then it is non-apostrophic thing that is a worry. sent4: that the sultriness is not a Angora but it is planetary is false if it is participial. sent5: if something is destructible then that it does not prize paraplegia and is dental does not hold. sent6: that there exists something such that if it does gape then it is non-phagocytic and it is a kind of a prizefighter is not wrong. sent7: the fact that the sultriness is not a France and deregulates Monophysitism does not hold if it begins. sent8: there exists something such that if it is reptilian then it does not bother and it is a kind of a jungle. sent9: if the cosmopolitan is efficient then the fact that it is a France and phagocytic does not hold. sent10: if the sultriness does prize paraplegia that it is both not a France and participial is not true. sent11: if the sultriness is a rimmed it is not a France and is a hold. sent12: if the overburden is participial then it does not scintillate cot and it is a Virgilia. ; $proof$ =
|
sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the decoration prizes Saone.
|
{B}{aa}
|
sent1: something does prize Saone if it is a kind of a Nilotic. sent2: if something is not a waders the fact that it is a nelfinavir that does prize Saone does not hold. sent3: the rack is a nelfinavir. sent4: that the maul is not a premeditation and it is not temperamental is not true. sent5: if something is not a nelfinavir then the fact that it is a Ivanov and it is not a kind of a Nilotic is not true. sent6: if the decoration is not a nelfinavir that it is a waders and it is not a kind of a Nilotic is not true. sent7: the adulterer is non-temperamental thing that is not a waders if the auricula is exegetic. sent8: that the adulterer is a waders but it is not a nelfinavir is incorrect. sent9: if that something is not Proustian is correct then that it prizes downgrade and is younger is incorrect. sent10: if the adulterer is a waders the decoration is not a nelfinavir. sent11: if something is not a nelfinavir that it is a kind of Nilotic thing that is a waders does not hold. sent12: everything is exegetic and it is a kind of an analogue. sent13: if the decoration is a Nilotic then it prizes Saone. sent14: the fact that the fact that the decoration is a kind of a Ivanov and is a Nilotic does not hold is correct. sent15: the fact that the adulterer is not a waders and it is not a nelfinavir is not right. sent16: that something is a kind of a gangway but it is not a Mesmer does not hold if it is not a look. sent17: the decoration is not a nelfinavir if the fact that the adulterer is not a kind of a waders and is not a kind of a nelfinavir is not right.
|
sent1: (x): {AB}x -> {B}x sent2: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({A}x & {B}x) sent3: {A}{bn} sent4: ¬(¬{FD}{bk} & ¬{D}{bk}) sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent6: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({C}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent7: {E}{b} -> (¬{D}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent8: ¬({C}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent9: (x): ¬{JD}x -> ¬({AK}x & {AF}x) sent10: {C}{a} -> ¬{A}{aa} sent11: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AB}x & {C}x) sent12: (x): ({E}x & {F}x) sent13: {AB}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent14: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent15: ¬(¬{C}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent16: (x): ¬{R}x -> ¬({EE}x & ¬{AH}x) sent17: ¬(¬{C}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> ¬{A}{aa}
|
[
"sent5 -> int1: if the decoration is not a nelfinavir then that it is a kind of a Ivanov that is not a kind of a Nilotic is incorrect.; sent17 & sent15 -> int2: the decoration is not a nelfinavir.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the decoration is both a Ivanov and not a Nilotic is not right.;"
] |
[
"sent5 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); sent17 & sent15 -> int2: ¬{A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa});"
] |
that the decoration does not prize Saone is not wrong.
|
¬{B}{aa}
|
[
"sent2 -> int4: if that the adulterer is not a waders is true then the fact that it is a nelfinavir and prizes Saone is not right.; sent12 -> int5: the auricula is exegetic and is an analogue.; int5 -> int6: the auricula is exegetic.; sent7 & int6 -> int7: the adulterer is not temperamental and not a waders.; int7 -> int8: the adulterer is not a waders.; int4 & int8 -> int9: the fact that the adulterer is a kind of a nelfinavir that prizes Saone is not right.; int9 -> int10: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a nelfinavir and prizes Saone is not correct.;"
] | 7 | 3 | null | 14 | 0 | 14 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the decoration prizes Saone. ; $context$ = sent1: something does prize Saone if it is a kind of a Nilotic. sent2: if something is not a waders the fact that it is a nelfinavir that does prize Saone does not hold. sent3: the rack is a nelfinavir. sent4: that the maul is not a premeditation and it is not temperamental is not true. sent5: if something is not a nelfinavir then the fact that it is a Ivanov and it is not a kind of a Nilotic is not true. sent6: if the decoration is not a nelfinavir that it is a waders and it is not a kind of a Nilotic is not true. sent7: the adulterer is non-temperamental thing that is not a waders if the auricula is exegetic. sent8: that the adulterer is a waders but it is not a nelfinavir is incorrect. sent9: if that something is not Proustian is correct then that it prizes downgrade and is younger is incorrect. sent10: if the adulterer is a waders the decoration is not a nelfinavir. sent11: if something is not a nelfinavir that it is a kind of Nilotic thing that is a waders does not hold. sent12: everything is exegetic and it is a kind of an analogue. sent13: if the decoration is a Nilotic then it prizes Saone. sent14: the fact that the fact that the decoration is a kind of a Ivanov and is a Nilotic does not hold is correct. sent15: the fact that the adulterer is not a waders and it is not a nelfinavir is not right. sent16: that something is a kind of a gangway but it is not a Mesmer does not hold if it is not a look. sent17: the decoration is not a nelfinavir if the fact that the adulterer is not a kind of a waders and is not a kind of a nelfinavir is not right. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 -> int1: if the decoration is not a nelfinavir then that it is a kind of a Ivanov that is not a kind of a Nilotic is incorrect.; sent17 & sent15 -> int2: the decoration is not a nelfinavir.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the decoration is both a Ivanov and not a Nilotic is not right.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there is something such that if that it condescends and it does prize grosgrain is not true then it is not able is not right.
|
¬((Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x)
|
sent1: if the quadrupling is a kind of a roarer and it is able the fact that it is not pneumonic hold. sent2: there exists something such that if it is intuitionist and spends then it is not a Cypripedium. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a Vermonter then it is not avionic. sent4: if that something does prize Irenaeus and is a microbrewery is incorrect it does not deregulate venison. sent5: if the impeller does not closet Frederick then that it does not prize grosgrain is correct. sent6: the impeller is able if the fact that that it condescends and it prizes grosgrain is not wrong is not true. sent7: that that the impeller is able is right if the fact that the impeller does prize Midwest and it is tight is false is not incorrect. sent8: if the grosgrain is not cousinly it does not condescend. sent9: if the impeller does not condescend it is not able. sent10: the thyroprotein is non-Gaussian if it is not impenitent. sent11: the impeller is not able if the fact that it condescends and it prizes grosgrain is not incorrect. sent12: there exists something such that if it condescends and it prizes grosgrain that it is not able is not wrong. sent13: there is something such that if the fact that it is a kind of a soda and it does harvest is incorrect then the fact that it is not close is true. sent14: the impeller is not able if the fact that it condescends and it does prize grosgrain is false. sent15: if the fact that the cataphract is able and is contextual is false then it is not a kind of a Camelot.
|
sent1: ({DB}{bk} & {B}{bk}) -> ¬{BP}{bk} sent2: (Ex): ({R}x & {F}x) -> ¬{IJ}x sent3: (Ex): ¬{BR}x -> ¬{DM}x sent4: (x): ¬({EC}x & {EF}x) -> ¬{GA}x sent5: ¬{IE}{aa} -> ¬{AB}{aa} sent6: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent7: ¬({HE}{aa} & {I}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent8: ¬{BG}{cl} -> ¬{AA}{cl} sent9: ¬{AA}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent10: ¬{DI}{eh} -> ¬{DO}{eh} sent11: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent12: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent13: (Ex): ¬({EO}x & {II}x) -> ¬{Q}x sent14: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent15: ¬({B}{aq} & {AS}{aq}) -> ¬{GJ}{aq}
|
[
"sent14 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent14 -> hypothesis;"
] |
if the fact that the pentathlete prizes Irenaeus and it is a kind of a microbrewery is incorrect then that it does not deregulate venison is correct.
|
¬({EC}{gb} & {EF}{gb}) -> ¬{GA}{gb}
|
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 14 | 0 | 14 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if that it condescends and it does prize grosgrain is not true then it is not able is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: if the quadrupling is a kind of a roarer and it is able the fact that it is not pneumonic hold. sent2: there exists something such that if it is intuitionist and spends then it is not a Cypripedium. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a Vermonter then it is not avionic. sent4: if that something does prize Irenaeus and is a microbrewery is incorrect it does not deregulate venison. sent5: if the impeller does not closet Frederick then that it does not prize grosgrain is correct. sent6: the impeller is able if the fact that that it condescends and it prizes grosgrain is not wrong is not true. sent7: that that the impeller is able is right if the fact that the impeller does prize Midwest and it is tight is false is not incorrect. sent8: if the grosgrain is not cousinly it does not condescend. sent9: if the impeller does not condescend it is not able. sent10: the thyroprotein is non-Gaussian if it is not impenitent. sent11: the impeller is not able if the fact that it condescends and it prizes grosgrain is not incorrect. sent12: there exists something such that if it condescends and it prizes grosgrain that it is not able is not wrong. sent13: there is something such that if the fact that it is a kind of a soda and it does harvest is incorrect then the fact that it is not close is true. sent14: the impeller is not able if the fact that it condescends and it does prize grosgrain is false. sent15: if the fact that the cataphract is able and is contextual is false then it is not a kind of a Camelot. ; $proof$ =
|
sent14 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if that it ornaments is not incorrect that it is not a parterre is true.
|
(Ex): {A}x -> ¬{C}x
|
sent1: the Wren does not ornament if it is a nawab. sent2: if the Coke is arenaceous it does not ornament. sent3: there exists something such that if it does scintillate metabolism it is not a Dylan. sent4: there exists something such that if it flounders then it is not nonhierarchical. sent5: there exists something such that if it is disloyal it is not defiant. sent6: something is not a kind of a CD4 if it does prize tan. sent7: if the nympholept is a kind of a parterre then it is not nonhierarchical. sent8: there is something such that if it scintillates bouillabaisse it is not a kind of a interoception. sent9: the fact that there is something such that if it does ornament then it is a parterre hold. sent10: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a yurt then it is not xeric. sent11: the sensitizer is not a parterre if it prizes protein. sent12: if the Wren prizes powderer it does not ornament. sent13: if something dwindles then it does not ornament. sent14: there exists something such that if it is stenographic it is not a psychotherapy. sent15: the Wren is not a parterre if it ornaments. sent16: if the Wren does ornament then it is a parterre. sent17: if the Wren is intensive then it does not ornament.
|
sent1: {FG}{aa} -> ¬{A}{aa} sent2: {ID}{hi} -> ¬{A}{hi} sent3: (Ex): {JB}x -> ¬{DI}x sent4: (Ex): {CA}x -> ¬{H}x sent5: (Ex): {BC}x -> ¬{DQ}x sent6: (x): {CP}x -> ¬{GS}x sent7: {C}{ib} -> ¬{H}{ib} sent8: (Ex): {BE}x -> ¬{IF}x sent9: (Ex): {A}x -> {C}x sent10: (Ex): {ES}x -> ¬{JH}x sent11: {GP}{fj} -> ¬{C}{fj} sent12: {CH}{aa} -> ¬{A}{aa} sent13: (x): {BN}x -> ¬{A}x sent14: (Ex): {EL}x -> ¬{GE}x sent15: {A}{aa} -> ¬{C}{aa} sent16: {A}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent17: {AK}{aa} -> ¬{A}{aa}
|
[
"sent15 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent15 -> hypothesis;"
] |
if the hydroxyzine does dwindle it does not ornament.
|
{BN}{ad} -> ¬{A}{ad}
|
[
"sent13 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 16 | 0 | 16 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if that it ornaments is not incorrect that it is not a parterre is true. ; $context$ = sent1: the Wren does not ornament if it is a nawab. sent2: if the Coke is arenaceous it does not ornament. sent3: there exists something such that if it does scintillate metabolism it is not a Dylan. sent4: there exists something such that if it flounders then it is not nonhierarchical. sent5: there exists something such that if it is disloyal it is not defiant. sent6: something is not a kind of a CD4 if it does prize tan. sent7: if the nympholept is a kind of a parterre then it is not nonhierarchical. sent8: there is something such that if it scintillates bouillabaisse it is not a kind of a interoception. sent9: the fact that there is something such that if it does ornament then it is a parterre hold. sent10: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a yurt then it is not xeric. sent11: the sensitizer is not a parterre if it prizes protein. sent12: if the Wren prizes powderer it does not ornament. sent13: if something dwindles then it does not ornament. sent14: there exists something such that if it is stenographic it is not a psychotherapy. sent15: the Wren is not a parterre if it ornaments. sent16: if the Wren does ornament then it is a parterre. sent17: if the Wren is intensive then it does not ornament. ; $proof$ =
|
sent15 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the idesia is not a kind of a posturer.
|
¬{B}{a}
|
sent1: the fact that either something is garlicky or it is a kind of a girder or both is not false. sent2: if the idesia slaps it does closet Microscopium. sent3: there exists something such that it is an oncologist and/or it is not a shrift. sent4: the idesia is a slap if something is garlicky and/or it is not a girder. sent5: if the idesia is garlicky then it does closet Microscopium and it is not a slap. sent6: the idesia does slap if there is something such that it is not a girder. sent7: that something closets Microscopium and is not a posturer is true if it does slap. sent8: if something does slap then the fact that it does closet Microscopium is true. sent9: the idesia does closet Microscopium. sent10: the duckboard is garlicky and/or is a girder. sent11: if something is a kind of a girder and/or it is not garlicky then the duckboard is a kind of a slap.
|
sent1: (Ex): ({AA}x v {AB}x) sent2: {A}{a} -> {C}{a} sent3: (Ex): ({BO}x v ¬{GO}x) sent4: (x): ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent5: {AA}{a} -> ({C}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent6: (x): ¬{AB}x -> {A}{a} sent7: (x): {A}x -> ({C}x & ¬{B}x) sent8: (x): {A}x -> {C}x sent9: {C}{a} sent10: ({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent11: (x): ({AB}x v ¬{AA}x) -> {A}{aa}
|
[
"sent7 -> int1: if the idesia slaps then it does closet Microscopium and it is not a kind of a posturer.;"
] |
[
"sent7 -> int1: {A}{a} -> ({C}{a} & ¬{B}{a});"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 4 | null | 9 | 0 | 9 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the idesia is not a kind of a posturer. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that either something is garlicky or it is a kind of a girder or both is not false. sent2: if the idesia slaps it does closet Microscopium. sent3: there exists something such that it is an oncologist and/or it is not a shrift. sent4: the idesia is a slap if something is garlicky and/or it is not a girder. sent5: if the idesia is garlicky then it does closet Microscopium and it is not a slap. sent6: the idesia does slap if there is something such that it is not a girder. sent7: that something closets Microscopium and is not a posturer is true if it does slap. sent8: if something does slap then the fact that it does closet Microscopium is true. sent9: the idesia does closet Microscopium. sent10: the duckboard is garlicky and/or is a girder. sent11: if something is a kind of a girder and/or it is not garlicky then the duckboard is a kind of a slap. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 -> int1: if the idesia slaps then it does closet Microscopium and it is not a kind of a posturer.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
if the towel does prize valuation it does not scintillate loss and it does not prize categorem.
|
{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})
|
sent1: if something does prize valuation then it does not scintillate loss and it does not prize categorem. sent2: the towel is not a ship and does not prize valuation if it is thermostatic. sent3: if something does prize valuation the fact that it does not prize categorem hold. sent4: if something is nonharmonic it is not a strand and does not closet stunner. sent5: the towel does scintillate loss and does not prize categorem if it does prize valuation. sent6: the towel does not prize categorem if it does prize valuation. sent7: if something prizes valuation it does scintillate loss and it does not prize categorem.
|
sent1: (x): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent2: {DQ}{aa} -> (¬{GH}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa}) sent3: (x): {A}x -> ¬{AB}x sent4: (x): {BJ}x -> (¬{GI}x & ¬{FK}x) sent5: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent6: {A}{aa} -> ¬{AB}{aa} sent7: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 6 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = if the towel does prize valuation it does not scintillate loss and it does not prize categorem. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does prize valuation then it does not scintillate loss and it does not prize categorem. sent2: the towel is not a ship and does not prize valuation if it is thermostatic. sent3: if something does prize valuation the fact that it does not prize categorem hold. sent4: if something is nonharmonic it is not a strand and does not closet stunner. sent5: the towel does scintillate loss and does not prize categorem if it does prize valuation. sent6: the towel does not prize categorem if it does prize valuation. sent7: if something prizes valuation it does scintillate loss and it does not prize categorem. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the whisperer does ramify.
|
{C}{b}
|
sent1: the farmhouse is a kind of a Lunt. sent2: the farmhouse does prize antibacterial if the whisperer ramifies. sent3: the whisperer is benzoic if the fact that it is antiferromagnetic is not incorrect. sent4: the whisperer is a kind of a interoception. sent5: the nutriment does not deregulate etanercept or it is not a Muslim or both. sent6: the farmhouse is a Maxwell. sent7: if the farmhouse is benzoic the whisperer is a kind of a Lunt. sent8: if the farmhouse is a kind of a Lunt it is benzoic. sent9: if something does not deregulate etanercept and/or it is not a Muslim then it is not a paraplegia. sent10: the cocaine is a Lunt. sent11: if that the farmhouse is benzoic hold then the whisperer does ramify. sent12: the farmhouse does ramify if the whisperer is benzoic. sent13: the jackstraws is benzoic. sent14: that something is a kind of a Lunt and is not benzoic does not hold if it is not an exclamation. sent15: the fact that if something is not a paraplegia the fact that the farmhouse is not a Arizona and does closet educator is not correct hold. sent16: something does not ramify if the fact that it is a kind of a Lunt and it is not benzoic is not true. sent17: that the whisperer is a Lunt is not false. sent18: the semidesert ramifies. sent19: the whisperer is benzoic if the farmhouse ramifies. sent20: if the farmhouse does ramify the whisperer is a Lunt. sent21: the Drambuie is a Lunt.
|
sent1: {A}{a} sent2: {C}{b} -> {EE}{a} sent3: {BB}{b} -> {B}{b} sent4: {CS}{b} sent5: (¬{H}{c} v ¬{I}{c}) sent6: {AM}{a} sent7: {B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent8: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent9: (x): (¬{H}x v ¬{I}x) -> ¬{G}x sent10: {A}{cj} sent11: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent12: {B}{b} -> {C}{a} sent13: {B}{hc} sent14: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬({A}x & ¬{B}x) sent15: (x): ¬{G}x -> ¬(¬{F}{a} & {E}{a}) sent16: (x): ¬({A}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{C}x sent17: {A}{b} sent18: {C}{ds} sent19: {C}{a} -> {B}{b} sent20: {C}{a} -> {A}{b} sent21: {A}{hd}
|
[
"sent8 & sent1 -> int1: the farmhouse is benzoic.; sent11 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 & sent1 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent11 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the whisperer does not ramify.
|
¬{C}{b}
|
[
"sent16 -> int2: if that the whisperer is a Lunt but it is not benzoic does not hold it does not ramify.; sent14 -> int3: that the whisperer is a Lunt and not benzoic is not correct if the fact that it is not a kind of an exclamation is not incorrect.; sent9 -> int4: the nutriment is not a paraplegia if it does not deregulate etanercept and/or it is not Muslim.; int4 & sent5 -> int5: the nutriment is not a paraplegia.; int5 -> int6: there exists something such that it is not a paraplegia.; int6 & sent15 -> int7: the fact that the farmhouse is not a Arizona and closets educator is wrong.; int7 -> int8: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a Arizona and it closets educator does not hold.;"
] | 8 | 2 | 2 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the whisperer does ramify. ; $context$ = sent1: the farmhouse is a kind of a Lunt. sent2: the farmhouse does prize antibacterial if the whisperer ramifies. sent3: the whisperer is benzoic if the fact that it is antiferromagnetic is not incorrect. sent4: the whisperer is a kind of a interoception. sent5: the nutriment does not deregulate etanercept or it is not a Muslim or both. sent6: the farmhouse is a Maxwell. sent7: if the farmhouse is benzoic the whisperer is a kind of a Lunt. sent8: if the farmhouse is a kind of a Lunt it is benzoic. sent9: if something does not deregulate etanercept and/or it is not a Muslim then it is not a paraplegia. sent10: the cocaine is a Lunt. sent11: if that the farmhouse is benzoic hold then the whisperer does ramify. sent12: the farmhouse does ramify if the whisperer is benzoic. sent13: the jackstraws is benzoic. sent14: that something is a kind of a Lunt and is not benzoic does not hold if it is not an exclamation. sent15: the fact that if something is not a paraplegia the fact that the farmhouse is not a Arizona and does closet educator is not correct hold. sent16: something does not ramify if the fact that it is a kind of a Lunt and it is not benzoic is not true. sent17: that the whisperer is a Lunt is not false. sent18: the semidesert ramifies. sent19: the whisperer is benzoic if the farmhouse ramifies. sent20: if the farmhouse does ramify the whisperer is a Lunt. sent21: the Drambuie is a Lunt. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 & sent1 -> int1: the farmhouse is benzoic.; sent11 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the scatophagy is not a yellowcake.
|
¬{C}{a}
|
sent1: the Adelie bellows if either something scintillates smother or it does not scintillate misquotation or both. sent2: the headgear does not prize underboss if that the perennial is a kind of dimorphic thing that is not a intransitive is not correct. sent3: if the scatophagy is not a Antananarivo then it is not pilosebaceous. sent4: if something does bellow that the woodworker is not unreproducible is not incorrect. sent5: a listlessness scintillates smother or does not scintillate misquotation or both. sent6: the grosgrain does not share and it is not a kind of a pallette if the deckhand does not prize laparocele. sent7: the wood-frog is a kind of a listlessness if the fact that the Maidu does not closet terrorism and it does not scintillate labium is false. sent8: the fact that the Maidu does not closet terrorism and does not scintillate labium is incorrect if the fact that there is something such that that it does not prize underboss is true is not incorrect. sent9: the fact that the scatophagy is not a shared is correct if it is a pallette. sent10: everything is not an annelid. sent11: if something does prize grudge then it is a cannon. sent12: the perennial is not returnable if the velvetleaf is not a liveliness. sent13: everything shares. sent14: the scatophagy does not closet melter. sent15: there exists something such that it does grit. sent16: the Benjamin is a shared. sent17: everything deregulates Benjamin. sent18: the galangal prizes grudge and is a Peel if the woodworker is not unreproducible. sent19: if something does share but it is not a pallette then the fact that it does base is correct. sent20: if there is something such that it is a kind of a grits then that the velvetleaf is not a kind of a liveliness and is airworthy hold. sent21: the deckhand does not prize laparocele if that either the library is an annelid or it does not prize laparocele or both is not correct. sent22: if something is not returnable then the fact that it is dimorphic and it is not intransitive is false.
|
sent1: (x): ({K}x v ¬{L}x) -> {J}{g} sent2: ¬({Q}{k} & ¬{R}{k}) -> ¬{P}{j} sent3: ¬{BC}{a} -> ¬{AM}{a} sent4: (x): {J}x -> ¬{I}{f} sent5: (x): {M}x -> ({K}x v ¬{L}x) sent6: ¬{D}{c} -> (¬{B}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent7: ¬(¬{O}{i} & ¬{N}{i}) -> {M}{h} sent8: (x): ¬{P}x -> ¬(¬{O}{i} & ¬{N}{i}) sent9: {A}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent10: (x): ¬{E}x sent11: (x): {G}x -> {F}x sent12: ¬{T}{l} -> ¬{S}{k} sent13: (x): {B}x sent14: ¬{FK}{a} sent15: (Ex): {AA}x sent16: {B}{ai} sent17: (x): {GK}x sent18: ¬{I}{f} -> ({G}{e} & {H}{e}) sent19: (x): ({B}x & ¬{A}x) -> {AE}x sent20: (x): {AA}x -> (¬{T}{l} & {U}{l}) sent21: ¬({E}{d} v ¬{D}{d}) -> ¬{D}{c} sent22: (x): ¬{S}x -> ¬({Q}x & ¬{R}x)
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the scatophagy is a pallette.; sent9 & assump1 -> int1: the scatophagy is not a kind of a shared.; sent13 -> int2: the fact that that the scatophagy does not share hold is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: that the scatophagy is not a pallette is correct.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}{a}; sent9 & assump1 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; sent13 -> int2: {B}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: ¬{A}{a};"
] |
everything bases.
|
(x): {AE}x
|
[
"sent10 -> int5: the scatophagy is not a kind of an annelid.; sent19 -> int6: the scatophagy does base if it is a shared that is not a kind of a pallette.;"
] | 6 | 4 | null | 20 | 0 | 20 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the scatophagy is not a yellowcake. ; $context$ = sent1: the Adelie bellows if either something scintillates smother or it does not scintillate misquotation or both. sent2: the headgear does not prize underboss if that the perennial is a kind of dimorphic thing that is not a intransitive is not correct. sent3: if the scatophagy is not a Antananarivo then it is not pilosebaceous. sent4: if something does bellow that the woodworker is not unreproducible is not incorrect. sent5: a listlessness scintillates smother or does not scintillate misquotation or both. sent6: the grosgrain does not share and it is not a kind of a pallette if the deckhand does not prize laparocele. sent7: the wood-frog is a kind of a listlessness if the fact that the Maidu does not closet terrorism and it does not scintillate labium is false. sent8: the fact that the Maidu does not closet terrorism and does not scintillate labium is incorrect if the fact that there is something such that that it does not prize underboss is true is not incorrect. sent9: the fact that the scatophagy is not a shared is correct if it is a pallette. sent10: everything is not an annelid. sent11: if something does prize grudge then it is a cannon. sent12: the perennial is not returnable if the velvetleaf is not a liveliness. sent13: everything shares. sent14: the scatophagy does not closet melter. sent15: there exists something such that it does grit. sent16: the Benjamin is a shared. sent17: everything deregulates Benjamin. sent18: the galangal prizes grudge and is a Peel if the woodworker is not unreproducible. sent19: if something does share but it is not a pallette then the fact that it does base is correct. sent20: if there is something such that it is a kind of a grits then that the velvetleaf is not a kind of a liveliness and is airworthy hold. sent21: the deckhand does not prize laparocele if that either the library is an annelid or it does not prize laparocele or both is not correct. sent22: if something is not returnable then the fact that it is dimorphic and it is not intransitive is false. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the scatophagy is a pallette.; sent9 & assump1 -> int1: the scatophagy is not a kind of a shared.; sent13 -> int2: the fact that that the scatophagy does not share hold is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: that the scatophagy is not a pallette is correct.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the usufructuary occurs.
|
{A}
|
sent1: that the homeopathicness does not occur is caused by that the non-irreparableness and the undeniableness happens. sent2: the irreparableness does not occur if the fact that the deaf occurs and the irreparableness occurs is wrong. sent3: the variable occurs. sent4: the usufructuariness occurs. sent5: if the homeopathicness does not occur then both the usufructuariness and the advocacy occurs.
|
sent1: (¬{C} & {D}) -> ¬{B} sent2: ¬({F} & {C}) -> ¬{C} sent3: {FU} sent4: {A} sent5: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {IF})
|
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the advocacy happens.
|
{IF}
|
[] | 6 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the usufructuary occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that the homeopathicness does not occur is caused by that the non-irreparableness and the undeniableness happens. sent2: the irreparableness does not occur if the fact that the deaf occurs and the irreparableness occurs is wrong. sent3: the variable occurs. sent4: the usufructuariness occurs. sent5: if the homeopathicness does not occur then both the usufructuariness and the advocacy occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the safflower prizes yanquapin and is not a Reuben is wrong.
|
¬({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a})
|
sent1: the dronabinol does not prize yanquapin. sent2: The yanquapin prizes safflower. sent3: the Kiowa is a Reuben. sent4: the safflower is a lighting. sent5: if something is a circumnavigation then it is not a Reuben and it does scintillate audiology. sent6: the fluxmeter is a circumnavigation. sent7: the safflower is a canter. sent8: the fact that the safflower is not a Reuben is correct. sent9: the husky does prize yanquapin. sent10: the safflower prizes yanquapin.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{cg} sent2: {AA}{aa} sent3: {B}{ia} sent4: {HK}{a} sent5: (x): {E}x -> (¬{B}x & {D}x) sent6: {E}{b} sent7: {GB}{a} sent8: ¬{B}{a} sent9: {A}{en} sent10: {A}{a}
|
[
"sent10 & sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent10 & sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the official does prize yanquapin.
|
{A}{l}
|
[
"sent5 -> int1: if the fluxmeter is a kind of a circumnavigation it is not a kind of a Reuben and scintillates audiology.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the fluxmeter is not a Reuben and scintillates audiology.; int2 -> int3: the fluxmeter is not a Reuben.; int3 -> int4: something is not a kind of a Reuben.;"
] | 7 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the safflower prizes yanquapin and is not a Reuben is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the dronabinol does not prize yanquapin. sent2: The yanquapin prizes safflower. sent3: the Kiowa is a Reuben. sent4: the safflower is a lighting. sent5: if something is a circumnavigation then it is not a Reuben and it does scintillate audiology. sent6: the fluxmeter is a circumnavigation. sent7: the safflower is a canter. sent8: the fact that the safflower is not a Reuben is correct. sent9: the husky does prize yanquapin. sent10: the safflower prizes yanquapin. ; $proof$ =
|
sent10 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the endemic is an inconvenience.
|
{B}{a}
|
sent1: the serial is not a kind of an inconvenience. sent2: if the leatherjacket is a trapezium the endemic prizes gravure. sent3: the birch does not prize gravure. sent4: the endemic does not spit. sent5: the endemic is non-antimonic. sent6: the endemic does not prize gravure. sent7: if something does prize gravure then it is a kind of an inconvenience. sent8: The gravure does not prize endemic. sent9: if the endemic does not prize gravure then the fact that it is not an inconvenience is true. sent10: if the endemic is not a kind of a dessiatine then it is not weatherly. sent11: if something does not scintillate epicureanism that it is not a trapezium and it does not scintillate biplane is not true. sent12: the endemic is not a kind of a trachodon if it is not an inconvenience. sent13: if the endemic is not shorts it is not a demographic. sent14: the stalking-horse is not an inconvenience. sent15: if something is not unreportable then the fact that it is non-diametric is true.
|
sent1: ¬{B}{ht} sent2: {C}{b} -> {A}{a} sent3: ¬{A}{l} sent4: ¬{BQ}{a} sent5: ¬{BE}{a} sent6: ¬{A}{a} sent7: (x): {A}x -> {B}x sent8: ¬{AA}{aa} sent9: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent10: ¬{JF}{a} -> ¬{GP}{a} sent11: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{D}x) sent12: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬{BT}{a} sent13: ¬{HK}{a} -> ¬{HU}{a} sent14: ¬{B}{ii} sent15: (x): ¬{BM}x -> ¬{GM}x
|
[
"sent9 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the endemic is an inconvenience.
|
{B}{a}
|
[
"sent7 -> int1: the endemic is a kind of an inconvenience if it does prize gravure.; sent11 -> int2: the fact that the Herder is not a trapezium and it does not scintillate biplane is false if the fact that it does not scintillate epicureanism is true.;"
] | 6 | 1 | 1 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the endemic is an inconvenience. ; $context$ = sent1: the serial is not a kind of an inconvenience. sent2: if the leatherjacket is a trapezium the endemic prizes gravure. sent3: the birch does not prize gravure. sent4: the endemic does not spit. sent5: the endemic is non-antimonic. sent6: the endemic does not prize gravure. sent7: if something does prize gravure then it is a kind of an inconvenience. sent8: The gravure does not prize endemic. sent9: if the endemic does not prize gravure then the fact that it is not an inconvenience is true. sent10: if the endemic is not a kind of a dessiatine then it is not weatherly. sent11: if something does not scintillate epicureanism that it is not a trapezium and it does not scintillate biplane is not true. sent12: the endemic is not a kind of a trachodon if it is not an inconvenience. sent13: if the endemic is not shorts it is not a demographic. sent14: the stalking-horse is not an inconvenience. sent15: if something is not unreportable then the fact that it is non-diametric is true. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the basic does not occur and the closeting repentance does not occur.
|
(¬{AA} & ¬{AB})
|
sent1: if the clarification does not occur then the fact that the basicness does not occur and the closeting repentance does not occur does not hold. sent2: the circumstance does not occur and the itinerating does not occur. sent3: the basicness does not occur and the closeting repentance does not occur. sent4: if the clarification does not occur the swoosh does not occur and the re-formation does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent2: (¬{BJ} & ¬{HO}) sent3: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent4: ¬{A} -> (¬{C} & ¬{HI})
|
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the basicness does not occur and the closeting repentance does not occur is not correct.
|
¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB})
|
[] | 6 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the basic does not occur and the closeting repentance does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the clarification does not occur then the fact that the basicness does not occur and the closeting repentance does not occur does not hold. sent2: the circumstance does not occur and the itinerating does not occur. sent3: the basicness does not occur and the closeting repentance does not occur. sent4: if the clarification does not occur the swoosh does not occur and the re-formation does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the patchwork is an embassy.
|
{C}{a}
|
sent1: the patchwork miscarries but it is not a fetch. sent2: the chenfish is a yellowwood and not pessimistic if it is not anamnestic. sent3: there exists nothing such that it is not rectosigmoid and purls. sent4: the penitent is a kind of an embassy. sent5: if something does prize quarterly it is not a fetch and it does not dump. sent6: if that something is a kind of non-rectosigmoid thing that is a kind of a purl does not hold it is not anamnestic. sent7: if something is not a fetch and it does not dump the quarterly does not miscarry. sent8: if something is a yellowwood and is not pessimistic the patchwork does prize quarterly. sent9: if something does miscarry then it is an embassy.
|
sent1: ({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent2: ¬{H}{b} -> ({F}{b} & ¬{G}{b}) sent3: (x): ¬(¬{I}x & {J}x) sent4: {C}{gb} sent5: (x): {E}x -> (¬{B}x & ¬{D}x) sent6: (x): ¬(¬{I}x & {J}x) -> ¬{H}x sent7: (x): (¬{B}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{A}{j} sent8: (x): ({F}x & ¬{G}x) -> {E}{a} sent9: (x): {A}x -> {C}x
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: the patchwork miscarries.; sent9 -> int2: the patchwork is an embassy if it miscarries.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: {A}{a}; sent9 -> int2: {A}{a} -> {C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the quarterly is a kind of a Canadian but it is not a kind of an embassy.
|
({FO}{j} & ¬{C}{j})
|
[
"sent6 -> int3: the interaction is not anamnestic if the fact that it is not rectosigmoid and it is a purl is false.; sent3 -> int4: the fact that the interaction is not rectosigmoid but it purls does not hold.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the interaction is not anamnestic.; int5 -> int6: everything is not anamnestic.; int6 -> int7: the fact that the chenfish is not anamnestic is right.; int7 & sent2 -> int8: the chenfish is a kind of a yellowwood that is not pessimistic.; int8 -> int9: there exists something such that it is a yellowwood and it is not pessimistic.; int9 & sent8 -> int10: the patchwork does prize quarterly.; sent5 -> int11: if the patchwork prizes quarterly that it is not a fetch and it does not dump hold.; int10 & int11 -> int12: the patchwork is both not a fetch and not a dump.; int12 -> int13: something is both not a fetch and not a dump.; sent7 & int13 -> int14: the quarterly does not miscarry.;"
] | 11 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the patchwork is an embassy. ; $context$ = sent1: the patchwork miscarries but it is not a fetch. sent2: the chenfish is a yellowwood and not pessimistic if it is not anamnestic. sent3: there exists nothing such that it is not rectosigmoid and purls. sent4: the penitent is a kind of an embassy. sent5: if something does prize quarterly it is not a fetch and it does not dump. sent6: if that something is a kind of non-rectosigmoid thing that is a kind of a purl does not hold it is not anamnestic. sent7: if something is not a fetch and it does not dump the quarterly does not miscarry. sent8: if something is a yellowwood and is not pessimistic the patchwork does prize quarterly. sent9: if something does miscarry then it is an embassy. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: the patchwork miscarries.; sent9 -> int2: the patchwork is an embassy if it miscarries.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the non-arsenicalness and the non-qualitativeness happens.
|
(¬{B} & ¬{C})
|
sent1: if the shuffleboard occurs then the qualitativeness does not occur. sent2: the despoticness does not occur if the closeting wrestle occurs. sent3: the closeting viscometer occurs. sent4: the closeting viscometer and the non-arsenicalness happens. sent5: the debridement happens. sent6: the prizing ESOP does not occur if the objectification happens. sent7: if the readjustment does not occur the undercharging happens and the fertileness occurs. sent8: that the undercharging occurs prevents that the dishonoring does not occur. sent9: the prizing Halakah does not occur if the prizing easing happens. sent10: the point-of-saleness happens. sent11: the closeting viscometer happens and the shuffleboard occurs if the paleoanthropologicalness does not occur. sent12: the carotidness does not occur. sent13: if the dishonoring occurs then the fact that the paleoanthropologicalness does not occur is correct. sent14: the trawl does not occur. sent15: the lesserness but not the ambushing happens. sent16: the dot-comness does not occur if that the arsenicalness happens and the closeting viscometer does not occur is false. sent17: the prizing Frey does not occur if the retreating happens. sent18: the humanitarian does not occur. sent19: that the scintillating microwave occurs causes that the scintillating offset does not occur. sent20: both the unsarcasticness and the non-Thebanness happens. sent21: that the readjustment does not occur and the prizing Latrodectus does not occur is triggered by that the adducentness does not occur.
|
sent1: {D} -> ¬{C} sent2: {L} -> ¬{IJ} sent3: {A} sent4: ({A} & ¬{B}) sent5: {CT} sent6: {DS} -> ¬{HD} sent7: ¬{I} -> ({G} & {H}) sent8: {G} -> {F} sent9: {IE} -> ¬{S} sent10: {EH} sent11: ¬{E} -> ({A} & {D}) sent12: ¬{EI} sent13: {F} -> ¬{E} sent14: ¬{FA} sent15: ({BT} & ¬{HR}) sent16: ¬({B} & ¬{A}) -> ¬{BD} sent17: {EA} -> ¬{AS} sent18: ¬{DM} sent19: {DT} -> ¬{HM} sent20: ({EM} & ¬{CG}) sent21: ¬{K} -> (¬{I} & ¬{J})
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: the arsenicalness does not occur.;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> int1: ¬{B};"
] |
that the dot-com does not occur is correct.
|
¬{BD}
|
[] | 6 | 2 | null | 19 | 0 | 19 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the non-arsenicalness and the non-qualitativeness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if the shuffleboard occurs then the qualitativeness does not occur. sent2: the despoticness does not occur if the closeting wrestle occurs. sent3: the closeting viscometer occurs. sent4: the closeting viscometer and the non-arsenicalness happens. sent5: the debridement happens. sent6: the prizing ESOP does not occur if the objectification happens. sent7: if the readjustment does not occur the undercharging happens and the fertileness occurs. sent8: that the undercharging occurs prevents that the dishonoring does not occur. sent9: the prizing Halakah does not occur if the prizing easing happens. sent10: the point-of-saleness happens. sent11: the closeting viscometer happens and the shuffleboard occurs if the paleoanthropologicalness does not occur. sent12: the carotidness does not occur. sent13: if the dishonoring occurs then the fact that the paleoanthropologicalness does not occur is correct. sent14: the trawl does not occur. sent15: the lesserness but not the ambushing happens. sent16: the dot-comness does not occur if that the arsenicalness happens and the closeting viscometer does not occur is false. sent17: the prizing Frey does not occur if the retreating happens. sent18: the humanitarian does not occur. sent19: that the scintillating microwave occurs causes that the scintillating offset does not occur. sent20: both the unsarcasticness and the non-Thebanness happens. sent21: that the readjustment does not occur and the prizing Latrodectus does not occur is triggered by that the adducentness does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> int1: the arsenicalness does not occur.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the soundboard is humane.
|
{A}{a}
|
sent1: there exists something such that the fact that it is a distressed and it prizes Ni-hard is incorrect. sent2: the soundboard is not humane if there is something such that that it is a Galatian that does not deregulate Camlan is not right. sent3: there exists something such that that it is a Galatian and it does not deregulate Camlan is not correct.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬({CB}x & {BL}x) sent2: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent3: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
[
"sent3 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the soundboard is humane. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that the fact that it is a distressed and it prizes Ni-hard is incorrect. sent2: the soundboard is not humane if there is something such that that it is a Galatian that does not deregulate Camlan is not right. sent3: there exists something such that that it is a Galatian and it does not deregulate Camlan is not correct. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the jingoism happens.
|
{C}
|
sent1: if the prizing pop does not occur the looseness does not occur and the tympanoplasty does not occur. sent2: if the shogi and the confinement occurs then the exotericness occurs. sent3: that the shogi occurs but the confinement does not occur results in the exotericness. sent4: if the comforts does not occur the prizing pop does not occur and/or the Scrabble does not occur. sent5: if the exotericness occurs the jingoism happens. sent6: the inelegantness does not occur if the fact that the closeting dried does not occur and the payoff does not occur does not hold. sent7: the lacrosse does not occur. sent8: if the tympanoplasty does not occur the fact that the closeting dried does not occur and the payoff does not occur is not true. sent9: the prizing pop does not occur if either the prizing pop does not occur or the Scrabble does not occur or both. sent10: if the fact that the autoimmuneness does not occur hold then both the delinquency and the manipulating occurs. sent11: the delinquency does not occur. sent12: if the inelegantness does not occur both the non-autoimmuneness and the boniness occurs.
|
sent1: ¬{L} -> (¬{K} & ¬{J}) sent2: ({AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent3: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent4: ¬{M} -> (¬{L} v ¬{N}) sent5: {B} -> {C} sent6: ¬(¬{I} & ¬{H}) -> ¬{G} sent7: ¬{IF} sent8: ¬{J} -> ¬(¬{I} & ¬{H}) sent9: (¬{L} v ¬{N}) -> ¬{L} sent10: ¬{E} -> ({A} & {D}) sent11: ¬{A} sent12: ¬{G} -> (¬{E} & {F})
|
[] |
[] |
the jingoism does not occur.
|
¬{C}
|
[] | 12 | 3 | null | 9 | 0 | 9 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the jingoism happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if the prizing pop does not occur the looseness does not occur and the tympanoplasty does not occur. sent2: if the shogi and the confinement occurs then the exotericness occurs. sent3: that the shogi occurs but the confinement does not occur results in the exotericness. sent4: if the comforts does not occur the prizing pop does not occur and/or the Scrabble does not occur. sent5: if the exotericness occurs the jingoism happens. sent6: the inelegantness does not occur if the fact that the closeting dried does not occur and the payoff does not occur does not hold. sent7: the lacrosse does not occur. sent8: if the tympanoplasty does not occur the fact that the closeting dried does not occur and the payoff does not occur is not true. sent9: the prizing pop does not occur if either the prizing pop does not occur or the Scrabble does not occur or both. sent10: if the fact that the autoimmuneness does not occur hold then both the delinquency and the manipulating occurs. sent11: the delinquency does not occur. sent12: if the inelegantness does not occur both the non-autoimmuneness and the boniness occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there is something such that if it does not derive ivied then the fact that it is a kind of non-cubist thing that does not slop is not correct does not hold.
|
¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x))
|
sent1: if the documentary is not unclear that it is urceolate and it does not derive ivied is not correct. sent2: the fact that something is a kind of non-geomorphologic thing that does not derive goldmine does not hold if it is not a kind of an animism. sent3: there is something such that if it does not derive roundness then that it teases porringer and it is not a basinet does not hold. sent4: if the documentary does not derive ivied then that it is not a cubist and is not a slop is not correct. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not insecure that it does bench and it is not neurobiological is not correct.
|
sent1: ¬{GI}{aa} -> ¬({AP}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa}) sent2: (x): ¬{FA}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{BH}x) sent3: (Ex): ¬{AU}x -> ¬({HC}x & ¬{ER}x) sent4: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent5: (Ex): ¬{FK}x -> ¬({CQ}x & ¬{P}x)
|
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the tranylcypromine is not geomorphologic and does not derive goldmine is wrong if the fact that it is not an animism is not false.
|
¬{FA}{eo} -> ¬(¬{D}{eo} & ¬{BH}{eo})
|
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if it does not derive ivied then the fact that it is a kind of non-cubist thing that does not slop is not correct does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the documentary is not unclear that it is urceolate and it does not derive ivied is not correct. sent2: the fact that something is a kind of non-geomorphologic thing that does not derive goldmine does not hold if it is not a kind of an animism. sent3: there is something such that if it does not derive roundness then that it teases porringer and it is not a basinet does not hold. sent4: if the documentary does not derive ivied then that it is not a cubist and is not a slop is not correct. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not insecure that it does bench and it is not neurobiological is not correct. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
both the slicing and the non-orthopedicsness happens.
|
({AA} & ¬{AB})
|
sent1: the slice happens and the orthopedicsness does not occur if the impressionisticness occurs. sent2: that both the slicing and the non-orthopedicsness happens is not right. sent3: the fact that both the slicing and the orthopedicsness happens is false.
|
sent1: {A} -> ({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent2: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent3: ¬({AA} & {AB})
|
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the slicing but not the orthopedicsness occurs.
|
({AA} & ¬{AB})
|
[] | 6 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = both the slicing and the non-orthopedicsness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the slice happens and the orthopedicsness does not occur if the impressionisticness occurs. sent2: that both the slicing and the non-orthopedicsness happens is not right. sent3: the fact that both the slicing and the orthopedicsness happens is false. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the silverwork does not percolate variorum and is not a paleography is not right.
|
¬(¬{C}{b} & ¬{D}{b})
|
sent1: if something is augitic then it is consular. sent2: the fact that something does not percolate variorum and it is not a kind of a paleography is false if it exalts. sent3: either the coneflower does derive backpacker or it is not unacceptable or both if the clubhouse is consular. sent4: the acquaintance is not a paleography if that that it is non-millenary thing that is not a synonymy is not false is not true. sent5: if the silverwork exalts the acquaintance does not percolate variorum. sent6: the silverwork does derive photoemission. sent7: if the acquaintance does exalt the silverwork does not percolate variorum and it is not a paleography. sent8: if something derives backpacker or is not unacceptable or both then it is not a kind of a narcolepsy. sent9: the acquaintance does exalt and it derives photoemission. sent10: the silverwork is not a paleography. sent11: the fact that that the Fall does not abate and is a narcolepsy is not correct hold if somethings are not a narcolepsy. sent12: something that is not a speedboat is augitic. sent13: the clubhouse is not a speedboat. sent14: that something is not millenary and does not derive photoemission is not correct if it is not a kind of a synonymy. sent15: that the acquaintance is not a synonymy hold if the fact that the Fall does not abate but it is a kind of a narcolepsy is false. sent16: if the acquaintance exalts the silverwork is not a paleography. sent17: the backpacker exalts and ridges if the acquaintance is not a kind of a paleography. sent18: the fact that the acquaintance derives photoemission is right.
|
sent1: (x): {L}x -> {K}x sent2: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{D}x) sent3: {K}{e} -> ({J}{d} v ¬{I}{d}) sent4: ¬(¬{E}{a} & ¬{F}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent5: {A}{b} -> ¬{C}{a} sent6: {B}{b} sent7: {A}{a} -> (¬{C}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent8: (x): ({J}x v ¬{I}x) -> ¬{H}x sent9: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent10: ¬{D}{b} sent11: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬(¬{G}{c} & {H}{c}) sent12: (x): ¬{M}x -> {L}x sent13: ¬{M}{e} sent14: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{B}x) sent15: ¬(¬{G}{c} & {H}{c}) -> ¬{F}{a} sent16: {A}{a} -> ¬{D}{b} sent17: ¬{D}{a} -> ({A}{ac} & {AK}{ac}) sent18: {B}{a}
|
[
"sent9 -> int1: that the acquaintance exalts is not incorrect.; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 -> int1: {A}{a}; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the backpacker does derive photoemission and ridges.
|
({B}{ac} & {AK}{ac})
|
[] | 5 | 2 | 2 | 16 | 0 | 16 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the silverwork does not percolate variorum and is not a paleography is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is augitic then it is consular. sent2: the fact that something does not percolate variorum and it is not a kind of a paleography is false if it exalts. sent3: either the coneflower does derive backpacker or it is not unacceptable or both if the clubhouse is consular. sent4: the acquaintance is not a paleography if that that it is non-millenary thing that is not a synonymy is not false is not true. sent5: if the silverwork exalts the acquaintance does not percolate variorum. sent6: the silverwork does derive photoemission. sent7: if the acquaintance does exalt the silverwork does not percolate variorum and it is not a paleography. sent8: if something derives backpacker or is not unacceptable or both then it is not a kind of a narcolepsy. sent9: the acquaintance does exalt and it derives photoemission. sent10: the silverwork is not a paleography. sent11: the fact that that the Fall does not abate and is a narcolepsy is not correct hold if somethings are not a narcolepsy. sent12: something that is not a speedboat is augitic. sent13: the clubhouse is not a speedboat. sent14: that something is not millenary and does not derive photoemission is not correct if it is not a kind of a synonymy. sent15: that the acquaintance is not a synonymy hold if the fact that the Fall does not abate but it is a kind of a narcolepsy is false. sent16: if the acquaintance exalts the silverwork is not a paleography. sent17: the backpacker exalts and ridges if the acquaintance is not a kind of a paleography. sent18: the fact that the acquaintance derives photoemission is right. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 -> int1: that the acquaintance exalts is not incorrect.; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the pruning does not impend and/or is not a Silvia is false.
|
¬(¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a})
|
sent1: if that the duplicator is a kind of a overbid that does not spectate is not correct then it is not mass-spectrometric. sent2: something that does percolate Pacific is not a kind of a Alsace and/or does not impend. sent3: the pruning either does impend or is not a Silvia or both. sent4: the fact that the flagellate is a arability that does percolate acronym is wrong if the duplicator is non-amniotic. sent5: if something is not a arability then it is a kind of a purdah and it is a luge. sent6: if the fact that something is a kind of a Georgian and/or it does percolate tyrolean is wrong then it is not amniotic. sent7: the allotropy is not myelic or it does not percolate Pacific or both. sent8: the pruning does not impend and/or it is not a kind of a Silvia. sent9: if the duplicator is not mass-spectrometric the fact that it is Georgian and/or percolates tyrolean does not hold. sent10: either the tamarillo is not an indemnity or it is not a kind of a Syracuse or both. sent11: the pruning is either not cryptanalytic or not a Silvia or both. sent12: if something is not a padre the merchandise percolates Pacific and it heaves springtide. sent13: if the fact that the paloverde does not wet but it is a Bonete is false then the pruning is not a padre. sent14: if something does derive save then the fact that the fact that it is not wet but a Bonete is correct is not true. sent15: either the pruning is not a kind of a Silvia or it is not an infantry or both. sent16: if something is a kind of a luge it does derive save. sent17: the pruning does not impend and/or is a Silvia. sent18: there is nothing such that it is a kind of a overbid that does not spectate. sent19: if that something does not percolate Pacific is not wrong that it does not impend or it is not a Silvia or both is false. sent20: if the hypoglossal is a luge then the paloverde is a luge. sent21: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a arability and it percolates acronym is incorrect the hypoglossal is not a arability.
|
sent1: ¬({P}{e} & ¬{O}{e}) -> ¬{N}{e} sent2: (x): {A}x -> (¬{DB}x v ¬{AA}x) sent3: ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent4: ¬{K}{e} -> ¬({I}{d} & {J}{d}) sent5: (x): ¬{I}x -> ({H}x & {G}x) sent6: (x): ¬({M}x v {L}x) -> ¬{K}x sent7: (¬{GO}{m} v ¬{A}{m}) sent8: (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent9: ¬{N}{e} -> ¬({M}{e} v {L}{e}) sent10: (¬{FA}{jc} v ¬{DF}{jc}) sent11: (¬{CI}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent12: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({A}{cc} & {B}{cc}) sent13: ¬(¬{D}{b} & {E}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent14: (x): {F}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & {E}x) sent15: (¬{AB}{a} v ¬{ER}{a}) sent16: (x): {G}x -> {F}x sent17: (¬{AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent18: (x): ¬({P}x & ¬{O}x) sent19: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent20: {G}{c} -> {G}{b} sent21: (x): ¬({I}x & {J}x) -> ¬{I}{c}
|
[
"sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the merchandise is not a Alsace and/or it does not impend.
|
(¬{DB}{cc} v ¬{AA}{cc})
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: the merchandise is not a Alsace or it does not impend or both if the fact that it percolates Pacific is right.; sent14 -> int2: if the paloverde derives save the fact that it is not wet and it is a Bonete is not correct.; sent16 -> int3: the paloverde does derive save if it is a kind of a luge.; sent5 -> int4: if the hypoglossal is not a arability then it is both a purdah and a luge.; sent6 -> int5: if that the duplicator is a Georgian or does percolate tyrolean or both is false the fact that it is not amniotic hold.; sent18 -> int6: the fact that the duplicator overbids but it does not spectate is not right.; sent1 & int6 -> int7: the duplicator is not mass-spectrometric.; sent9 & int7 -> int8: the fact that the duplicator either is a kind of a Georgian or percolates tyrolean or both is not correct.; int5 & int8 -> int9: the duplicator is not amniotic.; sent4 & int9 -> int10: that the flagellate is a kind of a arability and it does percolate acronym is not correct.; int10 -> int11: there is something such that that it is a kind of a arability that does percolate acronym is wrong.; int11 & sent21 -> int12: the hypoglossal is not a arability.; int4 & int12 -> int13: the hypoglossal is a purdah and it is a luge.; int13 -> int14: the hypoglossal is a luge.; sent20 & int14 -> int15: the paloverde is a kind of a luge.; int3 & int15 -> int16: the paloverde derives save.; int2 & int16 -> int17: that the paloverde is not wet and is a Bonete is not correct.; sent13 & int17 -> int18: the pruning is not a padre.; int18 -> int19: there is something such that it is not a padre.; int19 & sent12 -> int20: the fact that the merchandise does percolate Pacific and does heave springtide is true.; int20 -> int21: the merchandise percolates Pacific.; int1 & int21 -> hypothesis;"
] | 17 | 1 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 20 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = that the pruning does not impend and/or is not a Silvia is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the duplicator is a kind of a overbid that does not spectate is not correct then it is not mass-spectrometric. sent2: something that does percolate Pacific is not a kind of a Alsace and/or does not impend. sent3: the pruning either does impend or is not a Silvia or both. sent4: the fact that the flagellate is a arability that does percolate acronym is wrong if the duplicator is non-amniotic. sent5: if something is not a arability then it is a kind of a purdah and it is a luge. sent6: if the fact that something is a kind of a Georgian and/or it does percolate tyrolean is wrong then it is not amniotic. sent7: the allotropy is not myelic or it does not percolate Pacific or both. sent8: the pruning does not impend and/or it is not a kind of a Silvia. sent9: if the duplicator is not mass-spectrometric the fact that it is Georgian and/or percolates tyrolean does not hold. sent10: either the tamarillo is not an indemnity or it is not a kind of a Syracuse or both. sent11: the pruning is either not cryptanalytic or not a Silvia or both. sent12: if something is not a padre the merchandise percolates Pacific and it heaves springtide. sent13: if the fact that the paloverde does not wet but it is a Bonete is false then the pruning is not a padre. sent14: if something does derive save then the fact that the fact that it is not wet but a Bonete is correct is not true. sent15: either the pruning is not a kind of a Silvia or it is not an infantry or both. sent16: if something is a kind of a luge it does derive save. sent17: the pruning does not impend and/or is a Silvia. sent18: there is nothing such that it is a kind of a overbid that does not spectate. sent19: if that something does not percolate Pacific is not wrong that it does not impend or it is not a Silvia or both is false. sent20: if the hypoglossal is a luge then the paloverde is a luge. sent21: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a arability and it percolates acronym is incorrect the hypoglossal is not a arability. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the battlefield is not a kind of a Burhinidae is right.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
sent1: the battlefield is a Joel. sent2: the nosewheel is a seiche. sent3: if something is not true-false then the fact that it does tease viscera and is a kind of a Burhinidae is not incorrect. sent4: the backhoe is a Romanov if the fact that the demiglace does not percolate thermojunction or it is determinable or both is not correct. sent5: something is recessionary and does not tease viscera if it is true-false. sent6: something that does vocalize is a Vetluga. sent7: the battlefield is a kind of a luminism. sent8: the twins is a Burhinidae. sent9: the battlefield is a kind of a battered. sent10: if something is a Vetluga the fact that the battlefield does not frivol and is recessionary is not correct. sent11: the battlefield is a kind of a Burhinidae and teases viscera. sent12: if something is a seiche then it does vocalize. sent13: there exists something such that that it does not derive oriflamme and it does not orient is incorrect. sent14: if there exists something such that the fact that it does not derive oriflamme and it is not an orient is wrong then the backhoe is a kind of an orient. sent15: the fieldwork is actuarial and is a gust. sent16: that either the demiglace does not percolate thermojunction or it is determinable or both does not hold. sent17: the desensitization does frivol if there exists something such that the fact that it does not frivol and is recessionary is not correct. sent18: the viscera is a Burhinidae and it does devolve. sent19: if the backhoe is a Romanov and it is an orient the desensitization is not true-false.
|
sent1: {EJ}{a} sent2: {J}{c} sent3: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) sent4: ¬(¬{K}{d} v {L}{d}) -> {G}{b} sent5: (x): {D}x -> ({C}x & ¬{B}x) sent6: (x): {H}x -> {E}x sent7: {DQ}{a} sent8: {A}{ad} sent9: {EB}{a} sent10: (x): {E}x -> ¬(¬{IG}{a} & {C}{a}) sent11: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent12: (x): {J}x -> {H}x sent13: (Ex): ¬(¬{I}x & ¬{F}x) sent14: (x): ¬(¬{I}x & ¬{F}x) -> {F}{b} sent15: ({EF}{gp} & {CN}{gp}) sent16: ¬(¬{K}{d} v {L}{d}) sent17: (x): ¬(¬{IG}x & {C}x) -> {IG}{gh} sent18: ({A}{ca} & {ET}{ca}) sent19: ({G}{b} & {F}{b}) -> ¬{D}{gh}
|
[
"sent11 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent11 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the battlefield is not a kind of a Burhinidae.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
[
"sent5 -> int1: if the backhoe is not non-true-false then it is a kind of recessionary thing that does not tease viscera.;"
] | 5 | 1 | 1 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the battlefield is not a kind of a Burhinidae is right. ; $context$ = sent1: the battlefield is a Joel. sent2: the nosewheel is a seiche. sent3: if something is not true-false then the fact that it does tease viscera and is a kind of a Burhinidae is not incorrect. sent4: the backhoe is a Romanov if the fact that the demiglace does not percolate thermojunction or it is determinable or both is not correct. sent5: something is recessionary and does not tease viscera if it is true-false. sent6: something that does vocalize is a Vetluga. sent7: the battlefield is a kind of a luminism. sent8: the twins is a Burhinidae. sent9: the battlefield is a kind of a battered. sent10: if something is a Vetluga the fact that the battlefield does not frivol and is recessionary is not correct. sent11: the battlefield is a kind of a Burhinidae and teases viscera. sent12: if something is a seiche then it does vocalize. sent13: there exists something such that that it does not derive oriflamme and it does not orient is incorrect. sent14: if there exists something such that the fact that it does not derive oriflamme and it is not an orient is wrong then the backhoe is a kind of an orient. sent15: the fieldwork is actuarial and is a gust. sent16: that either the demiglace does not percolate thermojunction or it is determinable or both does not hold. sent17: the desensitization does frivol if there exists something such that the fact that it does not frivol and is recessionary is not correct. sent18: the viscera is a Burhinidae and it does devolve. sent19: if the backhoe is a Romanov and it is an orient the desensitization is not true-false. ; $proof$ =
|
sent11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the favor is not younger.
|
¬{D}{c}
|
sent1: that the sartorius is a kind of a jimmy is correct if it does not percolate chlorthalidone. sent2: if the fetoprotein does not nibble the arborvitae is macrobiotics and is not a Verdandi. sent3: the liebfraumilch is a jimmy. sent4: that something is younger and percolates chlorthalidone is not true if it is not a jimmy. sent5: the fetoprotein is not a nibbler if there is something such that it does not nibbler and/or it is a peregrination. sent6: something is not a kind of a nibbler or is a peregrination or both. sent7: the dotard does percolate chlorthalidone if the fact that the sartorius is a kind of a Leuwenhoek is not wrong. sent8: the arborvitae is a kind of a lowness if there is something such that that it is a squire and it is an eternity does not hold. sent9: if something does not derive keratohyalin that it is a kind of a squire that is an eternity is false. sent10: everything does not derive keratohyalin. sent11: the favor is a jimmy if the sartorius is younger. sent12: the fact that something is both a millihenry and a Leuwenhoek is wrong if it does not derive swathing. sent13: if the dotard is a Leuwenhoek the favor is younger. sent14: that the sartorius does not percolate chlorthalidone hold. sent15: That the chlorthalidone does not percolate sartorius hold. sent16: if there exists something such that the fact that that it is a kind of a millihenry and it is a Leuwenhoek hold is not right then the sartorius is not a kind of a Leuwenhoek. sent17: the fact that the dotard does not derive swathing is true if it is not macrobiotics. sent18: the dotard is not macrobiotics if the arborvitae is macrobiotics and it is a kind of a lowness. sent19: a Leuwenhoek is not a jimmy. sent20: if the sartorius is a jimmy the dotard is a Leuwenhoek. sent21: if the favor percolates chlorthalidone the sartorius is younger.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent2: ¬{L}{f} -> ({G}{d} & ¬{H}{d}) sent3: {B}{fq} sent4: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({D}x & {A}x) sent5: (x): (¬{L}x v {N}x) -> ¬{L}{f} sent6: (Ex): (¬{L}x v {N}x) sent7: {C}{a} -> {A}{b} sent8: (x): ¬({K}x & {J}x) -> {I}{d} sent9: (x): ¬{M}x -> ¬({K}x & {J}x) sent10: (x): ¬{M}x sent11: {D}{a} -> {B}{c} sent12: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬({F}x & {C}x) sent13: {C}{b} -> {D}{c} sent14: ¬{A}{a} sent15: ¬{AA}{aa} sent16: (x): ¬({F}x & {C}x) -> ¬{C}{a} sent17: ¬{G}{b} -> ¬{E}{b} sent18: ({G}{d} & {I}{d}) -> ¬{G}{b} sent19: (x): {C}x -> ¬{B}x sent20: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent21: {A}{c} -> {D}{a}
|
[
"sent1 & sent14 -> int1: that the sartorius is a kind of a jimmy hold.; sent20 & int1 -> int2: the dotard is a Leuwenhoek.; sent13 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 & sent14 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent20 & int1 -> int2: {C}{b}; sent13 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the favor is not younger.
|
¬{D}{c}
|
[
"sent12 -> int3: if the dotard does not derive swathing that the fact that it is a millihenry and it is a Leuwenhoek is true is not right.; sent5 & sent6 -> int4: the fetoprotein is not a nibbler.; int4 & sent2 -> int5: the arborvitae is macrobiotics but it is not a Verdandi.; int5 -> int6: the arborvitae is macrobiotics.; sent10 -> int7: the Forester does not derive keratohyalin.; sent9 -> int8: if that the Forester does not derive keratohyalin is not incorrect that it squires and is an eternity does not hold.; int7 & int8 -> int9: that the Forester is a squire and an eternity is not right.; int9 -> int10: there exists nothing such that it is a squire that is a kind of an eternity.; int10 -> int11: the fact that the squill does squire and it is an eternity is incorrect.; int11 -> int12: there is something such that that it is a squire and it is a kind of an eternity is wrong.; int12 & sent8 -> int13: the arborvitae is a kind of a lowness.; int6 & int13 -> int14: the arborvitae is macrobiotics and it is a kind of a lowness.; sent18 & int14 -> int15: the dotard is not macrobiotics.; int15 & sent17 -> int16: the dotard does not derive swathing.; int3 & int16 -> int17: that the dotard is a millihenry and it is a Leuwenhoek is not right.; int17 -> int18: there is something such that the fact that it is a millihenry and is a Leuwenhoek is not correct.; sent16 & int18 -> int19: the sartorius is not a Leuwenhoek.;"
] | 14 | 3 | 3 | 17 | 0 | 17 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the favor is not younger. ; $context$ = sent1: that the sartorius is a kind of a jimmy is correct if it does not percolate chlorthalidone. sent2: if the fetoprotein does not nibble the arborvitae is macrobiotics and is not a Verdandi. sent3: the liebfraumilch is a jimmy. sent4: that something is younger and percolates chlorthalidone is not true if it is not a jimmy. sent5: the fetoprotein is not a nibbler if there is something such that it does not nibbler and/or it is a peregrination. sent6: something is not a kind of a nibbler or is a peregrination or both. sent7: the dotard does percolate chlorthalidone if the fact that the sartorius is a kind of a Leuwenhoek is not wrong. sent8: the arborvitae is a kind of a lowness if there is something such that that it is a squire and it is an eternity does not hold. sent9: if something does not derive keratohyalin that it is a kind of a squire that is an eternity is false. sent10: everything does not derive keratohyalin. sent11: the favor is a jimmy if the sartorius is younger. sent12: the fact that something is both a millihenry and a Leuwenhoek is wrong if it does not derive swathing. sent13: if the dotard is a Leuwenhoek the favor is younger. sent14: that the sartorius does not percolate chlorthalidone hold. sent15: That the chlorthalidone does not percolate sartorius hold. sent16: if there exists something such that the fact that that it is a kind of a millihenry and it is a Leuwenhoek hold is not right then the sartorius is not a kind of a Leuwenhoek. sent17: the fact that the dotard does not derive swathing is true if it is not macrobiotics. sent18: the dotard is not macrobiotics if the arborvitae is macrobiotics and it is a kind of a lowness. sent19: a Leuwenhoek is not a jimmy. sent20: if the sartorius is a jimmy the dotard is a Leuwenhoek. sent21: if the favor percolates chlorthalidone the sartorius is younger. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 & sent14 -> int1: that the sartorius is a kind of a jimmy hold.; sent20 & int1 -> int2: the dotard is a Leuwenhoek.; sent13 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the cervix is a kind of a epaulet that is not a subjectivism.
|
({D}{b} & ¬{E}{b})
|
sent1: something does cloud but it is not botryoid if it is a megasporangium. sent2: if the scapular is a cordoba the cervix is a epaulet but not a subjectivism. sent3: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a megasporangium that is a grandma then the scapular does cord. sent4: if something is not a megasporangium the fact that it is a epaulet and is not a subjectivism is incorrect. sent5: the scapular is a kind of a grandma. sent6: something is a kind of a grandma.
|
sent1: (x): {A}x -> ({IP}x & ¬{CS}x) sent2: {C}{a} -> ({D}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) sent3: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> {C}{a} sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({D}x & ¬{E}x) sent5: {B}{a} sent6: (Ex): {B}x
|
[] |
[] |
the fact that the cervix is a epaulet but it is not a kind of a subjectivism is not right.
|
¬({D}{b} & ¬{E}{b})
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: if the cervix is not a megasporangium the fact that it is a epaulet and it is not a subjectivism does not hold.;"
] | 5 | 2 | null | 4 | 0 | 4 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the cervix is a kind of a epaulet that is not a subjectivism. ; $context$ = sent1: something does cloud but it is not botryoid if it is a megasporangium. sent2: if the scapular is a cordoba the cervix is a epaulet but not a subjectivism. sent3: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a megasporangium that is a grandma then the scapular does cord. sent4: if something is not a megasporangium the fact that it is a epaulet and is not a subjectivism is incorrect. sent5: the scapular is a kind of a grandma. sent6: something is a kind of a grandma. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the deriving Burgoyne happens.
|
{B}
|
sent1: the encircling occurs and the yawing occurs if the jointed does not occur. sent2: the bespeaking occurs. sent3: both the percolating loanword and the deriving Burgoyne occurs. sent4: the percolating reduction happens. sent5: that the claim occurs but the phase does not occur does not hold if the scending happens. sent6: the interoceptiveness happens if that either the sweep does not occur or the sobriety occurs or both does not hold. sent7: the percolating loanword occurs. sent8: if the encircling occurs then that the sobriety but not the sweep occurs is incorrect. sent9: that both the teasing hillside and the heaving week occurs is not false. sent10: the fact that the sweep does not occur and/or the sobriety occurs is false if the encircling occurs. sent11: if the fact that the sobriety occurs and the sweep does not occur does not hold then the percolating loanword happens. sent12: the teasing spoonerism occurs and the heaving buttonhook happens. sent13: if the fact that the claim happens but the phase does not occur is incorrect then the phase occurs. sent14: that the recessionariness does not occur and the discriminateness does not occur is caused by the phasing. sent15: the tramp occurs. sent16: the jointing does not occur and the mortuariness does not occur if the recessionariness does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬{G} -> ({E} & {F}) sent2: {EK} sent3: ({A} & {B}) sent4: {GH} sent5: {M} -> ¬({L} & ¬{K}) sent6: ¬(¬{D} v {C}) -> {HU} sent7: {A} sent8: {E} -> ¬({C} & ¬{D}) sent9: ({HE} & {FN}) sent10: {E} -> ¬(¬{D} v {C}) sent11: ¬({C} & ¬{D}) -> {A} sent12: ({DS} & {HF}) sent13: ¬({L} & ¬{K}) -> {K} sent14: {K} -> (¬{I} & ¬{J}) sent15: {BS} sent16: ¬{I} -> (¬{G} & ¬{H})
|
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the deriving Burgoyne does not occur is not incorrect.
|
¬{B}
|
[] | 12 | 1 | 1 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the deriving Burgoyne happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the encircling occurs and the yawing occurs if the jointed does not occur. sent2: the bespeaking occurs. sent3: both the percolating loanword and the deriving Burgoyne occurs. sent4: the percolating reduction happens. sent5: that the claim occurs but the phase does not occur does not hold if the scending happens. sent6: the interoceptiveness happens if that either the sweep does not occur or the sobriety occurs or both does not hold. sent7: the percolating loanword occurs. sent8: if the encircling occurs then that the sobriety but not the sweep occurs is incorrect. sent9: that both the teasing hillside and the heaving week occurs is not false. sent10: the fact that the sweep does not occur and/or the sobriety occurs is false if the encircling occurs. sent11: if the fact that the sobriety occurs and the sweep does not occur does not hold then the percolating loanword happens. sent12: the teasing spoonerism occurs and the heaving buttonhook happens. sent13: if the fact that the claim happens but the phase does not occur is incorrect then the phase occurs. sent14: that the recessionariness does not occur and the discriminateness does not occur is caused by the phasing. sent15: the tramp occurs. sent16: the jointing does not occur and the mortuariness does not occur if the recessionariness does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the mainframe is a Babylonian.
|
{B}{a}
|
sent1: if the mainframe is idiopathic the fact that it is not bad and it is a grisaille does not hold. sent2: if something is not an invader it does not unscramble. sent3: the mainframe is idiopathic. sent4: something is not a kind of a Babylonian if that it is not a bad and is a grisaille is false. sent5: something is not a Amberboa if that it is not a Muharram and it is anaerobic is false. sent6: something is not a kind of a Babylonian if the fact that it is not a kind of a grisaille is right. sent7: if the mainframe is not a grisaille then it is not a Babylonian. sent8: something that does not derive Astana is not an invader. sent9: if that the primitive is not Babylonian but it is idiopathic is wrong the mainframe is Babylonian. sent10: the rubicelle is not a kind of a grisaille. sent11: if something values then it is not a Macrodactylus. sent12: something does not percolate primitive if that it is not a tenon and tingles is not correct. sent13: the fact that the destroyer is Mongolian and it is a vol-au-vent does not hold.
|
sent1: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent2: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬{C}x sent3: {A}{a} sent4: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent5: (x): ¬(¬{EE}x & {CJ}x) -> ¬{R}x sent6: (x): ¬{AB}x -> ¬{B}x sent7: ¬{AB}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent8: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬{D}x sent9: ¬(¬{B}{b} & {A}{b}) -> {B}{a} sent10: ¬{AB}{hb} sent11: (x): {HI}x -> ¬{BG}x sent12: (x): ¬(¬{IK}x & {AN}x) -> ¬{DH}x sent13: ¬({G}{d} & {F}{d})
|
[
"sent1 & sent3 -> int1: that the fact that the mainframe is non-bad but it is a grisaille is correct is not true.; sent4 -> int2: if the fact that the mainframe is not bad but it is a grisaille is not right then that that it is not a Babylonian does not hold does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 & sent3 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}); sent4 -> int2: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the mainframe is a kind of a Babylonian.
|
{B}{a}
|
[
"sent2 -> int3: the cauliflower does not unscramble if the fact that it is not an invader hold.; sent8 -> int4: that the cauliflower is not a kind of an invader hold if it does not derive Astana.; sent13 -> int5: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a Mongolian and is a vol-au-vent is not right.;"
] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the mainframe is a Babylonian. ; $context$ = sent1: if the mainframe is idiopathic the fact that it is not bad and it is a grisaille does not hold. sent2: if something is not an invader it does not unscramble. sent3: the mainframe is idiopathic. sent4: something is not a kind of a Babylonian if that it is not a bad and is a grisaille is false. sent5: something is not a Amberboa if that it is not a Muharram and it is anaerobic is false. sent6: something is not a kind of a Babylonian if the fact that it is not a kind of a grisaille is right. sent7: if the mainframe is not a grisaille then it is not a Babylonian. sent8: something that does not derive Astana is not an invader. sent9: if that the primitive is not Babylonian but it is idiopathic is wrong the mainframe is Babylonian. sent10: the rubicelle is not a kind of a grisaille. sent11: if something values then it is not a Macrodactylus. sent12: something does not percolate primitive if that it is not a tenon and tingles is not correct. sent13: the fact that the destroyer is Mongolian and it is a vol-au-vent does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 & sent3 -> int1: that the fact that the mainframe is non-bad but it is a grisaille is correct is not true.; sent4 -> int2: if the fact that the mainframe is not bad but it is a grisaille is not right then that that it is not a Babylonian does not hold does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the conformist is a reprobate and is not chancrous does not hold.
|
¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})
|
sent1: the fact that the conformist does reprobate but it is not chancrous is not right if it is a Panthera. sent2: the conformist is a kind of a Panthera.
|
sent1: {A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent2: {A}{a}
|
[
"sent1 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = that the conformist is a reprobate and is not chancrous does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the conformist does reprobate but it is not chancrous is not right if it is a Panthera. sent2: the conformist is a kind of a Panthera. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the basting is chauvinistic and it is seasonable is not true.
|
¬({C}{a} & {B}{a})
|
sent1: the basting does not heave assertion. sent2: if something percolates glorification it percolates Cassirer and it does not heave assertion. sent3: the neuroscientist does not heave assertion. sent4: the enthusiast does not heave assertion. sent5: there exists nothing that does heave assertion and does percolate Cassirer. sent6: the basting is a kind of a afterdeck. sent7: if the fact that the basting does not percolate sleeping hold it is a hypokalemia. sent8: the reach is not a afterdeck if the grosgrain does percolate Cassirer but it does not heave assertion. sent9: the basting is a megohm that is a Parisian. sent10: the calliope is a Caucasia if the accretion is a jati and is not a kind of a Caucasia. sent11: that the calliope is a peahen that does not percolate glorification does not hold if it is a kind of a Caucasia. sent12: the olivenite is a afterdeck. sent13: the basting is chauvinistic if it does not heave assertion. sent14: the fact that the basting is a afterdeck and seasonable is not false. sent15: The assertion does not heave basting. sent16: the grosgrain does percolate glorification if that the calliope is a peahen and does not percolate glorification is not right.
|
sent1: ¬{D}{a} sent2: (x): {F}x -> ({E}x & ¬{D}x) sent3: ¬{D}{ea} sent4: ¬{D}{ib} sent5: (x): ¬({D}x & {E}x) sent6: {A}{a} sent7: ¬{IO}{a} -> {ES}{a} sent8: ({E}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) -> ¬{A}{b} sent9: ({CL}{a} & {JE}{a}) sent10: ({J}{e} & ¬{H}{e}) -> {H}{d} sent11: {H}{d} -> ¬({G}{d} & ¬{F}{d}) sent12: {A}{s} sent13: ¬{D}{a} -> {C}{a} sent14: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent15: ¬{AA}{aa} sent16: ¬({G}{d} & ¬{F}{d}) -> {F}{c}
|
[
"sent14 -> int1: the basting is seasonable.; sent13 & sent1 -> int2: the basting is chauvinistic.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent14 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent13 & sent1 -> int2: {C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the gazelle is chauvinistic.
|
{C}{gb}
|
[
"sent5 -> int3: the fact that the grosgrain heaves assertion and it does percolate Cassirer is wrong.;"
] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the basting is chauvinistic and it is seasonable is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the basting does not heave assertion. sent2: if something percolates glorification it percolates Cassirer and it does not heave assertion. sent3: the neuroscientist does not heave assertion. sent4: the enthusiast does not heave assertion. sent5: there exists nothing that does heave assertion and does percolate Cassirer. sent6: the basting is a kind of a afterdeck. sent7: if the fact that the basting does not percolate sleeping hold it is a hypokalemia. sent8: the reach is not a afterdeck if the grosgrain does percolate Cassirer but it does not heave assertion. sent9: the basting is a megohm that is a Parisian. sent10: the calliope is a Caucasia if the accretion is a jati and is not a kind of a Caucasia. sent11: that the calliope is a peahen that does not percolate glorification does not hold if it is a kind of a Caucasia. sent12: the olivenite is a afterdeck. sent13: the basting is chauvinistic if it does not heave assertion. sent14: the fact that the basting is a afterdeck and seasonable is not false. sent15: The assertion does not heave basting. sent16: the grosgrain does percolate glorification if that the calliope is a peahen and does not percolate glorification is not right. ; $proof$ =
|
sent14 -> int1: the basting is seasonable.; sent13 & sent1 -> int2: the basting is chauvinistic.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the cufflink is a kind of a humanization.
|
{B}{c}
|
sent1: if the fact that either the urochord is not a humanization or it is not a kind of a Jung or both is not correct the cufflink is not a humanization. sent2: if there exists something such that it percolates spritzer the fact that the sheepshank is not a hugger and does not percolates spritzer is not correct. sent3: the heelbone does not tease Plutarch if there is something such that it either is an engineer or is a T or both. sent4: if there is something such that it is a kind of a hugger then the Rioja does engineer and/or it is a kind of a T. sent5: the heelbone does heave hairiness. sent6: the Wilton is both hilar and not a chord. sent7: if the Wilton is hilar but it is not a chord the Parr is not a kind of a chord. sent8: the sheepshank is a hugger if that it is not a kind of a hugger and it does not percolate spritzer does not hold. sent9: if the urochord is not a kind of a Jung the heelbone heaves hairiness and it heaves Yahweh. sent10: the urochord is not a Jung. sent11: if the Parr is not a kind of a chord then the tailpiece does percolate spritzer and is not immunocompetent. sent12: the heelbone heaves hairiness if the fact that the urochord is not a kind of a Jung hold. sent13: the lacer heaves Yahweh if the urochord is a humanization and is not a Jung.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{B}{a} v ¬{A}{a}) -> ¬{B}{c} sent2: (x): {H}x -> ¬(¬{F}{e} & ¬{H}{e}) sent3: (x): ({D}x v {E}x) -> ¬{C}{b} sent4: (x): {F}x -> ({D}{d} v {E}{d}) sent5: {AA}{b} sent6: ({K}{h} & ¬{I}{h}) sent7: ({K}{h} & ¬{I}{h}) -> ¬{I}{g} sent8: ¬(¬{F}{e} & ¬{H}{e}) -> {F}{e} sent9: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent10: ¬{A}{a} sent11: ¬{I}{g} -> ({H}{f} & ¬{G}{f}) sent12: ¬{A}{a} -> {AA}{b} sent13: ({B}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> {AB}{ba}
|
[
"sent9 & sent10 -> int1: the heelbone heaves hairiness and it does heave Yahweh.; int1 -> int2: the heelbone heaves Yahweh.;"
] |
[
"sent9 & sent10 -> int1: ({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}); int1 -> int2: {AB}{b};"
] |
the lacer does heave Yahweh.
|
{AB}{ba}
|
[] | 5 | 3 | null | 11 | 0 | 11 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the cufflink is a kind of a humanization. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that either the urochord is not a humanization or it is not a kind of a Jung or both is not correct the cufflink is not a humanization. sent2: if there exists something such that it percolates spritzer the fact that the sheepshank is not a hugger and does not percolates spritzer is not correct. sent3: the heelbone does not tease Plutarch if there is something such that it either is an engineer or is a T or both. sent4: if there is something such that it is a kind of a hugger then the Rioja does engineer and/or it is a kind of a T. sent5: the heelbone does heave hairiness. sent6: the Wilton is both hilar and not a chord. sent7: if the Wilton is hilar but it is not a chord the Parr is not a kind of a chord. sent8: the sheepshank is a hugger if that it is not a kind of a hugger and it does not percolate spritzer does not hold. sent9: if the urochord is not a kind of a Jung the heelbone heaves hairiness and it heaves Yahweh. sent10: the urochord is not a Jung. sent11: if the Parr is not a kind of a chord then the tailpiece does percolate spritzer and is not immunocompetent. sent12: the heelbone heaves hairiness if the fact that the urochord is not a kind of a Jung hold. sent13: the lacer heaves Yahweh if the urochord is a humanization and is not a Jung. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 & sent10 -> int1: the heelbone heaves hairiness and it does heave Yahweh.; int1 -> int2: the heelbone heaves Yahweh.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Ovrette is either not orthotropous or not non-amphibious or both.
|
(¬{E}{b} v {D}{b})
|
sent1: there is something such that it is amphibious. sent2: the Ovrette is orthotropous or it is amphibious or both. sent3: if there is something such that it is nonpregnant the shell is ungual but it does not astringe. sent4: if that something is a Gustavus but it is non-amphibious hold the Ovrette is a wreckage. sent5: if something that is a Gustavus is not a wreckage then the Ovrette is amphibious. sent6: something that is a Gustavus is a billionaire. sent7: the shell is orthotropous but not amphibious if there is something such that it is a Gustavus. sent8: the Ovrette is a iambic but it does not inflame. sent9: that something is not orthotropous and/or it is amphibious is not true if the fact that it is a billionaire hold. sent10: that the shell is not a kind of a Rutilus is true if the fact that it is not an erica and it percolates dummy is not right. sent11: the shell is amphibious if something is orthotropous but it is not a Gustavus. sent12: the shell is orthotropous if a Gustavus is not amphibious. sent13: the shell is a Gustavus but it is not a wreckage if there exists something such that it is a kind of a billionaire. sent14: if the fact that something is both a wreckage and not a cornered is wrong then it is a kind of a Gustavus. sent15: if something is a billionaire the shell is a Gustavus.
|
sent1: (Ex): {D}x sent2: ({E}{b} v {D}{b}) sent3: (x): {AU}x -> ({FC}{a} & ¬{HO}{a}) sent4: (x): ({B}x & ¬{D}x) -> {C}{b} sent5: (x): ({B}x & ¬{C}x) -> {D}{b} sent6: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent7: (x): {B}x -> ({E}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent8: ({CP}{b} & ¬{GJ}{b}) sent9: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{E}x v {D}x) sent10: ¬(¬{H}{a} & {I}{a}) -> ¬{G}{a} sent11: (x): ({E}x & ¬{B}x) -> {D}{a} sent12: (x): ({B}x & ¬{D}x) -> {E}{a} sent13: (x): {A}x -> ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent14: (x): ¬({C}x & ¬{F}x) -> {B}x sent15: (x): {A}x -> {B}{a}
|
[] |
[] |
that the Ovrette is not orthotropous and/or it is amphibious is wrong.
|
¬(¬{E}{b} v {D}{b})
|
[
"sent9 -> int1: if the Ovrette is a billionaire then that it is not orthotropous or is amphibious or both is not true.; sent6 -> int2: if that the Ovrette is a Gustavus hold it is a billionaire.; sent14 -> int3: if that the Ovrette is a wreckage and is not a kind of a cornered is not right then it is a Gustavus.;"
] | 6 | 4 | null | 13 | 0 | 13 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the Ovrette is either not orthotropous or not non-amphibious or both. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is amphibious. sent2: the Ovrette is orthotropous or it is amphibious or both. sent3: if there is something such that it is nonpregnant the shell is ungual but it does not astringe. sent4: if that something is a Gustavus but it is non-amphibious hold the Ovrette is a wreckage. sent5: if something that is a Gustavus is not a wreckage then the Ovrette is amphibious. sent6: something that is a Gustavus is a billionaire. sent7: the shell is orthotropous but not amphibious if there is something such that it is a Gustavus. sent8: the Ovrette is a iambic but it does not inflame. sent9: that something is not orthotropous and/or it is amphibious is not true if the fact that it is a billionaire hold. sent10: that the shell is not a kind of a Rutilus is true if the fact that it is not an erica and it percolates dummy is not right. sent11: the shell is amphibious if something is orthotropous but it is not a Gustavus. sent12: the shell is orthotropous if a Gustavus is not amphibious. sent13: the shell is a Gustavus but it is not a wreckage if there exists something such that it is a kind of a billionaire. sent14: if the fact that something is both a wreckage and not a cornered is wrong then it is a kind of a Gustavus. sent15: if something is a billionaire the shell is a Gustavus. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the distraction happens.
|
{B}
|
sent1: the fact that the unconventionalness happens is true. sent2: the sigmoidoscopy occurs. sent3: that the distraction does not occur but the gurgling occurs is triggered by that the transcendentalness does not occur. sent4: the teratogenicness happens. sent5: if the teratogenicness occurs the distraction happens.
|
sent1: {BT} sent2: {JD} sent3: ¬{D} -> (¬{B} & {C}) sent4: {A} sent5: {A} -> {B}
|
[
"sent5 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the settling occurs.
|
{BQ}
|
[] | 6 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the distraction happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the unconventionalness happens is true. sent2: the sigmoidoscopy occurs. sent3: that the distraction does not occur but the gurgling occurs is triggered by that the transcendentalness does not occur. sent4: the teratogenicness happens. sent5: if the teratogenicness occurs the distraction happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the arete is not a Maputo and it does not teeter is true.
|
(¬{B}{c} & ¬{C}{c})
|
sent1: the leveler does not derive Aulacorhyncus if the distillery is alkaloidal. sent2: the leveler is non-expiratory and it does not teeter. sent3: if the distillery is both not a Maputo and not alkaloidal that it does not teeter is not wrong. sent4: the leveler does not teeter and does not derive Aulacorhyncus. sent5: the arete is not a Maputo and does not teeter if the leveler is not a Maputo. sent6: if something does not derive Aulacorhyncus and is not apiarian it is not a kind of a Maputo. sent7: the distillery is alkaloidal. sent8: if something is a kind of non-apiarian thing that is a Maputo then it does not teeter. sent9: the fact that the arete does not derive Aulacorhyncus and it is not a Maputo if the leveler does not derive Aulacorhyncus is not incorrect. sent10: if the distillery is alkaloidal then the leveler does not derive Aulacorhyncus and is not apiarian. sent11: if the leveler does derive Aulacorhyncus but it is not apiarian then it is not a kind of a Maputo. sent12: everything is spondaic thing that is a kind of a Tampax. sent13: that something is not a Maputo and does not teeter is not true if it is alkaloidal. sent14: if something that does not teeter is not apiarian it does not derive Aulacorhyncus. sent15: the leveler does not teeter and it is not apiarian if the arete is alkaloidal. sent16: something is not a Maputo if it does derive Aulacorhyncus and it is not alkaloidal. sent17: if the distillery does derive Aulacorhyncus then the leveler is not alkaloidal and it is not a Maputo.
|
sent1: {A}{a} -> ¬{AA}{b} sent2: (¬{GH}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent3: (¬{B}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent4: (¬{C}{b} & ¬{AA}{b}) sent5: ¬{B}{b} -> (¬{B}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) sent6: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent7: {A}{a} sent8: (x): (¬{AB}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}x sent9: ¬{AA}{b} -> (¬{AA}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) sent10: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent11: ({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent12: (x): ({E}x & {F}x) sent13: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) sent14: (x): (¬{C}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{AA}x sent15: {A}{c} -> (¬{C}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent16: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{B}x sent17: {AA}{a} -> (¬{A}{b} & ¬{B}{b})
|
[
"sent10 & sent7 -> int1: the leveler does not derive Aulacorhyncus and it is not apiarian.; sent6 -> int2: if the leveler does not derive Aulacorhyncus and is not apiarian it is not a kind of a Maputo.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the leveler is not a kind of a Maputo.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent10 & sent7 -> int1: (¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}); sent6 -> int2: (¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬{B}{b}; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the arete is not a kind of a Maputo and does not teeter is not right.
|
¬(¬{B}{c} & ¬{C}{c})
|
[
"sent13 -> int4: that the arete is not a Maputo and does not teeter does not hold if it is alkaloidal.; sent12 -> int5: the distillery is spondaic thing that is a kind of a Tampax.; int5 -> int6: the distillery is spondaic.; int6 -> int7: something is spondaic.;"
] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the arete is not a Maputo and it does not teeter is true. ; $context$ = sent1: the leveler does not derive Aulacorhyncus if the distillery is alkaloidal. sent2: the leveler is non-expiratory and it does not teeter. sent3: if the distillery is both not a Maputo and not alkaloidal that it does not teeter is not wrong. sent4: the leveler does not teeter and does not derive Aulacorhyncus. sent5: the arete is not a Maputo and does not teeter if the leveler is not a Maputo. sent6: if something does not derive Aulacorhyncus and is not apiarian it is not a kind of a Maputo. sent7: the distillery is alkaloidal. sent8: if something is a kind of non-apiarian thing that is a Maputo then it does not teeter. sent9: the fact that the arete does not derive Aulacorhyncus and it is not a Maputo if the leveler does not derive Aulacorhyncus is not incorrect. sent10: if the distillery is alkaloidal then the leveler does not derive Aulacorhyncus and is not apiarian. sent11: if the leveler does derive Aulacorhyncus but it is not apiarian then it is not a kind of a Maputo. sent12: everything is spondaic thing that is a kind of a Tampax. sent13: that something is not a Maputo and does not teeter is not true if it is alkaloidal. sent14: if something that does not teeter is not apiarian it does not derive Aulacorhyncus. sent15: the leveler does not teeter and it is not apiarian if the arete is alkaloidal. sent16: something is not a Maputo if it does derive Aulacorhyncus and it is not alkaloidal. sent17: if the distillery does derive Aulacorhyncus then the leveler is not alkaloidal and it is not a Maputo. ; $proof$ =
|
sent10 & sent7 -> int1: the leveler does not derive Aulacorhyncus and it is not apiarian.; sent6 -> int2: if the leveler does not derive Aulacorhyncus and is not apiarian it is not a kind of a Maputo.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the leveler is not a kind of a Maputo.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the heaving peregrination happens.
|
{D}
|
sent1: that the deriving Khaya does not occur is prevented by that the teasing antimycin occurs. sent2: the signal happens if the deriving tiyin occurs. sent3: the backhand happens. sent4: that the deriving tiyin happens is caused by the smokescreen. sent5: the calculableness occurs. sent6: the smokescreen occurs. sent7: if the deriving Seoul occurs the fact that the signal happens but the entree does not occur is not true. sent8: the fact that the signal does not occur is not wrong if that the signal occurs and the entree does not occur is not true. sent9: the bombardment happens. sent10: the hostile happens. sent11: the petalousness leads to that the distributionalness occurs. sent12: if the smokescreen does not occur then the fact that the heaving peregrination does not occur hold. sent13: if the teasing appropriateness occurs the jeremiad occurs. sent14: the signal yields that the heaving peregrination happens. sent15: the bridalness happens if the unmanageableness happens.
|
sent1: {HM} -> {JB} sent2: {B} -> {C} sent3: {IG} sent4: {A} -> {B} sent5: {N} sent6: {A} sent7: {F} -> ¬({C} & ¬{E}) sent8: ¬({C} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{C} sent9: {GS} sent10: {BE} sent11: {ID} -> {AG} sent12: ¬{A} -> ¬{D} sent13: {HQ} -> {CH} sent14: {C} -> {D} sent15: {HL} -> {DF}
|
[
"sent4 & sent6 -> int1: the deriving tiyin happens.; sent2 & int1 -> int2: the signal occurs.; sent14 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 & sent6 -> int1: {B}; sent2 & int1 -> int2: {C}; sent14 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the heaving peregrination does not occur.
|
¬{D}
|
[] | 8 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the heaving peregrination happens. ; $context$ = sent1: that the deriving Khaya does not occur is prevented by that the teasing antimycin occurs. sent2: the signal happens if the deriving tiyin occurs. sent3: the backhand happens. sent4: that the deriving tiyin happens is caused by the smokescreen. sent5: the calculableness occurs. sent6: the smokescreen occurs. sent7: if the deriving Seoul occurs the fact that the signal happens but the entree does not occur is not true. sent8: the fact that the signal does not occur is not wrong if that the signal occurs and the entree does not occur is not true. sent9: the bombardment happens. sent10: the hostile happens. sent11: the petalousness leads to that the distributionalness occurs. sent12: if the smokescreen does not occur then the fact that the heaving peregrination does not occur hold. sent13: if the teasing appropriateness occurs the jeremiad occurs. sent14: the signal yields that the heaving peregrination happens. sent15: the bridalness happens if the unmanageableness happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 & sent6 -> int1: the deriving tiyin happens.; sent2 & int1 -> int2: the signal occurs.; sent14 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
both the cross-culturalness and the Aleutiansness happens.
|
({A} & {C})
|
sent1: if the univalentness does not occur that both the cross-culturalness and the Aleutiansness happens is incorrect. sent2: both the wrestle and the univalentness occurs if the fact that the Aleutiansness does not occur is not false. sent3: the cross-culturalness happens and the univalentness happens. sent4: the heaving pageant happens. sent5: if that not the invitation but the colorimetricness occurs is not correct then the Aleutiansness does not occur. sent6: the spectrographicness happens. sent7: the Aleutiansness occurs. sent8: if the graining does not occur both the aphrodisiacness and the cross-culturalness occurs. sent9: the univalentness happens.
|
sent1: ¬{B} -> ¬({A} & {C}) sent2: ¬{C} -> ({BG} & {B}) sent3: ({A} & {B}) sent4: {EG} sent5: ¬(¬{F} & {E}) -> ¬{C} sent6: {FU} sent7: {C} sent8: ¬{D} -> ({DP} & {A}) sent9: {B}
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: the cross-culturalness happens.; int1 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> int1: {A}; int1 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that both the cross-culturalness and the Aleutiansness happens is not correct.
|
¬({A} & {C})
|
[] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = both the cross-culturalness and the Aleutiansness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if the univalentness does not occur that both the cross-culturalness and the Aleutiansness happens is incorrect. sent2: both the wrestle and the univalentness occurs if the fact that the Aleutiansness does not occur is not false. sent3: the cross-culturalness happens and the univalentness happens. sent4: the heaving pageant happens. sent5: if that not the invitation but the colorimetricness occurs is not correct then the Aleutiansness does not occur. sent6: the spectrographicness happens. sent7: the Aleutiansness occurs. sent8: if the graining does not occur both the aphrodisiacness and the cross-culturalness occurs. sent9: the univalentness happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> int1: the cross-culturalness happens.; int1 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the saman does move and/or it derives forequarter.
|
({C}{c} v {A}{c})
|
sent1: if something does not tease almoner then that it is a move and/or it does derive forequarter is wrong. sent2: the saman is sartorial if the grit does move. sent3: that the saman is archosaurian and it does move is not right. sent4: if the perianth derives forequarter the saman teases almoner. sent5: the grit does tease almoner or it is archosaurian or both. sent6: if the grit is sartorial the perianth does tease almoner. sent7: the grit teases almoner. sent8: that the perianth is sartorial and teases almoner is not correct. sent9: if that the grit is both archosaurian and non-sartorial does not hold the perianth teases almoner. sent10: the grit does tease almoner if the perianth is archosaurian. sent11: the grit does derive formalism but it is not a kind of a undertide if it is a kind of a minutes. sent12: if something is not a STP it does not derive formalism and it is a minutes. sent13: that the grit is archosaurian and it is sartorial is false. sent14: the fact that that the saman is a kind of sartorial thing that does not derive forequarter is true is not correct. sent15: the fact that the fact that the grit is archosaurian but it is not sartorial is correct is wrong. sent16: the saman is archosaurian if the grit is a move. sent17: if the perianth teases almoner the saman does derive forequarter. sent18: that the perianth is archosaurian is true if the grit teases almoner.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({C}x v {A}x) sent2: {C}{a} -> {AB}{c} sent3: ¬({AA}{c} & {C}{c}) sent4: {A}{b} -> {B}{c} sent5: ({B}{a} v {AA}{a}) sent6: {AB}{a} -> {B}{b} sent7: {B}{a} sent8: ¬({AB}{b} & {B}{b}) sent9: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent10: {AA}{b} -> {B}{a} sent11: {F}{a} -> ({D}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) sent12: (x): ¬{G}x -> (¬{D}x & {F}x) sent13: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent14: ¬({AB}{c} & ¬{A}{c}) sent15: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent16: {C}{a} -> {AA}{c} sent17: {B}{b} -> {A}{c} sent18: {B}{a} -> {AA}{b}
|
[
"sent9 & sent15 -> int1: the perianth teases almoner.; int1 & sent17 -> int2: the saman derives forequarter.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 & sent15 -> int1: {B}{b}; int1 & sent17 -> int2: {A}{c}; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that either the saman is a kind of a move or it does derive forequarter or both is incorrect.
|
¬({C}{c} v {A}{c})
|
[] | 5 | 3 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the saman does move and/or it derives forequarter. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not tease almoner then that it is a move and/or it does derive forequarter is wrong. sent2: the saman is sartorial if the grit does move. sent3: that the saman is archosaurian and it does move is not right. sent4: if the perianth derives forequarter the saman teases almoner. sent5: the grit does tease almoner or it is archosaurian or both. sent6: if the grit is sartorial the perianth does tease almoner. sent7: the grit teases almoner. sent8: that the perianth is sartorial and teases almoner is not correct. sent9: if that the grit is both archosaurian and non-sartorial does not hold the perianth teases almoner. sent10: the grit does tease almoner if the perianth is archosaurian. sent11: the grit does derive formalism but it is not a kind of a undertide if it is a kind of a minutes. sent12: if something is not a STP it does not derive formalism and it is a minutes. sent13: that the grit is archosaurian and it is sartorial is false. sent14: the fact that that the saman is a kind of sartorial thing that does not derive forequarter is true is not correct. sent15: the fact that the fact that the grit is archosaurian but it is not sartorial is correct is wrong. sent16: the saman is archosaurian if the grit is a move. sent17: if the perianth teases almoner the saman does derive forequarter. sent18: that the perianth is archosaurian is true if the grit teases almoner. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 & sent15 -> int1: the perianth teases almoner.; int1 & sent17 -> int2: the saman derives forequarter.; int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the paragon is a parented.
|
{E}{a}
|
sent1: if the fact that something does cross and/or it is a parented is correct the Abkhazian is lexical. sent2: if something is a meteorite it is not a coach and not a inexpensiveness. sent3: if the fact that something does not percolate senility and it is not a Pseudoryx is not true that it is a meteorite is not incorrect. sent4: if the PVA is doric then it is a Honshu. sent5: the paragon derives sense. sent6: the paragon does tease sister if it is a parented. sent7: something that is a kind of a pluperfect is a dogma. sent8: if there exists something such that that it is a coach is not incorrect the paragon is a meteorite. sent9: if the orzo is a Tuscan the foodstuff is a kind of a Tuscan. sent10: something is a inexpensiveness or it is a coach or both. sent11: something that teases Sitophylus is a puff. sent12: if something is a Pseudoryx and/or it is a detour then the paragon is a narwhal. sent13: if something does derive lust then that it does not percolate senility and is not a Pseudoryx is false. sent14: the paragon does masquerade. sent15: the trammel is a Pseudoryx. sent16: if the Jacobean is a fellow then it is a Pseudoryx. sent17: the flintstone derives lust if the foodstuff is Tuscan. sent18: the fact that something is a parented is not false if that it is a kind of a Pseudoryx is not incorrect. sent19: if something is a kind of a meteorite then the fact that it is a Pseudoryx hold. sent20: the ten does tease Sitophylus. sent21: if either something is a inexpensiveness or it is a coach or both that the paragon is a meteorite is right.
|
sent1: (x): ({IN}x v {E}x) -> {DS}{hd} sent2: (x): {C}x -> (¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) sent3: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{D}x) -> {C}x sent4: {BK}{aj} -> {JH}{aj} sent5: {BQ}{a} sent6: {E}{a} -> {IC}{a} sent7: (x): {FG}x -> {DO}x sent8: (x): {B}x -> {C}{a} sent9: {H}{d} -> {H}{c} sent10: (Ex): ({A}x v {B}x) sent11: (x): {J}x -> {BG}x sent12: (x): ({D}x v {BP}x) -> {GU}{a} sent13: (x): {G}x -> ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{D}x) sent14: {IH}{a} sent15: {D}{ds} sent16: {FE}{cj} -> {D}{cj} sent17: {H}{c} -> {G}{b} sent18: (x): {D}x -> {E}x sent19: (x): {C}x -> {D}x sent20: {J}{bc} sent21: (x): ({A}x v {B}x) -> {C}{a}
|
[
"sent10 & sent21 -> int1: the paragon is a meteorite.; sent19 -> int2: if the paragon is a meteorite then it is a Pseudoryx.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the paragon is a Pseudoryx.; sent18 -> int4: if the paragon is a Pseudoryx it is a parented.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent10 & sent21 -> int1: {C}{a}; sent19 -> int2: {C}{a} -> {D}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {D}{a}; sent18 -> int4: {D}{a} -> {E}{a}; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the paragon is not a parented.
|
¬{E}{a}
|
[
"sent2 -> int5: if the flintstone is a meteorite then it is not a coach and is not a kind of a inexpensiveness.; sent3 -> int6: that if that the flintstone does not percolate senility and it is not the Pseudoryx is incorrect then the flintstone is a meteorite is not wrong.; sent13 -> int7: if the flintstone derives lust then the fact that it does not percolate senility and is not a Pseudoryx does not hold.;"
] | 7 | 3 | 3 | 17 | 0 | 17 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the paragon is a parented. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something does cross and/or it is a parented is correct the Abkhazian is lexical. sent2: if something is a meteorite it is not a coach and not a inexpensiveness. sent3: if the fact that something does not percolate senility and it is not a Pseudoryx is not true that it is a meteorite is not incorrect. sent4: if the PVA is doric then it is a Honshu. sent5: the paragon derives sense. sent6: the paragon does tease sister if it is a parented. sent7: something that is a kind of a pluperfect is a dogma. sent8: if there exists something such that that it is a coach is not incorrect the paragon is a meteorite. sent9: if the orzo is a Tuscan the foodstuff is a kind of a Tuscan. sent10: something is a inexpensiveness or it is a coach or both. sent11: something that teases Sitophylus is a puff. sent12: if something is a Pseudoryx and/or it is a detour then the paragon is a narwhal. sent13: if something does derive lust then that it does not percolate senility and is not a Pseudoryx is false. sent14: the paragon does masquerade. sent15: the trammel is a Pseudoryx. sent16: if the Jacobean is a fellow then it is a Pseudoryx. sent17: the flintstone derives lust if the foodstuff is Tuscan. sent18: the fact that something is a parented is not false if that it is a kind of a Pseudoryx is not incorrect. sent19: if something is a kind of a meteorite then the fact that it is a Pseudoryx hold. sent20: the ten does tease Sitophylus. sent21: if either something is a inexpensiveness or it is a coach or both that the paragon is a meteorite is right. ; $proof$ =
|
sent10 & sent21 -> int1: the paragon is a meteorite.; sent19 -> int2: if the paragon is a meteorite then it is a Pseudoryx.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the paragon is a Pseudoryx.; sent18 -> int4: if the paragon is a Pseudoryx it is a parented.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the unpermissiveness does not occur.
|
¬{D}
|
sent1: that the percolating Korchnoi and the indulging occurs does not hold if the neurotropicness does not occur. sent2: if the monopoly does not occur then the statics and the radiotelephonicness happens. sent3: the non-Americanness and/or the non-archivalness is triggered by that the intervertebralness happens. sent4: if the watch does not occur then the fact that the Yemeni and the goalkeeper happens does not hold. sent5: that the watch does not occur and/or that the toss happens prevents the goalkeeper. sent6: that the goalkeeper occurs results in that the unpermissiveness occurs. sent7: if the watch and the non-Yemeniness occurs then the goalkeeper occurs. sent8: if the inelegantness does not occur the toss occurs and the watching occurs. sent9: the fact that the Yemeni and the Chechenness happens is false if the goalkeeper does not occur. sent10: both the inelegantness and the tossing occurs if the percolating spritzer does not occur. sent11: the radiotelephonicness and/or the monopoly occurs. sent12: the deriving metal does not occur if the deriving metal does not occur and/or the collectivization occurs. sent13: that the intervertebralness occurs and the teasing fastener occurs is triggered by that the deriving metal does not occur. sent14: that both the percolating bunfight and the croupiness occurs is not true. sent15: the watching does not occur. sent16: that the unpermissiveness does not occur is true if the radiotelephonicness and the Chechen occurs. sent17: the fact that the Chechen happens if the goalkeeper happens is true. sent18: the Yemeni does not occur if the percolating spritzer happens and/or the indulging does not occur. sent19: the percolating spritzer does not occur if that the percolating Korchnoi happens and the indulging occurs is not correct. sent20: the fact that that the neurotropicness occurs hold is incorrect if the non-Americanness or the non-archivalness or both happens. sent21: if that the Yemeniness happens but the goalkeeper does not occur is not right the Chechenness occurs. sent22: that the Yemeni happens and the goalkeeper does not occur is not true if that the watch does not occur is correct. sent23: either the radiotelephonicness or the monopoly or both is triggered by that the Chechen does not occur. sent24: that the Yemeniness happens and the goalkeeper happens is not correct.
|
sent1: ¬{M} -> ¬({L} & {K}) sent2: ¬{B} -> ({AA} & {A}) sent3: {P} -> (¬{O} v ¬{N}) sent4: ¬{G} -> ¬({F} & {E}) sent5: (¬{G} v {H}) -> ¬{E} sent6: {E} -> {D} sent7: ({G} & ¬{F}) -> {E} sent8: ¬{I} -> ({H} & {G}) sent9: ¬{E} -> ¬({F} & {C}) sent10: ¬{J} -> ({I} & {H}) sent11: ({A} v {B}) sent12: (¬{R} v {S}) -> ¬{R} sent13: ¬{R} -> ({P} & {Q}) sent14: ¬({BC} & {AB}) sent15: ¬{G} sent16: ({A} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent17: {E} -> {C} sent18: ({J} v ¬{K}) -> ¬{F} sent19: ¬({L} & {K}) -> ¬{J} sent20: (¬{O} v ¬{N}) -> ¬{M} sent21: ¬({F} & ¬{E}) -> {C} sent22: ¬{G} -> ¬({F} & ¬{E}) sent23: ¬{C} -> ({A} v {B}) sent24: ¬({F} & {E})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the radiotelephonicness does not occur.; assump1 -> int1: the non-radiotelephonicness and/or the monopoly occurs.; sent22 & sent15 -> int2: that the Yemeniness but not the goalkeeper occurs does not hold.; sent21 & int2 -> int3: the Chechen occurs.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ¬{A}; assump1 -> int1: (¬{A} v {B}); sent22 & sent15 -> int2: ¬({F} & ¬{E}); sent21 & int2 -> int3: {C};"
] |
the staticsness occurs.
|
{AA}
|
[] | 9 | 4 | null | 20 | 0 | 20 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the unpermissiveness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the percolating Korchnoi and the indulging occurs does not hold if the neurotropicness does not occur. sent2: if the monopoly does not occur then the statics and the radiotelephonicness happens. sent3: the non-Americanness and/or the non-archivalness is triggered by that the intervertebralness happens. sent4: if the watch does not occur then the fact that the Yemeni and the goalkeeper happens does not hold. sent5: that the watch does not occur and/or that the toss happens prevents the goalkeeper. sent6: that the goalkeeper occurs results in that the unpermissiveness occurs. sent7: if the watch and the non-Yemeniness occurs then the goalkeeper occurs. sent8: if the inelegantness does not occur the toss occurs and the watching occurs. sent9: the fact that the Yemeni and the Chechenness happens is false if the goalkeeper does not occur. sent10: both the inelegantness and the tossing occurs if the percolating spritzer does not occur. sent11: the radiotelephonicness and/or the monopoly occurs. sent12: the deriving metal does not occur if the deriving metal does not occur and/or the collectivization occurs. sent13: that the intervertebralness occurs and the teasing fastener occurs is triggered by that the deriving metal does not occur. sent14: that both the percolating bunfight and the croupiness occurs is not true. sent15: the watching does not occur. sent16: that the unpermissiveness does not occur is true if the radiotelephonicness and the Chechen occurs. sent17: the fact that the Chechen happens if the goalkeeper happens is true. sent18: the Yemeni does not occur if the percolating spritzer happens and/or the indulging does not occur. sent19: the percolating spritzer does not occur if that the percolating Korchnoi happens and the indulging occurs is not correct. sent20: the fact that that the neurotropicness occurs hold is incorrect if the non-Americanness or the non-archivalness or both happens. sent21: if that the Yemeniness happens but the goalkeeper does not occur is not right the Chechenness occurs. sent22: that the Yemeni happens and the goalkeeper does not occur is not true if that the watch does not occur is correct. sent23: either the radiotelephonicness or the monopoly or both is triggered by that the Chechen does not occur. sent24: that the Yemeniness happens and the goalkeeper happens is not correct. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the radiotelephonicness does not occur.; assump1 -> int1: the non-radiotelephonicness and/or the monopoly occurs.; sent22 & sent15 -> int2: that the Yemeniness but not the goalkeeper occurs does not hold.; sent21 & int2 -> int3: the Chechen occurs.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Dictaphone does derive trandolapril.
|
{B}{b}
|
sent1: the amiodarone is a receiver. sent2: the Dictaphone is not a kind of a receiver. sent3: if the amiodarone is not catalectic that the cuppa derives trandolapril but it is not a rhymer is wrong. sent4: the Dictaphone derives trandolapril if the amiodarone derives trandolapril. sent5: the spatula is a schrod that is inward. sent6: something is not a rhymer and not a receiver if it is catalectic. sent7: if the fact that the amiodarone is a receiver hold then the Dictaphone does not derive trandolapril. sent8: the amiodarone does not reek and is a catalectic if that it is not an evil is true. sent9: if the fact that something is not an executor and not inward does not hold then it does not reek. sent10: the fact that the Dictaphone is not an executor and not inward is not right if there is something such that it is inward. sent11: if the fact that the Dictaphone does not reek hold then the fact that the amiodarone is evil a catalectic does not hold. sent12: if that something is a kind of an evil and is catalectic does not hold then it is not a catalectic. sent13: if something is not a rhymer and is not a receiver it does derive trandolapril.
|
sent1: {A}{a} sent2: ¬{A}{b} sent3: ¬{D}{a} -> ¬({B}{ac} & ¬{C}{ac}) sent4: {B}{a} -> {B}{b} sent5: ({I}{c} & {G}{c}) sent6: (x): {D}x -> (¬{C}x & ¬{A}x) sent7: {A}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent8: ¬{F}{a} -> (¬{E}{a} & {D}{a}) sent9: (x): ¬(¬{H}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{E}x sent10: (x): {G}x -> ¬(¬{H}{b} & ¬{G}{b}) sent11: ¬{E}{b} -> ¬({F}{a} & {D}{a}) sent12: (x): ¬({F}x & {D}x) -> ¬{D}x sent13: (x): (¬{C}x & ¬{A}x) -> {B}x
|
[
"sent7 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent7 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the Dictaphone derives trandolapril.
|
{B}{b}
|
[
"sent13 -> int1: if the amiodarone is not a kind of a rhymer and it is not a receiver it does derive trandolapril.; sent6 -> int2: that the amiodarone is not a rhymer and it is not a kind of a receiver is true if it is a catalectic.;"
] | 7 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the Dictaphone does derive trandolapril. ; $context$ = sent1: the amiodarone is a receiver. sent2: the Dictaphone is not a kind of a receiver. sent3: if the amiodarone is not catalectic that the cuppa derives trandolapril but it is not a rhymer is wrong. sent4: the Dictaphone derives trandolapril if the amiodarone derives trandolapril. sent5: the spatula is a schrod that is inward. sent6: something is not a rhymer and not a receiver if it is catalectic. sent7: if the fact that the amiodarone is a receiver hold then the Dictaphone does not derive trandolapril. sent8: the amiodarone does not reek and is a catalectic if that it is not an evil is true. sent9: if the fact that something is not an executor and not inward does not hold then it does not reek. sent10: the fact that the Dictaphone is not an executor and not inward is not right if there is something such that it is inward. sent11: if the fact that the Dictaphone does not reek hold then the fact that the amiodarone is evil a catalectic does not hold. sent12: if that something is a kind of an evil and is catalectic does not hold then it is not a catalectic. sent13: if something is not a rhymer and is not a receiver it does derive trandolapril. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the dirt teases epilepsy.
|
{A}{a}
|
sent1: if that the Seneca is plausible but it does not tease epilepsy is not correct the dirt does not tease epilepsy. sent2: if that the tub is not a barrette but it does home is not correct then it is not a home. sent3: something is a gumma if it is a kind of a Florentine. sent4: The fact that the epilepsy does not tease dirt does not hold. sent5: the fact that the dirt does not tease epilepsy does not hold. sent6: if the tub does not derive foreman that the Seneca is plausible but it does not tease epilepsy does not hold. sent7: that the Seneca does not derive foreman but it does relive is not right if it is not homing. sent8: if something is not a homing then it does not derive foreman and does not relive. sent9: that the neem is not conclusive hold if it does not tease reform. sent10: the springbok teases epilepsy. sent11: the neem is a Florentine if that it is not conclusive is right. sent12: the periwig teases epilepsy. sent13: that the tub is not a barrette but it is a kind of a homing is not correct if the neem is a gumma. sent14: the dirt heaves Gastrophryne.
|
sent1: ¬({B}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent2: ¬(¬{F}{c} & {E}{c}) -> ¬{E}{c} sent3: (x): {H}x -> {G}x sent4: {AA}{aa} sent5: {A}{a} sent6: ¬{C}{c} -> ¬({B}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent7: ¬{E}{b} -> ¬(¬{C}{b} & {D}{b}) sent8: (x): ¬{E}x -> (¬{C}x & ¬{D}x) sent9: ¬{J}{d} -> ¬{I}{d} sent10: {A}{di} sent11: ¬{I}{d} -> {H}{d} sent12: {A}{ee} sent13: {G}{d} -> ¬(¬{F}{c} & {E}{c}) sent14: {U}{a}
|
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the dirt does not tease epilepsy.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
[
"sent8 -> int1: the tub does not derive foreman and it does not relive if it does not home.; sent3 -> int2: if the neem is Florentine it is a gumma.;"
] | 11 | 1 | 0 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the dirt teases epilepsy. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the Seneca is plausible but it does not tease epilepsy is not correct the dirt does not tease epilepsy. sent2: if that the tub is not a barrette but it does home is not correct then it is not a home. sent3: something is a gumma if it is a kind of a Florentine. sent4: The fact that the epilepsy does not tease dirt does not hold. sent5: the fact that the dirt does not tease epilepsy does not hold. sent6: if the tub does not derive foreman that the Seneca is plausible but it does not tease epilepsy does not hold. sent7: that the Seneca does not derive foreman but it does relive is not right if it is not homing. sent8: if something is not a homing then it does not derive foreman and does not relive. sent9: that the neem is not conclusive hold if it does not tease reform. sent10: the springbok teases epilepsy. sent11: the neem is a Florentine if that it is not conclusive is right. sent12: the periwig teases epilepsy. sent13: that the tub is not a barrette but it is a kind of a homing is not correct if the neem is a gumma. sent14: the dirt heaves Gastrophryne. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the shoehorn is not a Bonete.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
sent1: the fact that the shoehorn is not mensal and is neoclassicist is incorrect. sent2: the stifler is a kind of a Verdandi if the LGB is a disambiguator. sent3: if the LGB is not a Verdandi but it is artless then the stifler is formal. sent4: if something is a demobilization the fact that it does stock and it is not a homily is not correct. sent5: everything is a demobilization. sent6: if something does not up and is biflagellate then it is not a disambiguator. sent7: the shoehorn is either artless or a formal or both if there exists something such that it is a Verdandi. sent8: the diethylstilbestrol is not a sled if that the shoehorn is artless is not incorrect. sent9: if there exists something such that it is up the LGB is biflagellate and it is a disambiguator. sent10: if that the shoehorn is not mensal but neoclassicist is wrong then it sleds. sent11: if the fact that something stocks but it is not a homily is not right then the fact that it is not a kind of a stocks is right. sent12: the fact that something is both not up and biflagellate if it is not a stocks is true. sent13: if the LGB is not artless then that the stifler is not a formal and does sled is not true. sent14: the oblate is a demobilization. sent15: something does up if it is not a homily but a stocks. sent16: the diethylstilbestrol is not a sled if the shoehorn is a formal. sent17: if something is a kind of a Bonete it is a neoclassicist. sent18: something that is a sled is a kind of a Bonete. sent19: something is not a Verdandi but artless if it is not a kind of a disambiguator. sent20: if the shoehorn is non-neoclassicist then that it is a sled hold. sent21: if the shoehorn is apocynaceous then it is mensal.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent2: {F}{c} -> {E}{b} sent3: (¬{E}{c} & {D}{c}) -> {C}{b} sent4: (x): {K}x -> ¬({I}x & ¬{J}x) sent5: (x): {K}x sent6: (x): (¬{H}x & {G}x) -> ¬{F}x sent7: (x): {E}x -> ({D}{a} v {C}{a}) sent8: {D}{a} -> ¬{B}{gi} sent9: (x): {H}x -> ({G}{c} & {F}{c}) sent10: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent11: (x): ¬({I}x & ¬{J}x) -> ¬{I}x sent12: (x): ¬{I}x -> (¬{H}x & {G}x) sent13: ¬{D}{c} -> ¬(¬{C}{b} & {B}{b}) sent14: {K}{d} sent15: (x): (¬{J}x & {I}x) -> {H}x sent16: {C}{a} -> ¬{B}{gi} sent17: (x): {A}x -> {AB}x sent18: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent19: (x): ¬{F}x -> (¬{E}x & {D}x) sent20: ¬{AB}{a} -> {B}{a} sent21: {CT}{a} -> {AA}{a}
|
[
"sent10 & sent1 -> int1: the shoehorn is a sled.; sent18 -> int2: if the shoehorn does sled then the fact that it is a kind of a Bonete is not wrong.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent10 & sent1 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent18 -> int2: {B}{a} -> {A}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the galago is neoclassicist.
|
{AB}{bb}
|
[
"sent17 -> int3: the galago is neoclassicist if the fact that it is a Bonete is true.;"
] | 5 | 2 | 2 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the shoehorn is not a Bonete. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the shoehorn is not mensal and is neoclassicist is incorrect. sent2: the stifler is a kind of a Verdandi if the LGB is a disambiguator. sent3: if the LGB is not a Verdandi but it is artless then the stifler is formal. sent4: if something is a demobilization the fact that it does stock and it is not a homily is not correct. sent5: everything is a demobilization. sent6: if something does not up and is biflagellate then it is not a disambiguator. sent7: the shoehorn is either artless or a formal or both if there exists something such that it is a Verdandi. sent8: the diethylstilbestrol is not a sled if that the shoehorn is artless is not incorrect. sent9: if there exists something such that it is up the LGB is biflagellate and it is a disambiguator. sent10: if that the shoehorn is not mensal but neoclassicist is wrong then it sleds. sent11: if the fact that something stocks but it is not a homily is not right then the fact that it is not a kind of a stocks is right. sent12: the fact that something is both not up and biflagellate if it is not a stocks is true. sent13: if the LGB is not artless then that the stifler is not a formal and does sled is not true. sent14: the oblate is a demobilization. sent15: something does up if it is not a homily but a stocks. sent16: the diethylstilbestrol is not a sled if the shoehorn is a formal. sent17: if something is a kind of a Bonete it is a neoclassicist. sent18: something that is a sled is a kind of a Bonete. sent19: something is not a Verdandi but artless if it is not a kind of a disambiguator. sent20: if the shoehorn is non-neoclassicist then that it is a sled hold. sent21: if the shoehorn is apocynaceous then it is mensal. ; $proof$ =
|
sent10 & sent1 -> int1: the shoehorn is a sled.; sent18 -> int2: if the shoehorn does sled then the fact that it is a kind of a Bonete is not wrong.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the salmonberry is abient but it is not a duty.
|
({D}{b} & ¬{B}{b})
|
sent1: if something is a kind of an aside then it is macromolecular. sent2: the salmonberry is not abient if the mealybug is abient. sent3: something is not grammatical if it derives Louisville and it is not intrastate. sent4: if something derives bohemian the fact that it is a kind of a duty is true. sent5: if something is macromolecular that it is abient and it is not a duty does not hold. sent6: the mealybug is macromolecular. sent7: something is a kind of an aside and is a chancroid if it is not grammatical. sent8: if the mealybug is macromolecular then it does derive bohemian and is not a barrister. sent9: the salmonberry is not non-abient.
|
sent1: (x): {C}x -> {A}x sent2: {D}{a} -> ¬{D}{b} sent3: (x): ({H}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{F}x sent4: (x): {AA}x -> {B}x sent5: (x): {A}x -> ¬({D}x & ¬{B}x) sent6: {A}{a} sent7: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({C}x & {E}x) sent8: {A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent9: {D}{b}
|
[
"sent8 & sent6 -> int1: the mealybug derives bohemian but it is not a barrister.; int1 -> int2: the mealybug does derive bohemian.; sent4 -> int3: if the mealybug does derive bohemian then it is a kind of a duty.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the mealybug is a duty.;"
] |
[
"sent8 & sent6 -> int1: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); int1 -> int2: {AA}{a}; sent4 -> int3: {AA}{a} -> {B}{a}; int2 & int3 -> int4: {B}{a};"
] |
that the salmonberry is abient but it is not a duty is not true.
|
¬({D}{b} & ¬{B}{b})
|
[
"sent5 -> int5: the fact that the fact that the salmonberry is abient and is not a duty is not right is not incorrect if it is not non-macromolecular.; sent1 -> int6: if the salmonberry is an aside the fact that it is macromolecular hold.; sent7 -> int7: the salmonberry is a kind of an aside and is a chancroid if it is not grammatical.; sent3 -> int8: the salmonberry is not grammatical if it derives Louisville and is not intrastate.;"
] | 6 | 4 | null | 6 | 0 | 6 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the salmonberry is abient but it is not a duty. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a kind of an aside then it is macromolecular. sent2: the salmonberry is not abient if the mealybug is abient. sent3: something is not grammatical if it derives Louisville and it is not intrastate. sent4: if something derives bohemian the fact that it is a kind of a duty is true. sent5: if something is macromolecular that it is abient and it is not a duty does not hold. sent6: the mealybug is macromolecular. sent7: something is a kind of an aside and is a chancroid if it is not grammatical. sent8: if the mealybug is macromolecular then it does derive bohemian and is not a barrister. sent9: the salmonberry is not non-abient. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 & sent6 -> int1: the mealybug derives bohemian but it is not a barrister.; int1 -> int2: the mealybug does derive bohemian.; sent4 -> int3: if the mealybug does derive bohemian then it is a kind of a duty.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the mealybug is a duty.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the titfer does not derive Korchnoi and it does not percolate vesicle is not correct.
|
¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a})
|
sent1: the fact that the titfer does not derive Korchnoi and does not percolate vesicle does not hold if the camel does percolate vesicle. sent2: the neckline does derive Korchnoi. sent3: if the vesicle is not inhumane it is not a gen. sent4: if the eclair does not wheel and does not percolate variolation then the titfer does not percolate variolation. sent5: the fact that the titfer does not derive Korchnoi and does percolate vesicle is not correct. sent6: something that does percolate vesicle is a wheel. sent7: the camel is celestial. sent8: if either something is a suburbanite or it is not a kind of a gen or both then it is a reluctivity. sent9: something is not a wheel and it does not percolate variolation if it is not a kind of a white. sent10: the subnormal does wheel. sent11: if that the vesicle does not percolate abstractness and/or is not white is incorrect then the eclair is not white. sent12: the fact that the titfer does derive Korchnoi and does not percolate vesicle is wrong. sent13: if something percolates variolation it percolates vesicle. sent14: if something is a reluctivity that it does not percolate abstractness and/or it is not a white is not right. sent15: the camel wheels. sent16: something does not derive Korchnoi and it does not percolate vesicle if it does not percolate variolation.
|
sent1: {C}{aa} -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent2: {B}{ap} sent3: ¬{J}{c} -> ¬{I}{c} sent4: (¬{D}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent5: ¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent6: (x): {C}x -> {D}x sent7: {BH}{aa} sent8: (x): ({H}x v ¬{I}x) -> {F}x sent9: (x): ¬{E}x -> (¬{D}x & ¬{A}x) sent10: {D}{hd} sent11: ¬(¬{G}{c} v ¬{E}{c}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent12: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent13: (x): {A}x -> {C}x sent14: (x): {F}x -> ¬(¬{G}x v ¬{E}x) sent15: {D}{aa} sent16: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{B}x & ¬{C}x)
|
[
"sent13 -> int1: the camel does percolate vesicle if it does percolate variolation.;"
] |
[
"sent13 -> int1: {A}{aa} -> {C}{aa};"
] |
the titfer does not derive Korchnoi and does not percolate vesicle.
|
(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a})
|
[
"sent16 -> int2: if the titfer does not percolate variolation then it does not derive Korchnoi and does not percolate vesicle.; sent9 -> int3: the eclair is not a wheel and it does not percolate variolation if the fact that it is not white is not wrong.; sent14 -> int4: the fact that the fact that the vesicle does not percolate abstractness or is not white or both is false is not false if it is a reluctivity.; sent8 -> int5: that the vesicle is a kind of the reluctivity if the vesicle is a suburbanite and/or it is not a gen is not incorrect.;"
] | 8 | 3 | null | 14 | 0 | 14 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the titfer does not derive Korchnoi and it does not percolate vesicle is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the titfer does not derive Korchnoi and does not percolate vesicle does not hold if the camel does percolate vesicle. sent2: the neckline does derive Korchnoi. sent3: if the vesicle is not inhumane it is not a gen. sent4: if the eclair does not wheel and does not percolate variolation then the titfer does not percolate variolation. sent5: the fact that the titfer does not derive Korchnoi and does percolate vesicle is not correct. sent6: something that does percolate vesicle is a wheel. sent7: the camel is celestial. sent8: if either something is a suburbanite or it is not a kind of a gen or both then it is a reluctivity. sent9: something is not a wheel and it does not percolate variolation if it is not a kind of a white. sent10: the subnormal does wheel. sent11: if that the vesicle does not percolate abstractness and/or is not white is incorrect then the eclair is not white. sent12: the fact that the titfer does derive Korchnoi and does not percolate vesicle is wrong. sent13: if something percolates variolation it percolates vesicle. sent14: if something is a reluctivity that it does not percolate abstractness and/or it is not a white is not right. sent15: the camel wheels. sent16: something does not derive Korchnoi and it does not percolate vesicle if it does not percolate variolation. ; $proof$ =
|
sent13 -> int1: the camel does percolate vesicle if it does percolate variolation.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the stenopterygius does not tease Ignatius and it does not fluoresce.
|
(¬{D}{a} & ¬{E}{a})
|
sent1: that the stenopterygius does tease Ignatius but it does not fluoresce is not right if it is not a kind of a benefactor. sent2: the fact that something does tease Ignatius but it does not fluoresce is incorrect if it is not a benefactor. sent3: if the Maratha is not a benefactor but it intonates then the oilstove does not intonates. sent4: the fact that the stenopterygius does not tease Ignatius but it fluoresces is wrong. sent5: if the athlete is not a partitionist and is not an overshot the contrapuntist does not heave putridity. sent6: that the stenopterygius intonates is not wrong. sent7: the home-farm is asexual if the promiser is asexual. sent8: that something does not tease Ignatius but it fluoresces is wrong if it is not a benefactor. sent9: the fact that something does not tease Ignatius and does not fluoresce does not hold if it is not a benefactor. sent10: the stenopterygius does not go if it is a kind of a uniformity and is a geoduck. sent11: if something intonates and it is asexual then it is not a kind of a benefactor. sent12: if something does not heave putridity then the fact that it is plural and it is liliaceous is false. sent13: if something that is high-energy is granulocytic then that it does not tease flakiness hold. sent14: the fact that the stenopterygius does tease Ignatius and does not fluoresce is false. sent15: the noseband does alternate and is asexual if it does not magnify. sent16: if the fact that the contrapuntist is a kind of a plural and it is liliaceous is incorrect then that the noseband does not magnify hold. sent17: the stenopterygius is Teutonic and it does poise. sent18: if the home-farm is asexual the Maratha is not a kind of a benefactor but it intonates. sent19: if the noseband is asexual then that the promiser is asexual is right. sent20: the fact that the stenopterygius does not tease Ignatius and fluoresces is not right if it is not a benefactor. sent21: the aerial percolates tarantism and it is bifilar. sent22: the stenopterygius is not conclusive if it does tease Ignatius and it is phosphorous. sent23: something that does percolate specificity and evens is not a parted. sent24: the stenopterygius is asexual.
|
sent1: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬({D}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) sent2: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({D}x & ¬{E}x) sent3: (¬{C}{c} & {A}{c}) -> ¬{A}{b} sent4: ¬(¬{D}{a} & {E}{a}) sent5: (¬{K}{h} & ¬{L}{h}) -> ¬{J}{g} sent6: {A}{a} sent7: {B}{e} -> {B}{d} sent8: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & {E}x) sent9: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{E}x) sent10: ({N}{a} & {CB}{a}) -> ¬{DI}{a} sent11: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}x sent12: (x): ¬{J}x -> ¬({I}x & {H}x) sent13: (x): ({IR}x & {CO}x) -> ¬{AI}x sent14: ¬({D}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) sent15: ¬{G}{f} -> ({F}{f} & {B}{f}) sent16: ¬({I}{g} & {H}{g}) -> ¬{G}{f} sent17: ({FU}{a} & {CP}{a}) sent18: {B}{d} -> (¬{C}{c} & {A}{c}) sent19: {B}{f} -> {B}{e} sent20: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬(¬{D}{a} & {E}{a}) sent21: ({GI}{de} & {FG}{de}) sent22: ({D}{a} & {ER}{a}) -> ¬{CC}{a} sent23: (x): ({EB}x & {AT}x) -> ¬{FD}x sent24: {B}{a}
|
[
"sent6 & sent24 -> int1: the stenopterygius intonates and is asexual.; sent11 -> int2: if the stenopterygius intonates and is asexual it is not a benefactor.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the stenopterygius is not a benefactor.; sent9 -> int4: the fact that the stenopterygius does not tease Ignatius and it does not fluoresce is false if it is not a kind of a benefactor.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 & sent24 -> int1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}); sent11 -> int2: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬{C}{a}; sent9 -> int4: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬(¬{D}{a} & ¬{E}{a}); int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the stenopterygius does not tease Ignatius and it does not fluoresce.
|
(¬{D}{a} & ¬{E}{a})
|
[
"sent12 -> int5: if the contrapuntist does not heave putridity that it is a plural but not non-liliaceous does not hold.;"
] | 12 | 3 | 3 | 20 | 0 | 20 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the stenopterygius does not tease Ignatius and it does not fluoresce. ; $context$ = sent1: that the stenopterygius does tease Ignatius but it does not fluoresce is not right if it is not a kind of a benefactor. sent2: the fact that something does tease Ignatius but it does not fluoresce is incorrect if it is not a benefactor. sent3: if the Maratha is not a benefactor but it intonates then the oilstove does not intonates. sent4: the fact that the stenopterygius does not tease Ignatius but it fluoresces is wrong. sent5: if the athlete is not a partitionist and is not an overshot the contrapuntist does not heave putridity. sent6: that the stenopterygius intonates is not wrong. sent7: the home-farm is asexual if the promiser is asexual. sent8: that something does not tease Ignatius but it fluoresces is wrong if it is not a benefactor. sent9: the fact that something does not tease Ignatius and does not fluoresce does not hold if it is not a benefactor. sent10: the stenopterygius does not go if it is a kind of a uniformity and is a geoduck. sent11: if something intonates and it is asexual then it is not a kind of a benefactor. sent12: if something does not heave putridity then the fact that it is plural and it is liliaceous is false. sent13: if something that is high-energy is granulocytic then that it does not tease flakiness hold. sent14: the fact that the stenopterygius does tease Ignatius and does not fluoresce is false. sent15: the noseband does alternate and is asexual if it does not magnify. sent16: if the fact that the contrapuntist is a kind of a plural and it is liliaceous is incorrect then that the noseband does not magnify hold. sent17: the stenopterygius is Teutonic and it does poise. sent18: if the home-farm is asexual the Maratha is not a kind of a benefactor but it intonates. sent19: if the noseband is asexual then that the promiser is asexual is right. sent20: the fact that the stenopterygius does not tease Ignatius and fluoresces is not right if it is not a benefactor. sent21: the aerial percolates tarantism and it is bifilar. sent22: the stenopterygius is not conclusive if it does tease Ignatius and it is phosphorous. sent23: something that does percolate specificity and evens is not a parted. sent24: the stenopterygius is asexual. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 & sent24 -> int1: the stenopterygius intonates and is asexual.; sent11 -> int2: if the stenopterygius intonates and is asexual it is not a benefactor.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the stenopterygius is not a benefactor.; sent9 -> int4: the fact that the stenopterygius does not tease Ignatius and it does not fluoresce is false if it is not a kind of a benefactor.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there is something such that if it is fungicidal that it explodes and is not a kind of a Chamaedaphne is not right does not hold.
|
¬((Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x))
|
sent1: if the acorn is fungicidal it explodes and is not a kind of a Chamaedaphne. sent2: the fact that the acorn percolates tailpiece and it does explode is incorrect if it is a prospect. sent3: there exists something such that if it is fungicidal it explodes and is not a Chamaedaphne. sent4: the fact that something is a snowblindness but not Caucasian is not correct if it does tease Roswell. sent5: if the acorn is fungicidal the fact that it explodes and it is not a Chamaedaphne is false. sent6: there is something such that if it is fungicidal that it does explode and it is a Chamaedaphne is not true. sent7: the acorn is a Cinclus but it does not derive acorn if it directs. sent8: if the acorn does tease Serbian the fact that it is a level and it is not greater does not hold. sent9: the fact that the acorn explodes and is a kind of a Chamaedaphne is false if it is fungicidal. sent10: there exists something such that if it is time-release that it is a joggle and it percolates messiahship is false.
|
sent1: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent2: {IN}{aa} -> ¬({FR}{aa} & {AA}{aa}) sent3: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent4: (x): {JK}x -> ¬({GC}x & ¬{GL}x) sent5: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent6: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent7: {Q}{aa} -> ({BR}{aa} & ¬{DF}{aa}) sent8: {DI}{aa} -> ¬({IT}{aa} & ¬{DJ}{aa}) sent9: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent10: (Ex): {IM}x -> ¬({IU}x & {P}x)
|
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there is something such that if the fact that it does not tease Roswell does not hold the fact that it is a snowblindness and it is not Caucasian is wrong.
|
(Ex): {JK}x -> ¬({GC}x & ¬{GL}x)
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: if the tailpiece teases Roswell the fact that it is a snowblindness and it is not Caucasian is not right.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if it is fungicidal that it explodes and is not a kind of a Chamaedaphne is not right does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the acorn is fungicidal it explodes and is not a kind of a Chamaedaphne. sent2: the fact that the acorn percolates tailpiece and it does explode is incorrect if it is a prospect. sent3: there exists something such that if it is fungicidal it explodes and is not a Chamaedaphne. sent4: the fact that something is a snowblindness but not Caucasian is not correct if it does tease Roswell. sent5: if the acorn is fungicidal the fact that it explodes and it is not a Chamaedaphne is false. sent6: there is something such that if it is fungicidal that it does explode and it is a Chamaedaphne is not true. sent7: the acorn is a Cinclus but it does not derive acorn if it directs. sent8: if the acorn does tease Serbian the fact that it is a level and it is not greater does not hold. sent9: the fact that the acorn explodes and is a kind of a Chamaedaphne is false if it is fungicidal. sent10: there exists something such that if it is time-release that it is a joggle and it percolates messiahship is false. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if it is a fuck it teases ragtime and does not percolate Septobasidium.
|
(Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
sent1: the sporran does tease ragtime but it does not cavil if it is a Stercorarius. sent2: the sporran teases ragtime and does not percolate Septobasidium if it is a fuck. sent3: there is something such that if it is Gilbertian it is a kind of a tapped that is not tragicomic. sent4: there is something such that if it is a spinnability then it is an intangible and is a cackle. sent5: if something does derive Tuchman then it does derive megasporangium and is not a silenced. sent6: there is something such that if it teases leatherette it is a Manilkara and does not derive codefendant. sent7: there exists something such that if it is a fixer-upper it is a Ewe and it does not tease compositor. sent8: there is something such that if it is a fuck it does not percolate Septobasidium. sent9: there is something such that if it is irrevocable then it is noticeable and is not a Hygrocybe. sent10: if the sporran is a start then it is a temporal that does not percolate Septobasidium. sent11: if the sporran is a fuck then it does not percolate Septobasidium.
|
sent1: {AO}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{DN}{aa}) sent2: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent3: (Ex): {HM}x -> ({EB}x & ¬{K}x) sent4: (Ex): {GC}x -> ({FT}x & {EM}x) sent5: (x): {AE}x -> ({FP}x & ¬{CU}x) sent6: (Ex): {JD}x -> ({JH}x & ¬{HQ}x) sent7: (Ex): {BD}x -> ({FF}x & ¬{CR}x) sent8: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬{AB}x sent9: (Ex): {G}x -> ({BO}x & ¬{CE}x) sent10: {FO}{aa} -> ({FU}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent11: {A}{aa} -> ¬{AB}{aa}
|
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
if the sporran does derive Tuchman then it derives megasporangium and does not silence.
|
{AE}{aa} -> ({FP}{aa} & ¬{CU}{aa})
|
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is a fuck it teases ragtime and does not percolate Septobasidium. ; $context$ = sent1: the sporran does tease ragtime but it does not cavil if it is a Stercorarius. sent2: the sporran teases ragtime and does not percolate Septobasidium if it is a fuck. sent3: there is something such that if it is Gilbertian it is a kind of a tapped that is not tragicomic. sent4: there is something such that if it is a spinnability then it is an intangible and is a cackle. sent5: if something does derive Tuchman then it does derive megasporangium and is not a silenced. sent6: there is something such that if it teases leatherette it is a Manilkara and does not derive codefendant. sent7: there exists something such that if it is a fixer-upper it is a Ewe and it does not tease compositor. sent8: there is something such that if it is a fuck it does not percolate Septobasidium. sent9: there is something such that if it is irrevocable then it is noticeable and is not a Hygrocybe. sent10: if the sporran is a start then it is a temporal that does not percolate Septobasidium. sent11: if the sporran is a fuck then it does not percolate Septobasidium. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the amiodarone is not meaningful is not incorrect.
|
¬{D}{a}
|
sent1: the amiodarone is not meaningful if it is not acidotic and does not percolate homestead. sent2: the homestead does not hibachi and it is not meaningful. sent3: the amiodarone is not acidotic and it does not percolate homestead if it does not sear. sent4: the Athenian is not meaningful. sent5: there is something such that it is a kind of non-meaningful thing that percolates homestead. sent6: if the amiodarone does not gallivant it is not a cymbid and it is not a rhymer. sent7: there is something such that it does sear. sent8: the amiodarone is not a load and is not a kind of a spa if it is not a NIDDM. sent9: something is meaningful and it does sear. sent10: there exists something such that it is a kind of non-statics thing that percolates whiting. sent11: if something that is not a statics percolates whiting the amiodarone does not sear.
|
sent1: (¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent2: (¬{G}{as} & ¬{D}{as}) sent3: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent4: ¬{D}{be} sent5: (Ex): (¬{D}x & {C}x) sent6: ¬{FS}{a} -> (¬{U}{a} & ¬{IN}{a}) sent7: (Ex): {A}x sent8: ¬{GP}{a} -> (¬{IP}{a} & ¬{BG}{a}) sent9: (Ex): ({D}x & {A}x) sent10: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent11: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a}
|
[
"sent10 & sent11 -> int1: the amiodarone does not sear.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the amiodarone is not acidotic and it does not percolate homestead.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent10 & sent11 -> int1: ¬{A}{a}; int1 & sent3 -> int2: (¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the amiodarone is not meaningful is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the amiodarone is not meaningful if it is not acidotic and does not percolate homestead. sent2: the homestead does not hibachi and it is not meaningful. sent3: the amiodarone is not acidotic and it does not percolate homestead if it does not sear. sent4: the Athenian is not meaningful. sent5: there is something such that it is a kind of non-meaningful thing that percolates homestead. sent6: if the amiodarone does not gallivant it is not a cymbid and it is not a rhymer. sent7: there is something such that it does sear. sent8: the amiodarone is not a load and is not a kind of a spa if it is not a NIDDM. sent9: something is meaningful and it does sear. sent10: there exists something such that it is a kind of non-statics thing that percolates whiting. sent11: if something that is not a statics percolates whiting the amiodarone does not sear. ; $proof$ =
|
sent10 & sent11 -> int1: the amiodarone does not sear.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the amiodarone is not acidotic and it does not percolate homestead.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there exists something such that that it is a Norn and it is a Dusicyon does not hold is false.
|
¬((Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x))
|
sent1: there is something such that that it does derive vagueness and is gravitational is not correct. sent2: there is something such that the fact that it is a Chelidonium and it does tease variorum is not correct. sent3: there is something such that it is a Norn and is a Dusicyon. sent4: the fact that that the cuppa is both a Norn and a Dusicyon is wrong is not incorrect. sent5: the fact that the heterosexual is a kind of a psilophyton and it is a Dusicyon is incorrect. sent6: the fact that the cuppa is a litigant and it does tease Auchincloss does not hold. sent7: that the cuppa does lower and it percolates arsenopyrite is not true. sent8: that the cuppa is a tallgrass that is a Dusicyon is wrong. sent9: that the cuppa percolates Paddy and is a kind of a Norn does not hold. sent10: there exists something such that that it is a kind of choral a Chelidonium is not right. sent11: that the cuppa is a Norn and does tease mithramycin does not hold. sent12: there is something such that that it does tease heterosexual and is a kind of a Defoe is not true. sent13: the fact that the cuppa is a asceticism that is manorial is wrong.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬({BD}x & {H}x) sent2: (Ex): ¬({GJ}x & {GP}x) sent3: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent4: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent5: ¬({CG}{ab} & {AB}{ab}) sent6: ¬({CK}{aa} & {GQ}{aa}) sent7: ¬({FN}{aa} & {P}{aa}) sent8: ¬({GC}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent9: ¬({Q}{aa} & {AA}{aa}) sent10: (Ex): ¬({AM}x & {GJ}x) sent11: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AO}{aa}) sent12: (Ex): ¬({DG}x & {HP}x) sent13: ¬({CP}{aa} & {HH}{aa})
|
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that that it is a Norn and it is a Dusicyon does not hold is false. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that that it does derive vagueness and is gravitational is not correct. sent2: there is something such that the fact that it is a Chelidonium and it does tease variorum is not correct. sent3: there is something such that it is a Norn and is a Dusicyon. sent4: the fact that that the cuppa is both a Norn and a Dusicyon is wrong is not incorrect. sent5: the fact that the heterosexual is a kind of a psilophyton and it is a Dusicyon is incorrect. sent6: the fact that the cuppa is a litigant and it does tease Auchincloss does not hold. sent7: that the cuppa does lower and it percolates arsenopyrite is not true. sent8: that the cuppa is a tallgrass that is a Dusicyon is wrong. sent9: that the cuppa percolates Paddy and is a kind of a Norn does not hold. sent10: there exists something such that that it is a kind of choral a Chelidonium is not right. sent11: that the cuppa is a Norn and does tease mithramycin does not hold. sent12: there is something such that that it does tease heterosexual and is a kind of a Defoe is not true. sent13: the fact that the cuppa is a asceticism that is manorial is wrong. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if it lands it is phonetics and it is not a flamen.
|
(Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
sent1: there is something such that if it is immeasurable that it is a harangue that is immoderate is right. sent2: something is phonetics but it is not a flamen if it does land. sent3: there exists something such that if it is a land it is not a flamen. sent4: there exists something such that if it is a benediction then the fact that it is abbatial is right. sent5: there exists something such that if it does land it is phonetics. sent6: there exists something such that if that it is desirable is correct it percolates Hydnocarpus.
|
sent1: (Ex): {HI}x -> ({BC}x & {BK}x) sent2: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent3: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬{AB}x sent4: (Ex): {DM}x -> {EU}x sent5: (Ex): {A}x -> {AA}x sent6: (Ex): {O}x -> {EJ}x
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: if that the radiotelephone does land hold it is phonetics and is not a kind of a flamen.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> int1: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it lands it is phonetics and it is not a flamen. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is immeasurable that it is a harangue that is immoderate is right. sent2: something is phonetics but it is not a flamen if it does land. sent3: there exists something such that if it is a land it is not a flamen. sent4: there exists something such that if it is a benediction then the fact that it is abbatial is right. sent5: there exists something such that if it does land it is phonetics. sent6: there exists something such that if that it is desirable is correct it percolates Hydnocarpus. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> int1: if that the radiotelephone does land hold it is phonetics and is not a kind of a flamen.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that both the hippedness and the vrooming occurs is wrong.
|
¬(¬{E} & {D})
|
sent1: the fact that the litany does not occur if that the deriving overachiever occurs and the titillation happens is right is not wrong. sent2: that the fact that both the hiplessness and the vrooming happens hold is incorrect. sent3: both the non-hiplessness and the vroom occurs if that the deriving overachiever does not occur hold. sent4: the deriving overachiever occurs. sent5: the titillation happens. sent6: that the matriculate does not occur prevents the hiplessness. sent7: the titillation does not occur if that the matriculating and the titillation happens is false. sent8: the deriving living-room happens if the deriving overachiever does not occur. sent9: if both the uncompassionateness and the takeaway occurs then the interplanetariness does not occur.
|
sent1: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent2: ¬({E} & {D}) sent3: ¬{A} -> (¬{E} & {D}) sent4: {A} sent5: {B} sent6: ¬{F} -> ¬{E} sent7: ¬({F} & {B}) -> ¬{B} sent8: ¬{A} -> {AB} sent9: ({EN} & {HU}) -> ¬{IK}
|
[
"sent4 & sent5 -> int1: the deriving overachiever and the titillation occurs.; sent1 & int1 -> int2: the litany does not occur.;"
] |
[
"sent4 & sent5 -> int1: ({A} & {B}); sent1 & int1 -> int2: ¬{C};"
] |
the hiplessness does not occur but the vrooming occurs.
|
(¬{E} & {D})
|
[] | 7 | 3 | null | 6 | 0 | 6 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that both the hippedness and the vrooming occurs is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the litany does not occur if that the deriving overachiever occurs and the titillation happens is right is not wrong. sent2: that the fact that both the hiplessness and the vrooming happens hold is incorrect. sent3: both the non-hiplessness and the vroom occurs if that the deriving overachiever does not occur hold. sent4: the deriving overachiever occurs. sent5: the titillation happens. sent6: that the matriculate does not occur prevents the hiplessness. sent7: the titillation does not occur if that the matriculating and the titillation happens is false. sent8: the deriving living-room happens if the deriving overachiever does not occur. sent9: if both the uncompassionateness and the takeaway occurs then the interplanetariness does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 & sent5 -> int1: the deriving overachiever and the titillation occurs.; sent1 & int1 -> int2: the litany does not occur.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the ferromagneticness does not occur.
|
¬{C}
|
sent1: the pop-fly occurs. sent2: the ferromagneticness is prevented by that both the pop-fly and the nonpsychoactiveness happens. sent3: if both the invention and the deriving Sajama occurs the usury does not occur. sent4: if the nonpsychoactiveness does not occur then the ferromagneticness happens and the pop-fly occurs. sent5: the nonpsychoactiveness occurs. sent6: if the nonpsychoactiveness does not occur then the pop-fly happens and the inaccessibleness happens.
|
sent1: {A} sent2: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent3: ({N} & {IM}) -> ¬{EI} sent4: ¬{B} -> ({C} & {A}) sent5: {B} sent6: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {DN})
|
[
"sent1 & sent5 -> int1: both the pop-fly and the nonpsychoactiveness occurs.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 & sent5 -> int1: ({A} & {B}); sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the ferromagneticness happens.
|
{C}
|
[] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the ferromagneticness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the pop-fly occurs. sent2: the ferromagneticness is prevented by that both the pop-fly and the nonpsychoactiveness happens. sent3: if both the invention and the deriving Sajama occurs the usury does not occur. sent4: if the nonpsychoactiveness does not occur then the ferromagneticness happens and the pop-fly occurs. sent5: the nonpsychoactiveness occurs. sent6: if the nonpsychoactiveness does not occur then the pop-fly happens and the inaccessibleness happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 & sent5 -> int1: both the pop-fly and the nonpsychoactiveness occurs.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if it compromises then it derives leporid.
|
(Ex): {A}x -> {C}x
|
sent1: there is something such that if the fact that it is an affirmation is true then it is an antibiotic. sent2: if the macadamia does tease heliport it is anaclinal. sent3: there exists something such that if it is bacteriological then it does strangulate. sent4: the macadamia does derive leporid if that it is a compromise is not wrong. sent5: the macadamia does tease Newton if it is a orthopteron. sent6: there is something such that if it is a Gomphrena then it is a kind of a handler. sent7: there exists something such that if it does summarize it is fungoid. sent8: the macadamia is a Hypsiglena if it is papillate. sent9: there is something such that if it is smaller then it is an extravaganza. sent10: there exists something such that if it is pudendal then it does signify. sent11: that there exists something such that if it is a kind of a descendants it is exchangeable is not wrong. sent12: if the macadamia is a baggage then it derives leporid. sent13: if the numismatist does percolate sulfa it does underlie. sent14: there is something such that if it is a coiffeur then it is exhaustible. sent15: if something derives bullyboy it is not non-ascensional. sent16: there exists something such that if it derives whiting then it does mutiny. sent17: the heliport is an individual if it is a Passerina. sent18: if something is a kind of a pocketknife then it is a descendants. sent19: the pellicle is a kind of a compromise if it is a kind of a polygamy.
|
sent1: (Ex): {ES}x -> {JG}x sent2: {BF}{aa} -> {BT}{aa} sent3: (Ex): {DN}x -> {CJ}x sent4: {A}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent5: {BA}{aa} -> {ET}{aa} sent6: (Ex): {S}x -> {AU}x sent7: (Ex): {J}x -> {HE}x sent8: {BG}{aa} -> {AG}{aa} sent9: (Ex): {CC}x -> {AQ}x sent10: (Ex): {GL}x -> {CL}x sent11: (Ex): {IF}x -> {K}x sent12: {IM}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent13: {H}{as} -> {GG}{as} sent14: (Ex): {IP}x -> {CD}x sent15: (x): {IT}x -> {BI}x sent16: (Ex): {BL}x -> {EF}x sent17: {BO}{jk} -> {GQ}{jk} sent18: (x): {HU}x -> {IF}x sent19: {FF}{ce} -> {A}{ce}
|
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there exists something such that if it is a pocketknife it is a descendants.
|
(Ex): {HU}x -> {IF}x
|
[
"sent18 -> int1: if the battlefield is a pocketknife then it is a descendants.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it compromises then it derives leporid. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if the fact that it is an affirmation is true then it is an antibiotic. sent2: if the macadamia does tease heliport it is anaclinal. sent3: there exists something such that if it is bacteriological then it does strangulate. sent4: the macadamia does derive leporid if that it is a compromise is not wrong. sent5: the macadamia does tease Newton if it is a orthopteron. sent6: there is something such that if it is a Gomphrena then it is a kind of a handler. sent7: there exists something such that if it does summarize it is fungoid. sent8: the macadamia is a Hypsiglena if it is papillate. sent9: there is something such that if it is smaller then it is an extravaganza. sent10: there exists something such that if it is pudendal then it does signify. sent11: that there exists something such that if it is a kind of a descendants it is exchangeable is not wrong. sent12: if the macadamia is a baggage then it derives leporid. sent13: if the numismatist does percolate sulfa it does underlie. sent14: there is something such that if it is a coiffeur then it is exhaustible. sent15: if something derives bullyboy it is not non-ascensional. sent16: there exists something such that if it derives whiting then it does mutiny. sent17: the heliport is an individual if it is a Passerina. sent18: if something is a kind of a pocketknife then it is a descendants. sent19: the pellicle is a kind of a compromise if it is a kind of a polygamy. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the pi teases Independence.
|
{B}{b}
|
sent1: if the pi does not tease Independence the henbit is a startle. sent2: the henbit does not tease Pseudococcidae. sent3: something is not unadaptable if it does derive uncommonness. sent4: the pi teases Pseudococcidae if the henbit does not tease Independence. sent5: the eelblenny does not tease Pseudococcidae. sent6: that the pi teases Independence is not false if the henbit does not tease Pseudococcidae. sent7: the henbit teases Independence if the pi does not tease Pseudococcidae. sent8: something teases Independence and does not heave backspin if it is not unadaptable. sent9: the fact that the henbit does not tease Independence or does not heave backspin or both is not true if the VDU does not tease Pseudococcidae. sent10: something teases Pseudococcidae if the fact that it does tease Independence is not incorrect. sent11: the henbit does not tease Independence. sent12: The Pseudococcidae does not tease henbit. sent13: the pi does not tease Independence if the fact that the henbit does not tease Independence and/or does not heave backspin is wrong. sent14: the henbit is not a kind of an elite. sent15: if something is not a kind of a Lutzen that it is unadaptable and it does derive uncommonness is false.
|
sent1: ¬{B}{b} -> {FG}{a} sent2: ¬{A}{a} sent3: (x): {E}x -> ¬{D}x sent4: ¬{B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent5: ¬{A}{cg} sent6: ¬{A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent7: ¬{A}{b} -> {B}{a} sent8: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({B}x & ¬{C}x) sent9: ¬{A}{c} -> ¬(¬{B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) sent10: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent11: ¬{B}{a} sent12: ¬{AA}{aa} sent13: ¬(¬{B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent14: ¬{DT}{a} sent15: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬({D}x & {E}x)
|
[
"sent6 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the pi does not tease Independence.
|
¬{B}{b}
|
[
"sent15 -> int1: if the urobilin is not a Lutzen then the fact that it is unadaptable and does derive uncommonness is false.;"
] | 7 | 1 | 1 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the pi teases Independence. ; $context$ = sent1: if the pi does not tease Independence the henbit is a startle. sent2: the henbit does not tease Pseudococcidae. sent3: something is not unadaptable if it does derive uncommonness. sent4: the pi teases Pseudococcidae if the henbit does not tease Independence. sent5: the eelblenny does not tease Pseudococcidae. sent6: that the pi teases Independence is not false if the henbit does not tease Pseudococcidae. sent7: the henbit teases Independence if the pi does not tease Pseudococcidae. sent8: something teases Independence and does not heave backspin if it is not unadaptable. sent9: the fact that the henbit does not tease Independence or does not heave backspin or both is not true if the VDU does not tease Pseudococcidae. sent10: something teases Pseudococcidae if the fact that it does tease Independence is not incorrect. sent11: the henbit does not tease Independence. sent12: The Pseudococcidae does not tease henbit. sent13: the pi does not tease Independence if the fact that the henbit does not tease Independence and/or does not heave backspin is wrong. sent14: the henbit is not a kind of an elite. sent15: if something is not a kind of a Lutzen that it is unadaptable and it does derive uncommonness is false. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the astigmaticness does not occur is right.
|
¬{A}
|
sent1: the minorness does not occur. sent2: if that that not the enjoying but the attention occurs is not true is not incorrect the ossifying does not occur. sent3: if the heaving Swede happens then the raffle happens. sent4: if the raffling happens the fact that both the non-astigmaticness and the non-royalness happens is not true. sent5: that the pachisi does not occur and the percolating somersault does not occur is not true if the teasing claro happens. sent6: that the teasing feather happens and the aculeateness occurs is brought about by that the damnation does not occur. sent7: if the raffling does not occur then the fact that the royal does not occur hold. sent8: the raffling does not occur. sent9: if that the pachisi does not occur and the percolating somersault does not occur does not hold then the damnation does not occur. sent10: if the ossifying does not occur the heaving Swede occurs and the campfire occurs. sent11: that the teasing claro and the confusing happens is caused by that the deriving stroke does not occur. sent12: if that the astigmaticness does not occur and the royalness does not occur is not true then the astigmaticness happens. sent13: the fact that the enjoying does not occur and the attention happens is incorrect if the teasing feather happens.
|
sent1: ¬{JA} sent2: ¬(¬{G} & {H}) -> ¬{F} sent3: {D} -> {C} sent4: {C} -> ¬(¬{A} & ¬{B}) sent5: {N} -> ¬(¬{L} & ¬{M}) sent6: ¬{K} -> ({I} & {J}) sent7: ¬{C} -> ¬{B} sent8: ¬{C} sent9: ¬(¬{L} & ¬{M}) -> ¬{K} sent10: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) sent11: ¬{P} -> ({N} & {O}) sent12: ¬(¬{A} & ¬{B}) -> {A} sent13: {I} -> ¬(¬{G} & {H})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the astigmaticness occurs.; sent7 & sent8 -> int1: the royal does not occur.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}; sent7 & sent8 -> int1: ¬{B};"
] |
the astigmaticness occurs.
|
{A}
|
[] | 15 | 3 | null | 11 | 0 | 11 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the astigmaticness does not occur is right. ; $context$ = sent1: the minorness does not occur. sent2: if that that not the enjoying but the attention occurs is not true is not incorrect the ossifying does not occur. sent3: if the heaving Swede happens then the raffle happens. sent4: if the raffling happens the fact that both the non-astigmaticness and the non-royalness happens is not true. sent5: that the pachisi does not occur and the percolating somersault does not occur is not true if the teasing claro happens. sent6: that the teasing feather happens and the aculeateness occurs is brought about by that the damnation does not occur. sent7: if the raffling does not occur then the fact that the royal does not occur hold. sent8: the raffling does not occur. sent9: if that the pachisi does not occur and the percolating somersault does not occur does not hold then the damnation does not occur. sent10: if the ossifying does not occur the heaving Swede occurs and the campfire occurs. sent11: that the teasing claro and the confusing happens is caused by that the deriving stroke does not occur. sent12: if that the astigmaticness does not occur and the royalness does not occur is not true then the astigmaticness happens. sent13: the fact that the enjoying does not occur and the attention happens is incorrect if the teasing feather happens. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the astigmaticness occurs.; sent7 & sent8 -> int1: the royal does not occur.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the provider is not inflexible and not a nephropathy is not true.
|
¬(¬{C}{d} & ¬{D}{d})
|
sent1: the intranet is not a kind of a traveler. sent2: that the provider is not inflexible and it is not a nephropathy is incorrect if the chessboard is not bicameral. sent3: the fact that the provider is not inflexible and it does not percolate habitus is incorrect. sent4: the fact that the provider is not inflexible but a nephropathy is false. sent5: the intranet is bicameral if it is a kind of a erythroblast. sent6: the intranet is not bicameral if the fact that the provider is a nephropathy or it is a traveler or both is not correct. sent7: if the fact that the intranet is bicameral is correct it is a traveler. sent8: if the flush is not a traveler that the intranet is a kind of a prurigo but it does not percolate habitus does not hold. sent9: if the intranet is not a kind of a traveler then that either the flush does percolate habitus or it is a prurigo or both is not right.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{a} sent2: ¬{B}{c} -> ¬(¬{C}{d} & ¬{D}{d}) sent3: ¬(¬{C}{d} & ¬{AA}{d}) sent4: ¬(¬{C}{d} & {D}{d}) sent5: {E}{a} -> {B}{a} sent6: ¬({D}{d} v {A}{d}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent7: {B}{a} -> {A}{a} sent8: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬({AB}{a} & ¬{AA}{a}) sent9: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{b} v {AB}{b})
|
[
"sent9 & sent1 -> int1: the fact that the flush percolates habitus and/or it is a prurigo is not correct.;"
] |
[
"sent9 & sent1 -> int1: ¬({AA}{b} v {AB}{b});"
] |
the provider is not inflexible and is not a nephropathy.
|
(¬{C}{d} & ¬{D}{d})
|
[] | 7 | 3 | null | 6 | 0 | 6 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the provider is not inflexible and not a nephropathy is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the intranet is not a kind of a traveler. sent2: that the provider is not inflexible and it is not a nephropathy is incorrect if the chessboard is not bicameral. sent3: the fact that the provider is not inflexible and it does not percolate habitus is incorrect. sent4: the fact that the provider is not inflexible but a nephropathy is false. sent5: the intranet is bicameral if it is a kind of a erythroblast. sent6: the intranet is not bicameral if the fact that the provider is a nephropathy or it is a traveler or both is not correct. sent7: if the fact that the intranet is bicameral is correct it is a traveler. sent8: if the flush is not a traveler that the intranet is a kind of a prurigo but it does not percolate habitus does not hold. sent9: if the intranet is not a kind of a traveler then that either the flush does percolate habitus or it is a prurigo or both is not right. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 & sent1 -> int1: the fact that the flush percolates habitus and/or it is a prurigo is not correct.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the invitation occurs.
|
{D}
|
sent1: the daycare does not occur. sent2: that the painlessness occurs and the arborealness occurs is not true if that the daycare does not occur is right. sent3: the extension does not occur. sent4: the painfulness is triggered by that the shimmy does not occur and the uncharacteristicness does not occur. sent5: the thrill does not occur. sent6: if the daycare happens that the painlessness happens hold. sent7: the regaling does not occur and the commissioning does not occur. sent8: if that the painlessness happens and the arborealness happens does not hold the frosting does not occur. sent9: not the daycare but the grieving happens if the commemoration happens. sent10: the commemoration occurs if that the percolating polypropenonitrile occurs or the teasing welcoming does not occur or both does not hold. sent11: that the painlessness occurs results in that the arborealness does not occur and the invitation does not occur. sent12: the fact that the shimmying does not occur and the uncharacteristicness does not occur is not false. sent13: the invitation happens if that the daycare and/or the non-arborealness occurs is false. sent14: if the pectoral does not occur then that the visiting does not occur is not incorrect. sent15: that if the painlessness does not occur then that the daycare or the nonarborealness or both happens does not hold is not wrong.
|
sent1: ¬{C} sent2: ¬{C} -> ¬({B} & {A}) sent3: ¬{AI} sent4: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent5: ¬{CF} sent6: {C} -> {B} sent7: (¬{EH} & ¬{BB}) sent8: ¬({B} & {A}) -> ¬{GD} sent9: {G} -> (¬{C} & {E}) sent10: ¬({DB} v ¬{HU}) -> {G} sent11: {B} -> (¬{A} & ¬{D}) sent12: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent13: ¬({C} v ¬{A}) -> {D} sent14: ¬{FQ} -> ¬{BD} sent15: ¬{B} -> ¬({C} v ¬{A})
|
[
"sent4 & sent12 -> int1: the painlessness does not occur.; sent15 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the daycare and/or the non-arborealness occurs does not hold.; sent13 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 & sent12 -> int1: ¬{B}; sent15 & int1 -> int2: ¬({C} v ¬{A}); sent13 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the invitation does not occur.
|
¬{D}
|
[] | 7 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the invitation occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the daycare does not occur. sent2: that the painlessness occurs and the arborealness occurs is not true if that the daycare does not occur is right. sent3: the extension does not occur. sent4: the painfulness is triggered by that the shimmy does not occur and the uncharacteristicness does not occur. sent5: the thrill does not occur. sent6: if the daycare happens that the painlessness happens hold. sent7: the regaling does not occur and the commissioning does not occur. sent8: if that the painlessness happens and the arborealness happens does not hold the frosting does not occur. sent9: not the daycare but the grieving happens if the commemoration happens. sent10: the commemoration occurs if that the percolating polypropenonitrile occurs or the teasing welcoming does not occur or both does not hold. sent11: that the painlessness occurs results in that the arborealness does not occur and the invitation does not occur. sent12: the fact that the shimmying does not occur and the uncharacteristicness does not occur is not false. sent13: the invitation happens if that the daycare and/or the non-arborealness occurs is false. sent14: if the pectoral does not occur then that the visiting does not occur is not incorrect. sent15: that if the painlessness does not occur then that the daycare or the nonarborealness or both happens does not hold is not wrong. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 & sent12 -> int1: the painlessness does not occur.; sent15 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the daycare and/or the non-arborealness occurs does not hold.; sent13 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the destroyer is not a histogram.
|
¬{C}{c}
|
sent1: the destroyer is erythroid. sent2: if the Paraguayan is erythroid then it is not a wainscot. sent3: if that something is both not a Congridae and not a histogram is not true then it is a histogram. sent4: the fact that the Paraguayan does not confabulate and/or it is a wainscot is false if it is erythroid. sent5: the fact that the sapsago is not a Congridae and it is not a histogram is incorrect if it is infectious. sent6: the limpkin is a wainscot. sent7: if the fact that the sapsago is not erythroid and/or does confabulate is incorrect then the Paraguayan is a tessellation. sent8: the destroyer is a histogram if the sapsago is a tessellation. sent9: the sapsago is a Congridae if the northerly is infectious. sent10: if that the fact that the Paraguayan does not confabulate and/or is a wainscot is not false is incorrect then the sapsago is a tessellation. sent11: the Paraguayan is not a kind of a wainscot. sent12: the Paraguayan is a kind of a tessellation if the sapsago is not a tessellation but erythroid. sent13: the Paraguayan is erythroid. sent14: the sapsago does perfect. sent15: the fact that the Paraguayan is not a histogram and/or is a kind of a wainscot is wrong.
|
sent1: {A}{c} sent2: {A}{a} -> ¬{AB}{a} sent3: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{C}x) -> {C}x sent4: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent5: {E}{b} -> ¬(¬{D}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent6: {AB}{hh} sent7: ¬(¬{A}{b} v {AA}{b}) -> {B}{a} sent8: {B}{b} -> {C}{c} sent9: {E}{d} -> {D}{b} sent10: ¬(¬{AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent11: ¬{AB}{a} sent12: (¬{B}{b} & {A}{b}) -> {B}{a} sent13: {A}{a} sent14: {AK}{b} sent15: ¬(¬{C}{a} v {AB}{a})
|
[
"sent4 & sent13 -> int1: that the Paraguayan does not confabulate and/or is a wainscot is not correct.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: the sapsago is a kind of a tessellation.; int2 & sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 & sent13 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} v {AB}{a}); int1 & sent10 -> int2: {B}{b}; int2 & sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the destroyer is not a histogram.
|
¬{C}{c}
|
[] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the destroyer is not a histogram. ; $context$ = sent1: the destroyer is erythroid. sent2: if the Paraguayan is erythroid then it is not a wainscot. sent3: if that something is both not a Congridae and not a histogram is not true then it is a histogram. sent4: the fact that the Paraguayan does not confabulate and/or it is a wainscot is false if it is erythroid. sent5: the fact that the sapsago is not a Congridae and it is not a histogram is incorrect if it is infectious. sent6: the limpkin is a wainscot. sent7: if the fact that the sapsago is not erythroid and/or does confabulate is incorrect then the Paraguayan is a tessellation. sent8: the destroyer is a histogram if the sapsago is a tessellation. sent9: the sapsago is a Congridae if the northerly is infectious. sent10: if that the fact that the Paraguayan does not confabulate and/or is a wainscot is not false is incorrect then the sapsago is a tessellation. sent11: the Paraguayan is not a kind of a wainscot. sent12: the Paraguayan is a kind of a tessellation if the sapsago is not a tessellation but erythroid. sent13: the Paraguayan is erythroid. sent14: the sapsago does perfect. sent15: the fact that the Paraguayan is not a histogram and/or is a kind of a wainscot is wrong. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 & sent13 -> int1: that the Paraguayan does not confabulate and/or is a wainscot is not correct.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: the sapsago is a kind of a tessellation.; int2 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the hammerhead engineers.
|
{B}{aa}
|
sent1: the pest is a siding. sent2: if there is something such that it teases Lysichiton then the pest is irreplaceable and is an indemnity. sent3: the hammerhead does tease variorum. sent4: that the hammerhead does ghost but it does not derive rubicelle does not hold if it is an incendiary. sent5: the fact that something is a kind of non-incendiary thing that is a kind of a guitarist is incorrect if it is a kind of an indemnity. sent6: that the hammerhead is a sertularian and it is a lovingness does not hold. sent7: the fact that the hammerhead is incendiary is correct. sent8: the hatchet is an engineer. sent9: the rubicelle is incendiary. sent10: something engineers if that it ghosts and does not derive rubicelle is not correct. sent11: the hammerhead is an engineer if it does derive rubicelle. sent12: the fact that the front-runner does tease Lysichiton is correct. sent13: the fact that the hatchet is not an incendiary but it is a kind of an engineer is not true if the omega-6 is a guitarist.
|
sent1: {G}{c} sent2: (x): {F}x -> ({E}{c} & {D}{c}) sent3: {S}{aa} sent4: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent5: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & {C}x) sent6: ¬({BP}{aa} & {FA}{aa}) sent7: {A}{aa} sent8: {B}{a} sent9: {A}{gt} sent10: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent11: {AB}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent12: {F}{d} sent13: {C}{b} -> ¬(¬{A}{a} & {B}{a})
|
[
"sent10 -> int1: the hammerhead is an engineer if that it is a kind of a ghost that does not derive rubicelle is not right.; sent4 & sent7 -> int2: the fact that the hammerhead is a kind of a ghost that does not derive rubicelle is false.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent10 -> int1: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; sent4 & sent7 -> int2: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the hammerhead is not an engineer.
|
¬{B}{aa}
|
[
"sent5 -> int3: if the hatchet is a kind of an indemnity the fact that it is non-incendiary and it is a guitarist is wrong.; sent1 -> int4: there are siding things.;"
] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the hammerhead engineers. ; $context$ = sent1: the pest is a siding. sent2: if there is something such that it teases Lysichiton then the pest is irreplaceable and is an indemnity. sent3: the hammerhead does tease variorum. sent4: that the hammerhead does ghost but it does not derive rubicelle does not hold if it is an incendiary. sent5: the fact that something is a kind of non-incendiary thing that is a kind of a guitarist is incorrect if it is a kind of an indemnity. sent6: that the hammerhead is a sertularian and it is a lovingness does not hold. sent7: the fact that the hammerhead is incendiary is correct. sent8: the hatchet is an engineer. sent9: the rubicelle is incendiary. sent10: something engineers if that it ghosts and does not derive rubicelle is not correct. sent11: the hammerhead is an engineer if it does derive rubicelle. sent12: the fact that the front-runner does tease Lysichiton is correct. sent13: the fact that the hatchet is not an incendiary but it is a kind of an engineer is not true if the omega-6 is a guitarist. ; $proof$ =
|
sent10 -> int1: the hammerhead is an engineer if that it is a kind of a ghost that does not derive rubicelle is not right.; sent4 & sent7 -> int2: the fact that the hammerhead is a kind of a ghost that does not derive rubicelle is false.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that both the deriving Gomphrena and the cultivating happens is incorrect.
|
¬({C} & {B})
|
sent1: the deriving Gomphrena occurs but the Independence does not occur. sent2: the predetermination does not occur. sent3: if the passage does not occur that the deriving Gomphrena happens and the cultivating occurs is not true. sent4: the passage prevents that the cultivating does not occur. sent5: the fact that the passage happens is right.
|
sent1: ({C} & ¬{D}) sent2: ¬{HO} sent3: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} & {B}) sent4: {A} -> {B} sent5: {A}
|
[
"sent4 & sent5 -> int1: the cultivating occurs.; sent1 -> int2: the deriving Gomphrena occurs.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 & sent5 -> int1: {B}; sent1 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the deriving Gomphrena occurs and the cultivating occurs is false.
|
¬({C} & {B})
|
[] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that both the deriving Gomphrena and the cultivating happens is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the deriving Gomphrena occurs but the Independence does not occur. sent2: the predetermination does not occur. sent3: if the passage does not occur that the deriving Gomphrena happens and the cultivating occurs is not true. sent4: the passage prevents that the cultivating does not occur. sent5: the fact that the passage happens is right. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 & sent5 -> int1: the cultivating occurs.; sent1 -> int2: the deriving Gomphrena occurs.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
either the gamba does not percolate seventeenth or it does not manacle or both.
|
(¬{C}{a} v ¬{B}{a})
|
sent1: the gamba does not percolate seventeenth and/or it does manacle. sent2: something is a kind of non-corporatist thing that is passionate. sent3: the gamba percolates seventeenth or it does not manacle or both if it is not entomophilous. sent4: something that is not entomophilous does not percolate seventeenth and/or does manacle. sent5: if a corporatist thing is passionate then the gamba is not entomophilous. sent6: either the gamba does not percolate seventeenth or it does manacle or both if it is not entomophilous. sent7: something that is non-entomophilous does not percolate seventeenth and/or does not manacle.
|
sent1: (¬{C}{a} v {B}{a}) sent2: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: ¬{A}{a} -> ({C}{a} v ¬{B}{a}) sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{C}x v {B}x) sent5: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent6: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{C}{a} v {B}{a}) sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{C}x v ¬{B}x)
|
[
"sent7 -> int1: if the gamba is not entomophilous then it does not percolate seventeenth and/or does not manacle.;"
] |
[
"sent7 -> int1: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{C}{a} v ¬{B}{a});"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | null | 5 | 0 | 5 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = either the gamba does not percolate seventeenth or it does not manacle or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the gamba does not percolate seventeenth and/or it does manacle. sent2: something is a kind of non-corporatist thing that is passionate. sent3: the gamba percolates seventeenth or it does not manacle or both if it is not entomophilous. sent4: something that is not entomophilous does not percolate seventeenth and/or does manacle. sent5: if a corporatist thing is passionate then the gamba is not entomophilous. sent6: either the gamba does not percolate seventeenth or it does manacle or both if it is not entomophilous. sent7: something that is non-entomophilous does not percolate seventeenth and/or does not manacle. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 -> int1: if the gamba is not entomophilous then it does not percolate seventeenth and/or does not manacle.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the bellyband is conjunctival is true.
|
{B}{c}
|
sent1: the in-law is conjunctival. sent2: the protactinium is not piscatorial. sent3: the bellyband does not heave blastocyst. sent4: that the protactinium interrelates and it is piscatorial does not hold. sent5: everything is a kind of a Atlas and it is non-acneiform. sent6: everything interrelates and it is not piscatorial. sent7: the fact that the protactinium interrelates but it is not piscatorial does not hold if the in-law does not derive scanning. sent8: the fact that everything is not piscatorial is right. sent9: if the in-law does not derive scanning then that the protactinium interrelates and is piscatorial is not correct. sent10: the bellyband is not conjunctival if the in-law is conjunctival and it is oaten.
|
sent1: {B}{a} sent2: ¬{AB}{b} sent3: ¬{BF}{c} sent4: ¬({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent5: (x): ({BR}x & ¬{FP}x) sent6: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent7: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent8: (x): ¬{AB}x sent9: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent10: ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{B}{c}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the in-law does not derive scanning.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: that the protactinium interrelates but it is not piscatorial is not true.; sent6 -> int2: the protactinium interrelates and is not piscatorial.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: that the in-law does derive scanning is right.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ¬{A}{a}; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}); sent6 -> int2: ({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}); int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: {A}{a};"
] |
the fact that the bellyband is not conjunctival is correct.
|
¬{B}{c}
|
[] | 5 | 4 | null | 8 | 0 | 8 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the bellyband is conjunctival is true. ; $context$ = sent1: the in-law is conjunctival. sent2: the protactinium is not piscatorial. sent3: the bellyband does not heave blastocyst. sent4: that the protactinium interrelates and it is piscatorial does not hold. sent5: everything is a kind of a Atlas and it is non-acneiform. sent6: everything interrelates and it is not piscatorial. sent7: the fact that the protactinium interrelates but it is not piscatorial does not hold if the in-law does not derive scanning. sent8: the fact that everything is not piscatorial is right. sent9: if the in-law does not derive scanning then that the protactinium interrelates and is piscatorial is not correct. sent10: the bellyband is not conjunctival if the in-law is conjunctival and it is oaten. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the in-law does not derive scanning.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: that the protactinium interrelates but it is not piscatorial is not true.; sent6 -> int2: the protactinium interrelates and is not piscatorial.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: that the in-law does derive scanning is right.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the hobbyism happens.
|
{E}
|
sent1: the fact that not the ductlessness but the circumvention happens is not true if the prefixation happens. sent2: the fact that the ductlessness happens and the circumvention occurs is false if the prefixation happens. sent3: the shading happens if the prefixation does not occur and the foil does not occur. sent4: both the foiling and the prefixation occurs. sent5: the hobbyism occurs if the fact that both the non-ductlessness and the circumvention occurs is not right.
|
sent1: {B} -> ¬(¬{C} & {D}) sent2: {B} -> ¬({C} & {D}) sent3: (¬{B} & ¬{A}) -> {EE} sent4: ({A} & {B}) sent5: ¬(¬{C} & {D}) -> {E}
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: the prefixation occurs.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: that the non-ductlessness and the circumvention happens is incorrect.; int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> int1: {B}; int1 & sent1 -> int2: ¬(¬{C} & {D}); int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the shading occurs.
|
{EE}
|
[] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the hobbyism happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that not the ductlessness but the circumvention happens is not true if the prefixation happens. sent2: the fact that the ductlessness happens and the circumvention occurs is false if the prefixation happens. sent3: the shading happens if the prefixation does not occur and the foil does not occur. sent4: both the foiling and the prefixation occurs. sent5: the hobbyism occurs if the fact that both the non-ductlessness and the circumvention occurs is not right. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> int1: the prefixation occurs.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: that the non-ductlessness and the circumvention happens is incorrect.; int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that something is economics and it is a yore is not false.
|
(Ex): ({C}x & {B}x)
|
sent1: that something is not a FBI and does not derive blotch is not correct if it is a Sus. sent2: if that the parishioner is not a vac and not off does not hold then it is economics. sent3: if the fact that the grill is not a fetch and it is not a Muslim is not correct then it is moderate. sent4: the parishioner is a Sus and it is a yore. sent5: there is something such that it is a kind of a yore. sent6: the parishioner is a Sus.
|
sent1: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{ES}x & ¬{CM}x) sent2: ¬(¬{D}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) -> {C}{a} sent3: ¬(¬{FC}{at} & ¬{DD}{at}) -> {AU}{at} sent4: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent5: (Ex): {B}x sent6: {A}{a}
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: the parishioner is a yore.;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> int1: {B}{a};"
] |
that that the parishioner is not a FBI and does not derive blotch does not hold is true.
|
¬(¬{ES}{a} & ¬{CM}{a})
|
[
"sent1 -> int2: if the parishioner is a Sus then that it is not a kind of a FBI and it does not derive blotch is not correct.;"
] | 5 | 3 | null | 4 | 0 | 4 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that something is economics and it is a yore is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is not a FBI and does not derive blotch is not correct if it is a Sus. sent2: if that the parishioner is not a vac and not off does not hold then it is economics. sent3: if the fact that the grill is not a fetch and it is not a Muslim is not correct then it is moderate. sent4: the parishioner is a Sus and it is a yore. sent5: there is something such that it is a kind of a yore. sent6: the parishioner is a Sus. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> int1: the parishioner is a yore.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the teasing garrote does not occur.
|
¬{D}
|
sent1: if the messiahship does not occur the percolating Wyeth happens and the vociferating does not occur. sent2: the fact that the deriving supremo happens is not incorrect. sent3: that the dystopianness does not occur or that the percolating kaoliang does not occur or both yields the percolating motel. sent4: that the vociferating and the percolating Wyeth happens is false if the messiahship does not occur. sent5: the percolating Wyeth does not occur. sent6: the teasing garrote happens if the messiahship does not occur. sent7: either that the vociferating does not occur or that the messiahship does not occur or both causes the teasing garrote. sent8: the toelessness does not occur. sent9: either the forgiveness does not occur or the teasing camel does not occur or both. sent10: the non-equitableness or the consulship or both happens. sent11: either the absence does not occur or the fungicidalness happens or both. sent12: the vociferating does not occur and/or the messiahship occurs. sent13: the equitableness happens. sent14: that the vociferating does not occur and the percolating Wyeth happens is not true if the messiahship does not occur. sent15: the alexicness does not occur and the conditioner does not occur. sent16: the orchotomy does not occur or the Frostianness happens or both. sent17: the non-photosyntheticness and/or the rub occurs. sent18: the deriving fleece does not occur. sent19: the percolating Wyeth does not occur and the vociferating does not occur. sent20: the meteoricness does not occur and/or the number does not occur. sent21: the moreness does not occur if the percolating Wyeth happens but the vociferating does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬{C} -> ({A} & ¬{B}) sent2: {JC} sent3: (¬{Q} v ¬{FR}) -> {FU} sent4: ¬{C} -> ¬({B} & {A}) sent5: ¬{A} sent6: ¬{C} -> {D} sent7: (¬{B} v ¬{C}) -> {D} sent8: ¬{EM} sent9: (¬{FK} v ¬{AJ}) sent10: (¬{P} v {T}) sent11: (¬{JH} v {FG}) sent12: (¬{B} v {C}) sent13: {P} sent14: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{B} & {A}) sent15: (¬{FD} & ¬{EA}) sent16: (¬{DK} v {G}) sent17: (¬{CB} v {BF}) sent18: ¬{GH} sent19: (¬{A} & ¬{B}) sent20: (¬{BP} v ¬{FQ}) sent21: ({A} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{AC}
|
[
"sent19 -> int1: the vociferating does not occur.; int1 -> int2: the vociferating does not occur and/or the messiahship does not occur.; sent7 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent19 -> int1: ¬{B}; int1 -> int2: (¬{B} v ¬{C}); sent7 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the teasing garrote does not occur.
|
¬{D}
|
[] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the teasing garrote does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the messiahship does not occur the percolating Wyeth happens and the vociferating does not occur. sent2: the fact that the deriving supremo happens is not incorrect. sent3: that the dystopianness does not occur or that the percolating kaoliang does not occur or both yields the percolating motel. sent4: that the vociferating and the percolating Wyeth happens is false if the messiahship does not occur. sent5: the percolating Wyeth does not occur. sent6: the teasing garrote happens if the messiahship does not occur. sent7: either that the vociferating does not occur or that the messiahship does not occur or both causes the teasing garrote. sent8: the toelessness does not occur. sent9: either the forgiveness does not occur or the teasing camel does not occur or both. sent10: the non-equitableness or the consulship or both happens. sent11: either the absence does not occur or the fungicidalness happens or both. sent12: the vociferating does not occur and/or the messiahship occurs. sent13: the equitableness happens. sent14: that the vociferating does not occur and the percolating Wyeth happens is not true if the messiahship does not occur. sent15: the alexicness does not occur and the conditioner does not occur. sent16: the orchotomy does not occur or the Frostianness happens or both. sent17: the non-photosyntheticness and/or the rub occurs. sent18: the deriving fleece does not occur. sent19: the percolating Wyeth does not occur and the vociferating does not occur. sent20: the meteoricness does not occur and/or the number does not occur. sent21: the moreness does not occur if the percolating Wyeth happens but the vociferating does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent19 -> int1: the vociferating does not occur.; int1 -> int2: the vociferating does not occur and/or the messiahship does not occur.; sent7 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the homunculus is a kind of a Cabell.
|
{A}{a}
|
sent1: the fact that the strait does not crunch and is not a Cabell is wrong if the parthenote is not a kind of a plagiarist. sent2: the photojournalism does not sightsee if there is something such that that it is both not a take-in and a biont is not correct. sent3: the strait is not a crunch if it is not a kind of an anthology and it is a plagiarist. sent4: the homunculus is a plagiarist and it is a kind of an anthology if it is not a take-in. sent5: if there is something such that that it is not a crunch and not a Cabell is wrong then the homunculus is not an anthology. sent6: the strait is not an anthology but it is a plagiarist. sent7: the microflora is bony. sent8: the Pompadour rubifies if the hole-in-the-wall scatters. sent9: the strait is not a kind of a crunch if it is an anthology that is a plagiarist. sent10: that the microflora is a nasal and does not derive head does not hold if it is bony. sent11: if something is not a drawer then it is a kind of a scattering. sent12: the homunculus is sepaloid. sent13: if the fact that something is a kind of a nasal that does not derive head is wrong it is not a nasal. sent14: the strait does crunch if the fact that the homunculus is not a kind of a Cabell hold. sent15: the hermit is a Cabell. sent16: the invader is not a kind of a nasal or is not a drawer or both if there is something such that it is not a kind of a nasal. sent17: the hole-in-the-wall is not a kind of a drawer if the fact that the invader is not a kind of a drawer is right. sent18: that something is both not a take-in and a biont is not right if it rubifies. sent19: if the invader is not a nasal then the hole-in-the-wall is not a drawer. sent20: if something is a plagiarist and a crunch it is not a Cabell. sent21: if the fact that the photojournalism either is a kind of a lightbulb or is a kind of a plagiarist or both is not true the parthenote is not a kind of a plagiarist. sent22: the strait is not an anthology. sent23: the fact that something is a lightbulb and/or a plagiarist is wrong if the fact that it does not sightsee hold.
|
sent1: ¬{C}{c} -> ¬(¬{B}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent2: (x): ¬(¬{G}x & {H}x) -> ¬{F}{d} sent3: (¬{D}{b} & {C}{b}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent4: ¬{G}{a} -> ({C}{a} & {D}{a}) sent5: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{D}{a} sent6: (¬{D}{b} & {C}{b}) sent7: {N}{h} sent8: {J}{f} -> {I}{e} sent9: ({D}{b} & {C}{b}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent10: {N}{h} -> ¬({M}{h} & ¬{L}{h}) sent11: (x): ¬{K}x -> {J}x sent12: {EF}{a} sent13: (x): ¬({M}x & ¬{L}x) -> ¬{M}x sent14: ¬{A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent15: {A}{is} sent16: (x): ¬{M}x -> (¬{M}{g} v ¬{K}{g}) sent17: ¬{K}{g} -> ¬{K}{f} sent18: (x): {I}x -> ¬(¬{G}x & {H}x) sent19: ¬{M}{g} -> ¬{K}{f} sent20: (x): ({C}x & {B}x) -> ¬{A}x sent21: ¬({E}{d} v {C}{d}) -> ¬{C}{c} sent22: ¬{D}{b} sent23: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬({E}x v {C}x)
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the homunculus is not a Cabell is not wrong.; sent14 & assump1 -> int1: the strait crunches.; sent3 & sent6 -> int2: the strait does not crunch.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ¬{A}{a}; sent14 & assump1 -> int1: {B}{b}; sent3 & sent6 -> int2: ¬{B}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the homunculus is not a kind of a Cabell.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
[
"sent20 -> int4: the homunculus is not a Cabell if it is a plagiarist that crunches.;"
] | 4 | 3 | 3 | 20 | 0 | 20 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the homunculus is a kind of a Cabell. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the strait does not crunch and is not a Cabell is wrong if the parthenote is not a kind of a plagiarist. sent2: the photojournalism does not sightsee if there is something such that that it is both not a take-in and a biont is not correct. sent3: the strait is not a crunch if it is not a kind of an anthology and it is a plagiarist. sent4: the homunculus is a plagiarist and it is a kind of an anthology if it is not a take-in. sent5: if there is something such that that it is not a crunch and not a Cabell is wrong then the homunculus is not an anthology. sent6: the strait is not an anthology but it is a plagiarist. sent7: the microflora is bony. sent8: the Pompadour rubifies if the hole-in-the-wall scatters. sent9: the strait is not a kind of a crunch if it is an anthology that is a plagiarist. sent10: that the microflora is a nasal and does not derive head does not hold if it is bony. sent11: if something is not a drawer then it is a kind of a scattering. sent12: the homunculus is sepaloid. sent13: if the fact that something is a kind of a nasal that does not derive head is wrong it is not a nasal. sent14: the strait does crunch if the fact that the homunculus is not a kind of a Cabell hold. sent15: the hermit is a Cabell. sent16: the invader is not a kind of a nasal or is not a drawer or both if there is something such that it is not a kind of a nasal. sent17: the hole-in-the-wall is not a kind of a drawer if the fact that the invader is not a kind of a drawer is right. sent18: that something is both not a take-in and a biont is not right if it rubifies. sent19: if the invader is not a nasal then the hole-in-the-wall is not a drawer. sent20: if something is a plagiarist and a crunch it is not a Cabell. sent21: if the fact that the photojournalism either is a kind of a lightbulb or is a kind of a plagiarist or both is not true the parthenote is not a kind of a plagiarist. sent22: the strait is not an anthology. sent23: the fact that something is a lightbulb and/or a plagiarist is wrong if the fact that it does not sightsee hold. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the homunculus is not a Cabell is not wrong.; sent14 & assump1 -> int1: the strait crunches.; sent3 & sent6 -> int2: the strait does not crunch.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the fact that there is something such that if the fact that it is both not a clinker and a derailment is false then it is bivalent is not incorrect is not correct.
|
¬((Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x)
|
sent1: something is chyliferous if that it is not Anglophobic and it does clinker is incorrect. sent2: there is something such that if that it is not a fishpaste and it is a Pandanaceae is wrong then it is a blubber. sent3: something is a snow if the fact that it does not heave Chechen and it lengthens does not hold. sent4: there exists something such that if the fact that it does not awaken and is archdiocesan is not correct then it is Kenyan. sent5: the goatfish is bivalent if it does not clinker and it is a derailment. sent6: if the fact that the goatfish does clinker and it is a derailment is not right it is bivalent. sent7: there is something such that if that it does not derive desensitization and it is electrophoretic is not true then it is bistroic. sent8: there exists something such that if the fact that it is non-endothermic and not particulate is false then it is a snow. sent9: there is something such that if it does clinker then it is bivalent. sent10: if the fact that the goatfish does not clinker but it is a kind of a derailment is false then it is bivalent. sent11: there is something such that if that it does not percolate Coricidin and is a Bufferin is not correct then that it is palingenetic is not incorrect. sent12: if the fact that the goatfish is not a derailment and is a bobby does not hold then it is digestible. sent13: the circus is a costliness if the fact that it is not a womanhood but a elasmobranch is not right. sent14: there is something such that if it is not a clinker and it is a kind of a derailment it is bivalent. sent15: there is something such that if the fact that it does not percolate barreled and is monophonic is false then it escapes. sent16: if that something does not percolate Malacopterygii and is nonproprietary is not right it is rabbinical. sent17: if that the goatfish is not a derailment is correct the fact that it is bivalent is not incorrect. sent18: the goatfish derives Asheville if the fact that it is not a swad and is a kind of a derailment is not true. sent19: there is something such that if it is not a derailment it is bivalent. sent20: there exists something such that if that it is a clinker and a derailment is not right it is bivalent.
|
sent1: (x): ¬(¬{IK}x & {AA}x) -> {FG}x sent2: (Ex): ¬(¬{O}x & {FF}x) -> {DI}x sent3: (x): ¬(¬{DP}x & {CL}x) -> {DD}x sent4: (Ex): ¬(¬{DC}x & {BG}x) -> {FI}x sent5: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent6: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent7: (Ex): ¬(¬{R}x & {HJ}x) -> {BR}x sent8: (Ex): ¬(¬{IP}x & {DL}x) -> {DD}x sent9: (Ex): {AA}x -> {B}x sent10: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent11: (Ex): ¬(¬{GU}x & {HP}x) -> {AN}x sent12: ¬(¬{AB}{aa} & {EO}{aa}) -> {HK}{aa} sent13: ¬(¬{IE}{ab} & {GN}{ab}) -> {ID}{ab} sent14: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent15: (Ex): ¬(¬{E}x & {FC}x) -> {BD}x sent16: (x): ¬(¬{BU}x & {IL}x) -> {EU}x sent17: ¬{AB}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent18: ¬(¬{GJ}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {BM}{aa} sent19: (Ex): ¬{AB}x -> {B}x sent20: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x
|
[
"sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there is something such that if the fact that it does not percolate Malacopterygii and it is nonproprietary is not right then it is rabbinical.
|
(Ex): ¬(¬{BU}x & {IL}x) -> {EU}x
|
[
"sent16 -> int1: if the fact that the heliport does not percolate Malacopterygii but it is nonproprietary is not right then it is rabbinical.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = that the fact that there is something such that if the fact that it is both not a clinker and a derailment is false then it is bivalent is not incorrect is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: something is chyliferous if that it is not Anglophobic and it does clinker is incorrect. sent2: there is something such that if that it is not a fishpaste and it is a Pandanaceae is wrong then it is a blubber. sent3: something is a snow if the fact that it does not heave Chechen and it lengthens does not hold. sent4: there exists something such that if the fact that it does not awaken and is archdiocesan is not correct then it is Kenyan. sent5: the goatfish is bivalent if it does not clinker and it is a derailment. sent6: if the fact that the goatfish does clinker and it is a derailment is not right it is bivalent. sent7: there is something such that if that it does not derive desensitization and it is electrophoretic is not true then it is bistroic. sent8: there exists something such that if the fact that it is non-endothermic and not particulate is false then it is a snow. sent9: there is something such that if it does clinker then it is bivalent. sent10: if the fact that the goatfish does not clinker but it is a kind of a derailment is false then it is bivalent. sent11: there is something such that if that it does not percolate Coricidin and is a Bufferin is not correct then that it is palingenetic is not incorrect. sent12: if the fact that the goatfish is not a derailment and is a bobby does not hold then it is digestible. sent13: the circus is a costliness if the fact that it is not a womanhood but a elasmobranch is not right. sent14: there is something such that if it is not a clinker and it is a kind of a derailment it is bivalent. sent15: there is something such that if the fact that it does not percolate barreled and is monophonic is false then it escapes. sent16: if that something does not percolate Malacopterygii and is nonproprietary is not right it is rabbinical. sent17: if that the goatfish is not a derailment is correct the fact that it is bivalent is not incorrect. sent18: the goatfish derives Asheville if the fact that it is not a swad and is a kind of a derailment is not true. sent19: there is something such that if it is not a derailment it is bivalent. sent20: there exists something such that if that it is a clinker and a derailment is not right it is bivalent. ; $proof$ =
|
sent10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if the fact that it does derive exanthem and it does heave Waterloo is false then it does not derive Nijinsky.
|
(Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
sent1: there is something such that if it is not a bunco then it does not derive Phocidae. sent2: if something does not derive exanthem it does not derive Nijinsky. sent3: if that something does derive exanthem and does heave Waterloo is not correct then it does not derive Nijinsky.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬{IH}x -> ¬{HF}x sent2: (x): ¬{AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent3: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: the single-leaf does not derive Nijinsky if the fact that it does derive exanthem and it does heave Waterloo is not true.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> int1: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if the fact that it does derive exanthem and it does heave Waterloo is false then it does not derive Nijinsky. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is not a bunco then it does not derive Phocidae. sent2: if something does not derive exanthem it does not derive Nijinsky. sent3: if that something does derive exanthem and does heave Waterloo is not correct then it does not derive Nijinsky. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> int1: the single-leaf does not derive Nijinsky if the fact that it does derive exanthem and it does heave Waterloo is not true.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if it is not noncrystalline then the fact that it is lengthwise and does not heave Rhinolophidae is incorrect.
|
(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
sent1: the fact that the tub is lengthwise thing that does heave Rhinolophidae does not hold if it is not noncrystalline. sent2: the fact that something is noncrystalline and is not a oca is false if it does not derive slapshot. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a Bermudan the fact that it is both neckless and not long-distance does not hold. sent4: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a umbellifer then the fact that it is an affirmation and it is not monoclinic does not hold. sent5: there is something such that if it is noncrystalline the fact that it is not non-lengthwise and it does not heave Rhinolophidae is wrong. sent6: if the tub is noncrystalline then the fact that it is lengthwise and it does not heave Rhinolophidae is false. sent7: if the tub is not eastern then the fact that it does derive thermojunction and is not noncrystalline is wrong. sent8: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a Cynoglossidae then the fact that it is a hypotension and is not porcine is not true. sent9: there is something such that if it is not a cinnabar then that it is a kind of a thimbleberry and it is not ungregarious is not right. sent10: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a change that it is alphanumeric and it is not lithomantic is wrong. sent11: if something is not lengthwise then the fact that it is a discharged and not anorectal is not correct. sent12: that the sputnik does percolate tub but it is not inferential is incorrect if it is not lengthwise. sent13: there exists something such that if it is not noncrystalline then that it is a kind of lengthwise thing that heaves Rhinolophidae is not correct. sent14: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not noncrystalline hold then it is lengthwise thing that does not heave Rhinolophidae. sent15: that the tub is lengthwise thing that does not heave Rhinolophidae is wrong if it is not noncrystalline. sent16: if the babies'-breath is not lengthwise then the fact that it percolates codefendant and it is not a kind of a triquetral does not hold. sent17: if the tub is not adaptable then the fact that that it is not implausible and it does not heave Rhinolophidae hold is not right. sent18: if the polemic does not derive groundmass the fact that it is subhuman but not lengthwise is not true. sent19: the tub is lengthwise thing that does not heave Rhinolophidae if it is not noncrystalline.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent2: (x): ¬{AJ}x -> ¬({A}x & ¬{IJ}x) sent3: (Ex): ¬{HN}x -> ¬({DO}x & ¬{ER}x) sent4: (Ex): ¬{DQ}x -> ¬({AR}x & ¬{FG}x) sent5: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent6: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent7: ¬{CR}{aa} -> ¬({IO}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa}) sent8: (Ex): ¬{ID}x -> ¬({BJ}x & ¬{FE}x) sent9: (Ex): ¬{GE}x -> ¬({FJ}x & ¬{DN}x) sent10: (Ex): ¬{FK}x -> ¬({IL}x & ¬{CL}x) sent11: (x): ¬{AA}x -> ¬({JC}x & ¬{FD}x) sent12: ¬{AA}{ba} -> ¬({IR}{ba} & ¬{AI}{ba}) sent13: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent14: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent15: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent16: ¬{AA}{cl} -> ¬({HK}{cl} & ¬{IH}{cl}) sent17: ¬{HI}{aa} -> ¬({GJ}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent18: ¬{IB}{at} -> ¬({IS}{at} & ¬{AA}{at}) sent19: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})
|
[
"sent15 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent15 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the noodle is not crystalline but it is not a kind of a oca is not right if it does not derive slapshot.
|
¬{AJ}{eo} -> ¬({A}{eo} & ¬{IJ}{eo})
|
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is not noncrystalline then the fact that it is lengthwise and does not heave Rhinolophidae is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the tub is lengthwise thing that does heave Rhinolophidae does not hold if it is not noncrystalline. sent2: the fact that something is noncrystalline and is not a oca is false if it does not derive slapshot. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a Bermudan the fact that it is both neckless and not long-distance does not hold. sent4: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a umbellifer then the fact that it is an affirmation and it is not monoclinic does not hold. sent5: there is something such that if it is noncrystalline the fact that it is not non-lengthwise and it does not heave Rhinolophidae is wrong. sent6: if the tub is noncrystalline then the fact that it is lengthwise and it does not heave Rhinolophidae is false. sent7: if the tub is not eastern then the fact that it does derive thermojunction and is not noncrystalline is wrong. sent8: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a Cynoglossidae then the fact that it is a hypotension and is not porcine is not true. sent9: there is something such that if it is not a cinnabar then that it is a kind of a thimbleberry and it is not ungregarious is not right. sent10: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a change that it is alphanumeric and it is not lithomantic is wrong. sent11: if something is not lengthwise then the fact that it is a discharged and not anorectal is not correct. sent12: that the sputnik does percolate tub but it is not inferential is incorrect if it is not lengthwise. sent13: there exists something such that if it is not noncrystalline then that it is a kind of lengthwise thing that heaves Rhinolophidae is not correct. sent14: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not noncrystalline hold then it is lengthwise thing that does not heave Rhinolophidae. sent15: that the tub is lengthwise thing that does not heave Rhinolophidae is wrong if it is not noncrystalline. sent16: if the babies'-breath is not lengthwise then the fact that it percolates codefendant and it is not a kind of a triquetral does not hold. sent17: if the tub is not adaptable then the fact that that it is not implausible and it does not heave Rhinolophidae hold is not right. sent18: if the polemic does not derive groundmass the fact that it is subhuman but not lengthwise is not true. sent19: the tub is lengthwise thing that does not heave Rhinolophidae if it is not noncrystalline. ; $proof$ =
|
sent15 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the foredeck is botanic and saponifies.
|
({C}{a} & {B}{a})
|
sent1: the foredeck is crystalline and it is a Yellowknife if the compositor does not derive foredeck. sent2: the underperformer does derive foredeck. sent3: the fact that the foredeck is not botanic and it is not statuary is incorrect. sent4: the foredeck does derive foredeck and it saponifies. sent5: if something does not saponify then the fact that it is botanic thing that does not derive foredeck is incorrect. sent6: the compositor does not derive foredeck if that the cleric is botanic thing that does not derive foredeck is not right. sent7: that something is botanic and saponifies is not right if it does not derive foredeck. sent8: that the hoop is both not adrenocortical and not a pottery does not hold. sent9: if the Cardigan is a Neosporin then it is statuary and/or does not saponify. sent10: the foredeck is a pseudohallucination and lodges. sent11: the fact that the foredeck is botanic but it is not a kind of a statuary is false. sent12: that the Tuber is Haitian but not botanic does not hold. sent13: the fact that the foredeck is not botanic and it is not a kind of a Dumpster is incorrect. sent14: the foredeck does not derive foredeck if the fact that either the compositor is a kind of a Neosporin or it does not derive foredeck or both is not correct.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{b} -> ({EQ}{a} & {Q}{a}) sent2: {A}{gp} sent3: ¬(¬{C}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent4: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent5: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({C}x & ¬{A}x) sent6: ¬({C}{c} & ¬{A}{c}) -> ¬{A}{b} sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({C}x & {B}x) sent8: ¬(¬{EL}{en} & ¬{FQ}{en}) sent9: {E}{d} -> ({D}{d} v ¬{B}{d}) sent10: ({EF}{a} & {AR}{a}) sent11: ¬({C}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent12: ¬({BI}{hk} & ¬{C}{hk}) sent13: ¬(¬{C}{a} & ¬{HF}{a}) sent14: ¬({E}{b} v ¬{A}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a}
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: the foredeck saponifies.;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> int1: {B}{a};"
] |
the foredeck is crystalline and is a Yellowknife.
|
({EQ}{a} & {Q}{a})
|
[
"sent5 -> int2: that the cleric is botanic and does not derive foredeck is false if it does not saponify.;"
] | 8 | 2 | null | 12 | 0 | 12 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the foredeck is botanic and saponifies. ; $context$ = sent1: the foredeck is crystalline and it is a Yellowknife if the compositor does not derive foredeck. sent2: the underperformer does derive foredeck. sent3: the fact that the foredeck is not botanic and it is not statuary is incorrect. sent4: the foredeck does derive foredeck and it saponifies. sent5: if something does not saponify then the fact that it is botanic thing that does not derive foredeck is incorrect. sent6: the compositor does not derive foredeck if that the cleric is botanic thing that does not derive foredeck is not right. sent7: that something is botanic and saponifies is not right if it does not derive foredeck. sent8: that the hoop is both not adrenocortical and not a pottery does not hold. sent9: if the Cardigan is a Neosporin then it is statuary and/or does not saponify. sent10: the foredeck is a pseudohallucination and lodges. sent11: the fact that the foredeck is botanic but it is not a kind of a statuary is false. sent12: that the Tuber is Haitian but not botanic does not hold. sent13: the fact that the foredeck is not botanic and it is not a kind of a Dumpster is incorrect. sent14: the foredeck does not derive foredeck if the fact that either the compositor is a kind of a Neosporin or it does not derive foredeck or both is not correct. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> int1: the foredeck saponifies.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the conservator is a Scomber.
|
{A}{a}
|
sent1: the champagne teases antiphon if there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a Bucharest and does not teases antiphon does not hold. sent2: if the conservator is not a Scomber the champagne does not tease antiphon. sent3: there exists something such that that it is a Bucharest and does not tease antiphon is not correct. sent4: there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a Bucharest and it does tease antiphon does not hold. sent5: the sporran is a Scomber and it teases antiphon if the conservator is not an allophone. sent6: there exists something such that it is not a Bucharest and does not tease antiphon. sent7: if that something is not an allophone and/or it does tease antiphon does not hold it is not a Scomber. sent8: if something is a Bucharest then it is not an allophone. sent9: if there exists something such that it teases antiphon then the champagne teases antiphon. sent10: there is something such that that it is not a Bucharest and does not tease antiphon does not hold.
|
sent1: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{B}x) -> {B}{b} sent2: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent3: (Ex): ¬({D}x & ¬{B}x) sent4: (Ex): ¬(¬{D}x & {B}x) sent5: ¬{C}{a} -> ({A}{it} & {B}{it}) sent6: (Ex): (¬{D}x & ¬{B}x) sent7: (x): ¬(¬{C}x v {B}x) -> ¬{A}x sent8: (x): {D}x -> ¬{C}x sent9: (x): {B}x -> {B}{b} sent10: (Ex): ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{B}x)
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the conservator is not a Scomber.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the champagne does not tease antiphon.; sent10 & sent1 -> int2: the champagne does tease antiphon.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ¬{A}{a}; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: ¬{B}{b}; sent10 & sent1 -> int2: {B}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the conservator is not a Scomber.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
[
"sent7 -> int4: if the fact that the conservator is not an allophone or it does tease antiphon or both is not right it is not a Scomber.;"
] | 4 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the conservator is a Scomber. ; $context$ = sent1: the champagne teases antiphon if there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a Bucharest and does not teases antiphon does not hold. sent2: if the conservator is not a Scomber the champagne does not tease antiphon. sent3: there exists something such that that it is a Bucharest and does not tease antiphon is not correct. sent4: there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a Bucharest and it does tease antiphon does not hold. sent5: the sporran is a Scomber and it teases antiphon if the conservator is not an allophone. sent6: there exists something such that it is not a Bucharest and does not tease antiphon. sent7: if that something is not an allophone and/or it does tease antiphon does not hold it is not a Scomber. sent8: if something is a Bucharest then it is not an allophone. sent9: if there exists something such that it teases antiphon then the champagne teases antiphon. sent10: there is something such that that it is not a Bucharest and does not tease antiphon does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the conservator is not a Scomber.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the champagne does not tease antiphon.; sent10 & sent1 -> int2: the champagne does tease antiphon.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if it is not collagenous then that it is a kind of a multiple and does not heave palaver is not true.
|
(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
sent1: the fact that the perijove is acroscopic and it is a multiple does not hold if it does not percolate mudhif. sent2: there exists something such that if it is not gutsy then that it is both a Laos and not a drill is not true. sent3: there exists something such that if it does not percolate yore then the fact that it derives syringe and it does not dice is wrong. sent4: that the antibaryon does heave palaver and is a pedal is incorrect if it does not seethe. sent5: if the antibaryon is cholinergic that it percolates mithramycin and does not theorize is not true. sent6: the fact that the antibaryon is a multiple and firmamental is not true if it is not a gyroscope. sent7: if the antibaryon dislodges the fact that it is both optional and not a gyroscope is wrong. sent8: there is something such that if it does not percolate yore then that it does percolate misapplication and it does not tease icosahedron is not true. sent9: if the antibaryon is collagenous then the fact that it is docile and it is not a kind of a drill is false. sent10: there is something such that if the fact that it does not percolate stepparent hold it does heave longhand and is not a Borneo. sent11: the fact that the antibaryon is a multiple but it does not heave palaver does not hold if it is non-collagenous. sent12: that the antibaryon is a harrier and is not multiple does not hold if it does percolate Coricidin. sent13: if the polemic is not a Borneo the fact that it does theorize and is a multiple is incorrect. sent14: the fact that the syringe is a kind of pedal thing that does not dislodge is wrong if it is collagenous. sent15: there is something such that if it is not a Khedive then it is a tramontane and it is not a kind of a beta-naphthol. sent16: there is something such that if it is not a playboy then the fact that it is an infernal and is dialectal is not true.
|
sent1: ¬{DN}{gr} -> ¬({K}{gr} & {AA}{gr}) sent2: (Ex): ¬{ET}x -> ¬({GQ}x & ¬{CL}x) sent3: (Ex): ¬{EL}x -> ¬({CG}x & ¬{IG}x) sent4: ¬{B}{aa} -> ¬({AB}{aa} & {CB}{aa}) sent5: {BA}{aa} -> ¬({AE}{aa} & ¬{BP}{aa}) sent6: ¬{JB}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {EM}{aa}) sent7: {CD}{aa} -> ¬({IT}{aa} & ¬{JB}{aa}) sent8: (Ex): ¬{EL}x -> ¬({C}x & ¬{EK}x) sent9: {A}{aa} -> ¬({Q}{aa} & ¬{CL}{aa}) sent10: (Ex): ¬{F}x -> ({BB}x & ¬{IL}x) sent11: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent12: {BE}{aa} -> ¬({GR}{aa} & ¬{AA}{aa}) sent13: ¬{IL}{as} -> ¬({BP}{as} & {AA}{as}) sent14: {A}{r} -> ¬({CB}{r} & ¬{CD}{r}) sent15: (Ex): ¬{BO}x -> ({BQ}x & ¬{HH}x) sent16: (Ex): ¬{P}x -> ¬({JH}x & {FB}x)
|
[
"sent11 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent11 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is not collagenous then that it is a kind of a multiple and does not heave palaver is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the perijove is acroscopic and it is a multiple does not hold if it does not percolate mudhif. sent2: there exists something such that if it is not gutsy then that it is both a Laos and not a drill is not true. sent3: there exists something such that if it does not percolate yore then the fact that it derives syringe and it does not dice is wrong. sent4: that the antibaryon does heave palaver and is a pedal is incorrect if it does not seethe. sent5: if the antibaryon is cholinergic that it percolates mithramycin and does not theorize is not true. sent6: the fact that the antibaryon is a multiple and firmamental is not true if it is not a gyroscope. sent7: if the antibaryon dislodges the fact that it is both optional and not a gyroscope is wrong. sent8: there is something such that if it does not percolate yore then that it does percolate misapplication and it does not tease icosahedron is not true. sent9: if the antibaryon is collagenous then the fact that it is docile and it is not a kind of a drill is false. sent10: there is something such that if the fact that it does not percolate stepparent hold it does heave longhand and is not a Borneo. sent11: the fact that the antibaryon is a multiple but it does not heave palaver does not hold if it is non-collagenous. sent12: that the antibaryon is a harrier and is not multiple does not hold if it does percolate Coricidin. sent13: if the polemic is not a Borneo the fact that it does theorize and is a multiple is incorrect. sent14: the fact that the syringe is a kind of pedal thing that does not dislodge is wrong if it is collagenous. sent15: there is something such that if it is not a Khedive then it is a tramontane and it is not a kind of a beta-naphthol. sent16: there is something such that if it is not a playboy then the fact that it is an infernal and is dialectal is not true. ; $proof$ =
|
sent11 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the taboret does drain is not false.
|
{D}{a}
|
sent1: the shipper is a cornerback. sent2: something is not zonal if it is a Toyohashi. sent3: if something does tease military then that it is a kind of a drain is not wrong. sent4: if there exists something such that it does tease military then that the taboret is not a cornerback and it does not tease localization does not hold. sent5: the fact that the taboret is not a kind of a cornerback and does tease localization is not true if there exists something such that it teases military. sent6: something is not Piagetian if the fact that it is not a Oxyuridae and it is not a crocketed is not right. sent7: if there is something such that it does tease military that the taboret is a kind of a cornerback and does not tease localization does not hold. sent8: that the taboret is not a kind of a obstipation and it does not tease tarantism does not hold if there exists something such that it is a kind of a drain. sent9: if the fact that something does not tease taboret and does not derive Bantu does not hold it is not calcitic. sent10: if that something is not a cornerback and it does not tease localization does not hold then it is not a kind of a drain. sent11: if the taboret is a drain but it is not a kind of a cornerback then that the paralytic is not a drain is right. sent12: that the taboret is not topped and does not drain is not right. sent13: something teases military.
|
sent1: {B}{b} sent2: (x): {EB}x -> ¬{FG}x sent3: (x): {A}x -> {D}x sent4: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent5: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent6: (x): ¬(¬{FF}x & ¬{BH}x) -> ¬{ES}x sent7: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent8: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{HT}{a} & ¬{HM}{a}) sent9: (x): ¬(¬{GS}x & ¬{N}x) -> ¬{CK}x sent10: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{D}x sent11: ({D}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{D}{f} sent12: ¬({EQ}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent13: (Ex): {A}x
|
[
"sent13 & sent4 -> int1: the fact that the taboret is not a cornerback and it does not tease localization is false.; sent10 -> int2: if that the taboret is not a cornerback and does not tease localization is not right it is not a drain.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent13 & sent4 -> int1: ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); sent10 -> int2: ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the taboret drains.
|
{D}{a}
|
[
"sent3 -> int3: if the taboret does tease military it drains.; sent1 -> int4: there exists something such that the fact that it is a cornerback is true.;"
] | 4 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the taboret does drain is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: the shipper is a cornerback. sent2: something is not zonal if it is a Toyohashi. sent3: if something does tease military then that it is a kind of a drain is not wrong. sent4: if there exists something such that it does tease military then that the taboret is not a cornerback and it does not tease localization does not hold. sent5: the fact that the taboret is not a kind of a cornerback and does tease localization is not true if there exists something such that it teases military. sent6: something is not Piagetian if the fact that it is not a Oxyuridae and it is not a crocketed is not right. sent7: if there is something such that it does tease military that the taboret is a kind of a cornerback and does not tease localization does not hold. sent8: that the taboret is not a kind of a obstipation and it does not tease tarantism does not hold if there exists something such that it is a kind of a drain. sent9: if the fact that something does not tease taboret and does not derive Bantu does not hold it is not calcitic. sent10: if that something is not a cornerback and it does not tease localization does not hold then it is not a kind of a drain. sent11: if the taboret is a drain but it is not a kind of a cornerback then that the paralytic is not a drain is right. sent12: that the taboret is not topped and does not drain is not right. sent13: something teases military. ; $proof$ =
|
sent13 & sent4 -> int1: the fact that the taboret is not a cornerback and it does not tease localization is false.; sent10 -> int2: if that the taboret is not a cornerback and does not tease localization is not right it is not a drain.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the semigloss is not opening.
|
¬{E}{b}
|
sent1: if that the water is not a deep is not false the transfer morphs and is not a kind of a Jacobean. sent2: something that morphs and is non-Jacobean does not tease Hydnocarpus. sent3: there is something such that it does not preside. sent4: if the transfer does not tease Hydnocarpus the semigloss is not a kind of a wobble and is scurfy. sent5: something that is not a kind of a wobble is opening thing that presides. sent6: if there exists something such that that it presides is false the transfer wobbles and it is scurfy.
|
sent1: ¬{H}{c} -> ({G}{a} & ¬{F}{a}) sent2: (x): ({G}x & ¬{F}x) -> ¬{D}x sent3: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent4: ¬{D}{a} -> (¬{B}{b} & {C}{b}) sent5: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({E}x & {A}x) sent6: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({B}{a} & {C}{a})
|
[
"sent3 & sent6 -> int1: the transfer is both a wobble and scurfy.; int1 -> int2: the transfer is a wobble.; int2 -> int3: either the transfer is a wobble or it teases Hydnocarpus or both.;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent6 -> int1: ({B}{a} & {C}{a}); int1 -> int2: {B}{a}; int2 -> int3: ({B}{a} v {D}{a});"
] |
the semigloss is an opening.
|
{E}{b}
|
[
"sent5 -> int4: if the semigloss does not wobble it does open and it does preside.; sent2 -> int5: if the transfer does morph and is not a kind of a Jacobean then it does not tease Hydnocarpus.;"
] | 7 | 4 | null | 4 | 0 | 4 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the semigloss is not opening. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the water is not a deep is not false the transfer morphs and is not a kind of a Jacobean. sent2: something that morphs and is non-Jacobean does not tease Hydnocarpus. sent3: there is something such that it does not preside. sent4: if the transfer does not tease Hydnocarpus the semigloss is not a kind of a wobble and is scurfy. sent5: something that is not a kind of a wobble is opening thing that presides. sent6: if there exists something such that that it presides is false the transfer wobbles and it is scurfy. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent6 -> int1: the transfer is both a wobble and scurfy.; int1 -> int2: the transfer is a wobble.; int2 -> int3: either the transfer is a wobble or it teases Hydnocarpus or both.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the desirousness does not occur or the unpreventableness happens or both is wrong.
|
¬(¬{C} v {D})
|
sent1: the fact that the desirousness and/or the unpreventableness occurs is not wrong. sent2: if the feudalness does not occur then that the patter happens and the inorganicness happens does not hold. sent3: that the antipodal occurs yields that the percolating Myctophidae does not occur. sent4: the parturientness does not occur and the proctoscopy does not occur if the percolating Myctophidae happens. sent5: if the desirousness does not occur the fact that the welting occurs and the parturientness happens is not correct. sent6: the desirousness does not occur and/or the unpreventableness happens if the welting happens. sent7: the nonfictionalness occurs or the sally happens or both. sent8: if the fact that the welting and the parturientness happens is not right then the derogation does not occur. sent9: the parturientness occurs. sent10: either the desirousness occurs or the unpreventableness occurs or both if the welting occurs. sent11: if the welt does not occur then the fact that the undesirousness and/or the unpreventableness occurs is false. sent12: if the parturientness does not occur and the proctoscopy does not occur then the welt does not occur. sent13: the non-antipodalness is prevented by that the driftage does not occur. sent14: if the fact that the patter and the inorganicness happens is incorrect then the driftage does not occur. sent15: the fact that both the proctoscopy and the unpreventableness happens is false if the percolating Myctophidae does not occur. sent16: the welting happens and the parturientness happens.
|
sent1: ({C} v {D}) sent2: ¬{K} -> ¬({J} & {I}) sent3: {G} -> ¬{F} sent4: {F} -> (¬{B} & ¬{E}) sent5: ¬{C} -> ¬({A} & {B}) sent6: {A} -> (¬{C} v {D}) sent7: ({HR} v {HD}) sent8: ¬({A} & {B}) -> ¬{EA} sent9: {B} sent10: {A} -> ({C} v {D}) sent11: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{C} v {D}) sent12: (¬{B} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{A} sent13: ¬{H} -> {G} sent14: ¬({J} & {I}) -> ¬{H} sent15: ¬{F} -> ¬({E} & {D}) sent16: ({A} & {B})
|
[
"sent16 -> int1: the welt happens.; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent16 -> int1: {A}; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the desirousness does not occur and/or the unpreventableness occurs is wrong.
|
¬(¬{C} v {D})
|
[] | 8 | 2 | 2 | 14 | 0 | 14 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the desirousness does not occur or the unpreventableness happens or both is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the desirousness and/or the unpreventableness occurs is not wrong. sent2: if the feudalness does not occur then that the patter happens and the inorganicness happens does not hold. sent3: that the antipodal occurs yields that the percolating Myctophidae does not occur. sent4: the parturientness does not occur and the proctoscopy does not occur if the percolating Myctophidae happens. sent5: if the desirousness does not occur the fact that the welting occurs and the parturientness happens is not correct. sent6: the desirousness does not occur and/or the unpreventableness happens if the welting happens. sent7: the nonfictionalness occurs or the sally happens or both. sent8: if the fact that the welting and the parturientness happens is not right then the derogation does not occur. sent9: the parturientness occurs. sent10: either the desirousness occurs or the unpreventableness occurs or both if the welting occurs. sent11: if the welt does not occur then the fact that the undesirousness and/or the unpreventableness occurs is false. sent12: if the parturientness does not occur and the proctoscopy does not occur then the welt does not occur. sent13: the non-antipodalness is prevented by that the driftage does not occur. sent14: if the fact that the patter and the inorganicness happens is incorrect then the driftage does not occur. sent15: the fact that both the proctoscopy and the unpreventableness happens is false if the percolating Myctophidae does not occur. sent16: the welting happens and the parturientness happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent16 -> int1: the welt happens.; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there exists something such that if it is a Callas that that it is not coccygeal and it does not incline hold is not right is false.
|
¬((Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x))
|
sent1: the fact that if the streptobacillus is the Callas that the streptobacillus is non-coccygeal thing that does not incline does not hold is not wrong. sent2: the fact that the pastiche does not tease unfitness and it is not a Callas is false if the fact that it is philological is not false. sent3: if the Clorox is myelinic the fact that it is not a kind of a Bern and it is not coccygeal is wrong. sent4: there exists something such that if it is a say-so the fact that it does not tease lowered and does heave brassavola is incorrect. sent5: that the streptobacillus is non-extrasystolic thing that is not amalgamative is incorrect if it is altruistic. sent6: there is something such that if it is a kind of a glibness then it does not tease stripe and is not a coordination. sent7: the streptobacillus does not tease dentist and it is not a cannulation if it is coccygeal. sent8: the fact that the streptobacillus does not incline and does calm is not correct if it is a Wayne. sent9: that there exists something such that if it is nephritic then the fact that that it does percolate calculus and does not derive variolation is true is incorrect is not false. sent10: the fact that the streptobacillus is coccygeal but it does not incline does not hold if it is a Callas. sent11: if the baguet does tease charlatanism then it is not a Callas and not amalgamative. sent12: there exists something such that if it does tease abyss then the fact that it is indelicate and it does not percolate encainide is incorrect. sent13: that something does not incline and it is not infinite is not correct if that it is not antiquarian is not true. sent14: if the Jansenist heaves forewoman then it is both not a blepharism and not coccygeal. sent15: the streptobacillus is not coccygeal and does not incline if it is a Callas. sent16: the streptobacillus is a kind of non-coccygeal thing that does not derive counterreformation if it is a lactation. sent17: the fact that the streptobacillus is a kind of non-eyeless thing that is not coccygeal does not hold if it is a kind of a numismatist. sent18: if the stenopterygius is coccygeal then that it is a kind of an elater and it does not derive Nijinsky is wrong. sent19: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a buntal that it is not Luxembourgian and it derives Phlebotomus is incorrect. sent20: the tenorist is not a perceptibility and is not a kind of a Callas if it is a Bruce.
|
sent1: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent2: {GM}{hc} -> ¬(¬{CT}{hc} & ¬{A}{hc}) sent3: {IF}{fi} -> ¬(¬{DE}{fi} & ¬{AA}{fi}) sent4: (Ex): {JA}x -> ¬(¬{CK}x & {IH}x) sent5: {AU}{aa} -> ¬(¬{FE}{aa} & ¬{HJ}{aa}) sent6: (Ex): {H}x -> (¬{AP}x & ¬{BI}x) sent7: {AA}{aa} -> (¬{AH}{aa} & ¬{GJ}{aa}) sent8: {GU}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AB}{aa} & {JE}{aa}) sent9: (Ex): {FK}x -> ¬({ID}x & ¬{P}x) sent10: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent11: {BE}{df} -> (¬{A}{df} & ¬{HJ}{df}) sent12: (Ex): {ER}x -> ¬({DN}x & ¬{EP}x) sent13: (x): {F}x -> ¬(¬{AB}x & ¬{CH}x) sent14: {FR}{ca} -> (¬{JI}{ca} & ¬{AA}{ca}) sent15: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent16: {N}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{GK}{aa}) sent17: {HF}{aa} -> ¬(¬{BM}{aa} & ¬{AA}{aa}) sent18: {AA}{ak} -> ¬({DA}{ak} & ¬{DH}{ak}) sent19: (Ex): {DG}x -> ¬(¬{HQ}x & {CO}x) sent20: {CE}{jd} -> (¬{JD}{jd} & ¬{A}{jd})
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that that the streptobacillus does not incline and it is not infinite is not correct is not wrong if it is antiquarian.
|
{F}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AB}{aa} & ¬{CH}{aa})
|
[
"sent13 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if it is a Callas that that it is not coccygeal and it does not incline hold is not right is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that if the streptobacillus is the Callas that the streptobacillus is non-coccygeal thing that does not incline does not hold is not wrong. sent2: the fact that the pastiche does not tease unfitness and it is not a Callas is false if the fact that it is philological is not false. sent3: if the Clorox is myelinic the fact that it is not a kind of a Bern and it is not coccygeal is wrong. sent4: there exists something such that if it is a say-so the fact that it does not tease lowered and does heave brassavola is incorrect. sent5: that the streptobacillus is non-extrasystolic thing that is not amalgamative is incorrect if it is altruistic. sent6: there is something such that if it is a kind of a glibness then it does not tease stripe and is not a coordination. sent7: the streptobacillus does not tease dentist and it is not a cannulation if it is coccygeal. sent8: the fact that the streptobacillus does not incline and does calm is not correct if it is a Wayne. sent9: that there exists something such that if it is nephritic then the fact that that it does percolate calculus and does not derive variolation is true is incorrect is not false. sent10: the fact that the streptobacillus is coccygeal but it does not incline does not hold if it is a Callas. sent11: if the baguet does tease charlatanism then it is not a Callas and not amalgamative. sent12: there exists something such that if it does tease abyss then the fact that it is indelicate and it does not percolate encainide is incorrect. sent13: that something does not incline and it is not infinite is not correct if that it is not antiquarian is not true. sent14: if the Jansenist heaves forewoman then it is both not a blepharism and not coccygeal. sent15: the streptobacillus is not coccygeal and does not incline if it is a Callas. sent16: the streptobacillus is a kind of non-coccygeal thing that does not derive counterreformation if it is a lactation. sent17: the fact that the streptobacillus is a kind of non-eyeless thing that is not coccygeal does not hold if it is a kind of a numismatist. sent18: if the stenopterygius is coccygeal then that it is a kind of an elater and it does not derive Nijinsky is wrong. sent19: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a buntal that it is not Luxembourgian and it derives Phlebotomus is incorrect. sent20: the tenorist is not a perceptibility and is not a kind of a Callas if it is a Bruce. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the sit-in does not occur.
|
¬{B}
|
sent1: that the asclepiadaceousness occurs and the sit-in occurs is incorrect if the rebirth does not occur. sent2: the deriving ash does not occur if the fact that the asclepiadaceousness and the sit-in occurs is not true. sent3: that the deriving ash does not occur causes that both the monopsony and the non-nonindustrialness occurs. sent4: that the sit-in does not occur is caused by that the simony occurs and the catechismalness does not occur. sent5: the simony occurs and the catechismalness does not occur. sent6: if the inquest does not occur then the rebirth does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬{D} -> ¬({C} & {B}) sent2: ¬({C} & {B}) -> ¬{A} sent3: ¬{A} -> ({HN} & ¬{H}) sent4: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent5: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent6: ¬{E} -> ¬{D}
|
[
"sent4 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the monopsony but not the nonindustrialness occurs.
|
({HN} & ¬{H})
|
[] | 9 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the sit-in does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the asclepiadaceousness occurs and the sit-in occurs is incorrect if the rebirth does not occur. sent2: the deriving ash does not occur if the fact that the asclepiadaceousness and the sit-in occurs is not true. sent3: that the deriving ash does not occur causes that both the monopsony and the non-nonindustrialness occurs. sent4: that the sit-in does not occur is caused by that the simony occurs and the catechismalness does not occur. sent5: the simony occurs and the catechismalness does not occur. sent6: if the inquest does not occur then the rebirth does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the poll anneals and does not percolate conidiophore is not true.
|
¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})
|
sent1: if the poll does anneal but it does not percolate conidiophore then the Kiwi is not a kind of a bloodlust. sent2: the fact that the Kiwi is not a kind of a Wycliffe and/or it does percolate Independence is not right. sent3: if the fact that the Kiwi is not a Wycliffe or it percolates Independence or both is false then it is a bloodlust.
|
sent1: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent2: ¬(¬{C}{b} v {A}{b}) sent3: ¬(¬{C}{b} v {A}{b}) -> {B}{b}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the poll does anneal and does not percolate conidiophore.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the Kiwi is not a bloodlust.; sent3 & sent2 -> int2: the Kiwi is a bloodlust.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); sent1 & assump1 -> int1: ¬{B}{b}; sent3 & sent2 -> int2: {B}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = that the poll anneals and does not percolate conidiophore is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: if the poll does anneal but it does not percolate conidiophore then the Kiwi is not a kind of a bloodlust. sent2: the fact that the Kiwi is not a kind of a Wycliffe and/or it does percolate Independence is not right. sent3: if the fact that the Kiwi is not a Wycliffe or it percolates Independence or both is false then it is a bloodlust. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the poll does anneal and does not percolate conidiophore.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the Kiwi is not a bloodlust.; sent3 & sent2 -> int2: the Kiwi is a bloodlust.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the foredeck is adequate and it is a schoolwork.
|
({D}{b} & {E}{b})
|
sent1: the rendezvous is a adenoma and it is tectonic. sent2: if that something is not a nasal and does not percolate masking does not hold it is a nasal. sent3: the fact that the Capricorn is not a nasal and does not percolate masking is incorrect. sent4: the foredeck is adequate if it is a adenoma and not a clothespin. sent5: if the Capricorn is a nasal then the foredeck is a schoolwork. sent6: if something is not a adenoma then it is not adequate.
|
sent1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent2: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{G}x) -> {F}x sent3: ¬(¬{F}{c} & ¬{G}{c}) sent4: ({A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> {D}{b} sent5: {F}{c} -> {E}{b} sent6: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{D}x
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: the rendezvous is a adenoma.; sent2 -> int2: if that the Capricorn is not a nasal and it does not percolate masking is wrong then it is a nasal.; int2 & sent3 -> int3: the Capricorn is a nasal.; sent5 & int3 -> int4: the foredeck is a kind of a schoolwork.;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: {A}{a}; sent2 -> int2: ¬(¬{F}{c} & ¬{G}{c}) -> {F}{c}; int2 & sent3 -> int3: {F}{c}; sent5 & int3 -> int4: {E}{b};"
] |
the fact that the foredeck is adequate thing that is a kind of a schoolwork is not right.
|
¬({D}{b} & {E}{b})
|
[
"sent6 -> int5: if the rendezvous is not a adenoma it is not adequate.;"
] | 5 | 4 | null | 1 | 0 | 1 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the foredeck is adequate and it is a schoolwork. ; $context$ = sent1: the rendezvous is a adenoma and it is tectonic. sent2: if that something is not a nasal and does not percolate masking does not hold it is a nasal. sent3: the fact that the Capricorn is not a nasal and does not percolate masking is incorrect. sent4: the foredeck is adequate if it is a adenoma and not a clothespin. sent5: if the Capricorn is a nasal then the foredeck is a schoolwork. sent6: if something is not a adenoma then it is not adequate. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: the rendezvous is a adenoma.; sent2 -> int2: if that the Capricorn is not a nasal and it does not percolate masking is wrong then it is a nasal.; int2 & sent3 -> int3: the Capricorn is a nasal.; sent5 & int3 -> int4: the foredeck is a kind of a schoolwork.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it does derive forequarter that it is both a Hamamelidae and non-sarcosomal is incorrect.
|
(Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
sent1: there is something such that if that it is an abyss is not wrong the fact that it is appropriate thing that is not a homunculus does not hold. sent2: if the bookshop does derive forequarter then the fact that it is not non-trophoblastic and it is not an oxide does not hold. sent3: that the fact that something is a Hamamelidae and sarcosomal is right does not hold if it derives forequarter. sent4: if the doorkeeper teases meatball then the fact that it is a kind of a braille that is not a kind of a shoulder is not correct. sent5: if something derives forequarter then it is a kind of a Hamamelidae and it is not sarcosomal. sent6: there exists something such that if it derives forequarter then it is a Hamamelidae and it is not sarcosomal. sent7: if the bookshop is a Hamamelidae that it is Manchurian but not an arms is not correct. sent8: there exists something such that if that it derives forequarter hold then the fact that it is a Hamamelidae and it is sarcosomal is false. sent9: that something is a astrolatry and is not outdoors is not true if it is mores. sent10: that the bookshop is both a Hamamelidae and sarcosomal does not hold if it derives forequarter. sent11: the bookshop is a Hamamelidae and not sarcosomal if it does derive forequarter. sent12: if something is a mangabey then the fact that that it does tease fallen and it is not a kind of a minute is right is wrong. sent13: that the bookshop is a shoulder but it is not a Albuquerque does not hold if it is a Schiller. sent14: there exists something such that if it does uniform that it is an abyss but not barographic is wrong.
|
sent1: (Ex): {IT}x -> ¬({BI}x & ¬{EL}x) sent2: {A}{aa} -> ¬({HB}{aa} & ¬{IO}{aa}) sent3: (x): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent4: {ID}{l} -> ¬({DS}{l} & ¬{EF}{l}) sent5: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent6: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent7: {AA}{aa} -> ¬({GB}{aa} & ¬{GO}{aa}) sent8: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent9: (x): {CT}x -> ¬({HT}x & ¬{CF}x) sent10: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent11: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent12: (x): {AO}x -> ¬({DL}x & ¬{AK}x) sent13: {FH}{aa} -> ¬({EF}{aa} & ¬{II}{aa}) sent14: (Ex): {AJ}x -> ¬({IT}x & ¬{HG}x)
|
[] |
[] |
there exists something such that if it is mores then the fact that it is a kind of a astrolatry and it is non-outdoors does not hold.
|
(Ex): {CT}x -> ¬({HT}x & ¬{CF}x)
|
[
"sent9 -> int1: if the Mexican is mores the fact that it is a astrolatry and it is not outdoors does not hold.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 2 | null | 14 | 0 | 14 |
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it does derive forequarter that it is both a Hamamelidae and non-sarcosomal is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if that it is an abyss is not wrong the fact that it is appropriate thing that is not a homunculus does not hold. sent2: if the bookshop does derive forequarter then the fact that it is not non-trophoblastic and it is not an oxide does not hold. sent3: that the fact that something is a Hamamelidae and sarcosomal is right does not hold if it derives forequarter. sent4: if the doorkeeper teases meatball then the fact that it is a kind of a braille that is not a kind of a shoulder is not correct. sent5: if something derives forequarter then it is a kind of a Hamamelidae and it is not sarcosomal. sent6: there exists something such that if it derives forequarter then it is a Hamamelidae and it is not sarcosomal. sent7: if the bookshop is a Hamamelidae that it is Manchurian but not an arms is not correct. sent8: there exists something such that if that it derives forequarter hold then the fact that it is a Hamamelidae and it is sarcosomal is false. sent9: that something is a astrolatry and is not outdoors is not true if it is mores. sent10: that the bookshop is both a Hamamelidae and sarcosomal does not hold if it derives forequarter. sent11: the bookshop is a Hamamelidae and not sarcosomal if it does derive forequarter. sent12: if something is a mangabey then the fact that that it does tease fallen and it is not a kind of a minute is right is wrong. sent13: that the bookshop is a shoulder but it is not a Albuquerque does not hold if it is a Schiller. sent14: there exists something such that if it does uniform that it is an abyss but not barographic is wrong. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the squintiness happens and the teasing jumbojet occurs is not right.
|
¬({D} & {C})
|
sent1: if that the teasing vibration does not occur hold the squintiness and the daring occurs. sent2: the dare does not occur if the fact that both the diet and the verge occurs does not hold. sent3: if the heaving Sajama does not occur both the ether and the teasing jumbojet happens. sent4: the ether does not occur. sent5: if the dare does not occur the fact that both the squintiness and the teasing jumbojet occurs is false.
|
sent1: ¬{H} -> ({D} & {B}) sent2: ¬({AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent3: ¬{E} -> ({A} & {C}) sent4: ¬{A} sent5: ¬{B} -> ¬({D} & {C})
|
[] |
[] |
the squintiness happens and the teasing jumbojet happens.
|
({D} & {C})
|
[] | 5 | 3 | null | 2 | 0 | 2 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the squintiness happens and the teasing jumbojet occurs is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the teasing vibration does not occur hold the squintiness and the daring occurs. sent2: the dare does not occur if the fact that both the diet and the verge occurs does not hold. sent3: if the heaving Sajama does not occur both the ether and the teasing jumbojet happens. sent4: the ether does not occur. sent5: if the dare does not occur the fact that both the squintiness and the teasing jumbojet occurs is false. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the geomancer is a kind of a coadjutor.
|
{C}{a}
|
sent1: something is a passport and a Leander if it is not a savageness. sent2: the geomancer is a kind of a canker if it is a kind of a jati. sent3: there is something such that it is noble. sent4: the geomancer is a sommelier if it is anacoluthic. sent5: the geomancer is not a coadjutor if the groundberry is both not anacoluthic and not a coadjutor. sent6: the geomancer is anacoluthic and it is a kind of a jati. sent7: if the kennel is a passport the rhodochrosite is not aleuronic but it is a kind of a jati. sent8: if something is anacoluthic it is a coadjutor. sent9: the kennel is not a savageness if there exists something such that it is noble. sent10: the Shintoist is a jati. sent11: that something is a jati is not false if it is a coadjutor. sent12: the geomancer is a jati.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{H}x -> ({E}x & {F}x) sent2: {B}{a} -> {EL}{a} sent3: (Ex): {I}x sent4: {A}{a} -> {EQ}{a} sent5: (¬{A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent6: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent7: {E}{d} -> (¬{D}{c} & {B}{c}) sent8: (x): {A}x -> {C}x sent9: (x): {I}x -> ¬{H}{d} sent10: {B}{fs} sent11: (x): {C}x -> {B}x sent12: {B}{a}
|
[
"sent6 -> int1: that the geomancer is anacoluthic is not wrong.; sent8 -> int2: the geomancer is a coadjutor if it is anacoluthic.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 -> int1: {A}{a}; sent8 -> int2: {A}{a} -> {C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the geomancer is not a coadjutor.
|
¬{C}{a}
|
[
"sent1 -> int3: if the kennel is not a kind of a savageness it is a passport and it is a kind of a Leander.; sent3 & sent9 -> int4: the kennel is not a savageness.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the kennel is both a passport and a Leander.; int5 -> int6: the kennel is a passport.; sent7 & int6 -> int7: the rhodochrosite is not aleuronic but it is a jati.; int7 -> int8: there exists something such that it is not aleuronic and it is a jati.;"
] | 8 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the geomancer is a kind of a coadjutor. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a passport and a Leander if it is not a savageness. sent2: the geomancer is a kind of a canker if it is a kind of a jati. sent3: there is something such that it is noble. sent4: the geomancer is a sommelier if it is anacoluthic. sent5: the geomancer is not a coadjutor if the groundberry is both not anacoluthic and not a coadjutor. sent6: the geomancer is anacoluthic and it is a kind of a jati. sent7: if the kennel is a passport the rhodochrosite is not aleuronic but it is a kind of a jati. sent8: if something is anacoluthic it is a coadjutor. sent9: the kennel is not a savageness if there exists something such that it is noble. sent10: the Shintoist is a jati. sent11: that something is a jati is not false if it is a coadjutor. sent12: the geomancer is a jati. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 -> int1: that the geomancer is anacoluthic is not wrong.; sent8 -> int2: the geomancer is a coadjutor if it is anacoluthic.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the death occurs.
|
{C}
|
sent1: that both the heaving numbness and the gnosticness happens prevents the death. sent2: the gnosticness occurs. sent3: the heaving numbness happens.
|
sent1: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent2: {B} sent3: {A}
|
[
"sent3 & sent2 -> int1: the heaving numbness occurs and the gnosticness happens.; int1 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent2 -> int1: ({A} & {B}); int1 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the death occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that both the heaving numbness and the gnosticness happens prevents the death. sent2: the gnosticness occurs. sent3: the heaving numbness happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent2 -> int1: the heaving numbness occurs and the gnosticness happens.; int1 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the exaction occurs is true.
|
{C}
|
sent1: the Eurasianness does not occur if the fact that the Eurasianness and the palpitating occurs is not true. sent2: the rioting does not occur but the equalizing happens if the teasing Caterpillar does not occur. sent3: the fact that the bimetallisticness occurs and the teasing Caterpillar does not occur is incorrect if the Eurasian does not occur. sent4: the landslide occurs. sent5: the equalizing is prevented by that the teasing Caterpillar happens. sent6: the Polynesian occurs. sent7: if the epistemicness does not occur then the fact that the Eurasian occurs and the palpitating occurs is not correct. sent8: that that the landslide occurs and/or the Polynesianness happens hold is triggered by that the rioting does not occur. sent9: that the riot happens and the exaction occurs is brought about by that the equalizing does not occur. sent10: that the Polynesianness and the landslide occurs results in that the exaction does not occur. sent11: the persisting does not occur if that the landslide but not the Polynesianness happens is not right. sent12: the teasing Caterpillar happens if the fact that the bimetallisticness occurs and the teasing Caterpillar does not occur is incorrect.
|
sent1: ¬({G} & {I}) -> ¬{G} sent2: ¬{F} -> (¬{D} & {E}) sent3: ¬{G} -> ¬({H} & ¬{F}) sent4: {B} sent5: {F} -> ¬{E} sent6: {A} sent7: ¬{J} -> ¬({G} & {I}) sent8: ¬{D} -> ({B} v {A}) sent9: ¬{E} -> ({D} & {C}) sent10: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent11: ¬({B} & ¬{A}) -> ¬{BT} sent12: ¬({H} & ¬{F}) -> {F}
|
[
"sent6 & sent4 -> int1: both the Polynesianness and the landslide happens.; sent10 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 & sent4 -> int1: ({A} & {B}); sent10 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the persisting does not occur.
|
¬{BT}
|
[] | 12 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the exaction occurs is true. ; $context$ = sent1: the Eurasianness does not occur if the fact that the Eurasianness and the palpitating occurs is not true. sent2: the rioting does not occur but the equalizing happens if the teasing Caterpillar does not occur. sent3: the fact that the bimetallisticness occurs and the teasing Caterpillar does not occur is incorrect if the Eurasian does not occur. sent4: the landslide occurs. sent5: the equalizing is prevented by that the teasing Caterpillar happens. sent6: the Polynesian occurs. sent7: if the epistemicness does not occur then the fact that the Eurasian occurs and the palpitating occurs is not correct. sent8: that that the landslide occurs and/or the Polynesianness happens hold is triggered by that the rioting does not occur. sent9: that the riot happens and the exaction occurs is brought about by that the equalizing does not occur. sent10: that the Polynesianness and the landslide occurs results in that the exaction does not occur. sent11: the persisting does not occur if that the landslide but not the Polynesianness happens is not right. sent12: the teasing Caterpillar happens if the fact that the bimetallisticness occurs and the teasing Caterpillar does not occur is incorrect. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 & sent4 -> int1: both the Polynesianness and the landslide happens.; sent10 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.