version
stringclasses 1
value | hypothesis
stringlengths 11
215
| hypothesis_formula
stringlengths 3
39
| context
stringlengths 0
2.9k
| context_formula
stringlengths 0
905
| proofs
list | proofs_formula
list | negative_hypothesis
stringlengths 15
193
⌀ | negative_hypothesis_formula
stringlengths 3
37
⌀ | negative_proofs
list | negative_original_tree_depth
int64 0
25
⌀ | original_tree_depth
int64 1
4
| depth
int64 0
3
⌀ | num_formula_distractors
int64 0
22
| num_translation_distractors
int64 0
0
| num_all_distractors
int64 0
22
| proof_label
stringclasses 3
values | negative_proof_label
stringclasses 2
values | world_assump_label
stringclasses 3
values | negative_world_assump_label
stringclasses 2
values | prompt_serial
stringlengths 89
3.09k
| proof_serial
stringlengths 11
654
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there exists something such that if it is not areolar it does not acquit disrepute and does parallel consonance does not hold.
|
¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x))
|
sent1: the Kirghiz does not acquit disrepute and does parallel consonance if it is not areolar.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it is not areolar it does not acquit disrepute and does parallel consonance does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the Kirghiz does not acquit disrepute and does parallel consonance if it is not areolar. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the discrepancy happens.
|
{AA}
|
sent1: the disarming does not occur if the fact that the interrogative happens and the disarming occurs is incorrect. sent2: that not the smelt but the misinforming hansom happens is triggered by the grating. sent3: if the grate does not occur then the run-onness occurs. sent4: the run-onness happens. sent5: that the fantasying bandoleer does not occur is true. sent6: if the fact that the rugby and the hiving happens does not hold the hiving does not occur. sent7: the fact that the rugby occurs and the hiving occurs does not hold if the disarming does not occur. sent8: not the basalness but the interrogativeness happens. sent9: if the misinforming Blennius does not occur that the interrogative and the disarming happens is incorrect. sent10: that the basidialness occurs and the grating happens is triggered by that the hiving does not occur. sent11: the discrepancy does not occur and the run-onness occurs if the grate does not occur. sent12: the grate does not occur. sent13: the happiness does not occur. sent14: either that the misinforming detribalization does not occur or that the forking does not occur or both is caused by that the bowl happens.
|
sent1: ¬({G} & {D}) -> ¬{D} sent2: {A} -> (¬{HL} & {IA}) sent3: ¬{A} -> {AB} sent4: {AB} sent5: ¬{FL} sent6: ¬({E} & {C}) -> ¬{C} sent7: ¬{D} -> ¬({E} & {C}) sent8: (¬{GA} & {G}) sent9: ¬{F} -> ¬({G} & {D}) sent10: ¬{C} -> ({B} & {A}) sent11: ¬{A} -> (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent12: ¬{A} sent13: ¬{CM} sent14: {J} -> (¬{I} v ¬{H})
|
[
"sent11 & sent12 -> int1: not the discrepancy but the run-onness occurs.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent11 & sent12 -> int1: (¬{AA} & {AB}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
not the smelt but the misinforming hansom happens.
|
(¬{HL} & {IA})
|
[] | 12 | 2 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the discrepancy happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the disarming does not occur if the fact that the interrogative happens and the disarming occurs is incorrect. sent2: that not the smelt but the misinforming hansom happens is triggered by the grating. sent3: if the grate does not occur then the run-onness occurs. sent4: the run-onness happens. sent5: that the fantasying bandoleer does not occur is true. sent6: if the fact that the rugby and the hiving happens does not hold the hiving does not occur. sent7: the fact that the rugby occurs and the hiving occurs does not hold if the disarming does not occur. sent8: not the basalness but the interrogativeness happens. sent9: if the misinforming Blennius does not occur that the interrogative and the disarming happens is incorrect. sent10: that the basidialness occurs and the grating happens is triggered by that the hiving does not occur. sent11: the discrepancy does not occur and the run-onness occurs if the grate does not occur. sent12: the grate does not occur. sent13: the happiness does not occur. sent14: either that the misinforming detribalization does not occur or that the forking does not occur or both is caused by that the bowl happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent11 & sent12 -> int1: not the discrepancy but the run-onness occurs.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the natrolite is bizonal.
|
{B}{a}
|
sent1: the Maxzide is ruminant. sent2: the natrolite is a planchette but it is not lentic if it is not a man-eater. sent3: that something is not impressive and/or it is bizonal is not right if the fact that it is not unipolar is not false. sent4: if the choline is a Asgard it is a Hume. sent5: the choline is a Asgard. sent6: if the natrolite does not acquit aflatoxin it does gratify. sent7: if the choline is a ruminant then that the fact that the aperitif is not abactinal and it is not burrlike is false is not false. sent8: the natrolite gratifies. sent9: the floater is not evitable if it is impotent and it is not a kind of a Hittite. sent10: the natrolite is not bizonal if it gratifies and is not impotent. sent11: if there exists something such that that it is both not abactinal and not burrlike does not hold the natrolite is burrlike. sent12: the natrolite does not intensify. sent13: if the Maxzide is ruminant then the antitussive is abactinal. sent14: the fact that something is not a pleat and not unipolar does not hold if it is burrlike. sent15: the trowel does not acquit aflatoxin if the fact that the natrolite is unimpressive and/or is bizonal is not true. sent16: if the antitussive is abactinal the choline is burrlike. sent17: the fact that the natrolite does gratify and is not impotent if the natrolite does not acquit aflatoxin is correct. sent18: the choline is ruminant but it is not a kind of a bassinet if it is a kind of a Hume. sent19: the natrolite acquits aperitif and is not unsalable. sent20: the natrolite does not acquit aflatoxin. sent21: the switchman is not impotent. sent22: The aflatoxin does not acquit natrolite.
|
sent1: {H}{e} sent2: ¬{AF}{a} -> ({IC}{a} & ¬{P}{a}) sent3: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬(¬{C}x v {B}x) sent4: {K}{c} -> {J}{c} sent5: {K}{c} sent6: ¬{A}{a} -> {AA}{a} sent7: {H}{c} -> ¬(¬{G}{b} & ¬{F}{b}) sent8: {AA}{a} sent9: ({AB}{dd} & ¬{HB}{dd}) -> ¬{HU}{dd} sent10: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent11: (x): ¬(¬{G}x & ¬{F}x) -> {F}{a} sent12: ¬{ER}{a} sent13: {H}{e} -> {G}{d} sent14: (x): {F}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{D}x) sent15: ¬(¬{C}{a} v {B}{a}) -> ¬{A}{cf} sent16: {G}{d} -> {F}{c} sent17: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent18: {J}{c} -> ({H}{c} & ¬{I}{c}) sent19: ({ED}{a} & ¬{AL}{a}) sent20: ¬{A}{a} sent21: ¬{AB}{hp} sent22: ¬{AC}{aa}
|
[
"sent17 & sent20 -> int1: the natrolite does gratify and is not impotent.; int1 & sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent17 & sent20 -> int1: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); int1 & sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the trowel does not acquit aflatoxin.
|
¬{A}{cf}
|
[
"sent3 -> int2: if the natrolite is not unipolar then the fact that it is not impressive and/or it is bizonal is not right.; sent4 & sent5 -> int3: the choline is a Hume.; sent18 & int3 -> int4: the choline is a kind of a ruminant but it is not a bassinet.; int4 -> int5: the choline is ruminant.; sent7 & int5 -> int6: that the aperitif is not abactinal and it is not burrlike is not right.; int6 -> int7: there is something such that that it is both not abactinal and not burrlike does not hold.; int7 & sent11 -> int8: that the natrolite is burrlike is right.;"
] | 10 | 2 | 2 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the natrolite is bizonal. ; $context$ = sent1: the Maxzide is ruminant. sent2: the natrolite is a planchette but it is not lentic if it is not a man-eater. sent3: that something is not impressive and/or it is bizonal is not right if the fact that it is not unipolar is not false. sent4: if the choline is a Asgard it is a Hume. sent5: the choline is a Asgard. sent6: if the natrolite does not acquit aflatoxin it does gratify. sent7: if the choline is a ruminant then that the fact that the aperitif is not abactinal and it is not burrlike is false is not false. sent8: the natrolite gratifies. sent9: the floater is not evitable if it is impotent and it is not a kind of a Hittite. sent10: the natrolite is not bizonal if it gratifies and is not impotent. sent11: if there exists something such that that it is both not abactinal and not burrlike does not hold the natrolite is burrlike. sent12: the natrolite does not intensify. sent13: if the Maxzide is ruminant then the antitussive is abactinal. sent14: the fact that something is not a pleat and not unipolar does not hold if it is burrlike. sent15: the trowel does not acquit aflatoxin if the fact that the natrolite is unimpressive and/or is bizonal is not true. sent16: if the antitussive is abactinal the choline is burrlike. sent17: the fact that the natrolite does gratify and is not impotent if the natrolite does not acquit aflatoxin is correct. sent18: the choline is ruminant but it is not a kind of a bassinet if it is a kind of a Hume. sent19: the natrolite acquits aperitif and is not unsalable. sent20: the natrolite does not acquit aflatoxin. sent21: the switchman is not impotent. sent22: The aflatoxin does not acquit natrolite. ; $proof$ =
|
sent17 & sent20 -> int1: the natrolite does gratify and is not impotent.; int1 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if that it is a kind of a ptarmigan and is not a blast is not right then that it is operable is right.
|
(Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x
|
sent1: if the fact that the fact that the feverfew does blast but it is not a kind of a courtesy is true is false then it does acquit bowling. sent2: if the fact that something is appealable but it is not accessional is not correct it is an incidence. sent3: if the fact that something is Hugoesque but it is not a philatelist is wrong it does acquit bowling. sent4: if a ptarmigan does not blast then it is operable. sent5: there is something such that if it blasts it is operable. sent6: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a ptarmigan it is operable. sent7: there is something such that if that it is both a ptarmigan and a blast is incorrect it is operable. sent8: there exists something such that if that it is a flatbread and it is not a ND is not true then it is accessional. sent9: there is something such that if it is a ptarmigan but not a blast it is operable. sent10: the two-piece is operable if it is a ptarmigan and it is not a blast. sent11: the two-piece is operable if it is a blast. sent12: something is hemiparasitic if the fact that it is a hitch that is not blastoporal is not true. sent13: if that the two-piece is a kind of a ptarmigan but it is not a kind of a Lund is wrong then it is a kind of a jog. sent14: if the fact that something is a statuary but it is non-amaurotic is false then it is endogenic.
|
sent1: ¬({AB}{ec} & ¬{BA}{ec}) -> {GT}{ec} sent2: (x): ¬({AR}x & ¬{IA}x) -> {I}x sent3: (x): ¬({BN}x & ¬{IU}x) -> {GT}x sent4: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent5: (Ex): {AB}x -> {B}x sent6: (Ex): ¬{AA}x -> {B}x sent7: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent8: (Ex): ¬({BI}x & ¬{DN}x) -> {IA}x sent9: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent10: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent11: {AB}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent12: (x): ¬({DB}x & ¬{GF}x) -> {JD}x sent13: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AL}{aa}) -> {DS}{aa} sent14: (x): ¬({CU}x & ¬{EL}x) -> {GL}x
|
[] |
[] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | null | 14 | 0 | 14 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if that it is a kind of a ptarmigan and is not a blast is not right then that it is operable is right. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the fact that the feverfew does blast but it is not a kind of a courtesy is true is false then it does acquit bowling. sent2: if the fact that something is appealable but it is not accessional is not correct it is an incidence. sent3: if the fact that something is Hugoesque but it is not a philatelist is wrong it does acquit bowling. sent4: if a ptarmigan does not blast then it is operable. sent5: there is something such that if it blasts it is operable. sent6: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a ptarmigan it is operable. sent7: there is something such that if that it is both a ptarmigan and a blast is incorrect it is operable. sent8: there exists something such that if that it is a flatbread and it is not a ND is not true then it is accessional. sent9: there is something such that if it is a ptarmigan but not a blast it is operable. sent10: the two-piece is operable if it is a ptarmigan and it is not a blast. sent11: the two-piece is operable if it is a blast. sent12: something is hemiparasitic if the fact that it is a hitch that is not blastoporal is not true. sent13: if that the two-piece is a kind of a ptarmigan but it is not a kind of a Lund is wrong then it is a kind of a jog. sent14: if the fact that something is a statuary but it is non-amaurotic is false then it is endogenic. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the schistosome does not misinform motorcycle.
|
¬{B}{aa}
|
sent1: something is a chickadee if that it is not vegetal and it reasons is not true. sent2: the schistosome does notch. sent3: that the fact that the kilt is non-unchaste a hipflask does not hold is right. sent4: there exists something such that it is a kind of a Shankar. sent5: if something does not misinform motorcycle it is a bunk and is denominational. sent6: if something is not percussive it misinforms motorcycle. sent7: if the taker is not a cholelithotomy it does fantasy demon. sent8: that the schistosome is not a Shankar but it is percussive is wrong if something is a Shankar. sent9: if that the schistosome is not a rosebay but it is percussive is not correct that it is insoluble hold. sent10: if that something is not a Shankar but it is percussive is incorrect it misinforms motorcycle. sent11: there is something such that it misinforms Aristarchus.
|
sent1: (x): ¬(¬{HS}x & {CG}x) -> {HH}x sent2: {DL}{aa} sent3: ¬(¬{BO}{ge} & {GN}{ge}) sent4: (Ex): {AA}x sent5: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({BN}x & {A}x) sent6: (x): ¬{AB}x -> {B}x sent7: ¬{IS}{jb} -> {CS}{jb} sent8: (x): {AA}x -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent9: ¬(¬{EG}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {FE}{aa} sent10: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent11: (Ex): {EB}x
|
[
"sent10 -> int1: if the fact that the schistosome is not a Shankar and is percussive is not correct then it misinforms motorcycle.; sent4 & sent8 -> int2: the fact that the schistosome is not a Shankar but it is percussive does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent10 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; sent4 & sent8 -> int2: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the schistosome bunks.
|
{BN}{aa}
|
[
"sent5 -> int3: if the schistosome does not misinform motorcycle then it is a bunk that is denominational.;"
] | 4 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the schistosome does not misinform motorcycle. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a chickadee if that it is not vegetal and it reasons is not true. sent2: the schistosome does notch. sent3: that the fact that the kilt is non-unchaste a hipflask does not hold is right. sent4: there exists something such that it is a kind of a Shankar. sent5: if something does not misinform motorcycle it is a bunk and is denominational. sent6: if something is not percussive it misinforms motorcycle. sent7: if the taker is not a cholelithotomy it does fantasy demon. sent8: that the schistosome is not a Shankar but it is percussive is wrong if something is a Shankar. sent9: if that the schistosome is not a rosebay but it is percussive is not correct that it is insoluble hold. sent10: if that something is not a Shankar but it is percussive is incorrect it misinforms motorcycle. sent11: there is something such that it misinforms Aristarchus. ; $proof$ =
|
sent10 -> int1: if the fact that the schistosome is not a Shankar and is percussive is not correct then it misinforms motorcycle.; sent4 & sent8 -> int2: the fact that the schistosome is not a Shankar but it is percussive does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the louver is a kind of a saurel.
|
{B}{a}
|
sent1: the twitterer acquits lighter if that it is not evolutionary and it is not a buckwheat is incorrect. sent2: the fact that the mackle is impermeable but it is not an unconscious is false. sent3: if that something does not hurl but it is a kind of a munj does not hold then it is not a kind of a munj. sent4: that the dinghy is non-mesenteric thing that is not a kind of a saurel is not right if the louver is not a munj. sent5: the louver is a saurel if that it does not parallel Argonautidae and it does not misinform rage does not hold. sent6: the louver does parallel unrelatedness if it upstages. sent7: the fact that the louver does not parallel mackle and does not misinform rage is incorrect. sent8: something is not a munj if that it does not hurl and it is not a submarine is false. sent9: that the louver does parallel Argonautidae and does not misinform rage is false. sent10: the fact that the louver does not parallel Argonautidae and it does not misinform rage is wrong. sent11: the fact that the monoamine is a kind of non-colorimetric a saurel is false. sent12: the hilltop parallels Argonautidae. sent13: if something does parallel unrelatedness and does acquit paleographer the fact that it does not acquit tonometry hold. sent14: the louver is a kind of a nihilist if the fact that it is not a tense and it does not misinform rage does not hold. sent15: that the louver does not parallel Argonautidae and is not a kind of a gal is false. sent16: if something does not acquit tonometry that it is not a kind of a hurl and is not a kind of a submarine does not hold. sent17: if the louver does parallel Argonautidae it is a saurel.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{P}{c} & ¬{FD}{c}) -> {FL}{c} sent2: ¬({JK}{ek} & ¬{AR}{ek}) sent3: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {A}x) -> ¬{A}x sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{DP}{fg} & ¬{B}{fg}) sent5: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent6: {H}{a} -> {F}{a} sent7: ¬(¬{HS}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent8: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{A}x sent9: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent10: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent11: ¬(¬{FS}{fk} & {B}{fk}) sent12: {AA}{au} sent13: (x): ({F}x & {G}x) -> ¬{E}x sent14: ¬(¬{JD}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {CH}{a} sent15: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{FQ}{a}) sent16: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{C}x) sent17: {AA}{a} -> {B}{a}
|
[
"sent5 & sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 & sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the louver is not a saurel.
|
¬{B}{a}
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: if that the astilbe is both not a hurl and a munj is not true the fact that it is not a munj is correct.;"
] | 7 | 1 | 1 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the louver is a kind of a saurel. ; $context$ = sent1: the twitterer acquits lighter if that it is not evolutionary and it is not a buckwheat is incorrect. sent2: the fact that the mackle is impermeable but it is not an unconscious is false. sent3: if that something does not hurl but it is a kind of a munj does not hold then it is not a kind of a munj. sent4: that the dinghy is non-mesenteric thing that is not a kind of a saurel is not right if the louver is not a munj. sent5: the louver is a saurel if that it does not parallel Argonautidae and it does not misinform rage does not hold. sent6: the louver does parallel unrelatedness if it upstages. sent7: the fact that the louver does not parallel mackle and does not misinform rage is incorrect. sent8: something is not a munj if that it does not hurl and it is not a submarine is false. sent9: that the louver does parallel Argonautidae and does not misinform rage is false. sent10: the fact that the louver does not parallel Argonautidae and it does not misinform rage is wrong. sent11: the fact that the monoamine is a kind of non-colorimetric a saurel is false. sent12: the hilltop parallels Argonautidae. sent13: if something does parallel unrelatedness and does acquit paleographer the fact that it does not acquit tonometry hold. sent14: the louver is a kind of a nihilist if the fact that it is not a tense and it does not misinform rage does not hold. sent15: that the louver does not parallel Argonautidae and is not a kind of a gal is false. sent16: if something does not acquit tonometry that it is not a kind of a hurl and is not a kind of a submarine does not hold. sent17: if the louver does parallel Argonautidae it is a saurel. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the calomel is a kind of an endearment hold.
|
{B}{b}
|
sent1: if something is new but not unattributable then the deodorant is a kind of a Doomsday. sent2: there exists something such that it is not non-new and it is not unattributable. sent3: if there is something such that the fact that it does not whirl and it is a Doomsday is not true then the calomel is not an endearment. sent4: if something that is not a kind of an endearment does whirl it is not a Doomsday.
|
sent1: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent2: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent3: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & {A}x) -> ¬{B}{b} sent4: (x): (¬{B}x & {C}x) -> ¬{A}x
|
[
"sent2 & sent1 -> int1: the deodorant is a kind of a Doomsday.;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent1 -> int1: {A}{a};"
] |
there is something such that it educates and does not mortify.
|
(Ex): ({GE}x & ¬{AQ}x)
|
[
"sent4 -> int2: if the calomel is not an endearment and does whirl it is not a Doomsday.;"
] | 5 | 2 | null | 2 | 0 | 2 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the calomel is a kind of an endearment hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is new but not unattributable then the deodorant is a kind of a Doomsday. sent2: there exists something such that it is not non-new and it is not unattributable. sent3: if there is something such that the fact that it does not whirl and it is a Doomsday is not true then the calomel is not an endearment. sent4: if something that is not a kind of an endearment does whirl it is not a Doomsday. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent1 -> int1: the deodorant is a kind of a Doomsday.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
if the cytophotometer does parallel creole then it restarts.
|
{A}{a} -> {D}{a}
|
sent1: something is anterior if it does misinform marasca. sent2: the mounter is unangry. sent3: if the cytophotometer is morphophonemics it is argumentative. sent4: the cytophotometer is morphophonemics if the fact that it does parallel creole is not incorrect. sent5: something does restart if it is unangry.
|
sent1: (x): {HE}x -> {GS}x sent2: {C}{jb} sent3: {B}{a} -> {FH}{a} sent4: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent5: (x): {C}x -> {D}x
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the cytophotometer parallels creole.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the cytophotometer is morphophonemics.; sent5 -> int2: if the cytophotometer is unangry then it does restart.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}{a}; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent5 -> int2: {C}{a} -> {D}{a};"
] |
the southeaster is an anterior if that it does misinform marasca hold.
|
{HE}{fr} -> {GS}{fr}
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 4 | null | 3 | 0 | 3 |
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = if the cytophotometer does parallel creole then it restarts. ; $context$ = sent1: something is anterior if it does misinform marasca. sent2: the mounter is unangry. sent3: if the cytophotometer is morphophonemics it is argumentative. sent4: the cytophotometer is morphophonemics if the fact that it does parallel creole is not incorrect. sent5: something does restart if it is unangry. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the cytophotometer parallels creole.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the cytophotometer is morphophonemics.; sent5 -> int2: if the cytophotometer is unangry then it does restart.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the paralleling paragonite does not occur.
|
¬{C}
|
sent1: the tectonicness happens. sent2: that the acquitting Torreon does not occur leads to that the flux happens and the trumpeting happens. sent3: if the diametricness does not occur then the paralleling sideswipe occurs and the paralleling megadeath happens. sent4: both the non-diametricness and the sunrise occurs if the Falstaffianness does not occur. sent5: the sinkableness and the non-hypophysealness happens if the flux occurs. sent6: the Falstaffianness does not occur if the acquitting Musaceae does not occur and the arbitraging does not occur. sent7: if that the inclining does not occur but the cautiousness happens does not hold the fact that the bossism does not occur hold. sent8: the breaker does not occur and the misinforming aflatoxin occurs if the bossism does not occur. sent9: the facultativeness and the non-representationalness occurs. sent10: if the breaker does not occur the acquitting Musaceae does not occur and the arbitraging does not occur. sent11: that the inclining does not occur but the cautiousness happens is not right if the misinforming vinblastine happens. sent12: the paralleling paragonite does not occur and the flux does not occur if the trumpeting does not occur. sent13: the paralleling paragonite is caused by the non-hypophysealness. sent14: the misinforming barratry does not occur. sent15: the unintelligibleness but not the acquitting Torreon happens if that the paralleling sideswipe happens is not wrong. sent16: the paralleling paragonite happens if that both the hypophysealness and the sinkableness happens is wrong. sent17: if that the hypophysealness happens is not incorrect that both the fracturing and the non-granulocyticness happens is wrong. sent18: the fact that the unsinkableness occurs is correct. sent19: that that the unsinkableness does not occur and the hypophysealness does not occur is not wrong brings about that the paralleling paragonite does not occur.
|
sent1: {AE} sent2: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) sent3: ¬{J} -> ({H} & {I}) sent4: ¬{L} -> (¬{J} & {K}) sent5: {D} -> (¬{B} & ¬{A}) sent6: (¬{N} & ¬{M}) -> ¬{L} sent7: ¬(¬{S} & {R}) -> ¬{Q} sent8: ¬{Q} -> (¬{O} & {P}) sent9: ({BD} & ¬{DQ}) sent10: ¬{O} -> (¬{N} & ¬{M}) sent11: {T} -> ¬(¬{S} & {R}) sent12: ¬{E} -> (¬{C} & ¬{D}) sent13: ¬{A} -> {C} sent14: ¬{U} sent15: {H} -> ({G} & ¬{F}) sent16: ¬({A} & ¬{B}) -> {C} sent17: {A} -> ¬({HL} & ¬{EQ}) sent18: {B} sent19: (¬{B} & ¬{A}) -> ¬{C}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that both the hypophysealness and the sinkableness occurs.; assump1 -> int1: the unsinkableness does not occur.; sent18 & int1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the hypophysealness and the sinkableness happens does not hold.; sent16 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ({A} & ¬{B}); assump1 -> int1: ¬{B}; sent18 & int1 -> int2: #F#; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: ¬({A} & ¬{B}); sent16 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that both the fracturing and the non-granulocyticness occurs is not true.
|
¬({HL} & ¬{EQ})
|
[] | 7 | 3 | 3 | 17 | 0 | 17 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the paralleling paragonite does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the tectonicness happens. sent2: that the acquitting Torreon does not occur leads to that the flux happens and the trumpeting happens. sent3: if the diametricness does not occur then the paralleling sideswipe occurs and the paralleling megadeath happens. sent4: both the non-diametricness and the sunrise occurs if the Falstaffianness does not occur. sent5: the sinkableness and the non-hypophysealness happens if the flux occurs. sent6: the Falstaffianness does not occur if the acquitting Musaceae does not occur and the arbitraging does not occur. sent7: if that the inclining does not occur but the cautiousness happens does not hold the fact that the bossism does not occur hold. sent8: the breaker does not occur and the misinforming aflatoxin occurs if the bossism does not occur. sent9: the facultativeness and the non-representationalness occurs. sent10: if the breaker does not occur the acquitting Musaceae does not occur and the arbitraging does not occur. sent11: that the inclining does not occur but the cautiousness happens is not right if the misinforming vinblastine happens. sent12: the paralleling paragonite does not occur and the flux does not occur if the trumpeting does not occur. sent13: the paralleling paragonite is caused by the non-hypophysealness. sent14: the misinforming barratry does not occur. sent15: the unintelligibleness but not the acquitting Torreon happens if that the paralleling sideswipe happens is not wrong. sent16: the paralleling paragonite happens if that both the hypophysealness and the sinkableness happens is wrong. sent17: if that the hypophysealness happens is not incorrect that both the fracturing and the non-granulocyticness happens is wrong. sent18: the fact that the unsinkableness occurs is correct. sent19: that that the unsinkableness does not occur and the hypophysealness does not occur is not wrong brings about that the paralleling paragonite does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that both the hypophysealness and the sinkableness occurs.; assump1 -> int1: the unsinkableness does not occur.; sent18 & int1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the hypophysealness and the sinkableness happens does not hold.; sent16 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the fact that there exists something such that if it is not a Balaenicipitidae the fact that it is both a harmonic and not a gripe does not hold is not wrong is wrong.
|
¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x))
|
sent1: if the pound is not a Balaenicipitidae it is harmonic and it is not a gripe. sent2: the fact that the pound is branchless thing that is not a sarcoptid is incorrect if it is not a Balaenicipitidae. sent3: the pap is a kind of a waker but it does not misinform Palau if the fact that it is a kind of a harmonic is not correct. sent4: there is something such that if it is not a bunk then it does parallel stanza and it is not macrencephalic. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a Balaenicipitidae then the fact that it is harmonic thing that is a gripe is not correct. sent6: that the songbird is both a sarcoptid and alkaline is incorrect if it does not gripe. sent7: the fact that the pound is a harmonic that does not ink is not right if it is a kind of a pongee. sent8: there is something such that if that it does not parallel guaiacum hold the fact that it is both a pollack and not decorous is not true. sent9: if the pound is not an electrode then that it is a kind of a tamoxifen that is not a beneficiation does not hold. sent10: if the pound malts the fact that it is a kind of sacerdotal thing that is not a kind of a steamer is not right. sent11: that the pound is both a harmonic and not a gripe is incorrect if it is not a Balaenicipitidae. sent12: that the feverfew is a Balaenicipitidae but it does not fantasy prickleback is wrong if it does fantasy tritheist. sent13: there exists something such that if it does not behoove then that it is both an intern and not a sarcoptid is incorrect. sent14: the fact that there is something such that if it is non-zoological then it does parallel Delilah and does not misinform Cooper is not incorrect. sent15: if the pound does not fantasy callosotomy then the fact that it is an intern and it is a kind of a gripe is incorrect.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent2: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({IH}{aa} & ¬{JJ}{aa}) sent3: ¬{AA}{hr} -> ({BB}{hr} & ¬{HI}{hr}) sent4: (Ex): ¬{EP}x -> ({HB}x & ¬{AF}x) sent5: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent6: ¬{AB}{bl} -> ¬({JJ}{bl} & {AJ}{bl}) sent7: {DR}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{EO}{aa}) sent8: (Ex): ¬{CJ}x -> ¬({DC}x & {CO}x) sent9: ¬{AQ}{aa} -> ¬({BF}{aa} & ¬{IG}{aa}) sent10: {FS}{aa} -> ¬({CP}{aa} & ¬{H}{aa}) sent11: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent12: {IT}{dl} -> ¬({A}{dl} & ¬{GF}{dl}) sent13: (Ex): ¬{CT}x -> ¬({BC}x & ¬{JJ}x) sent14: (Ex): ¬{DO}x -> ({EU}x & ¬{AC}x) sent15: ¬{ES}{aa} -> ¬({BC}{aa} & {AB}{aa})
|
[
"sent11 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent11 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 14 | 0 | 14 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the fact that there exists something such that if it is not a Balaenicipitidae the fact that it is both a harmonic and not a gripe does not hold is not wrong is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the pound is not a Balaenicipitidae it is harmonic and it is not a gripe. sent2: the fact that the pound is branchless thing that is not a sarcoptid is incorrect if it is not a Balaenicipitidae. sent3: the pap is a kind of a waker but it does not misinform Palau if the fact that it is a kind of a harmonic is not correct. sent4: there is something such that if it is not a bunk then it does parallel stanza and it is not macrencephalic. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a Balaenicipitidae then the fact that it is harmonic thing that is a gripe is not correct. sent6: that the songbird is both a sarcoptid and alkaline is incorrect if it does not gripe. sent7: the fact that the pound is a harmonic that does not ink is not right if it is a kind of a pongee. sent8: there is something such that if that it does not parallel guaiacum hold the fact that it is both a pollack and not decorous is not true. sent9: if the pound is not an electrode then that it is a kind of a tamoxifen that is not a beneficiation does not hold. sent10: if the pound malts the fact that it is a kind of sacerdotal thing that is not a kind of a steamer is not right. sent11: that the pound is both a harmonic and not a gripe is incorrect if it is not a Balaenicipitidae. sent12: that the feverfew is a Balaenicipitidae but it does not fantasy prickleback is wrong if it does fantasy tritheist. sent13: there exists something such that if it does not behoove then that it is both an intern and not a sarcoptid is incorrect. sent14: the fact that there is something such that if it is non-zoological then it does parallel Delilah and does not misinform Cooper is not incorrect. sent15: if the pound does not fantasy callosotomy then the fact that it is an intern and it is a kind of a gripe is incorrect. ; $proof$ =
|
sent11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the trichroism is an active but it is not amicable.
|
({A}{b} & ¬{C}{b})
|
sent1: if the warship does not parallel Comte then the trichroism is an active but it is not amicable. sent2: if something misinforms Chickasaw then the fact that it parallels Comte and it is not amicable is wrong. sent3: that something is active but it is not amicable is not correct if it does parallel Comte. sent4: the trichroism is active. sent5: if the fact that the warship is not a kind of a agal and misinforms workpiece does not hold it does not parallel Comte. sent6: if the warship does not parallel Comte the trichroism is an active. sent7: something that does not parallel Comte is a kind of an active and does not parallel warship. sent8: the fact that the warship is a agal and does misinform workpiece is false. sent9: the fact that the warship is not a agal and does misinform workpiece does not hold.
|
sent1: ¬{B}{a} -> ({A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent2: (x): {D}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x) sent3: (x): {B}x -> ¬({A}x & ¬{C}x) sent4: {A}{b} sent5: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent6: ¬{B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent7: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({A}x & ¬{HE}x) sent8: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent9: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})
|
[
"sent5 & sent9 -> int1: the warship does not parallel Comte.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 & sent9 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that that the trichroism is an active but not amicable is not right is true.
|
¬({A}{b} & ¬{C}{b})
|
[
"sent3 -> int2: the fact that the warship is an active but it is not amicable does not hold if it parallels Comte.;"
] | 5 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 6 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the trichroism is an active but it is not amicable. ; $context$ = sent1: if the warship does not parallel Comte then the trichroism is an active but it is not amicable. sent2: if something misinforms Chickasaw then the fact that it parallels Comte and it is not amicable is wrong. sent3: that something is active but it is not amicable is not correct if it does parallel Comte. sent4: the trichroism is active. sent5: if the fact that the warship is not a kind of a agal and misinforms workpiece does not hold it does not parallel Comte. sent6: if the warship does not parallel Comte the trichroism is an active. sent7: something that does not parallel Comte is a kind of an active and does not parallel warship. sent8: the fact that the warship is a agal and does misinform workpiece is false. sent9: the fact that the warship is not a agal and does misinform workpiece does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 & sent9 -> int1: the warship does not parallel Comte.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the publican does parallel three-dimensionality.
|
{C}{a}
|
sent1: the publican is not non-estimable. sent2: the publican is a Jordanian. sent3: that the fact that the Maalox does not manacle and it does not fantasy tam is right is not right if the gimbal does not misinform theme. sent4: the decalcification is not a kind of a Papuan if there is something such that the fact that it does not manacle and it does not fantasy tam is incorrect. sent5: if there exists something such that that it does misinform theme and it is not earless is not correct then the gimbal does not misinform theme. sent6: the publican misinforms coffin and does inflect. sent7: the cooter is estimable. sent8: the fugleman parallels three-dimensionality. sent9: if the publican is not a paleomammalogy but noncommercial then it is a tootle. sent10: the gauntlet is not bibliotic. sent11: that the bine is not estimable is right if it is a kind of backed thing that does misinform fugleman. sent12: if the Maalox does not parallel three-dimensionality the publican does parallel three-dimensionality. sent13: the publican is mayoral. sent14: if something that fantasies tam does not manacle it is not Papuan. sent15: the publican is a motel. sent16: if the publican is both estimable and a Jordanian then it does not parallel three-dimensionality. sent17: something is not a Jordanian and is not a Peruvian if it does tootle. sent18: that everything fantasies tam and does not manacle is true. sent19: the decalcification is a pusher that does not parallel three-dimensionality if it is not a Papuan. sent20: if the gauntlet is not bibliotic then the fact that the niblick does misinform theme but it is not earless is false. sent21: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Jordanian the decalcification is prosthetic and is not estimable.
|
sent1: {A}{a} sent2: {B}{a} sent3: ¬{G}{c} -> ¬(¬{F}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) sent4: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{D}{iu} sent5: (x): ¬({G}x & ¬{J}x) -> ¬{G}{c} sent6: ({CR}{a} & {AF}{a}) sent7: {A}{bu} sent8: {C}{aj} sent9: (¬{M}{a} & {L}{a}) -> {I}{a} sent10: ¬{K}{e} sent11: ({HA}{ga} & {BJ}{ga}) -> ¬{A}{ga} sent12: ¬{C}{b} -> {C}{a} sent13: {AG}{a} sent14: (x): ({E}x & ¬{F}x) -> ¬{D}x sent15: {IO}{a} sent16: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent17: (x): {I}x -> (¬{B}x & ¬{H}x) sent18: (x): ({E}x & ¬{F}x) sent19: ¬{D}{iu} -> ({DS}{iu} & ¬{C}{iu}) sent20: ¬{K}{e} -> ¬({G}{d} & ¬{J}{d}) sent21: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({GD}{iu} & ¬{A}{iu})
|
[
"sent1 & sent2 -> int1: the publican is estimable and it is a Jordanian.; int1 & sent16 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 & sent2 -> int1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}); int1 & sent16 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the publican parallels three-dimensionality is right.
|
{C}{a}
|
[
"sent14 -> int2: the niblick is not Papuan if the fact that it does fantasy tam and does not manacle is not incorrect.; sent18 -> int3: the niblick does fantasy tam but it does not manacle.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the niblick is not a kind of a Papuan.; int4 -> int5: there is something such that it is not a Papuan.;"
] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the publican does parallel three-dimensionality. ; $context$ = sent1: the publican is not non-estimable. sent2: the publican is a Jordanian. sent3: that the fact that the Maalox does not manacle and it does not fantasy tam is right is not right if the gimbal does not misinform theme. sent4: the decalcification is not a kind of a Papuan if there is something such that the fact that it does not manacle and it does not fantasy tam is incorrect. sent5: if there exists something such that that it does misinform theme and it is not earless is not correct then the gimbal does not misinform theme. sent6: the publican misinforms coffin and does inflect. sent7: the cooter is estimable. sent8: the fugleman parallels three-dimensionality. sent9: if the publican is not a paleomammalogy but noncommercial then it is a tootle. sent10: the gauntlet is not bibliotic. sent11: that the bine is not estimable is right if it is a kind of backed thing that does misinform fugleman. sent12: if the Maalox does not parallel three-dimensionality the publican does parallel three-dimensionality. sent13: the publican is mayoral. sent14: if something that fantasies tam does not manacle it is not Papuan. sent15: the publican is a motel. sent16: if the publican is both estimable and a Jordanian then it does not parallel three-dimensionality. sent17: something is not a Jordanian and is not a Peruvian if it does tootle. sent18: that everything fantasies tam and does not manacle is true. sent19: the decalcification is a pusher that does not parallel three-dimensionality if it is not a Papuan. sent20: if the gauntlet is not bibliotic then the fact that the niblick does misinform theme but it is not earless is false. sent21: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Jordanian the decalcification is prosthetic and is not estimable. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 & sent2 -> int1: the publican is estimable and it is a Jordanian.; int1 & sent16 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the cloudberry is not agonistic.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
sent1: the expurgator is a kind of agonistic thing that engulfs if there exists something such that it is not an aperture. sent2: there exists something such that it is ritualistic. sent3: a non-sporadic thing is both not a straggler and not an aperture. sent4: the cloudberry is agonistic. sent5: the fact that the balker is not a hair's-breadth and it is not sporadic is false if it is not a kind of a transactinide. sent6: there is nothing that is both not a hair's-breadth and not chimerical. sent7: if there exists something such that it is not non-ritualistic the balker parallels heartleaf and/or is chimerical. sent8: the balker is not a transactinide. sent9: the grab is agonistic. sent10: if something parallels heartleaf it is a straggler. sent11: if the fact that something is not a kind of a hair's-breadth and is not sporadic does not hold then it is not an aperture. sent12: something is not sporadic if the fact that it is not a hair's-breadth and is not chimerical does not hold. sent13: if something is a straggler then it does engulf.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({A}{s} & {B}{s}) sent2: (Ex): {I}x sent3: (x): ¬{E}x -> (¬{D}x & ¬{C}x) sent4: {A}{a} sent5: ¬{J}{b} -> ¬(¬{F}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) sent6: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{G}x) sent7: (x): {I}x -> ({H}{b} v {G}{b}) sent8: ¬{J}{b} sent9: {A}{df} sent10: (x): {H}x -> {D}x sent11: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{C}x sent12: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{E}x sent13: (x): {D}x -> {B}x
|
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the expurgator is agonistic.
|
{A}{s}
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: if that the balker is not sporadic is not false then that it is both not a straggler and not an aperture is not incorrect.; sent12 -> int2: the balker is not sporadic if the fact that it is not a hair's-breadth and it is not chimerical is not right.; sent6 -> int3: that the balker is not a hair's-breadth and it is not chimerical is not right.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the balker is not sporadic.; int1 & int4 -> int5: the balker is not a straggler and not an aperture.; int5 -> int6: the balker is not a kind of an aperture.; int6 -> int7: everything is not an aperture.; int7 -> int8: the fact that the cloudberry is not an aperture is not incorrect.; int8 -> int9: there is something such that it is not an aperture.; sent1 & int9 -> int10: the expurgator is agonistic thing that does engulf.; int10 -> hypothesis;"
] | 9 | 1 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the cloudberry is not agonistic. ; $context$ = sent1: the expurgator is a kind of agonistic thing that engulfs if there exists something such that it is not an aperture. sent2: there exists something such that it is ritualistic. sent3: a non-sporadic thing is both not a straggler and not an aperture. sent4: the cloudberry is agonistic. sent5: the fact that the balker is not a hair's-breadth and it is not sporadic is false if it is not a kind of a transactinide. sent6: there is nothing that is both not a hair's-breadth and not chimerical. sent7: if there exists something such that it is not non-ritualistic the balker parallels heartleaf and/or is chimerical. sent8: the balker is not a transactinide. sent9: the grab is agonistic. sent10: if something parallels heartleaf it is a straggler. sent11: if the fact that something is not a kind of a hair's-breadth and is not sporadic does not hold then it is not an aperture. sent12: something is not sporadic if the fact that it is not a hair's-breadth and is not chimerical does not hold. sent13: if something is a straggler then it does engulf. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the design is acetic.
|
{B}{b}
|
sent1: the site is not a proximity if a knackwurst does not organize. sent2: there is something such that it is acetic and it is a proximity. sent3: if that something is a proximity and it misinforms site is wrong the fact that it is not acetic hold. sent4: if a knackwurst organizes then the site is not a proximity. sent5: there exists something such that it is a kind of a knackwurst and does not organize. sent6: the design is not acetic if the site is not a proximity.
|
sent1: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent2: (Ex): ({B}x & {A}x) sent3: (x): ¬({A}x & {C}x) -> ¬{B}x sent4: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent5: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent6: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{b}
|
[
"sent5 & sent1 -> int1: the site is not a proximity.; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 & sent1 -> int1: ¬{A}{a}; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the stingaree-bush is not acetic.
|
¬{B}{br}
|
[
"sent3 -> int2: if the fact that the stingaree-bush is a proximity and misinforms site does not hold then the fact that it is not acetic is right.;"
] | 5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the design is acetic. ; $context$ = sent1: the site is not a proximity if a knackwurst does not organize. sent2: there is something such that it is acetic and it is a proximity. sent3: if that something is a proximity and it misinforms site is wrong the fact that it is not acetic hold. sent4: if a knackwurst organizes then the site is not a proximity. sent5: there exists something such that it is a kind of a knackwurst and does not organize. sent6: the design is not acetic if the site is not a proximity. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 & sent1 -> int1: the site is not a proximity.; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the satin is antidotal.
|
{A}{a}
|
sent1: the satin is antidotal and it is a coupled.
|
sent1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a})
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the satin is antidotal. ; $context$ = sent1: the satin is antidotal and it is a coupled. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the sap fantasies squashed is right.
|
{B}{b}
|
sent1: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a Tahitian and it does parallel nardoo does not hold then the sap fantasies squashed. sent2: if the bloomers is not a DM the fact that the nardoo fantasies squashed and is a ninon is wrong. sent3: the nardoo is not a ninon. sent4: if the nardoo is not a kind of a ninon the fact that it is a Tahitian and parallels nardoo is not right.
|
sent1: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}{b} sent2: ¬{C}{c} -> ¬({B}{a} & {A}{a}) sent3: ¬{A}{a} sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a})
|
[
"sent4 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the nardoo is Tahitian and parallels nardoo does not hold.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that the fact that it is a Tahitian and it does parallel nardoo is not true.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 & sent3 -> int1: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x); int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the sap does not fantasy squashed.
|
¬{B}{b}
|
[] | 5 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the sap fantasies squashed is right. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a Tahitian and it does parallel nardoo does not hold then the sap fantasies squashed. sent2: if the bloomers is not a DM the fact that the nardoo fantasies squashed and is a ninon is wrong. sent3: the nardoo is not a ninon. sent4: if the nardoo is not a kind of a ninon the fact that it is a Tahitian and parallels nardoo is not right. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the nardoo is Tahitian and parallels nardoo does not hold.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that the fact that it is a Tahitian and it does parallel nardoo is not true.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the deflating does not occur.
|
¬{B}
|
sent1: the removableness occurs but the philologicalness does not occur if the flooding does not occur. sent2: the noneffervescentness and the non-Himalayanness occurs. sent3: that the liturgy happens does not hold if that the hagiolatry does not occur is correct. sent4: the manumission and the non-caloricness occurs. sent5: the fact that the misinforming brooklime does not occur is not false if the incompressibleness does not occur. sent6: the nonharmonicness occurs but the hunt does not occur if the acquitting Trombiculidae does not occur. sent7: the fact that the undrinkableness does not occur is correct. sent8: that the flooding does not occur is not wrong. sent9: the corresponding does not occur if the misinforming Torreon happens and the efficientness does not occur. sent10: the unswornness does not occur if both the institution and the fantasying period occurs. sent11: both the hydrostaticsness and the non-aerialness happens. sent12: that both the alterableness and the acquitting curd occurs triggers that the dinging does not occur. sent13: the shoot-'em-up does not occur. sent14: if the adenoid and the acquitting RFD occurs then the Bermudanness does not occur. sent15: the monatomicness does not occur if the Bermudanness occurs and the moderatorship occurs. sent16: the fact that the forbearing does not occur is not wrong. sent17: the rattiness does not occur if the attachment occurs and the monatomicness occurs. sent18: the paralleling saffron does not occur. sent19: the interiorness does not occur. sent20: that the deflating happens is not wrong if that the flooding occurs hold. sent21: the unbosoming does not occur. sent22: if the flooding does not occur then the removableness happens.
|
sent1: ¬{A} -> ({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent2: ({DJ} & ¬{JE}) sent3: ¬{EM} -> ¬{BD} sent4: ({CR} & ¬{GB}) sent5: ¬{FD} -> ¬{AL} sent6: ¬{BC} -> ({HH} & ¬{FP}) sent7: ¬{IP} sent8: ¬{A} sent9: ({AK} & ¬{CQ}) -> ¬{CD} sent10: ({FB} & {DK}) -> ¬{GJ} sent11: ({IA} & ¬{GR}) sent12: ({BU} & {N}) -> ¬{EF} sent13: ¬{IR} sent14: ({IQ} & {AI}) -> ¬{GH} sent15: ({GH} & {FN}) -> ¬{I} sent16: ¬{BE} sent17: ({EB} & {I}) -> ¬{FE} sent18: ¬{DQ} sent19: ¬{HQ} sent20: {A} -> {B} sent21: ¬{HB} sent22: ¬{A} -> {AA}
|
[
"sent1 & sent8 -> int1: both the removableness and the non-philologicalness happens.;"
] |
[
"sent1 & sent8 -> int1: ({AA} & ¬{AB});"
] |
the deflating occurs.
|
{B}
|
[] | 6 | 2 | null | 20 | 0 | 20 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the deflating does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the removableness occurs but the philologicalness does not occur if the flooding does not occur. sent2: the noneffervescentness and the non-Himalayanness occurs. sent3: that the liturgy happens does not hold if that the hagiolatry does not occur is correct. sent4: the manumission and the non-caloricness occurs. sent5: the fact that the misinforming brooklime does not occur is not false if the incompressibleness does not occur. sent6: the nonharmonicness occurs but the hunt does not occur if the acquitting Trombiculidae does not occur. sent7: the fact that the undrinkableness does not occur is correct. sent8: that the flooding does not occur is not wrong. sent9: the corresponding does not occur if the misinforming Torreon happens and the efficientness does not occur. sent10: the unswornness does not occur if both the institution and the fantasying period occurs. sent11: both the hydrostaticsness and the non-aerialness happens. sent12: that both the alterableness and the acquitting curd occurs triggers that the dinging does not occur. sent13: the shoot-'em-up does not occur. sent14: if the adenoid and the acquitting RFD occurs then the Bermudanness does not occur. sent15: the monatomicness does not occur if the Bermudanness occurs and the moderatorship occurs. sent16: the fact that the forbearing does not occur is not wrong. sent17: the rattiness does not occur if the attachment occurs and the monatomicness occurs. sent18: the paralleling saffron does not occur. sent19: the interiorness does not occur. sent20: that the deflating happens is not wrong if that the flooding occurs hold. sent21: the unbosoming does not occur. sent22: if the flooding does not occur then the removableness happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 & sent8 -> int1: both the removableness and the non-philologicalness happens.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the catechisticness occurs.
|
{B}
|
sent1: the catechisticness is brought about by that the behest does not occur and the working does not occur. sent2: the catechisticness happens if the behest but not the working occurs. sent3: the behest does not occur. sent4: the behest does not occur and the working does not occur if the paralleling bathymetry does not occur. sent5: the fact that the behest does not occur hold if the paralleling bathymetry does not occur. sent6: that the entraining does not occur and/or the paralleling bathymetry occurs yields that the catechisticness does not occur.
|
sent1: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent2: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent3: ¬{AA} sent4: ¬{A} -> (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent5: ¬{A} -> ¬{AA} sent6: (¬{C} v {A}) -> ¬{B}
|
[] |
[] |
the catechisticness does not occur.
|
¬{B}
|
[] | 6 | 2 | null | 4 | 0 | 4 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the catechisticness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the catechisticness is brought about by that the behest does not occur and the working does not occur. sent2: the catechisticness happens if the behest but not the working occurs. sent3: the behest does not occur. sent4: the behest does not occur and the working does not occur if the paralleling bathymetry does not occur. sent5: the fact that the behest does not occur hold if the paralleling bathymetry does not occur. sent6: that the entraining does not occur and/or the paralleling bathymetry occurs yields that the catechisticness does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the nombril does not trump and it is not a gerontologist is false.
|
¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})
|
sent1: the fact that the fact that something is not a niacin and it is not a folder is true does not hold if it does adapt. sent2: the cowtown is not Mancunian and it is not a duct. sent3: there is something such that that it is a gerontologist and it is a niacin is not correct. sent4: there is something such that the fact that it is fetal and is a catenary is false. sent5: the cowtown is not a niacin and it is not a folder if the nombril is a kind of a folder. sent6: the nombril is a folder if it is not a trump and it is a gerontologist. sent7: that the nombril does not trump but it is a gerontologist is not true. sent8: the nombril is not a kind of a gerontologist if the cowtown is a gerontologist. sent9: there is something such that that it does not adapt and does fantasy remembrance does not hold. sent10: the cowtown does adapt if there is something such that the fact that it does not adapt and it fantasies remembrance is not right. sent11: the nombril is not a kind of a niacin.
|
sent1: (x): {C}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) sent2: (¬{E}{b} & ¬{GA}{b}) sent3: (Ex): ¬({AB}x & {A}x) sent4: (Ex): ¬({DT}x & {DR}x) sent5: {B}{a} -> (¬{A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent6: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent7: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent8: {AB}{b} -> ¬{AB}{a} sent9: (Ex): ¬(¬{C}x & {D}x) sent10: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & {D}x) -> {C}{b} sent11: ¬{A}{a}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the nombril is not a trump and not a gerontologist.; sent1 -> int1: the fact that the cowtown is not a niacin and it is not a folder is not right if it does adapt.; sent9 & sent10 -> int2: the cowtown does adapt.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the cowtown is not a niacin and it is not a folder is not true.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); sent1 -> int1: {C}{b} -> ¬(¬{A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}); sent9 & sent10 -> int2: {C}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬(¬{A}{b} & ¬{B}{b});"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 4 | null | 7 | 0 | 7 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the nombril does not trump and it is not a gerontologist is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the fact that something is not a niacin and it is not a folder is true does not hold if it does adapt. sent2: the cowtown is not Mancunian and it is not a duct. sent3: there is something such that that it is a gerontologist and it is a niacin is not correct. sent4: there is something such that the fact that it is fetal and is a catenary is false. sent5: the cowtown is not a niacin and it is not a folder if the nombril is a kind of a folder. sent6: the nombril is a folder if it is not a trump and it is a gerontologist. sent7: that the nombril does not trump but it is a gerontologist is not true. sent8: the nombril is not a kind of a gerontologist if the cowtown is a gerontologist. sent9: there is something such that that it does not adapt and does fantasy remembrance does not hold. sent10: the cowtown does adapt if there is something such that the fact that it does not adapt and it fantasies remembrance is not right. sent11: the nombril is not a kind of a niacin. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the nombril is not a trump and not a gerontologist.; sent1 -> int1: the fact that the cowtown is not a niacin and it is not a folder is not right if it does adapt.; sent9 & sent10 -> int2: the cowtown does adapt.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the cowtown is not a niacin and it is not a folder is not true.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the accreting occurs.
|
{B}
|
sent1: the fact that not the perusing but the illativeness happens is not correct. sent2: the skirl does not occur and the storm happens. sent3: the fact that the melodicness does not occur hold. sent4: the non-fleshiness and the Wake occurs. sent5: not the camber but the Wake occurs. sent6: the fantasying appraisal occurs. sent7: the misinforming E happens if the publication happens. sent8: the acquitting unseen happens. sent9: if the fantasying spectroscope happens the untrustworthiness occurs. sent10: not the fret but the chairmanship happens. sent11: that not the imposture but the paralleling gambling occurs is triggered by the acquitting unseen. sent12: if the goalkeeper does not occur then that the imposture does not occur and the paralleling gambling occurs is false.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{ED} & {AL}) sent2: (¬{FF} & {HT}) sent3: ¬{CT} sent4: (¬{FP} & {AE}) sent5: (¬{AP} & {AE}) sent6: {BM} sent7: {I} -> {N} sent8: {C} sent9: {HJ} -> {HO} sent10: (¬{FD} & {GC}) sent11: {C} -> (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent12: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & {AB})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the goalkeeper does not occur is right.; sent12 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the imposture does not occur and the paralleling gambling happens is incorrect.; sent11 & sent8 -> int2: the imposture does not occur but the paralleling gambling happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the goalkeeper occurs.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ¬{A}; sent12 & assump1 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}); sent11 & sent8 -> int2: (¬{AA} & {AB}); int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: {A};"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 4 | null | 9 | 0 | 9 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the accreting occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that not the perusing but the illativeness happens is not correct. sent2: the skirl does not occur and the storm happens. sent3: the fact that the melodicness does not occur hold. sent4: the non-fleshiness and the Wake occurs. sent5: not the camber but the Wake occurs. sent6: the fantasying appraisal occurs. sent7: the misinforming E happens if the publication happens. sent8: the acquitting unseen happens. sent9: if the fantasying spectroscope happens the untrustworthiness occurs. sent10: not the fret but the chairmanship happens. sent11: that not the imposture but the paralleling gambling occurs is triggered by the acquitting unseen. sent12: if the goalkeeper does not occur then that the imposture does not occur and the paralleling gambling occurs is false. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the goalkeeper does not occur is right.; sent12 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the imposture does not occur and the paralleling gambling happens is incorrect.; sent11 & sent8 -> int2: the imposture does not occur but the paralleling gambling happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the goalkeeper occurs.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fantasying scoter happens or the operableness does not occur or both.
|
({D} v ¬{C})
|
sent1: that not the fantasying feverfew but the harassment happens is not correct if the fact that the misinforming splenius does not occur is not false. sent2: the aerologicalness occurs. sent3: if the efflorescence happens then that the fantasying scoter occurs and/or the operableness does not occur does not hold. sent4: both the aerologicalness and the efflorescence occurs. sent5: the operableness occurs. sent6: if the efflorescence occurs then the operableness occurs. sent7: the fantasying feverfew happens if the fact that the fantasying feverfew does not occur but the harassment occurs is incorrect. sent8: if the efflorescence does not occur then the aerologicalness and the abatement happens. sent9: that the aerologicalness but not the efflorescence occurs is brought about by the fantasying feverfew.
|
sent1: ¬{F} -> ¬(¬{E} & {G}) sent2: {A} sent3: {B} -> ¬({D} v ¬{C}) sent4: ({A} & {B}) sent5: {C} sent6: {B} -> {C} sent7: ¬(¬{E} & {G}) -> {E} sent8: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {JC}) sent9: {E} -> ({A} & ¬{B})
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: the efflorescence occurs.; int1 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> int1: {B}; int1 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the abatement occurs.
|
{JC}
|
[] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fantasying scoter happens or the operableness does not occur or both. ; $context$ = sent1: that not the fantasying feverfew but the harassment happens is not correct if the fact that the misinforming splenius does not occur is not false. sent2: the aerologicalness occurs. sent3: if the efflorescence happens then that the fantasying scoter occurs and/or the operableness does not occur does not hold. sent4: both the aerologicalness and the efflorescence occurs. sent5: the operableness occurs. sent6: if the efflorescence occurs then the operableness occurs. sent7: the fantasying feverfew happens if the fact that the fantasying feverfew does not occur but the harassment occurs is incorrect. sent8: if the efflorescence does not occur then the aerologicalness and the abatement happens. sent9: that the aerologicalness but not the efflorescence occurs is brought about by the fantasying feverfew. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> int1: the efflorescence occurs.; int1 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that both the paralleling corner and the boricness happens is not correct.
|
¬({A} & {B})
|
sent1: the circumscribing does not occur if the circumscribing does not occur and/or the proximalness does not occur. sent2: if that the impressionisticness occurs and the proximalness happens is wrong then the proximalness does not occur. sent3: the biosystematicness does not occur if the fact that both the scrub and the circumscribing occurs does not hold. sent4: the proximalness does not occur but the impressionisticness occurs if the misinforming UFO does not occur. sent5: the fact that the impressionisticness and the proximalness happens is incorrect if the misinforming UFO does not occur. sent6: that the centripetalness and the paralleling corner happens is triggered by that the boricness does not occur. sent7: the boricness occurs. sent8: the localization occurs. sent9: the paralleling corner occurs. sent10: the paralleling Matthew occurs. sent11: if the biosystematicness does not occur the annexation does not occur and the hopscotch does not occur. sent12: the fact that the annexation does not occur and the hopscotch happens is incorrect if that the biosystematicness does not occur is correct. sent13: the fact that the fact that the acquitting commandership occurs and/or the ball-buster does not occur is not wrong is incorrect if the education does not occur. sent14: the education does not occur and the percolation does not occur if the Swazi does not occur. sent15: the biosystematicness does not occur and the scrubbing does not occur if the circumscribing does not occur. sent16: if the fact that either the acquitting commandership happens or the ball-buster does not occur or both is incorrect the misinforming UFO does not occur. sent17: that the scrub happens and the circumscribing occurs is not true if the proximalness does not occur. sent18: the Nelson occurs. sent19: if the autologousness does not occur the telephonicness but not the Swaziness happens. sent20: the paralleling Matthew happens and the cat occurs. sent21: if the annexation does not occur then that both the paralleling corner and the boricness occurs is incorrect.
|
sent1: (¬{G} v ¬{H}) -> ¬{G} sent2: ¬({I} & {H}) -> ¬{H} sent3: ¬({F} & {G}) -> ¬{E} sent4: ¬{J} -> (¬{H} & {I}) sent5: ¬{J} -> ¬({I} & {H}) sent6: ¬{B} -> ({CB} & {A}) sent7: {B} sent8: {IS} sent9: {A} sent10: {IP} sent11: ¬{E} -> (¬{C} & ¬{D}) sent12: ¬{E} -> ¬(¬{C} & {D}) sent13: ¬{M} -> ¬({L} v ¬{K}) sent14: ¬{O} -> (¬{M} & ¬{N}) sent15: ¬{G} -> (¬{E} & ¬{F}) sent16: ¬({L} v ¬{K}) -> ¬{J} sent17: ¬{H} -> ¬({F} & {G}) sent18: {IL} sent19: ¬{Q} -> ({P} & ¬{O}) sent20: ({IP} & {DE}) sent21: ¬{C} -> ¬({A} & {B})
|
[
"sent9 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the centripetalness happens.
|
{CB}
|
[] | 14 | 1 | 1 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that both the paralleling corner and the boricness happens is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the circumscribing does not occur if the circumscribing does not occur and/or the proximalness does not occur. sent2: if that the impressionisticness occurs and the proximalness happens is wrong then the proximalness does not occur. sent3: the biosystematicness does not occur if the fact that both the scrub and the circumscribing occurs does not hold. sent4: the proximalness does not occur but the impressionisticness occurs if the misinforming UFO does not occur. sent5: the fact that the impressionisticness and the proximalness happens is incorrect if the misinforming UFO does not occur. sent6: that the centripetalness and the paralleling corner happens is triggered by that the boricness does not occur. sent7: the boricness occurs. sent8: the localization occurs. sent9: the paralleling corner occurs. sent10: the paralleling Matthew occurs. sent11: if the biosystematicness does not occur the annexation does not occur and the hopscotch does not occur. sent12: the fact that the annexation does not occur and the hopscotch happens is incorrect if that the biosystematicness does not occur is correct. sent13: the fact that the fact that the acquitting commandership occurs and/or the ball-buster does not occur is not wrong is incorrect if the education does not occur. sent14: the education does not occur and the percolation does not occur if the Swazi does not occur. sent15: the biosystematicness does not occur and the scrubbing does not occur if the circumscribing does not occur. sent16: if the fact that either the acquitting commandership happens or the ball-buster does not occur or both is incorrect the misinforming UFO does not occur. sent17: that the scrub happens and the circumscribing occurs is not true if the proximalness does not occur. sent18: the Nelson occurs. sent19: if the autologousness does not occur the telephonicness but not the Swaziness happens. sent20: the paralleling Matthew happens and the cat occurs. sent21: if the annexation does not occur then that both the paralleling corner and the boricness occurs is incorrect. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the neonate is both not meridian and not a guardroom.
|
(¬{C}{b} & ¬{D}{b})
|
sent1: the visor is nontechnical. sent2: that the neonate is a kind of a meridian but it is not a guardroom is not right if the fact that the visor is meridian is not incorrect. sent3: the visor is nontechnical a Pharisee. sent4: the fact that the neonate is not a meridian but it is a kind of a guardroom is not correct if the visor is meridian. sent5: if the visor is not non-meridian then the fact that the neonate is not a non-meridian and it is not a kind of a guardroom is false. sent6: that the neonate is both not meridian and a guardroom is not right. sent7: something is a meridian if it is a Pharisee. sent8: the fact that the neonate is a kind of a meridian but it is not a guardroom does not hold.
|
sent1: {A}{a} sent2: {C}{a} -> ¬({C}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent3: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent4: {C}{a} -> ¬(¬{C}{b} & {D}{b}) sent5: {C}{a} -> ¬(¬{C}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent6: ¬(¬{C}{b} & {D}{b}) sent7: (x): {B}x -> {C}x sent8: ¬({C}{b} & ¬{D}{b})
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: the visor is a Pharisee.; sent7 -> int2: the visor is meridian if it is a Pharisee.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the visor is a meridian.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent7 -> int2: {B}{a} -> {C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {C}{a}; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the neonate is both not meridian and not a guardroom. ; $context$ = sent1: the visor is nontechnical. sent2: that the neonate is a kind of a meridian but it is not a guardroom is not right if the fact that the visor is meridian is not incorrect. sent3: the visor is nontechnical a Pharisee. sent4: the fact that the neonate is not a meridian but it is a kind of a guardroom is not correct if the visor is meridian. sent5: if the visor is not non-meridian then the fact that the neonate is not a non-meridian and it is not a kind of a guardroom is false. sent6: that the neonate is both not meridian and a guardroom is not right. sent7: something is a meridian if it is a Pharisee. sent8: the fact that the neonate is a kind of a meridian but it is not a guardroom does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> int1: the visor is a Pharisee.; sent7 -> int2: the visor is meridian if it is a Pharisee.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the visor is a meridian.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the weatherboard is perianal.
|
{B}{a}
|
sent1: if the weatherboard does not correspond then it is perianal. sent2: the weatherboard does parallel alphabetizer if the fact that the fact that it does not parallel alphabetizer and is a majorette is right is wrong. sent3: the fusil corresponds if that something does not misinform jawan and is not non-perianal is not false. sent4: that the weatherboard corresponds and is not a Anasa is not right. sent5: if that the weatherboard does correspond and is not a kind of a Anasa is not right then it is perianal.
|
sent1: ¬{AA}{a} -> {B}{a} sent2: ¬(¬{C}{a} & {D}{a}) -> {C}{a} sent3: (x): (¬{A}x & {B}x) -> {AA}{aj} sent4: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent5: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{a}
|
[
"sent5 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fusil does correspond.
|
{AA}{aj}
|
[] | 8 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the weatherboard is perianal. ; $context$ = sent1: if the weatherboard does not correspond then it is perianal. sent2: the weatherboard does parallel alphabetizer if the fact that the fact that it does not parallel alphabetizer and is a majorette is right is wrong. sent3: the fusil corresponds if that something does not misinform jawan and is not non-perianal is not false. sent4: that the weatherboard corresponds and is not a Anasa is not right. sent5: if that the weatherboard does correspond and is not a kind of a Anasa is not right then it is perianal. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the iriticness does not occur is right.
|
¬{C}
|
sent1: the misinforming Cupressaceae does not occur. sent2: that the Sovietness happens prevents the iriticness. sent3: if the fact that the misinforming cocker and/or the Sovietness occurs hold then the iriticness does not occur. sent4: if the blue occurs and/or the paralleling relativity happens the paralleling maisonette does not occur. sent5: the unusualness happens. sent6: either the Ismailiness or the vocative or both is triggered by that the misinforming cocker does not occur. sent7: that the misinforming cocker occurs hold.
|
sent1: ¬{DN} sent2: {B} -> ¬{C} sent3: ({A} v {B}) -> ¬{C} sent4: ({FR} v {HQ}) -> ¬{IH} sent5: {AM} sent6: ¬{A} -> ({BC} v {CR}) sent7: {A}
|
[
"sent7 -> int1: the misinforming cocker and/or the Sovietness happens.; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent7 -> int1: ({A} v {B}); sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the Ismailiness and/or the vocative occurs is right.
|
({BC} v {CR})
|
[] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the iriticness does not occur is right. ; $context$ = sent1: the misinforming Cupressaceae does not occur. sent2: that the Sovietness happens prevents the iriticness. sent3: if the fact that the misinforming cocker and/or the Sovietness occurs hold then the iriticness does not occur. sent4: if the blue occurs and/or the paralleling relativity happens the paralleling maisonette does not occur. sent5: the unusualness happens. sent6: either the Ismailiness or the vocative or both is triggered by that the misinforming cocker does not occur. sent7: that the misinforming cocker occurs hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 -> int1: the misinforming cocker and/or the Sovietness happens.; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the lamppost does fantasy bandage.
|
{B}{a}
|
sent1: the doctorfish is not a Belloc but it is a knackwurst. sent2: if there exists something such that it is not a Belloc the fact that the testatrix does not fantasy bandage and is non-Belarusian is not correct. sent3: the lamppost does not fantasy bandage if it misinforms MIT and it is a kind of a rumor. sent4: the fact that the lamppost misinforms MIT hold. sent5: the lamppost does misinform MIT and it does rumor.
|
sent1: (¬{C}{c} & {D}{c}) sent2: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{B}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent3: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent4: {AA}{a} sent5: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a})
|
[
"sent3 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the Maxzide is a rumor and it is cathodic.
|
({AB}{gt} & {FC}{gt})
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: the doctorfish is not a Belloc.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that it is not a Belloc.; int2 & sent2 -> int3: the fact that the testatrix does not fantasy bandage and it is not a Belarusian does not hold.; int3 -> int4: there exists something such that the fact that it does not fantasy bandage and is not a Belarusian is not true.;"
] | 7 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the lamppost does fantasy bandage. ; $context$ = sent1: the doctorfish is not a Belloc but it is a knackwurst. sent2: if there exists something such that it is not a Belloc the fact that the testatrix does not fantasy bandage and is non-Belarusian is not correct. sent3: the lamppost does not fantasy bandage if it misinforms MIT and it is a kind of a rumor. sent4: the fact that the lamppost misinforms MIT hold. sent5: the lamppost does misinform MIT and it does rumor. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the square-rigger is both not a arsenical and a doornail.
|
(¬{B}{b} & {A}{b})
|
sent1: that the square-rigger is a kind of arsenical thing that is a doornail is wrong if the lido is not a doornail. sent2: there is something such that it is not a tither and parallels unnoticeableness. sent3: if the square-rigger is not a arsenical then the fact that the fact that the lido is both not a doornail and arsenical is correct does not hold. sent4: there is something such that it is a kind of arsenical a doornail. sent5: there exists something such that it is genuine thing that is a schnorrer. sent6: if something is not a kind of a tither but it does parallel unnoticeableness the lido is not a doornail. sent7: something is a doornail and it is a arsenical. sent8: if something is not a kind of a Clinopodium it acquits square-rigger and does oscillate. sent9: if something is a kind of a tither and it parallels unnoticeableness the lido is not a doornail. sent10: there is something such that it is not a tither. sent11: that the square-rigger is a arsenical and it is a doornail does not hold. sent12: there exists something such that it is not a doornail. sent13: if the lido is not a doornail then that the square-rigger is not a kind of a arsenical but it is a doornail is not true. sent14: something is a tideland if it does oscillate. sent15: that the lido is a kind of non-arsenical a doornail does not hold if the square-rigger is not a doornail.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({B}{b} & {A}{b}) sent2: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬(¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent4: (Ex): ({B}x & {A}x) sent5: (Ex): ({O}x & {GA}x) sent6: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent7: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x) sent8: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({E}x & {D}x) sent9: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent10: (Ex): ¬{AA}x sent11: ¬({B}{b} & {A}{b}) sent12: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent13: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{B}{b} & {A}{b}) sent14: (x): {D}x -> {C}x sent15: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & {A}{a})
|
[
"sent2 & sent6 -> int1: the lido is not a doornail.; sent13 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent6 -> int1: ¬{A}{a}; sent13 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the square-rigger is not a arsenical but it is a kind of a doornail.
|
(¬{B}{b} & {A}{b})
|
[
"sent14 -> int2: if the lido oscillates then it is a kind of a tideland.; sent8 -> int3: the seabag does acquit square-rigger and does oscillate if that it is not a Clinopodium is not false.;"
] | 8 | 2 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the square-rigger is both not a arsenical and a doornail. ; $context$ = sent1: that the square-rigger is a kind of arsenical thing that is a doornail is wrong if the lido is not a doornail. sent2: there is something such that it is not a tither and parallels unnoticeableness. sent3: if the square-rigger is not a arsenical then the fact that the fact that the lido is both not a doornail and arsenical is correct does not hold. sent4: there is something such that it is a kind of arsenical a doornail. sent5: there exists something such that it is genuine thing that is a schnorrer. sent6: if something is not a kind of a tither but it does parallel unnoticeableness the lido is not a doornail. sent7: something is a doornail and it is a arsenical. sent8: if something is not a kind of a Clinopodium it acquits square-rigger and does oscillate. sent9: if something is a kind of a tither and it parallels unnoticeableness the lido is not a doornail. sent10: there is something such that it is not a tither. sent11: that the square-rigger is a arsenical and it is a doornail does not hold. sent12: there exists something such that it is not a doornail. sent13: if the lido is not a doornail then that the square-rigger is not a kind of a arsenical but it is a doornail is not true. sent14: something is a tideland if it does oscillate. sent15: that the lido is a kind of non-arsenical a doornail does not hold if the square-rigger is not a doornail. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent6 -> int1: the lido is not a doornail.; sent13 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the highbinder is ministerial is not false.
|
{A}{c}
|
sent1: the fact that the forebear acquits Stanton and is seductive does not hold. sent2: the ashcake acquits Stanton and is a kind of a grouse. sent3: if that the forebear is not ministerial but it does acquit Stanton is not wrong the highbinder is not seductive. sent4: the accelerator is a Kotex and it is anatropous. sent5: if the fact that the forebear does not acquit Stanton but it is seductive is not true the highbinder is ministerial. sent6: the accelerator is not non-anatropous. sent7: that the highbinder is not anatropous but it is ministerial does not hold. sent8: the forebear does not acquit Stanton. sent9: a jawan is not a Kotex and is anatropous. sent10: the accelerator is not ministerial.
|
sent1: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent2: ({AA}{jb} & {CF}{jb}) sent3: (¬{A}{a} & {AA}{a}) -> ¬{AB}{c} sent4: ({B}{b} & {C}{b}) sent5: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {A}{c} sent6: {C}{b} sent7: ¬(¬{C}{c} & {A}{c}) sent8: ¬{AA}{a} sent9: (x): {D}x -> (¬{B}x & {C}x) sent10: ¬{A}{b}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the forebear does not acquit Stanton but it is not unseductive.; sent4 -> int1: the accelerator is a kind of a Kotex.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}); sent4 -> int1: {B}{b};"
] |
the highbinder is not ministerial.
|
¬{A}{c}
|
[
"sent9 -> int2: if the forebear is a jawan it is not a kind of a Kotex and it is anatropous.;"
] | 5 | 4 | null | 8 | 0 | 8 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the highbinder is ministerial is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the forebear acquits Stanton and is seductive does not hold. sent2: the ashcake acquits Stanton and is a kind of a grouse. sent3: if that the forebear is not ministerial but it does acquit Stanton is not wrong the highbinder is not seductive. sent4: the accelerator is a Kotex and it is anatropous. sent5: if the fact that the forebear does not acquit Stanton but it is seductive is not true the highbinder is ministerial. sent6: the accelerator is not non-anatropous. sent7: that the highbinder is not anatropous but it is ministerial does not hold. sent8: the forebear does not acquit Stanton. sent9: a jawan is not a Kotex and is anatropous. sent10: the accelerator is not ministerial. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the forebear does not acquit Stanton but it is not unseductive.; sent4 -> int1: the accelerator is a kind of a Kotex.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the ferritin is not a sherbert.
|
¬{D}{b}
|
sent1: if there is something such that it is not a defibrillation then that the prodigy does not misinform pedestal and/or does not acquit Lasiocampidae does not hold. sent2: there exists something such that it is not a defibrillation. sent3: if there exists something such that the fact that either it does not misinform pedestal or it does not acquit Lasiocampidae or both does not hold the ferritin is not a sherbert.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) sent2: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent3: (x): ¬(¬{B}x v ¬{C}x) -> ¬{D}{b}
|
[
"sent2 & sent1 -> int1: that the prodigy does not misinform pedestal and/or it does not acquit Lasiocampidae does not hold.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that the fact that that it does not misinform pedestal and/or it does not acquit Lasiocampidae is right is false.; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent1 -> int1: ¬(¬{B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): ¬(¬{B}x v ¬{C}x); int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the ferritin is not a sherbert. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that it is not a defibrillation then that the prodigy does not misinform pedestal and/or does not acquit Lasiocampidae does not hold. sent2: there exists something such that it is not a defibrillation. sent3: if there exists something such that the fact that either it does not misinform pedestal or it does not acquit Lasiocampidae or both does not hold the ferritin is not a sherbert. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent1 -> int1: that the prodigy does not misinform pedestal and/or it does not acquit Lasiocampidae does not hold.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that the fact that that it does not misinform pedestal and/or it does not acquit Lasiocampidae is right is false.; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the acquitting heelbone happens is not false.
|
{B}
|
sent1: the marine happens. sent2: the squintiness happens. sent3: if the mindfulness does not occur then the acquitting heelbone does not occur and the misinforming porte-cochere happens. sent4: if that the misinforming porte-cochere does not occur but the acquitting heelbone happens is incorrect then the fact that the acquitting heelbone does not occur is true. sent5: that the acquitting heelbone occurs is not incorrect if the fact that the squintiness happens is not wrong. sent6: the fact that the mercantilism happens is correct.
|
sent1: {DA} sent2: {A} sent3: ¬{D} -> (¬{B} & {C}) sent4: ¬(¬{C} & {B}) -> ¬{B} sent5: {A} -> {B} sent6: {HL}
|
[
"sent5 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the gathering happens.
|
{BM}
|
[] | 6 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the acquitting heelbone happens is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: the marine happens. sent2: the squintiness happens. sent3: if the mindfulness does not occur then the acquitting heelbone does not occur and the misinforming porte-cochere happens. sent4: if that the misinforming porte-cochere does not occur but the acquitting heelbone happens is incorrect then the fact that the acquitting heelbone does not occur is true. sent5: that the acquitting heelbone occurs is not incorrect if the fact that the squintiness happens is not wrong. sent6: the fact that the mercantilism happens is correct. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Simoniz is not a finance.
|
¬{B}{b}
|
sent1: if the fact that the skiff relapses and is not a rocker is false then the Simoniz is not a finance. sent2: if the Simoniz relapses then the skiff is not a kind of a finance. sent3: if something either does finance or is a lantern or both the fact that it is not ugly is right. sent4: if that the Simoniz is a rocker but it does not relapse does not hold then the skiff is not a finance. sent5: the fact that the skiff relapses but it is not a kind of a rocker does not hold if it is not ugly. sent6: that that the Simoniz is netting but it does not finance is not correct is true. sent7: the skiff is not ugly. sent8: that that the skiff is the rocker and does not relapse is not correct if the skiff is not a finance is not false. sent9: the skiff does not finance if the fact that the Simoniz relapses but it is not a rocker is not right. sent10: if the skiff is both steadied and not a lantern the Simoniz is not a kind of a lantern.
|
sent1: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent2: {AA}{b} -> ¬{B}{a} sent3: (x): ({B}x v {C}x) -> ¬{A}x sent4: ¬({AB}{b} & ¬{AA}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent5: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent6: ¬({CH}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent7: ¬{A}{a} sent8: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬({AB}{a} & ¬{AA}{a}) sent9: ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent10: ({E}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b}
|
[
"sent5 & sent7 -> int1: that the skiff does relapse and is not a rocker is wrong.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 & sent7 -> int1: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the Simoniz does finance.
|
{B}{b}
|
[] | 5 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the Simoniz is not a finance. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the skiff relapses and is not a rocker is false then the Simoniz is not a finance. sent2: if the Simoniz relapses then the skiff is not a kind of a finance. sent3: if something either does finance or is a lantern or both the fact that it is not ugly is right. sent4: if that the Simoniz is a rocker but it does not relapse does not hold then the skiff is not a finance. sent5: the fact that the skiff relapses but it is not a kind of a rocker does not hold if it is not ugly. sent6: that that the Simoniz is netting but it does not finance is not correct is true. sent7: the skiff is not ugly. sent8: that that the skiff is the rocker and does not relapse is not correct if the skiff is not a finance is not false. sent9: the skiff does not finance if the fact that the Simoniz relapses but it is not a rocker is not right. sent10: if the skiff is both steadied and not a lantern the Simoniz is not a kind of a lantern. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 & sent7 -> int1: that the skiff does relapse and is not a rocker is wrong.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Senecanness does not occur.
|
¬{D}
|
sent1: the noninstitutionalness occurs and the sunray occurs. sent2: if the fulling formula occurs then the Miss occurs. sent3: the fending galactose occurs. sent4: the fulling palmetto occurs. sent5: the moot happens. sent6: the fending deviationism and the roundingness happens. sent7: the digitizing Zingiber happens. sent8: the Senecanness happens and the Miss does not occur if the fending van does not occur. sent9: the beneficentness happens. sent10: the intelligibleness happens and the fulling formula occurs. sent11: the hymn happens. sent12: that the fulling formula does not occur results in that the cession and the intelligibleness occurs. sent13: the non-Senecanness is prevented by that the Miss occurs.
|
sent1: ({FS} & {IB}) sent2: {B} -> {C} sent3: {AD} sent4: {GK} sent5: {FQ} sent6: ({ER} & {HS}) sent7: {FB} sent8: ¬{E} -> ({D} & ¬{C}) sent9: {CI} sent10: ({A} & {B}) sent11: {IR} sent12: ¬{B} -> ({AC} & {A}) sent13: {C} -> {D}
|
[
"sent10 -> int1: the fulling formula happens.; sent2 & int1 -> int2: that the Miss occurs is not incorrect.; sent13 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent10 -> int1: {B}; sent2 & int1 -> int2: {C}; sent13 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the cession occurs.
|
{AC}
|
[] | 7 | 3 | 3 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the Senecanness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the noninstitutionalness occurs and the sunray occurs. sent2: if the fulling formula occurs then the Miss occurs. sent3: the fending galactose occurs. sent4: the fulling palmetto occurs. sent5: the moot happens. sent6: the fending deviationism and the roundingness happens. sent7: the digitizing Zingiber happens. sent8: the Senecanness happens and the Miss does not occur if the fending van does not occur. sent9: the beneficentness happens. sent10: the intelligibleness happens and the fulling formula occurs. sent11: the hymn happens. sent12: that the fulling formula does not occur results in that the cession and the intelligibleness occurs. sent13: the non-Senecanness is prevented by that the Miss occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent10 -> int1: the fulling formula happens.; sent2 & int1 -> int2: that the Miss occurs is not incorrect.; sent13 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the dripstone does not clean Spallanzani is not false.
|
¬{D}{b}
|
sent1: the dripstone is a Hutton. sent2: if there exists something such that it is subarctic that the Fox is a kind of a Hutton and/or it is not irrevocable is false. sent3: something is not knee-length if it is not a kind of a Gestapo. sent4: the Achaean is irrevocable if there is something such that the fact that it is subarctic is not wrong. sent5: the dripstone cleans lamb's-quarters. sent6: the Fox is a kind of a stupidity. sent7: the fact that the Achaean is irrevocable is right. sent8: the fact that either the override is subarctic or it does not exhale or both is false. sent9: that the Achaean is subarctic and/or does not clean Spallanzani does not hold if there is something such that that it is irrevocable is not incorrect. sent10: the dripstone is subarctic if the fact that the Fox is a Hutton or cleans Spallanzani or both is false. sent11: if the Fox does not clean Spallanzani and it is not irrevocable the dripstone does not clean Spallanzani. sent12: the dripstone is accommodational. sent13: if something does clean Spallanzani then the fact that the fact that either the Fox is a Hutton or it is not irrevocable or both hold does not hold. sent14: if something is irrevocable the fact that the Fox is a Hutton and/or it is not subarctic is not correct. sent15: if the daphne does not resile and it does not full bottlebrush the manganite is not a Gestapo. sent16: if there is something such that it is irrevocable the Fox is not a kind of a Hutton. sent17: that the Fox either cleans Spallanzani or is not irrevocable or both is false if there is something such that it is subarctic. sent18: that the propagandist is punitive and/or not a Hutton is not true. sent19: if that the Fox is either a Hutton or not subarctic or both is not correct the dripstone does clean Spallanzani. sent20: the dripstone is a freeholder. sent21: the fact that the dripstone introverts and/or it is not an unknown is not true. sent22: if the bottlebrush is subarctic the Fox does not clean Spallanzani and is not irrevocable.
|
sent1: {C}{b} sent2: (x): {B}x -> ¬({C}{a} v ¬{A}{a}) sent3: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬{E}x sent4: (x): {B}x -> {A}{aa} sent5: {FH}{b} sent6: {EE}{a} sent7: {A}{aa} sent8: ¬({B}{hq} v ¬{IA}{hq}) sent9: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}{aa} v ¬{D}{aa}) sent10: ¬({C}{a} v {D}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent11: (¬{D}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent12: {DF}{b} sent13: (x): {D}x -> ¬({C}{a} v ¬{A}{a}) sent14: (x): {A}x -> ¬({C}{a} v ¬{B}{a}) sent15: (¬{H}{e} & ¬{G}{e}) -> ¬{F}{d} sent16: (x): {A}x -> ¬{C}{a} sent17: (x): {B}x -> ¬({D}{a} v ¬{A}{a}) sent18: ¬({EO}{eh} v ¬{C}{eh}) sent19: ¬({C}{a} v ¬{B}{a}) -> {D}{b} sent20: {IM}{b} sent21: ¬({BJ}{b} v ¬{EM}{b}) sent22: {B}{c} -> (¬{D}{a} & ¬{A}{a})
|
[
"sent7 -> int1: there exists something such that it is irrevocable.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the fact that either the Fox is a kind of a Hutton or it is not subarctic or both does not hold.; sent19 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent7 -> int1: (Ex): {A}x; int1 & sent14 -> int2: ¬({C}{a} v ¬{B}{a}); sent19 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the dripstone does not clean Spallanzani.
|
¬{D}{b}
|
[
"sent3 -> int3: if the manganite is not a Gestapo it is not knee-length.;"
] | 8 | 3 | 3 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the dripstone does not clean Spallanzani is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: the dripstone is a Hutton. sent2: if there exists something such that it is subarctic that the Fox is a kind of a Hutton and/or it is not irrevocable is false. sent3: something is not knee-length if it is not a kind of a Gestapo. sent4: the Achaean is irrevocable if there is something such that the fact that it is subarctic is not wrong. sent5: the dripstone cleans lamb's-quarters. sent6: the Fox is a kind of a stupidity. sent7: the fact that the Achaean is irrevocable is right. sent8: the fact that either the override is subarctic or it does not exhale or both is false. sent9: that the Achaean is subarctic and/or does not clean Spallanzani does not hold if there is something such that that it is irrevocable is not incorrect. sent10: the dripstone is subarctic if the fact that the Fox is a Hutton or cleans Spallanzani or both is false. sent11: if the Fox does not clean Spallanzani and it is not irrevocable the dripstone does not clean Spallanzani. sent12: the dripstone is accommodational. sent13: if something does clean Spallanzani then the fact that the fact that either the Fox is a Hutton or it is not irrevocable or both hold does not hold. sent14: if something is irrevocable the fact that the Fox is a Hutton and/or it is not subarctic is not correct. sent15: if the daphne does not resile and it does not full bottlebrush the manganite is not a Gestapo. sent16: if there is something such that it is irrevocable the Fox is not a kind of a Hutton. sent17: that the Fox either cleans Spallanzani or is not irrevocable or both is false if there is something such that it is subarctic. sent18: that the propagandist is punitive and/or not a Hutton is not true. sent19: if that the Fox is either a Hutton or not subarctic or both is not correct the dripstone does clean Spallanzani. sent20: the dripstone is a freeholder. sent21: the fact that the dripstone introverts and/or it is not an unknown is not true. sent22: if the bottlebrush is subarctic the Fox does not clean Spallanzani and is not irrevocable. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 -> int1: there exists something such that it is irrevocable.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the fact that either the Fox is a kind of a Hutton or it is not subarctic or both does not hold.; sent19 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the pirate is not a jujube.
|
¬{C}{a}
|
sent1: the pirate is not a jujube if something that is a peppermint is a kind of a Volgograd. sent2: there is something such that it is both a peppermint and a Volgograd.
|
sent1: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}{a} sent2: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x)
|
[
"sent2 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the pirate is not a jujube. ; $context$ = sent1: the pirate is not a jujube if something that is a peppermint is a kind of a Volgograd. sent2: there is something such that it is both a peppermint and a Volgograd. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the passive but not the digitizing bruin happens.
|
({C} & ¬{D})
|
sent1: the fact that the epilation occurs is true if the interchanging does not occur. sent2: the epilation does not occur if the unusualness occurs. sent3: the passiveness but not the digitizing bruin happens if the fending eyesight does not occur. sent4: the digitizing bruin does not occur if the fending eyesight does not occur. sent5: if the fact that the interchange does not occur is not incorrect then the epilation does not occur. sent6: if the fending eyesight happens the epilation happens.
|
sent1: ¬{F} -> {B} sent2: {E} -> ¬{B} sent3: ¬{A} -> ({C} & ¬{D}) sent4: ¬{A} -> ¬{D} sent5: ¬{F} -> ¬{B} sent6: {A} -> {B}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fending eyesight occurs.; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: the epilation occurs.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: {B};"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 4 | null | 2 | 0 | 2 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the passive but not the digitizing bruin happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the epilation occurs is true if the interchanging does not occur. sent2: the epilation does not occur if the unusualness occurs. sent3: the passiveness but not the digitizing bruin happens if the fending eyesight does not occur. sent4: the digitizing bruin does not occur if the fending eyesight does not occur. sent5: if the fact that the interchange does not occur is not incorrect then the epilation does not occur. sent6: if the fending eyesight happens the epilation happens. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fending eyesight occurs.; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: the epilation occurs.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the glugging occurs.
|
{C}
|
sent1: that both the skimming and the fulling Racine occurs results in that the glugging does not occur. sent2: the skimming occurs. sent3: the fending cockerel and the skimming occurs if the fulling Racine does not occur. sent4: that the digitizing lordship does not occur and the Madagascan does not occur is wrong if the outlet happens. sent5: the mastership does not occur if the footstep occurs and the fulling largemouth happens. sent6: the fulling Racine does not occur if the Madagascan but not the fending extraction happens. sent7: the fulling Racine occurs. sent8: the glugging and the skimming occurs if the fulling Racine does not occur. sent9: the Madagascanness happens if that the digitizing lordship does not occur and the Madagascanness does not occur does not hold. sent10: if the glugging does not occur and the Madagascan does not occur then the fulling Racine does not occur.
|
sent1: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent2: {A} sent3: ¬{B} -> ({GT} & {A}) sent4: {H} -> ¬(¬{I} & ¬{D}) sent5: ({AL} & {FQ}) -> ¬{AN} sent6: ({D} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{B} sent7: {B} sent8: ¬{B} -> ({C} & {A}) sent9: ¬(¬{I} & ¬{D}) -> {D} sent10: (¬{C} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{B}
|
[
"sent2 & sent7 -> int1: both the skimming and the fulling Racine occurs.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent7 -> int1: ({A} & {B}); sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the glugging occurs.
|
{C}
|
[] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the glugging occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that both the skimming and the fulling Racine occurs results in that the glugging does not occur. sent2: the skimming occurs. sent3: the fending cockerel and the skimming occurs if the fulling Racine does not occur. sent4: that the digitizing lordship does not occur and the Madagascan does not occur is wrong if the outlet happens. sent5: the mastership does not occur if the footstep occurs and the fulling largemouth happens. sent6: the fulling Racine does not occur if the Madagascan but not the fending extraction happens. sent7: the fulling Racine occurs. sent8: the glugging and the skimming occurs if the fulling Racine does not occur. sent9: the Madagascanness happens if that the digitizing lordship does not occur and the Madagascanness does not occur does not hold. sent10: if the glugging does not occur and the Madagascan does not occur then the fulling Racine does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent7 -> int1: both the skimming and the fulling Racine occurs.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the cucurbitaceousness happens.
|
{C}
|
sent1: both the vasodilation and the painfulness happens. sent2: the fact that that both the gaseousness and the trembling occurs is not true is correct. sent3: the fending Kansa does not occur. sent4: the digitizing sadism occurs if both the libration and the fending Kansa occurs. sent5: if that the digitizing dunk happens but the self-control does not occur is wrong then the fending attempted does not occur. sent6: the fact that not the eyedrop but the cleaning Male happens is not correct if the reciprocity does not occur. sent7: that if the digitizing sadism does not occur both the cucurbitaceousness and the painfulness occurs is not incorrect. sent8: if the gaseousness does not occur then the deposit occurs and the bloomer occurs. sent9: if the fending satellite does not occur and the vasodilation does not occur the digitizing sadism does not occur. sent10: the enthroning and the reciprocity happens if the fending attempted does not occur. sent11: if that the gaseousness happens and the trembling happens does not hold then the gaseousness does not occur. sent12: that the vasodilation and/or the fending satellite happens is triggered by that the enthroning does not occur. sent13: the enthroning does not occur and the depositing does not occur if the bloomer does not occur. sent14: the digitizing sadism happens if the libration occurs but the fending Kansa does not occur. sent15: that both the depositing and the enthroning occurs prevents the fending satellite. sent16: the cucurbitaceousness does not occur if the digitizing sadism occurs and the painfulness occurs. sent17: if the painfulness happens but the digitizing sadism does not occur the fulling forfeit happens. sent18: the nonterritorialness yields that the fending attempted occurs and/or the non-gaseousness. sent19: the vasodilation occurs. sent20: the fact that the digitizing dunk occurs but the self-control does not occur is false. sent21: the libration occurs but the fending Kansa does not occur. sent22: if the fact that the fact that the eyedrop does not occur and the cleaning Male does not occur is not correct is not incorrect then that the vasodilation does not occur is not false.
|
sent1: ({D} & {A}) sent2: ¬({L} & {P}) sent3: ¬{AB} sent4: ({AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent5: ¬({Q} & ¬{O}) -> ¬{M} sent6: ¬{K} -> ¬(¬{J} & {I}) sent7: ¬{B} -> ({C} & {A}) sent8: ¬{L} -> ({G} & {H}) sent9: (¬{E} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{B} sent10: ¬{M} -> ({F} & {K}) sent11: ¬({L} & {P}) -> ¬{L} sent12: ¬{F} -> ({D} v {E}) sent13: ¬{H} -> (¬{F} & ¬{G}) sent14: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent15: ({G} & {F}) -> ¬{E} sent16: ({B} & {A}) -> ¬{C} sent17: ({A} & ¬{B}) -> {II} sent18: ¬{N} -> ({M} v ¬{L}) sent19: {D} sent20: ¬({Q} & ¬{O}) sent21: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent22: ¬(¬{J} & ¬{I}) -> ¬{D}
|
[
"sent14 & sent21 -> int1: the digitizing sadism happens.; sent1 -> int2: the painfulness happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the digitizing sadism and the painfulness happens.; int3 & sent16 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent14 & sent21 -> int1: {B}; sent1 -> int2: {A}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({B} & {A}); int3 & sent16 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fulling forfeit happens.
|
{II}
|
[] | 10 | 3 | 3 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the cucurbitaceousness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: both the vasodilation and the painfulness happens. sent2: the fact that that both the gaseousness and the trembling occurs is not true is correct. sent3: the fending Kansa does not occur. sent4: the digitizing sadism occurs if both the libration and the fending Kansa occurs. sent5: if that the digitizing dunk happens but the self-control does not occur is wrong then the fending attempted does not occur. sent6: the fact that not the eyedrop but the cleaning Male happens is not correct if the reciprocity does not occur. sent7: that if the digitizing sadism does not occur both the cucurbitaceousness and the painfulness occurs is not incorrect. sent8: if the gaseousness does not occur then the deposit occurs and the bloomer occurs. sent9: if the fending satellite does not occur and the vasodilation does not occur the digitizing sadism does not occur. sent10: the enthroning and the reciprocity happens if the fending attempted does not occur. sent11: if that the gaseousness happens and the trembling happens does not hold then the gaseousness does not occur. sent12: that the vasodilation and/or the fending satellite happens is triggered by that the enthroning does not occur. sent13: the enthroning does not occur and the depositing does not occur if the bloomer does not occur. sent14: the digitizing sadism happens if the libration occurs but the fending Kansa does not occur. sent15: that both the depositing and the enthroning occurs prevents the fending satellite. sent16: the cucurbitaceousness does not occur if the digitizing sadism occurs and the painfulness occurs. sent17: if the painfulness happens but the digitizing sadism does not occur the fulling forfeit happens. sent18: the nonterritorialness yields that the fending attempted occurs and/or the non-gaseousness. sent19: the vasodilation occurs. sent20: the fact that the digitizing dunk occurs but the self-control does not occur is false. sent21: the libration occurs but the fending Kansa does not occur. sent22: if the fact that the fact that the eyedrop does not occur and the cleaning Male does not occur is not correct is not incorrect then that the vasodilation does not occur is not false. ; $proof$ =
|
sent14 & sent21 -> int1: the digitizing sadism happens.; sent1 -> int2: the painfulness happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the digitizing sadism and the painfulness happens.; int3 & sent16 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the waterspout occurs.
|
{B}
|
sent1: if the Post does not occur then the fact that the waterspout occurs is right. sent2: if that both the non-catechisticness and the beautifulness occurs does not hold then the digitizing snorkeling does not occur. sent3: if the fact that the digitizing snorkeling does not occur and the beautifulness does not occur does not hold that the waterspout does not occur hold. sent4: the beautifulness does not occur. sent5: that the precluding does not occur and/or that the Post does not occur is triggered by that the beautifulness does not occur. sent6: that the aftercare does not occur yields either the admiralty or the cleaning Curtiss or both. sent7: the fulling ocean happens. sent8: the fact that the fulling bundle does not occur does not hold. sent9: the bombing occurs. sent10: both the magisterialness and the admiralty happens if the cleaning Curtiss does not occur. sent11: the catechisticness does not occur and the realisticness does not occur if the magisterialness occurs. sent12: if the realisticness happens that both the non-catechisticness and the beautifulness occurs is not true. sent13: if the magisterialness occurs then the realisticness happens. sent14: if the catechisticness does not occur then that the digitizing snorkeling does not occur and the beautifulness does not occur is wrong. sent15: the bossism does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬{AB} -> {B} sent2: ¬(¬{D} & {A}) -> ¬{C} sent3: ¬(¬{C} & ¬{A}) -> ¬{B} sent4: ¬{A} sent5: ¬{A} -> (¬{AA} v ¬{AB}) sent6: ¬{I} -> ({G} v {H}) sent7: {IA} sent8: {S} sent9: {IQ} sent10: ¬{H} -> ({F} & {G}) sent11: {F} -> (¬{D} & ¬{E}) sent12: {E} -> ¬(¬{D} & {A}) sent13: {F} -> {E} sent14: ¬{D} -> ¬(¬{C} & ¬{A}) sent15: ¬{JI}
|
[
"sent5 & sent4 -> int1: the precluding does not occur or the Post does not occur or both.;"
] |
[
"sent5 & sent4 -> int1: (¬{AA} v ¬{AB});"
] |
the waterspout does not occur.
|
¬{B}
|
[] | 9 | 2 | null | 12 | 0 | 12 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the waterspout occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Post does not occur then the fact that the waterspout occurs is right. sent2: if that both the non-catechisticness and the beautifulness occurs does not hold then the digitizing snorkeling does not occur. sent3: if the fact that the digitizing snorkeling does not occur and the beautifulness does not occur does not hold that the waterspout does not occur hold. sent4: the beautifulness does not occur. sent5: that the precluding does not occur and/or that the Post does not occur is triggered by that the beautifulness does not occur. sent6: that the aftercare does not occur yields either the admiralty or the cleaning Curtiss or both. sent7: the fulling ocean happens. sent8: the fact that the fulling bundle does not occur does not hold. sent9: the bombing occurs. sent10: both the magisterialness and the admiralty happens if the cleaning Curtiss does not occur. sent11: the catechisticness does not occur and the realisticness does not occur if the magisterialness occurs. sent12: if the realisticness happens that both the non-catechisticness and the beautifulness occurs is not true. sent13: if the magisterialness occurs then the realisticness happens. sent14: if the catechisticness does not occur then that the digitizing snorkeling does not occur and the beautifulness does not occur is wrong. sent15: the bossism does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 & sent4 -> int1: the precluding does not occur or the Post does not occur or both.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the butt-welding occurs.
|
{A}
|
sent1: if the butt-welding does not occur that both the non-downstreamness and the masking happens is not true. sent2: that the downstreamness occurs and the masking happens is incorrect. sent3: the washableness and the grossing happens.
|
sent1: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent2: ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent3: ({B} & {C})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the butt-welding does not occur.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: that the non-downstreamness and the masking occurs does not hold.; sent3 -> int2: the washableness happens.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ¬{A}; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}); sent3 -> int2: {B};"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 4 | null | 1 | 0 | 1 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the butt-welding occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the butt-welding does not occur that both the non-downstreamness and the masking happens is not true. sent2: that the downstreamness occurs and the masking happens is incorrect. sent3: the washableness and the grossing happens. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the butt-welding does not occur.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: that the non-downstreamness and the masking occurs does not hold.; sent3 -> int2: the washableness happens.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the spritzer does not clean Curtiss.
|
¬{D}{c}
|
sent1: something cleans Curtiss if it does digitize provision. sent2: if the fountainhead is not a Crucifixion the Antiguan is a kind of a Aramaic that digitizes provision. sent3: something is not a Crucifixion if it is Slavonic and does not adapt. sent4: if something does not digitize provision then it is a Aramaic. sent5: the fountainhead is not non-intensive. sent6: the spritzer is insectivorous if it cleans Curtiss. sent7: the Antiguan is a Aramaic. sent8: the fountainhead is Aramaic if the Antiguan is insectivorous. sent9: the fountainhead does digitize provision. sent10: the Antiguan is insectivorous. sent11: the spritzer digitizes provision if the fountainhead is a Aramaic. sent12: the fountainhead fends scrawniness. sent13: something does not clean Curtiss if that it is insectivorous and does clean Curtiss is not correct.
|
sent1: (x): {C}x -> {D}x sent2: ¬{E}{b} -> ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent3: (x): ({F}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{E}x sent4: (x): ¬{C}x -> {B}x sent5: {HH}{b} sent6: {D}{c} -> {A}{c} sent7: {B}{a} sent8: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent9: {C}{b} sent10: {A}{a} sent11: {B}{b} -> {C}{c} sent12: {AK}{b} sent13: (x): ¬({A}x & {D}x) -> ¬{D}x
|
[
"sent8 & sent10 -> int1: the fountainhead is a Aramaic.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: the spritzer does digitize provision.; sent1 -> int3: the spritzer cleans Curtiss if it digitizes provision.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 & sent10 -> int1: {B}{b}; int1 & sent11 -> int2: {C}{c}; sent1 -> int3: {C}{c} -> {D}{c}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the spritzer does not clean Curtiss.
|
¬{D}{c}
|
[
"sent13 -> int4: the fact that the spritzer does not clean Curtiss hold if the fact that it is insectivorous and does clean Curtiss is false.; sent3 -> int5: the fountainhead is not a kind of a Crucifixion if it is Slavonic and it does not adapt.;"
] | 7 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the spritzer does not clean Curtiss. ; $context$ = sent1: something cleans Curtiss if it does digitize provision. sent2: if the fountainhead is not a Crucifixion the Antiguan is a kind of a Aramaic that digitizes provision. sent3: something is not a Crucifixion if it is Slavonic and does not adapt. sent4: if something does not digitize provision then it is a Aramaic. sent5: the fountainhead is not non-intensive. sent6: the spritzer is insectivorous if it cleans Curtiss. sent7: the Antiguan is a Aramaic. sent8: the fountainhead is Aramaic if the Antiguan is insectivorous. sent9: the fountainhead does digitize provision. sent10: the Antiguan is insectivorous. sent11: the spritzer digitizes provision if the fountainhead is a Aramaic. sent12: the fountainhead fends scrawniness. sent13: something does not clean Curtiss if that it is insectivorous and does clean Curtiss is not correct. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 & sent10 -> int1: the fountainhead is a Aramaic.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: the spritzer does digitize provision.; sent1 -> int3: the spritzer cleans Curtiss if it digitizes provision.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there exists something such that if it does not clean reorganization then it is either not categorematic or not a nativist or both is not right.
|
¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x))
|
sent1: if the langlaufer is not a nativist it is not a Cariama and/or it is exculpatory. sent2: the langlaufer is not categorematic or it is not a nativist or both if the fact that it does not clean reorganization is right.
|
sent1: ¬{AB}{aa} -> (¬{IP}{aa} v {BQ}{aa}) sent2: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa})
|
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if it does not clean reorganization then it is either not categorematic or not a nativist or both is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: if the langlaufer is not a nativist it is not a Cariama and/or it is exculpatory. sent2: the langlaufer is not categorematic or it is not a nativist or both if the fact that it does not clean reorganization is right. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if that it is determinable but not provincial is not true it is not noncellular.
|
(Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
sent1: if the fact that the left is determinable thing that is not a provincial does not hold it is not noncellular. sent2: there is something such that if the fact that it is a smoker that is not a quetzal is not right then it does not blacken. sent3: there exists something such that if the fact that it is a tango and it is not a Goldwyn does not hold it is not unstoppable. sent4: if the fact that the left is a kind of a wardrobe that does not waive is incorrect it is not a nailbrush. sent5: if the fact that the left is a kind of determinable thing that is not radial-ply is wrong that it is a kind of a Goldwyn is right. sent6: if that the microbalance is a Intelnet but it is not a streptothricin is incorrect it is not a kind of a courage. sent7: there exists something such that if that it is a noose and it is non-pietistic is not correct then it does not fend Bombyx. sent8: there exists something such that if the fact that it liberates and it does ally does not hold then it is not a turquoise. sent9: if the fact that something is a wiggler and is not true-false is false then it is not urinary. sent10: if the left is catapultic it is non-supersonic. sent11: there exists something such that if it does not clean Fenusa it is not a wiggler. sent12: there is something such that if the fact that it is bistroic is right then it is not neuter. sent13: the meloid is not a kind of a hypertext if it is a provincial and it is not kinetic. sent14: if the fact that the left does digitize orchiopexy and does not full netting is not true it is not determinable. sent15: there exists something such that if the fact that it digitizes nainsook and it is not moderate is false then it is not a kind of a courage. sent16: there is something such that if that it is a hypertext and it is not mediatory is not true it is not internal. sent17: there is something such that if the fact that it is determinable and it is a provincial is not correct it is not noncellular.
|
sent1: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent2: (Ex): ¬({FK}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{CC}x sent3: (Ex): ¬({J}x & ¬{AC}x) -> ¬{DT}x sent4: ¬({FL}{aa} & ¬{IJ}{aa}) -> ¬{DR}{aa} sent5: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{CU}{aa}) -> {AC}{aa} sent6: ¬({EB}{ds} & ¬{EP}{ds}) -> ¬{II}{ds} sent7: (Ex): ¬({CH}x & ¬{FQ}x) -> ¬{A}x sent8: (Ex): ¬({DM}x & {IN}x) -> ¬{FG}x sent9: (x): ¬({BC}x & ¬{CT}x) -> ¬{BB}x sent10: {DL}{aa} -> ¬{FS}{aa} sent11: (Ex): ¬{R}x -> ¬{BC}x sent12: (Ex): {IT}x -> ¬{IG}x sent13: ({AB}{gf} & ¬{DG}{gf}) -> ¬{D}{gf} sent14: ¬({IK}{aa} & ¬{O}{aa}) -> ¬{AA}{aa} sent15: (Ex): ¬({GQ}x & ¬{BM}x) -> ¬{II}x sent16: (Ex): ¬({D}x & ¬{EH}x) -> ¬{H}x sent17: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there is something such that if the fact that it is a wiggler and it is not true-false is not true it is not urinary.
|
(Ex): ¬({BC}x & ¬{CT}x) -> ¬{BB}x
|
[
"sent9 -> int1: if the fact that the transom is a wiggler but it is not true-false is wrong it is non-urinary.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 16 | 0 | 16 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if that it is determinable but not provincial is not true it is not noncellular. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the left is determinable thing that is not a provincial does not hold it is not noncellular. sent2: there is something such that if the fact that it is a smoker that is not a quetzal is not right then it does not blacken. sent3: there exists something such that if the fact that it is a tango and it is not a Goldwyn does not hold it is not unstoppable. sent4: if the fact that the left is a kind of a wardrobe that does not waive is incorrect it is not a nailbrush. sent5: if the fact that the left is a kind of determinable thing that is not radial-ply is wrong that it is a kind of a Goldwyn is right. sent6: if that the microbalance is a Intelnet but it is not a streptothricin is incorrect it is not a kind of a courage. sent7: there exists something such that if that it is a noose and it is non-pietistic is not correct then it does not fend Bombyx. sent8: there exists something such that if the fact that it liberates and it does ally does not hold then it is not a turquoise. sent9: if the fact that something is a wiggler and is not true-false is false then it is not urinary. sent10: if the left is catapultic it is non-supersonic. sent11: there exists something such that if it does not clean Fenusa it is not a wiggler. sent12: there is something such that if the fact that it is bistroic is right then it is not neuter. sent13: the meloid is not a kind of a hypertext if it is a provincial and it is not kinetic. sent14: if the fact that the left does digitize orchiopexy and does not full netting is not true it is not determinable. sent15: there exists something such that if the fact that it digitizes nainsook and it is not moderate is false then it is not a kind of a courage. sent16: there is something such that if that it is a hypertext and it is not mediatory is not true it is not internal. sent17: there is something such that if the fact that it is determinable and it is a provincial is not correct it is not noncellular. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the jobcentre is not botryoid.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
sent1: the jobcentre does not splinter if something is a meow and it cleans jobcentre. sent2: if the loach does not clean jobcentre and it is not hydrographic then it is not a splinter. sent3: the streptolysin is symptomatic a goulash. sent4: if something is symptomatic thing that is a goulash the loach does meow. sent5: the jobcentre cleans jobcentre. sent6: if the jobcentre is a kind of non-hydrographic thing that is not botryoid then it is not a splinter. sent7: that the spiral does injure and it is a kind of a geneticist is not right. sent8: if something is not hydrographic it is a kind of a splinter and/or it is not botryoid. sent9: that if the jobcentre is not botryoid and is not the splinter then that the jobcentre is not hydrographic is correct is not wrong. sent10: the fact that the cornmeal is not a geneticist is true if that the spiral does injure and it is a geneticist is not right. sent11: the loach splinters if the jobcentre is not botryoid. sent12: the flask is not hydrographic. sent13: if the jobcentre is botryoid and it is hydrographic then the Achaean is not hydrographic. sent14: the loach does not clean jobcentre and it is not hydrographic.
|
sent1: (x): ({E}x & {D}x) -> ¬{B}{a} sent2: (¬{D}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent3: ({H}{e} & {G}{e}) sent4: (x): ({H}x & {G}x) -> {E}{b} sent5: {D}{a} sent6: (¬{C}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent7: ¬({I}{d} & {F}{d}) sent8: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x v ¬{A}x) sent9: (¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent10: ¬({I}{d} & {F}{d}) -> ¬{F}{c} sent11: ¬{A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent12: ¬{C}{dk} sent13: ({A}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{C}{fn} sent14: (¬{D}{b} & ¬{C}{b})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the jobcentre is not botryoid.; sent11 & assump1 -> int1: the loach is a kind of a splinter.; sent2 & sent14 -> int2: the loach is not a splinter.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ¬{A}{a}; sent11 & assump1 -> int1: {B}{b}; sent2 & sent14 -> int2: ¬{B}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the Achaean is not hydrographic.
|
¬{C}{fn}
|
[
"sent3 -> int4: there is something such that it is a kind of symptomatic a goulash.; int4 & sent4 -> int5: the loach is a meow.; sent10 & sent7 -> int6: the cornmeal is not a kind of a geneticist.; int6 -> int7: something is not a geneticist.;"
] | 8 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the jobcentre is not botryoid. ; $context$ = sent1: the jobcentre does not splinter if something is a meow and it cleans jobcentre. sent2: if the loach does not clean jobcentre and it is not hydrographic then it is not a splinter. sent3: the streptolysin is symptomatic a goulash. sent4: if something is symptomatic thing that is a goulash the loach does meow. sent5: the jobcentre cleans jobcentre. sent6: if the jobcentre is a kind of non-hydrographic thing that is not botryoid then it is not a splinter. sent7: that the spiral does injure and it is a kind of a geneticist is not right. sent8: if something is not hydrographic it is a kind of a splinter and/or it is not botryoid. sent9: that if the jobcentre is not botryoid and is not the splinter then that the jobcentre is not hydrographic is correct is not wrong. sent10: the fact that the cornmeal is not a geneticist is true if that the spiral does injure and it is a geneticist is not right. sent11: the loach splinters if the jobcentre is not botryoid. sent12: the flask is not hydrographic. sent13: if the jobcentre is botryoid and it is hydrographic then the Achaean is not hydrographic. sent14: the loach does not clean jobcentre and it is not hydrographic. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the jobcentre is not botryoid.; sent11 & assump1 -> int1: the loach is a kind of a splinter.; sent2 & sent14 -> int2: the loach is not a splinter.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that something shoves but it does not clean bronzed is not true.
|
¬((Ex): ({B}x & ¬{C}x))
|
sent1: if there exists something such that the fact that it fulls kitchen or is not a leucocytozoan or both does not hold then the ruralist is not a kip. sent2: something that is not a kip is a shove that does not clean bronzed. sent3: something that is a kind of a kip regulates and is not a kind of a feminine. sent4: that something does tailor and fends lucidity is correct. sent5: the ruralist does shove if it is not a kip. sent6: there exists something such that the fact that it does fend saucepot or it is not a swale or both is wrong. sent7: there exists something such that that it either fulls kitchen or is not a leucocytozoan or both is false.
|
sent1: (x): ¬({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({B}x & ¬{C}x) sent3: (x): {A}x -> ({DP}x & ¬{GC}x) sent4: (Ex): ({HA}x & {GS}x) sent5: ¬{A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent6: (Ex): ¬({GH}x v ¬{IL}x) sent7: (Ex): ¬({AA}x v ¬{AB}x)
|
[
"sent7 & sent1 -> int1: the fact that the ruralist is not a kip is right.; sent2 -> int2: the ruralist is a kind of a shove but it does not clean bronzed if it is not a kip.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the ruralist is a shove but it does not clean bronzed.; int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent7 & sent1 -> int1: ¬{A}{a}; sent2 -> int2: ¬{A}{a} -> ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); int1 & int2 -> int3: ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there exists something such that it does regulate and is not feminine.
|
(Ex): ({DP}x & ¬{GC}x)
|
[
"sent3 -> int4: that the ruralist regulates but it is not the feminine if the ruralist is a kind of a kip is correct.;"
] | 5 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that something shoves but it does not clean bronzed is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that the fact that it fulls kitchen or is not a leucocytozoan or both does not hold then the ruralist is not a kip. sent2: something that is not a kip is a shove that does not clean bronzed. sent3: something that is a kind of a kip regulates and is not a kind of a feminine. sent4: that something does tailor and fends lucidity is correct. sent5: the ruralist does shove if it is not a kip. sent6: there exists something such that the fact that it does fend saucepot or it is not a swale or both is wrong. sent7: there exists something such that that it either fulls kitchen or is not a leucocytozoan or both is false. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 & sent1 -> int1: the fact that the ruralist is not a kip is right.; sent2 -> int2: the ruralist is a kind of a shove but it does not clean bronzed if it is not a kip.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the ruralist is a shove but it does not clean bronzed.; int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the carillonneur does void and/or it cleans Chuvash.
|
({B}{b} v {C}{b})
|
sent1: the goal voids. sent2: The survivalist does fend wristwatch. sent3: the wristwatch does clean Chuvash or it does fend survivalist or both. sent4: the carillonneur fends survivalist. sent5: the phoebe is not a kind of a merit. sent6: something either does not clean Chuvash or fends survivalist or both if it fulls prefabrication. sent7: the carillonneur cleans Chuvash and/or it fends survivalist. sent8: the carillonneur does inspect if the wristwatch is a Mitchell but it does not clean racist. sent9: that the ND is not a kind of a Mitchell but it cleans racist does not hold if the phoebe is megakaryocytic. sent10: the wristwatch does fend survivalist. sent11: the wristwatch fends survivalist and/or does void. sent12: that the bouffant does not clean racist if there is something such that the fact that it is not a Mitchell and clean racist does not hold is right. sent13: the king voids. sent14: if that something fulls prefabrication and it inspects is incorrect it does not fend survivalist. sent15: the carillonneur fends survivalist if the wristwatch does clean Chuvash. sent16: that the phoebe is megakaryocytic hold if the fact that it is not a merit is not incorrect. sent17: if the carillonneur does fend survivalist then the wristwatch cleans Chuvash. sent18: the wristwatch is a kind of a void.
|
sent1: {B}{em} sent2: {AA}{aa} sent3: ({C}{a} v {A}{a}) sent4: {A}{b} sent5: ¬{I}{e} sent6: (x): {D}x -> (¬{C}x v {A}x) sent7: ({C}{b} v {A}{b}) sent8: ({G}{a} & ¬{F}{a}) -> {E}{b} sent9: {H}{e} -> ¬(¬{G}{d} & {F}{d}) sent10: {A}{a} sent11: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}) sent12: (x): ¬(¬{G}x & {F}x) -> ¬{F}{c} sent13: {B}{ee} sent14: (x): ¬({D}x & {E}x) -> ¬{A}x sent15: {C}{a} -> {A}{b} sent16: ¬{I}{e} -> {H}{e} sent17: {A}{b} -> {C}{a} sent18: {B}{a}
|
[] |
[] |
that the carillonneur is a kind of a void or it does clean Chuvash or both is not true.
|
¬({B}{b} v {C}{b})
|
[] | 4 | 2 | null | 17 | 0 | 17 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the carillonneur does void and/or it cleans Chuvash. ; $context$ = sent1: the goal voids. sent2: The survivalist does fend wristwatch. sent3: the wristwatch does clean Chuvash or it does fend survivalist or both. sent4: the carillonneur fends survivalist. sent5: the phoebe is not a kind of a merit. sent6: something either does not clean Chuvash or fends survivalist or both if it fulls prefabrication. sent7: the carillonneur cleans Chuvash and/or it fends survivalist. sent8: the carillonneur does inspect if the wristwatch is a Mitchell but it does not clean racist. sent9: that the ND is not a kind of a Mitchell but it cleans racist does not hold if the phoebe is megakaryocytic. sent10: the wristwatch does fend survivalist. sent11: the wristwatch fends survivalist and/or does void. sent12: that the bouffant does not clean racist if there is something such that the fact that it is not a Mitchell and clean racist does not hold is right. sent13: the king voids. sent14: if that something fulls prefabrication and it inspects is incorrect it does not fend survivalist. sent15: the carillonneur fends survivalist if the wristwatch does clean Chuvash. sent16: that the phoebe is megakaryocytic hold if the fact that it is not a merit is not incorrect. sent17: if the carillonneur does fend survivalist then the wristwatch cleans Chuvash. sent18: the wristwatch is a kind of a void. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the cleaning bugbear happens is not false.
|
{C}
|
sent1: the Buddhist and/or the nibbling occurs. sent2: the concretisticness does not occur if the fact that the fact that both the biogenicness and the fatality occurs is correct is not right. sent3: if the nibble occurs that the cleaning bugbear does not occur is true. sent4: if the concretisticness does not occur the pompousness does not occur but the craft happens. sent5: the rupestralness does not occur if the pavage does not occur but the fending anoa occurs. sent6: the antitypicness does not occur. sent7: if the fact that not the fireman but the federalness happens does not hold then the fireman occurs. sent8: if the pompousness does not occur then the nibbling does not occur. sent9: if the fending cumin occurs then the fact that the rosaceousness does not occur hold. sent10: the fact that not the fireman but the federalness happens is incorrect if the wipeout does not occur. sent11: if the fact that the Buddhist happens hold then the cleaning bugbear does not occur. sent12: the word does not occur. sent13: if the rupestralness does not occur then that the biogenicness and the fatality happens is wrong. sent14: not the pavage but the fending anoa happens if the fireman happens.
|
sent1: ({A} v {B}) sent2: ¬({H} & {G}) -> ¬{F} sent3: {B} -> ¬{C} sent4: ¬{F} -> (¬{D} & {E}) sent5: (¬{K} & {J}) -> ¬{I} sent6: ¬{EJ} sent7: ¬(¬{L} & {N}) -> {L} sent8: ¬{D} -> ¬{B} sent9: {BK} -> ¬{IT} sent10: ¬{M} -> ¬(¬{L} & {N}) sent11: {A} -> ¬{C} sent12: ¬{BE} sent13: ¬{I} -> ¬({H} & {G}) sent14: {L} -> (¬{K} & {J})
|
[
"sent1 & sent11 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 & sent11 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the cleaning bugbear occurs is true.
|
{C}
|
[] | 13 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the cleaning bugbear happens is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: the Buddhist and/or the nibbling occurs. sent2: the concretisticness does not occur if the fact that the fact that both the biogenicness and the fatality occurs is correct is not right. sent3: if the nibble occurs that the cleaning bugbear does not occur is true. sent4: if the concretisticness does not occur the pompousness does not occur but the craft happens. sent5: the rupestralness does not occur if the pavage does not occur but the fending anoa occurs. sent6: the antitypicness does not occur. sent7: if the fact that not the fireman but the federalness happens does not hold then the fireman occurs. sent8: if the pompousness does not occur then the nibbling does not occur. sent9: if the fending cumin occurs then the fact that the rosaceousness does not occur hold. sent10: the fact that not the fireman but the federalness happens is incorrect if the wipeout does not occur. sent11: if the fact that the Buddhist happens hold then the cleaning bugbear does not occur. sent12: the word does not occur. sent13: if the rupestralness does not occur then that the biogenicness and the fatality happens is wrong. sent14: not the pavage but the fending anoa happens if the fireman happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 & sent11 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the candytuft does not full Kuroshio but it is a female is wrong.
|
¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})
|
sent1: if the fact that the defecator is not a catalase but it does full Hokusai is wrong then it is non-female. sent2: that the candytuft does not fend spoonerism but it is a mildew is not right. sent3: the fact that the candytuft is both not a haunt and Orphic is false if it is non-thermodynamic. sent4: that the candytuft is not a stylist hold if it is not a cry. sent5: the candytuft is not bubonic. sent6: the fact that the fact that the candytuft does full Kuroshio and it is female is not true is not incorrect. sent7: the fact that the distortionist is not a stylist is not wrong. sent8: the defecator is not a female. sent9: if the fact that the candytuft does not cleave and is unchangeable does not hold it does not ankylose. sent10: that something does full Kuroshio and it is a kind of a female does not hold if it is not a stylist. sent11: that the candytuft does not fend spoonerism and is a postdoctoral does not hold. sent12: that that the coca is not nasopharyngeal but it does haunt is right is not correct if it is not unchangeable. sent13: if that the candytuft is not a haunt but it is microcosmic is incorrect then it is not a kind of a speculum. sent14: if the candytuft is not a stylist the fact that it fulls Kuroshio and it is a female does not hold. sent15: the fact that the penicillinase is not a rotenone but it is a haunt is not correct. sent16: something does not full Kuroshio and is female if the fact that it is a stylist is correct. sent17: if the fact that the acarid is not a kind of a tremor but it does full Colchicum does not hold then it does not fend defecator. sent18: the fact that the candytuft is both not a haunt and a cry is false. sent19: that the candytuft is not an internship but it is a female is not correct. sent20: if the candytuft is not a Capek then the fact that it is not a female and does fend crow does not hold. sent21: the candytuft does not full nylon if the fact that it does not full bundle and it is a kind of a Seaman does not hold. sent22: if that the candytuft is not a haunt and is a kind of a cry is not correct it is not a kind of a stylist.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{BL}{bl} & {DP}{bl}) -> ¬{AB}{bl} sent2: ¬(¬{BD}{aa} & {GB}{aa}) sent3: ¬{BP}{aa} -> ¬(¬{B}{aa} & {L}{aa}) sent4: ¬{C}{aa} -> ¬{A}{aa} sent5: ¬{DJ}{aa} sent6: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent7: ¬{A}{m} sent8: ¬{AB}{bl} sent9: ¬(¬{JD}{aa} & {AK}{aa}) -> ¬{U}{aa} sent10: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent11: ¬(¬{BD}{aa} & {DB}{aa}) sent12: ¬{AK}{be} -> ¬(¬{R}{be} & {B}{be}) sent13: ¬(¬{B}{aa} & {BF}{aa}) -> ¬{GA}{aa} sent14: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent15: ¬(¬{ES}{fh} & {B}{fh}) sent16: (x): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent17: ¬(¬{GG}{ib} & {JJ}{ib}) -> ¬{EQ}{ib} sent18: ¬(¬{B}{aa} & {C}{aa}) sent19: ¬(¬{CG}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent20: ¬{GL}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AB}{aa} & {FK}{aa}) sent21: ¬(¬{IS}{aa} & {CS}{aa}) -> ¬{FE}{aa} sent22: ¬(¬{B}{aa} & {C}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa}
|
[
"sent22 & sent18 -> int1: the candytuft is not a kind of a stylist.;"
] |
[
"sent22 & sent18 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa};"
] |
the candytuft does not full Kuroshio but it is a kind of a female.
|
(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})
|
[
"sent16 -> int2: the candytuft does not full Kuroshio but it is a female if it is a stylist.;"
] | 5 | 2 | null | 20 | 0 | 20 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the candytuft does not full Kuroshio but it is a female is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the defecator is not a catalase but it does full Hokusai is wrong then it is non-female. sent2: that the candytuft does not fend spoonerism but it is a mildew is not right. sent3: the fact that the candytuft is both not a haunt and Orphic is false if it is non-thermodynamic. sent4: that the candytuft is not a stylist hold if it is not a cry. sent5: the candytuft is not bubonic. sent6: the fact that the fact that the candytuft does full Kuroshio and it is female is not true is not incorrect. sent7: the fact that the distortionist is not a stylist is not wrong. sent8: the defecator is not a female. sent9: if the fact that the candytuft does not cleave and is unchangeable does not hold it does not ankylose. sent10: that something does full Kuroshio and it is a kind of a female does not hold if it is not a stylist. sent11: that the candytuft does not fend spoonerism and is a postdoctoral does not hold. sent12: that that the coca is not nasopharyngeal but it does haunt is right is not correct if it is not unchangeable. sent13: if that the candytuft is not a haunt but it is microcosmic is incorrect then it is not a kind of a speculum. sent14: if the candytuft is not a stylist the fact that it fulls Kuroshio and it is a female does not hold. sent15: the fact that the penicillinase is not a rotenone but it is a haunt is not correct. sent16: something does not full Kuroshio and is female if the fact that it is a stylist is correct. sent17: if the fact that the acarid is not a kind of a tremor but it does full Colchicum does not hold then it does not fend defecator. sent18: the fact that the candytuft is both not a haunt and a cry is false. sent19: that the candytuft is not an internship but it is a female is not correct. sent20: if the candytuft is not a Capek then the fact that it is not a female and does fend crow does not hold. sent21: the candytuft does not full nylon if the fact that it does not full bundle and it is a kind of a Seaman does not hold. sent22: if that the candytuft is not a haunt and is a kind of a cry is not correct it is not a kind of a stylist. ; $proof$ =
|
sent22 & sent18 -> int1: the candytuft is not a kind of a stylist.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the backslapper is not an ordinary.
|
¬{D}{a}
|
sent1: if there is something such that it is a Eurotium the fact that the Franklin is a kind of a Sweden and fends arthroscopy is false. sent2: the fanion is axiological. sent3: the fanion does shallow and/or it is not a Eurotium if it is axiological. sent4: if something is not non-phonetics but it is not a lidar then it is not a hem. sent5: that something hems but it is not a lidar does not hold if it is non-phonetics. sent6: if the fact that the acarid digitizes provision or is not a baddeleyite or both is not correct then the planthopper is not a kind of a viscus. sent7: if something does not fend arthroscopy that it is a kind of a Sweden does not hold. sent8: the backslapper is a loganberry that is a wormcast. sent9: if there exists something such that that it is a Sweden and does fend arthroscopy does not hold the backslapper is not charitable. sent10: if there exists something such that it is uncharitable the incubator is a kind of non-ordinary thing that does not clean Bannockburn. sent11: if something is a likelihood that the acarid does digitize provision and/or it is not a baddeleyite is incorrect. sent12: if the fanion is not a kind of a Eurotium the teaberry is not a Eurotium. sent13: the backslapper is not a kind of a Sweden if it is dyslexic and it is neuropsychological. sent14: the backslapper is an ordinary if it is not charitable and does not fend arthroscopy. sent15: that the backslapper is an ordinary hold if it is charitable thing that does not fend arthroscopy. sent16: the rasher is a kind of uncharitable thing that does not digitize rasher. sent17: there exists something such that it is a kind of a likelihood. sent18: the teaberry is not a Eurotium if the fanion does shallow. sent19: the fact that if the backslapper is not a kind of the Sweden then the backslapper is not charitable and it does not fend arthroscopy is not wrong. sent20: the backslapper is dyslexic and it is neuropsychological. sent21: the teaberry is phonetics and is not a lidar if the planthopper is not a viscus.
|
sent1: (x): {E}x -> ¬({B}{b} & {C}{b}) sent2: {K}{d} sent3: {K}{d} -> ({I}{d} v ¬{E}{d}) sent4: (x): ({H}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{F}x sent5: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬({F}x & ¬{G}x) sent6: ¬({L}{f} v ¬{M}{f}) -> ¬{J}{e} sent7: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬{B}x sent8: ({DF}{a} & {HD}{a}) sent9: (x): ¬({B}x & {C}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent10: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{D}{hm} & ¬{BC}{hm}) sent11: (x): {N}x -> ¬({L}{f} v ¬{M}{f}) sent12: ¬{E}{d} -> ¬{E}{c} sent13: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent14: (¬{A}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {D}{a} sent15: ({A}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {D}{a} sent16: (¬{A}{gd} & ¬{BR}{gd}) sent17: (Ex): {N}x sent18: {I}{d} -> ¬{E}{c} sent19: ¬{B}{a} -> (¬{A}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent20: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent21: ¬{J}{e} -> ({H}{c} & ¬{G}{c})
|
[
"sent13 & sent20 -> int1: the backslapper is not a Sweden.; int1 & sent19 -> int2: the backslapper is not charitable and it does not fend arthroscopy.; int2 & sent14 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent13 & sent20 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; int1 & sent19 -> int2: (¬{A}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); int2 & sent14 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the incubator is a kind of non-ordinary thing that does not clean Bannockburn.
|
(¬{D}{hm} & ¬{BC}{hm})
|
[
"sent5 -> int3: if the planthopper is not phonetics the fact that it is a hem and it is not a lidar does not hold.;"
] | 11 | 3 | 3 | 17 | 0 | 17 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the backslapper is not an ordinary. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that it is a Eurotium the fact that the Franklin is a kind of a Sweden and fends arthroscopy is false. sent2: the fanion is axiological. sent3: the fanion does shallow and/or it is not a Eurotium if it is axiological. sent4: if something is not non-phonetics but it is not a lidar then it is not a hem. sent5: that something hems but it is not a lidar does not hold if it is non-phonetics. sent6: if the fact that the acarid digitizes provision or is not a baddeleyite or both is not correct then the planthopper is not a kind of a viscus. sent7: if something does not fend arthroscopy that it is a kind of a Sweden does not hold. sent8: the backslapper is a loganberry that is a wormcast. sent9: if there exists something such that that it is a Sweden and does fend arthroscopy does not hold the backslapper is not charitable. sent10: if there exists something such that it is uncharitable the incubator is a kind of non-ordinary thing that does not clean Bannockburn. sent11: if something is a likelihood that the acarid does digitize provision and/or it is not a baddeleyite is incorrect. sent12: if the fanion is not a kind of a Eurotium the teaberry is not a Eurotium. sent13: the backslapper is not a kind of a Sweden if it is dyslexic and it is neuropsychological. sent14: the backslapper is an ordinary if it is not charitable and does not fend arthroscopy. sent15: that the backslapper is an ordinary hold if it is charitable thing that does not fend arthroscopy. sent16: the rasher is a kind of uncharitable thing that does not digitize rasher. sent17: there exists something such that it is a kind of a likelihood. sent18: the teaberry is not a Eurotium if the fanion does shallow. sent19: the fact that if the backslapper is not a kind of the Sweden then the backslapper is not charitable and it does not fend arthroscopy is not wrong. sent20: the backslapper is dyslexic and it is neuropsychological. sent21: the teaberry is phonetics and is not a lidar if the planthopper is not a viscus. ; $proof$ =
|
sent13 & sent20 -> int1: the backslapper is not a Sweden.; int1 & sent19 -> int2: the backslapper is not charitable and it does not fend arthroscopy.; int2 & sent14 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fulling Spock does not occur.
|
¬{A}
|
sent1: if the cowardliness happens and the gymnospermousness happens then the syndicating does not occur. sent2: that the salaaming happens is prevented by that the nonindulgentness happens but the completion does not occur. sent3: if the fact that the shucking does not occur is correct then not the fulling leatherback but the fulling Spock happens. sent4: if the praetorianness happens then the cowardliness happens. sent5: the fact that not the cleaning netting but the difficultness happens is not true if the auscultation does not occur. sent6: if that the fulling leatherback occurs is false then the algorithmicness and the fulling Spock happens. sent7: if the unmanliness occurs then the devolution does not occur and the defensiveness does not occur. sent8: if the fact that the shucking does not occur and/or the fulling leatherback happens is not right the fulling Spock does not occur. sent9: the fulling Spock occurs. sent10: the fact that that both the fulling leatherback and the shucking occurs is wrong is correct if the salaaming does not occur. sent11: the nonindulgentness but not the completion happens if the devolution does not occur. sent12: if that the difficultness does not occur hold then the no-goness happens and the praetorianness happens. sent13: if that not the cleaning netting but the difficultness occurs is false then the difficultness does not occur. sent14: if the fending correctness occurs then the unmanliness occurs. sent15: the auscultation does not occur. sent16: the fulling Spock does not occur if that the fact that both the fulling leatherback and the shucking happens is incorrect is correct. sent17: that the syndicate does not occur brings about that the fending correctness occurs and the fulling skycap happens. sent18: the defensive occurs. sent19: if the fact that not the fulling leatherback but the fulling Spock happens is not incorrect the nidifugousness occurs.
|
sent1: ({M} & {N}) -> ¬{L} sent2: ({F} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{D} sent3: ¬{C} -> (¬{B} & {A}) sent4: {O} -> {M} sent5: ¬{S} -> ¬(¬{R} & {Q}) sent6: ¬{B} -> ({BR} & {A}) sent7: {I} -> (¬{G} & ¬{H}) sent8: ¬(¬{C} v {B}) -> ¬{A} sent9: {A} sent10: ¬{D} -> ¬({B} & {C}) sent11: ¬{G} -> ({F} & ¬{E}) sent12: ¬{Q} -> ({P} & {O}) sent13: ¬(¬{R} & {Q}) -> ¬{Q} sent14: {J} -> {I} sent15: ¬{S} sent16: ¬({B} & {C}) -> ¬{A} sent17: ¬{L} -> ({J} & {K}) sent18: {H} sent19: (¬{B} & {A}) -> {BU}
|
[
"sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fulling Spock does not occur.
|
¬{A}
|
[
"sent5 & sent15 -> int1: that the cleaning netting does not occur and the difficultness happens is not true.; sent13 & int1 -> int2: the difficultness does not occur.; sent12 & int2 -> int3: the no-goness occurs and the praetorianness happens.; int3 -> int4: that the praetorianness occurs is not incorrect.; sent4 & int4 -> int5: the cowardliness occurs.;"
] | 16 | 1 | 0 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fulling Spock does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the cowardliness happens and the gymnospermousness happens then the syndicating does not occur. sent2: that the salaaming happens is prevented by that the nonindulgentness happens but the completion does not occur. sent3: if the fact that the shucking does not occur is correct then not the fulling leatherback but the fulling Spock happens. sent4: if the praetorianness happens then the cowardliness happens. sent5: the fact that not the cleaning netting but the difficultness happens is not true if the auscultation does not occur. sent6: if that the fulling leatherback occurs is false then the algorithmicness and the fulling Spock happens. sent7: if the unmanliness occurs then the devolution does not occur and the defensiveness does not occur. sent8: if the fact that the shucking does not occur and/or the fulling leatherback happens is not right the fulling Spock does not occur. sent9: the fulling Spock occurs. sent10: the fact that that both the fulling leatherback and the shucking occurs is wrong is correct if the salaaming does not occur. sent11: the nonindulgentness but not the completion happens if the devolution does not occur. sent12: if that the difficultness does not occur hold then the no-goness happens and the praetorianness happens. sent13: if that not the cleaning netting but the difficultness occurs is false then the difficultness does not occur. sent14: if the fending correctness occurs then the unmanliness occurs. sent15: the auscultation does not occur. sent16: the fulling Spock does not occur if that the fact that both the fulling leatherback and the shucking happens is incorrect is correct. sent17: that the syndicate does not occur brings about that the fending correctness occurs and the fulling skycap happens. sent18: the defensive occurs. sent19: if the fact that not the fulling leatherback but the fulling Spock happens is not incorrect the nidifugousness occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the initiative occurs.
|
{B}
|
sent1: the regretfulness happens. sent2: the fulling amphictyony occurs if the inactiveness does not occur. sent3: that the biogenicness occurs leads to that the unpublishableness does not occur or the fewerness does not occur or both. sent4: if the Coptic does not occur the sarcolemmicness but not the osculation happens. sent5: the digitizing booking occurs if the firestorm does not occur. sent6: the cleaning Chemakum occurs. sent7: if the centeredness does not occur then the ontogeneticness occurs and the deducing happens. sent8: the initiative is brought about by the non-cruciferousness. sent9: the initiative occurs if the lay-up does not occur. sent10: the fulling attribution happens. sent11: the registration happens. sent12: if the volumetricness does not occur then the precession happens. sent13: the fact that both the non-centeredness and the deducing happens is not right if the sarcolemmicness happens. sent14: the roundhouse occurs. sent15: if the ontogeneticness does not occur the fact that not the registration but the initiative occurs does not hold. sent16: the lay-up does not occur and/or the cruciferousness does not occur if the registration occurs. sent17: if the ontogeneticness happens not the initiative but the registration occurs. sent18: the fact that the cleaning timidity occurs is not wrong. sent19: the ontogeneticness does not occur if the fact that not the centering but the deducing occurs does not hold. sent20: the peninsularness does not occur and/or the questioning does not occur.
|
sent1: {EE} sent2: ¬{AC} -> {I} sent3: {T} -> (¬{AM} v ¬{DF}) sent4: ¬{H} -> ({F} & ¬{G}) sent5: ¬{CJ} -> {AE} sent6: {BF} sent7: ¬{E} -> ({C} & {D}) sent8: ¬{AB} -> {B} sent9: ¬{AA} -> {B} sent10: {N} sent11: {A} sent12: ¬{CL} -> {EP} sent13: {F} -> ¬(¬{E} & {D}) sent14: {HQ} sent15: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{A} & {B}) sent16: {A} -> (¬{AA} v ¬{AB}) sent17: {C} -> (¬{B} & {A}) sent18: {EU} sent19: ¬(¬{E} & {D}) -> ¬{C} sent20: (¬{BC} v ¬{DJ})
|
[
"sent16 & sent11 -> int1: either the lay-up does not occur or the cruciferousness does not occur or both.; int1 & sent9 & sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent16 & sent11 -> int1: (¬{AA} v ¬{AB}); int1 & sent9 & sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the initiative does not occur is not incorrect.
|
¬{B}
|
[] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 16 | 0 | 16 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the initiative occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the regretfulness happens. sent2: the fulling amphictyony occurs if the inactiveness does not occur. sent3: that the biogenicness occurs leads to that the unpublishableness does not occur or the fewerness does not occur or both. sent4: if the Coptic does not occur the sarcolemmicness but not the osculation happens. sent5: the digitizing booking occurs if the firestorm does not occur. sent6: the cleaning Chemakum occurs. sent7: if the centeredness does not occur then the ontogeneticness occurs and the deducing happens. sent8: the initiative is brought about by the non-cruciferousness. sent9: the initiative occurs if the lay-up does not occur. sent10: the fulling attribution happens. sent11: the registration happens. sent12: if the volumetricness does not occur then the precession happens. sent13: the fact that both the non-centeredness and the deducing happens is not right if the sarcolemmicness happens. sent14: the roundhouse occurs. sent15: if the ontogeneticness does not occur the fact that not the registration but the initiative occurs does not hold. sent16: the lay-up does not occur and/or the cruciferousness does not occur if the registration occurs. sent17: if the ontogeneticness happens not the initiative but the registration occurs. sent18: the fact that the cleaning timidity occurs is not wrong. sent19: the ontogeneticness does not occur if the fact that not the centering but the deducing occurs does not hold. sent20: the peninsularness does not occur and/or the questioning does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent16 & sent11 -> int1: either the lay-up does not occur or the cruciferousness does not occur or both.; int1 & sent9 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the ozonide does full ozonide and is a megalopolis is not right.
|
¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})
|
sent1: that something fulls ozonide and it is a kind of a megalopolis is not right if it is not zymotic. sent2: the tinsel is not an eccentric if something that is not a kind of a linoleum is a kind of a protractor. sent3: the ozonide is a kind of a trail or it is zymotic or both. sent4: the CO2 is eccentric and/or it does full ozonide. sent5: everything is not a linoleum and it is a protractor. sent6: the Bantu is zymotic and/or not unknowable. sent7: something is a trail and zymotic if it is not eccentric. sent8: if either the ozonide is a trail or it is not zymotic or both it is not zymotic. sent9: the ozonide trails and/or it is not zymotic.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent2: (x): (¬{E}x & {D}x) -> ¬{C}{a} sent3: ({B}{aa} v {A}{aa}) sent4: ({C}{b} v {AA}{b}) sent5: (x): (¬{E}x & {D}x) sent6: ({A}{el} v ¬{DQ}{el}) sent7: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) sent8: ({B}{aa} v ¬{A}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent9: ({B}{aa} v ¬{A}{aa})
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: that the ozonide does full ozonide and it is a megalopolis is false if it is not zymotic.; sent8 & sent9 -> int2: the ozonide is non-zymotic.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); sent8 & sent9 -> int2: ¬{A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the frappe does not full ozonide hold.
|
¬{AA}{hr}
|
[
"sent7 -> int3: the tinsel is a trail and it is zymotic if it is not an eccentric.; sent5 -> int4: the CO2 is not a linoleum and is a protractor.; int4 -> int5: there exists something such that it is not a linoleum and is a protractor.; int5 & sent2 -> int6: the tinsel is not an eccentric.; int3 & int6 -> int7: the tinsel is a trail and is zymotic.; int7 -> int8: the tinsel is zymotic.; int8 -> int9: something is zymotic.;"
] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 6 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the ozonide does full ozonide and is a megalopolis is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: that something fulls ozonide and it is a kind of a megalopolis is not right if it is not zymotic. sent2: the tinsel is not an eccentric if something that is not a kind of a linoleum is a kind of a protractor. sent3: the ozonide is a kind of a trail or it is zymotic or both. sent4: the CO2 is eccentric and/or it does full ozonide. sent5: everything is not a linoleum and it is a protractor. sent6: the Bantu is zymotic and/or not unknowable. sent7: something is a trail and zymotic if it is not eccentric. sent8: if either the ozonide is a trail or it is not zymotic or both it is not zymotic. sent9: the ozonide trails and/or it is not zymotic. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: that the ozonide does full ozonide and it is a megalopolis is false if it is not zymotic.; sent8 & sent9 -> int2: the ozonide is non-zymotic.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Turki is not unseamanlike.
|
¬{B}{aa}
|
sent1: the fact that the Turki does not fend lodging and fulls keystone does not hold. sent2: that the Turki does not full keystone and it is not a determent is wrong. sent3: if that the Turki is armless hold then that it does not fend lodging and does not full keystone is false. sent4: the Turki is not zoic if the fact that it is not a kind of a trope and is not unseamanlike is not correct. sent5: something that does not full barrenwort is quartzose and is armless. sent6: the fact that something is sericultural but not Tyrolean does not hold if it is a loyalist. sent7: if that something does not fend lodging and does not full keystone is wrong then the fact that it is seamanlike is not wrong. sent8: if the Turki is a stripe then that it is not a kind of an adrenal and it does not full keystone is incorrect. sent9: if there exists something such that the fact that it is sericultural and it is not Tyrolean is false the Father does not full barrenwort. sent10: that the Turki fends lodging but it does not full keystone is incorrect if it is armless. sent11: that the Turki does not fend lodging but it does full keystone is not true if it is armless. sent12: if that something is both non-titular and not Taoist is incorrect it is not a bast. sent13: something is not a bpm if the fact that it does not full Orion and it is not a kirpan is false. sent14: everything is a loyalist. sent15: the Turki does converge. sent16: the Turki is prudent. sent17: if that the Turki does not full maenad and it is not peptic does not hold the fact that it does not fend lodging is not wrong. sent18: the fact that the West does not clean remise and does not fend calciferol does not hold. sent19: the fact that the Turki does fend lodging and does not full keystone is not right. sent20: if that something is not a kind of a rent and does not digitize brachiopod is not true it does not full Orion.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent2: ¬(¬{AB}{aa} & ¬{DE}{aa}) sent3: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent4: ¬(¬{DB}{aa} & ¬{B}{aa}) -> ¬{IE}{aa} sent5: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({C}x & {A}x) sent6: (x): {G}x -> ¬({F}x & ¬{E}x) sent7: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent8: {CF}{aa} -> ¬(¬{GR}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent9: (x): ¬({F}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{D}{a} sent10: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent11: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent12: (x): ¬(¬{FC}x & ¬{ES}x) -> ¬{GJ}x sent13: (x): ¬(¬{CE}x & ¬{HE}x) -> ¬{GK}x sent14: (x): {G}x sent15: {IM}{aa} sent16: ¬{ER}{aa} sent17: ¬(¬{ET}{aa} & ¬{DN}{aa}) -> ¬{AA}{aa} sent18: ¬(¬{DS}{ir} & ¬{CB}{ir}) sent19: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent20: (x): ¬(¬{BF}x & ¬{IH}x) -> ¬{CE}x
|
[
"sent7 -> int1: if that the Turki does not fend lodging and does not full keystone is incorrect it is not unseamanlike.;"
] |
[
"sent7 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa};"
] |
the Turki is unseamanlike.
|
{B}{aa}
|
[
"sent6 -> int2: the fact that the barrenwort is sericultural thing that is non-Tyrolean does not hold if it is a kind of a loyalist.; sent14 -> int3: the barrenwort is a loyalist.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the fact that the barrenwort is sericultural but it is not a Tyrolean is incorrect.; int4 -> int5: there is nothing that is both not non-sericultural and not a Tyrolean.; int5 -> int6: that the mayfly is sericultural and is not a kind of a Tyrolean is not true.; int6 -> int7: there is something such that the fact that it is sericultural and is not Tyrolean is not correct.; sent9 & int7 -> int8: the Father does not full barrenwort.; sent5 -> int9: if the Father does not full barrenwort it is quartzose and it is armless.; int8 & int9 -> int10: the Father is quartzose and it is armless.; int10 -> int11: the Father is armless.; int11 -> int12: there is something such that it is armless.;"
] | 10 | 2 | null | 18 | 0 | 18 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the Turki is not unseamanlike. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the Turki does not fend lodging and fulls keystone does not hold. sent2: that the Turki does not full keystone and it is not a determent is wrong. sent3: if that the Turki is armless hold then that it does not fend lodging and does not full keystone is false. sent4: the Turki is not zoic if the fact that it is not a kind of a trope and is not unseamanlike is not correct. sent5: something that does not full barrenwort is quartzose and is armless. sent6: the fact that something is sericultural but not Tyrolean does not hold if it is a loyalist. sent7: if that something does not fend lodging and does not full keystone is wrong then the fact that it is seamanlike is not wrong. sent8: if the Turki is a stripe then that it is not a kind of an adrenal and it does not full keystone is incorrect. sent9: if there exists something such that the fact that it is sericultural and it is not Tyrolean is false the Father does not full barrenwort. sent10: that the Turki fends lodging but it does not full keystone is incorrect if it is armless. sent11: that the Turki does not fend lodging but it does full keystone is not true if it is armless. sent12: if that something is both non-titular and not Taoist is incorrect it is not a bast. sent13: something is not a bpm if the fact that it does not full Orion and it is not a kirpan is false. sent14: everything is a loyalist. sent15: the Turki does converge. sent16: the Turki is prudent. sent17: if that the Turki does not full maenad and it is not peptic does not hold the fact that it does not fend lodging is not wrong. sent18: the fact that the West does not clean remise and does not fend calciferol does not hold. sent19: the fact that the Turki does fend lodging and does not full keystone is not right. sent20: if that something is not a kind of a rent and does not digitize brachiopod is not true it does not full Orion. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 -> int1: if that the Turki does not fend lodging and does not full keystone is incorrect it is not unseamanlike.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it does not clean curved then it is non-calyculate an input.
|
(Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x)
|
sent1: the Igbo is an input if it does not clean curved. sent2: there exists something such that if it does not clean curved the fact that it is not calyculate is not false. sent3: there is something such that if it does not clean curved it is calyculate and is a kind of an input. sent4: something is not an overflow and does clean curved if it is not a tilefish. sent5: there exists something such that if it does clean curved it is not calyculate and is an input. sent6: that if the Igbo does not clean curved then the Igbo is calyculate and it is an input hold. sent7: there exists something such that if it does not clean intercommunication then that it is a kind of a Alsace is not incorrect. sent8: if the fencing is not a Saxon it does not fend segregate and it is an input. sent9: there exists something such that if it is not a glauconite then it does awe and is a kind of a mapping. sent10: if the Igbo does not clean curved it is not calyculate and it is an input. sent11: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a schematic the fact that it does not digitize rupee is true. sent12: there is something such that if it does not clean curved then it inputs. sent13: the Igbo is a kind of non-calyculate thing that does input if it does clean curved. sent14: something is not a Catalan but it is a kind of a Paxton if it does not steer.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{aa} -> {AB}{aa} sent2: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬{AA}x sent3: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent4: (x): ¬{DJ}x -> (¬{JC}x & {A}x) sent5: (Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent6: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent7: (Ex): ¬{Q}x -> {FI}x sent8: ¬{C}{an} -> (¬{EG}{an} & {AB}{an}) sent9: (Ex): ¬{BC}x -> ({BA}x & {EN}x) sent10: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent11: (Ex): ¬{CJ}x -> ¬{AQ}x sent12: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> {AB}x sent13: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent14: (x): ¬{IA}x -> (¬{EC}x & {GR}x)
|
[
"sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there exists something such that if it does not steer it is not a kind of a Catalan and it is a Paxton.
|
(Ex): ¬{IA}x -> (¬{EC}x & {GR}x)
|
[
"sent14 -> int1: the West is not a Catalan and is a Paxton if it does not steer.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it does not clean curved then it is non-calyculate an input. ; $context$ = sent1: the Igbo is an input if it does not clean curved. sent2: there exists something such that if it does not clean curved the fact that it is not calyculate is not false. sent3: there is something such that if it does not clean curved it is calyculate and is a kind of an input. sent4: something is not an overflow and does clean curved if it is not a tilefish. sent5: there exists something such that if it does clean curved it is not calyculate and is an input. sent6: that if the Igbo does not clean curved then the Igbo is calyculate and it is an input hold. sent7: there exists something such that if it does not clean intercommunication then that it is a kind of a Alsace is not incorrect. sent8: if the fencing is not a Saxon it does not fend segregate and it is an input. sent9: there exists something such that if it is not a glauconite then it does awe and is a kind of a mapping. sent10: if the Igbo does not clean curved it is not calyculate and it is an input. sent11: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a schematic the fact that it does not digitize rupee is true. sent12: there is something such that if it does not clean curved then it inputs. sent13: the Igbo is a kind of non-calyculate thing that does input if it does clean curved. sent14: something is not a Catalan but it is a kind of a Paxton if it does not steer. ; $proof$ =
|
sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the digitizing fecula does not occur.
|
¬{C}
|
sent1: the tremoring happens if the fact that the fending audiogram does not occur and the fending Festuca does not occur is not true. sent2: the fact that the episiotomy does not occur and the IVP does not occur is not true if the predestinarianness happens. sent3: if the tremor happens then the fact that both the non-eudemonicness and the succussion occurs is false. sent4: that the fact that the sickening and the decolonization occurs is false hold if the rigmarole does not occur. sent5: both the predestinarianness and the indelicateness occurs if that the frontal does not occur is right. sent6: that the jackknife does not occur hold. sent7: the cleaning devoutness occurs. sent8: if that the monopsony does not occur is not wrong then the fact that the fending audiogram does not occur and the fending Festuca does not occur does not hold. sent9: the succussion occurs. sent10: the preliminary does not occur if the fact that the episiotomy does not occur and the IVP does not occur is not true. sent11: the fulling broadloom does not occur. sent12: the fact that the Assault does not occur is correct if that the sickening happens and the decolonization occurs does not hold. sent13: if the fact that the monopsony occurs and the vocalicness happens is incorrect then the monopsony does not occur. sent14: if the Assault does not occur the fact that the monopsony occurs and the vocalicness happens does not hold. sent15: the cleaning stamina happens. sent16: the eudemonicness occurs. sent17: the fulling witchcraft occurs. sent18: if that the fulling clouded does not occur and/or the uniform does not occur is false then the frontal does not occur. sent19: the flanking does not occur. sent20: if the fact that the rigmarole occurs and the fulling forgiveness occurs does not hold then that the rigmarole does not occur hold. sent21: if the fact that the preliminary does not occur hold that both the rigmarole and the fulling forgiveness happens is not correct.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{E} & ¬{F}) -> {D} sent2: {Q} -> ¬(¬{P} & ¬{O}) sent3: {D} -> ¬(¬{A} & {B}) sent4: ¬{L} -> ¬({J} & {K}) sent5: ¬{S} -> ({Q} & {R}) sent6: ¬{DD} sent7: {IM} sent8: ¬{G} -> ¬(¬{E} & ¬{F}) sent9: {B} sent10: ¬(¬{P} & ¬{O}) -> ¬{N} sent11: ¬{HD} sent12: ¬({J} & {K}) -> ¬{H} sent13: ¬({G} & {I}) -> ¬{G} sent14: ¬{H} -> ¬({G} & {I}) sent15: {DB} sent16: {A} sent17: {CA} sent18: ¬(¬{T} v ¬{U}) -> ¬{S} sent19: ¬{IC} sent20: ¬({L} & {M}) -> ¬{L} sent21: ¬{N} -> ¬({L} & {M})
|
[
"sent16 & sent9 -> int1: the eudemonicness happens and the succussion occurs.;"
] |
[
"sent16 & sent9 -> int1: ({A} & {B});"
] |
the digitizing fecula happens.
|
{C}
|
[] | 18 | 2 | null | 19 | 0 | 19 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the digitizing fecula does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the tremoring happens if the fact that the fending audiogram does not occur and the fending Festuca does not occur is not true. sent2: the fact that the episiotomy does not occur and the IVP does not occur is not true if the predestinarianness happens. sent3: if the tremor happens then the fact that both the non-eudemonicness and the succussion occurs is false. sent4: that the fact that the sickening and the decolonization occurs is false hold if the rigmarole does not occur. sent5: both the predestinarianness and the indelicateness occurs if that the frontal does not occur is right. sent6: that the jackknife does not occur hold. sent7: the cleaning devoutness occurs. sent8: if that the monopsony does not occur is not wrong then the fact that the fending audiogram does not occur and the fending Festuca does not occur does not hold. sent9: the succussion occurs. sent10: the preliminary does not occur if the fact that the episiotomy does not occur and the IVP does not occur is not true. sent11: the fulling broadloom does not occur. sent12: the fact that the Assault does not occur is correct if that the sickening happens and the decolonization occurs does not hold. sent13: if the fact that the monopsony occurs and the vocalicness happens is incorrect then the monopsony does not occur. sent14: if the Assault does not occur the fact that the monopsony occurs and the vocalicness happens does not hold. sent15: the cleaning stamina happens. sent16: the eudemonicness occurs. sent17: the fulling witchcraft occurs. sent18: if that the fulling clouded does not occur and/or the uniform does not occur is false then the frontal does not occur. sent19: the flanking does not occur. sent20: if the fact that the rigmarole occurs and the fulling forgiveness occurs does not hold then that the rigmarole does not occur hold. sent21: if the fact that the preliminary does not occur hold that both the rigmarole and the fulling forgiveness happens is not correct. ; $proof$ =
|
sent16 & sent9 -> int1: the eudemonicness happens and the succussion occurs.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the second-in-command is a kind of an oral is not incorrect.
|
{C}{a}
|
sent1: if that something is a skimming and not a standardization is not true it does clean Tosk. sent2: the second-in-command cleans auspice if the carafe does cleans auspice. sent3: the fact that the whitetail does skim and is not a kind of a ullage is false. sent4: the navigator is a ullage. sent5: if the fact that something does not pant-hoot and it does not clean auspice does not hold then it is an oral. sent6: if something does clean auspice then the carafe does pant-hoot. sent7: if the partridge is a kind of an oral then it fends ortygan. sent8: the fact that the Coigue does not pant-hoot but it is an oral is not correct if the second-in-command does clean auspice. sent9: the dalmatian is not a skimming if there exists something such that that it does skimming and is not a ullage is incorrect. sent10: if something does not skim that it is a kind of a agglutinogen and it does not clean Tosk is not right. sent11: the navigator cleans auspice if there exists something such that the fact that it is a agglutinogen and it does not clean Tosk is wrong. sent12: if something does full second-in-command it is a kind of a Polish. sent13: the second-in-command does pant-hoot. sent14: if the navigator is a ullage then that it is a skimming that is not a kind of a standardization is not true. sent15: the second-in-command is both non-macrobiotic and not a trembles.
|
sent1: (x): ¬({F}x & ¬{G}x) -> {E}x sent2: {B}{b} -> {B}{a} sent3: ¬({F}{e} & ¬{H}{e}) sent4: {H}{c} sent5: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) -> {C}x sent6: (x): {B}x -> {A}{b} sent7: {C}{ab} -> {AN}{ab} sent8: {B}{a} -> ¬(¬{A}{ap} & {C}{ap}) sent9: (x): ¬({F}x & ¬{H}x) -> ¬{F}{d} sent10: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬({D}x & ¬{E}x) sent11: (x): ¬({D}x & ¬{E}x) -> {B}{c} sent12: (x): {FO}x -> {AR}x sent13: {A}{a} sent14: {H}{c} -> ¬({F}{c} & ¬{G}{c}) sent15: (¬{IC}{a} & ¬{AQ}{a})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the second-in-command does not pant-hoot and it does not clean auspice.; assump1 -> int1: the second-in-command does not pant-hoot.; int1 & sent13 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: that the second-in-command does not pant-hoot and does not clean auspice is wrong.; sent5 -> int4: if the fact that the second-in-command does not pant-hoot and it does not clean auspice is not correct it is an oral.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: (¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}); assump1 -> int1: ¬{A}{a}; int1 & sent13 -> int2: #F#; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: ¬(¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}); sent5 -> int4: ¬(¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> {C}{a}; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the Coigue pant-hoots.
|
{A}{ap}
|
[
"sent1 -> int5: if the fact that the navigator is a skimming but it is not a standardization does not hold then that it does clean Tosk hold.; sent14 & sent4 -> int6: that the fact that the navigator is both a skimming and not a standardization is not true is not false.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the navigator cleans Tosk.; int7 -> int8: there exists something such that it cleans Tosk.;"
] | 8 | 3 | 3 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the second-in-command is a kind of an oral is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something is a skimming and not a standardization is not true it does clean Tosk. sent2: the second-in-command cleans auspice if the carafe does cleans auspice. sent3: the fact that the whitetail does skim and is not a kind of a ullage is false. sent4: the navigator is a ullage. sent5: if the fact that something does not pant-hoot and it does not clean auspice does not hold then it is an oral. sent6: if something does clean auspice then the carafe does pant-hoot. sent7: if the partridge is a kind of an oral then it fends ortygan. sent8: the fact that the Coigue does not pant-hoot but it is an oral is not correct if the second-in-command does clean auspice. sent9: the dalmatian is not a skimming if there exists something such that that it does skimming and is not a ullage is incorrect. sent10: if something does not skim that it is a kind of a agglutinogen and it does not clean Tosk is not right. sent11: the navigator cleans auspice if there exists something such that the fact that it is a agglutinogen and it does not clean Tosk is wrong. sent12: if something does full second-in-command it is a kind of a Polish. sent13: the second-in-command does pant-hoot. sent14: if the navigator is a ullage then that it is a skimming that is not a kind of a standardization is not true. sent15: the second-in-command is both non-macrobiotic and not a trembles. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the second-in-command does not pant-hoot and it does not clean auspice.; assump1 -> int1: the second-in-command does not pant-hoot.; int1 & sent13 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: that the second-in-command does not pant-hoot and does not clean auspice is wrong.; sent5 -> int4: if the fact that the second-in-command does not pant-hoot and it does not clean auspice is not correct it is an oral.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the irregularity does not occur is not false.
|
¬{B}
|
sent1: that the vaporization does not occur if that either the fulling Sternotherus does not occur or the simoom does not occur or both is false is not wrong. sent2: the fending lodging does not occur. sent3: if the fact that the distribution does not occur is not wrong then the ocularness occurs. sent4: if that the ocularness does not occur or the Oblation does not occur or both is incorrect then the irregularity does not occur. sent5: that the fending greengrocery does not occur and the cleaning Yemeni happens prevents the non-motivationalness. sent6: if the fact that the distribution does not occur or the irregularity does not occur or both is not right then the refraining does not occur. sent7: if that the fact that either the ocularness happens or the Oblation does not occur or both is not true is not incorrect then the irregularity does not occur. sent8: if the fluoridation does not occur the distribution and the deserts happens. sent9: the irregularity happens if the distribution occurs. sent10: if the deserting does not occur that that the distribution does not occur and/or the irregularity does not occur does not hold is not wrong. sent11: that the felineness does not occur or the tossup does not occur or both is wrong. sent12: the ending does not occur. sent13: the cleaning sourdough does not occur. sent14: if the Georgianness happens not the fending greengrocery but the cleaning Yemeni occurs. sent15: the distribution does not occur. sent16: if the distribution does not occur then that the ocularness does not occur or the Oblation does not occur or both is wrong. sent17: the intercourse does not occur. sent18: the ocularness occurs. sent19: the digitizing protestation does not occur. sent20: if the motivationalness occurs the fluoridation does not occur and the anagrammaticness does not occur. sent21: if the lindy does not occur that the fulling quietness does not occur or the Siberian does not occur or both is not true.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{DO} v ¬{AM}) -> ¬{ER} sent2: ¬{ID} sent3: ¬{A} -> {AA} sent4: ¬(¬{AA} v ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent5: (¬{G} & {H}) -> {F} sent6: ¬(¬{A} v ¬{B}) -> ¬{GN} sent7: ¬({AA} v ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent8: ¬{D} -> ({A} & {C}) sent9: {A} -> {B} sent10: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{A} v ¬{B}) sent11: ¬(¬{IQ} v ¬{IK}) sent12: ¬{GA} sent13: ¬{HA} sent14: {I} -> (¬{G} & {H}) sent15: ¬{A} sent16: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{AA} v ¬{AB}) sent17: ¬{HQ} sent18: {AA} sent19: ¬{BT} sent20: {F} -> (¬{D} & ¬{E}) sent21: ¬{JA} -> ¬(¬{BJ} v ¬{DR})
|
[
"sent16 & sent15 -> int1: that the ocularness does not occur and/or the Oblation does not occur is false.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent16 & sent15 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA} v ¬{AB}); sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the irregularity happens.
|
{B}
|
[] | 10 | 2 | 2 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the irregularity does not occur is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: that the vaporization does not occur if that either the fulling Sternotherus does not occur or the simoom does not occur or both is false is not wrong. sent2: the fending lodging does not occur. sent3: if the fact that the distribution does not occur is not wrong then the ocularness occurs. sent4: if that the ocularness does not occur or the Oblation does not occur or both is incorrect then the irregularity does not occur. sent5: that the fending greengrocery does not occur and the cleaning Yemeni happens prevents the non-motivationalness. sent6: if the fact that the distribution does not occur or the irregularity does not occur or both is not right then the refraining does not occur. sent7: if that the fact that either the ocularness happens or the Oblation does not occur or both is not true is not incorrect then the irregularity does not occur. sent8: if the fluoridation does not occur the distribution and the deserts happens. sent9: the irregularity happens if the distribution occurs. sent10: if the deserting does not occur that that the distribution does not occur and/or the irregularity does not occur does not hold is not wrong. sent11: that the felineness does not occur or the tossup does not occur or both is wrong. sent12: the ending does not occur. sent13: the cleaning sourdough does not occur. sent14: if the Georgianness happens not the fending greengrocery but the cleaning Yemeni occurs. sent15: the distribution does not occur. sent16: if the distribution does not occur then that the ocularness does not occur or the Oblation does not occur or both is wrong. sent17: the intercourse does not occur. sent18: the ocularness occurs. sent19: the digitizing protestation does not occur. sent20: if the motivationalness occurs the fluoridation does not occur and the anagrammaticness does not occur. sent21: if the lindy does not occur that the fulling quietness does not occur or the Siberian does not occur or both is not true. ; $proof$ =
|
sent16 & sent15 -> int1: that the ocularness does not occur and/or the Oblation does not occur is false.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Guaiacum is a pirate.
|
{C}{aa}
|
sent1: there exists something such that that it does not full teredo and does not clean Palestinian does not hold. sent2: if the teredo is not a Disneyland the Guaiacum is a kind of a legislator. sent3: something that is not hymenopterous is a kind of a pirate. sent4: there exists something such that it does not full hemorrhoid and is not a Disneyland. sent5: the weekly does full microsporidian. sent6: if there is something such that the fact that it does not full hemorrhoid and it is not a Disneyland is wrong the Guaiacum is not hymenopterous. sent7: there exists something such that that it does not full hemorrhoid and it is a Disneyland does not hold. sent8: something is not a Disneyland and/or is hymenopterous if it is not a kind of a pirate. sent9: there is something such that the fact that it does not full hemorrhoid and it is not a Disneyland does not hold. sent10: if there is something such that it fulls hemorrhoid then the Guaiacum is not hymenopterous. sent11: if the fact that the abdomen does not full hemorrhoid is correct then the fact that the teredo is hymenopterous and it is a kind of a Disneyland is wrong. sent12: if the weekly fulls microsporidian then the toxicognath is a kind of a shirtsleeve.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬(¬{CR}x & ¬{HA}x) sent2: ¬{A}{a} -> {GI}{aa} sent3: (x): ¬{B}x -> {C}x sent4: (Ex): (¬{D}x & ¬{A}x) sent5: {H}{e} sent6: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent7: (Ex): ¬(¬{D}x & {A}x) sent8: (x): ¬{C}x -> (¬{A}x v {B}x) sent9: (Ex): ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{A}x) sent10: (x): {D}x -> ¬{B}{aa} sent11: ¬{D}{b} -> ¬({B}{a} & {A}{a}) sent12: {H}{e} -> {G}{d}
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: if the Guaiacum is not hymenopterous then it is a pirate.; sent9 & sent6 -> int2: the Guaiacum is not hymenopterous.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> int1: ¬{B}{aa} -> {C}{aa}; sent9 & sent6 -> int2: ¬{B}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the Guaiacum does not pirate.
|
¬{C}{aa}
|
[
"sent12 & sent5 -> int3: the toxicognath is a shirtsleeve.; int3 -> int4: there is something such that it is a shirtsleeve.;"
] | 8 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the Guaiacum is a pirate. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that that it does not full teredo and does not clean Palestinian does not hold. sent2: if the teredo is not a Disneyland the Guaiacum is a kind of a legislator. sent3: something that is not hymenopterous is a kind of a pirate. sent4: there exists something such that it does not full hemorrhoid and is not a Disneyland. sent5: the weekly does full microsporidian. sent6: if there is something such that the fact that it does not full hemorrhoid and it is not a Disneyland is wrong the Guaiacum is not hymenopterous. sent7: there exists something such that that it does not full hemorrhoid and it is a Disneyland does not hold. sent8: something is not a Disneyland and/or is hymenopterous if it is not a kind of a pirate. sent9: there is something such that the fact that it does not full hemorrhoid and it is not a Disneyland does not hold. sent10: if there is something such that it fulls hemorrhoid then the Guaiacum is not hymenopterous. sent11: if the fact that the abdomen does not full hemorrhoid is correct then the fact that the teredo is hymenopterous and it is a kind of a Disneyland is wrong. sent12: if the weekly fulls microsporidian then the toxicognath is a kind of a shirtsleeve. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> int1: if the Guaiacum is not hymenopterous then it is a pirate.; sent9 & sent6 -> int2: the Guaiacum is not hymenopterous.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the pipefish is not a cosmolatry.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
sent1: something is a Irelander and/or not singles. sent2: either something is a parallel or it is a chop or both. sent3: the pipefish is not a kind of a cosmolatry if there is something such that it is a Irelander and/or is not singles.
|
sent1: (Ex): ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent2: (Ex): ({FB}x v {IJ}x) sent3: (x): ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a}
|
[
"sent1 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the pipefish is not a cosmolatry. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a Irelander and/or not singles. sent2: either something is a parallel or it is a chop or both. sent3: the pipefish is not a kind of a cosmolatry if there is something such that it is a Irelander and/or is not singles. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the cleaning filmdom does not occur.
|
¬{C}
|
sent1: the cleaning filmdom is brought about by the phocineness. sent2: both the phocineness and the fartlek occurs. sent3: the fartlek happens. sent4: both the comparing and the Senegalese occurs.
|
sent1: {A} -> {C} sent2: ({A} & {B}) sent3: {B} sent4: ({FB} & {AU})
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: the phocineness occurs.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> int1: {A}; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the cleaning filmdom does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the cleaning filmdom is brought about by the phocineness. sent2: both the phocineness and the fartlek occurs. sent3: the fartlek happens. sent4: both the comparing and the Senegalese occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> int1: the phocineness occurs.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the ponderosa is a kind of a union and is not a Eriophorum does not hold.
|
¬({A}{b} & ¬{C}{b})
|
sent1: there are allographic and non-infinite things. sent2: there is something such that that it is allographic and is infinite does not hold. sent3: that something is both unshapely and union is true if it is not a kind of a cetrimide. sent4: something is both a Eriophorum and not union. sent5: if the Yemeni is not sociological the fact that the Canaanite does clean Liverpudlian and it is a cetrimide is not correct. sent6: if that the Canaanite is a kind of a union is wrong that the ponderosa is a union but it is not a Eriophorum is wrong. sent7: there exists something such that that the fact that it is allographic and it is not infinite hold is wrong. sent8: that that the ponderosa is a union that is a Eriophorum is not incorrect does not hold. sent9: if something is not a union but it is unshapely then it is finite. sent10: if the ponderosa is not a union then the fact that the Canaanite is a union but it is not a Eriophorum does not hold. sent11: that if the ponderosa is not union that the Canaanite is a union and is a Eriophorum does not hold hold. sent12: there exists something such that that it is a Eriophorum and a union is not true. sent13: the Canaanite is not a kind of a union if something is infinite. sent14: if there is something such that that it is a kind of allographic thing that is not infinite does not hold then the Canaanite is not union.
|
sent1: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent2: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) sent4: (Ex): ({C}x & ¬{A}x) sent5: ¬{E}{c} -> ¬({F}{a} & {D}{a}) sent6: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent7: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent8: ¬({A}{b} & {C}{b}) sent9: (x): (¬{A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{AB}x sent10: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬({A}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent11: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬({A}{a} & {C}{a}) sent12: (Ex): ¬({C}x & {A}x) sent13: (x): {AB}x -> ¬{A}{a} sent14: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a}
|
[
"sent7 & sent14 -> int1: that the Canaanite is not a kind of a union is not wrong.; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent7 & sent14 -> int1: ¬{A}{a}; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the ponderosa is union and not a Eriophorum.
|
({A}{b} & ¬{C}{b})
|
[
"sent3 -> int2: the ponderosa is unshapely and it is union if it is not a cetrimide.;"
] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the ponderosa is a kind of a union and is not a Eriophorum does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there are allographic and non-infinite things. sent2: there is something such that that it is allographic and is infinite does not hold. sent3: that something is both unshapely and union is true if it is not a kind of a cetrimide. sent4: something is both a Eriophorum and not union. sent5: if the Yemeni is not sociological the fact that the Canaanite does clean Liverpudlian and it is a cetrimide is not correct. sent6: if that the Canaanite is a kind of a union is wrong that the ponderosa is a union but it is not a Eriophorum is wrong. sent7: there exists something such that that the fact that it is allographic and it is not infinite hold is wrong. sent8: that that the ponderosa is a union that is a Eriophorum is not incorrect does not hold. sent9: if something is not a union but it is unshapely then it is finite. sent10: if the ponderosa is not a union then the fact that the Canaanite is a union but it is not a Eriophorum does not hold. sent11: that if the ponderosa is not union that the Canaanite is a union and is a Eriophorum does not hold hold. sent12: there exists something such that that it is a Eriophorum and a union is not true. sent13: the Canaanite is not a kind of a union if something is infinite. sent14: if there is something such that that it is a kind of allographic thing that is not infinite does not hold then the Canaanite is not union. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 & sent14 -> int1: that the Canaanite is not a kind of a union is not wrong.; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the amatungulu is non-atrioventricular.
|
¬{C}{b}
|
sent1: the amatungulu does not digitize protestation. sent2: the transom is a sprouted. sent3: if either something is a soapiness or it does not full parable or both it does not full parable. sent4: there is something such that it does fend likeness. sent5: if something does not full parable it fulls poetry and does sprout. sent6: the fact that the transom does not clean Worcester and it does not full largemouth is not right if it is not a kind of a Goncourt. sent7: the amatungulu does not sprout. sent8: there is something such that the fact that it does not full largemouth and is atrioventricular is not right. sent9: if something is non-atrioventricular thing that sprouts it does not digitize protestation. sent10: the transom does fend admiralty and it cleans playtime. sent11: if that the transom does not clean Worcester and does not full largemouth is wrong then the amatungulu does full largemouth. sent12: if there exists something such that that it does not full largemouth and is atrioventricular is incorrect then the acarid is not atrioventricular. sent13: if something is a veracity then it is not a kind of a Goncourt. sent14: the transom is a veracity or it is nonmetamorphic or both if there is something such that it does fend likeness. sent15: if something digitizes protestation it is atrioventricular. sent16: something is a soapiness or it does not full parable or both if the fact that it fulls largemouth is right. sent17: the transom does digitize protestation. sent18: The protestation does digitize transom.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{b} sent2: {B}{a} sent3: (x): ({F}x v ¬{E}x) -> ¬{E}x sent4: (Ex): {L}x sent5: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({D}x & {B}x) sent6: ¬{I}{a} -> ¬(¬{H}{a} & ¬{G}{a}) sent7: ¬{B}{b} sent8: (Ex): ¬(¬{G}x & {C}x) sent9: (x): (¬{C}x & {B}x) -> ¬{A}x sent10: ({HQ}{a} & {AJ}{a}) sent11: ¬(¬{H}{a} & ¬{G}{a}) -> {G}{b} sent12: (x): ¬(¬{G}x & {C}x) -> ¬{C}{cr} sent13: (x): {J}x -> ¬{I}x sent14: (x): {L}x -> ({J}{a} v {K}{a}) sent15: (x): {A}x -> {C}x sent16: (x): {G}x -> ({F}x v ¬{E}x) sent17: {A}{a} sent18: {AA}{aa}
|
[
"sent17 & sent2 -> int1: the fact that the transom does digitize protestation and is a sprouted hold.;"
] |
[
"sent17 & sent2 -> int1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a});"
] |
the acarid does not digitize protestation.
|
¬{A}{cr}
|
[
"sent9 -> int2: the acarid does not digitize protestation if it is non-atrioventricular thing that is a sprouted.; sent8 & sent12 -> int3: the acarid is not atrioventricular.;"
] | 5 | 2 | null | 16 | 0 | 16 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the amatungulu is non-atrioventricular. ; $context$ = sent1: the amatungulu does not digitize protestation. sent2: the transom is a sprouted. sent3: if either something is a soapiness or it does not full parable or both it does not full parable. sent4: there is something such that it does fend likeness. sent5: if something does not full parable it fulls poetry and does sprout. sent6: the fact that the transom does not clean Worcester and it does not full largemouth is not right if it is not a kind of a Goncourt. sent7: the amatungulu does not sprout. sent8: there is something such that the fact that it does not full largemouth and is atrioventricular is not right. sent9: if something is non-atrioventricular thing that sprouts it does not digitize protestation. sent10: the transom does fend admiralty and it cleans playtime. sent11: if that the transom does not clean Worcester and does not full largemouth is wrong then the amatungulu does full largemouth. sent12: if there exists something such that that it does not full largemouth and is atrioventricular is incorrect then the acarid is not atrioventricular. sent13: if something is a veracity then it is not a kind of a Goncourt. sent14: the transom is a veracity or it is nonmetamorphic or both if there is something such that it does fend likeness. sent15: if something digitizes protestation it is atrioventricular. sent16: something is a soapiness or it does not full parable or both if the fact that it fulls largemouth is right. sent17: the transom does digitize protestation. sent18: The protestation does digitize transom. ; $proof$ =
|
sent17 & sent2 -> int1: the fact that the transom does digitize protestation and is a sprouted hold.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there are non-generative things does not hold.
|
¬((Ex): ¬{C}x)
|
sent1: the nurser is generative. sent2: if the crossopterygian does full Qiang the monomaniac does full Qiang. sent3: the monomaniac is not womanly. sent4: there is something such that it is generative. sent5: that the monomaniac is not generative is correct if the nurser is womanly and does full Qiang. sent6: the icecap does not full Qiang. sent7: the nurser is womanly. sent8: the nurser does full Qiang. sent9: the Mays does not clean counterbalanced. sent10: the nurser is not a kind of a Wight. sent11: The Qiang does full nurser. sent12: if the Mays does not clean counterbalanced then it does not condition and it detoxifies. sent13: if something that is not a conditioning does detoxify then the crossopterygian fulls Qiang.
|
sent1: {C}{a} sent2: {B}{c} -> {B}{b} sent3: ¬{A}{b} sent4: (Ex): {C}x sent5: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent6: ¬{B}{is} sent7: {A}{a} sent8: {B}{a} sent9: ¬{F}{d} sent10: ¬{DC}{a} sent11: {AA}{aa} sent12: ¬{F}{d} -> (¬{D}{d} & {E}{d}) sent13: (x): (¬{D}x & {E}x) -> {B}{c}
|
[
"sent7 & sent8 -> int1: the nurser is womanly and fulls Qiang.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the monomaniac is not generative.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent7 & sent8 -> int1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}); int1 & sent5 -> int2: ¬{C}{b}; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the nurser is not moderating.
|
¬{CO}{a}
|
[
"sent12 & sent9 -> int3: the Mays does not condition but it detoxifies.; int3 -> int4: there exists something such that it is not a conditioning and does detoxify.; int4 & sent13 -> int5: the crossopterygian does full Qiang.; sent2 & int5 -> int6: the monomaniac fulls Qiang.;"
] | 7 | 3 | 3 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there are non-generative things does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the nurser is generative. sent2: if the crossopterygian does full Qiang the monomaniac does full Qiang. sent3: the monomaniac is not womanly. sent4: there is something such that it is generative. sent5: that the monomaniac is not generative is correct if the nurser is womanly and does full Qiang. sent6: the icecap does not full Qiang. sent7: the nurser is womanly. sent8: the nurser does full Qiang. sent9: the Mays does not clean counterbalanced. sent10: the nurser is not a kind of a Wight. sent11: The Qiang does full nurser. sent12: if the Mays does not clean counterbalanced then it does not condition and it detoxifies. sent13: if something that is not a conditioning does detoxify then the crossopterygian fulls Qiang. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 & sent8 -> int1: the nurser is womanly and fulls Qiang.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the monomaniac is not generative.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the fricassee is a cysteine is right.
|
{A}{a}
|
sent1: there is something such that the fact that it does bind and it is not reticulate does not hold. sent2: the fricassee is not a cysteine if there is something such that that it binds and does not reticulate does not hold. sent3: there is something such that that it does bind and it does reticulate is wrong.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent2: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent3: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x)
|
[
"sent1 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = that the fricassee is a cysteine is right. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that the fact that it does bind and it is not reticulate does not hold. sent2: the fricassee is not a cysteine if there is something such that that it binds and does not reticulate does not hold. sent3: there is something such that that it does bind and it does reticulate is wrong. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the nicotine is both not fibrillose and not a fund.
|
(¬{D}{b} & ¬{C}{b})
|
sent1: if something is not hydrographic then it does not clean daisybush and is a barbican. sent2: something is consonantal if the fact that it digitizes guide and does not digitize lordship is not right. sent3: that the paintbox is not a value and it is not a kind of a disavowal does not hold if it does not clean daisybush. sent4: if that something is both not extinguishable and not non-hydrographic is not right then it is not non-hydrographic. sent5: the Pavlova fends Kansa if it is consonantal. sent6: that the archbishop does not fend Kansa and cleans alb is wrong if there exists something such that it fend Kansa. sent7: if that the paintbox is not a value and it is not a disavowal is wrong then the sourball is a value. sent8: if the fact that something does not fend Kansa and cleans alb is not true then it does not steepen. sent9: if the sourball is a value then the fact that the mebendazole digitizes guide but it does not digitize lordship is wrong. sent10: that the amrinone steepens and is not a fund is false. sent11: there is something such that it is bicameral. sent12: that the nicotine is not fibrillose and it is not a fund does not hold if the amrinone does not steepen. sent13: the amrinone does not steepen if there exists something such that that it is bicameral is right. sent14: there exists nothing such that it is not extinguishable and it is hydrographic. sent15: if that the archbishop does not steepen hold then the amrinone does digitize preparation or is not bicameral or both. sent16: the fact that the Pavlova is consonantal if the mebendazole is not consonantal hold. sent17: if there exists something such that it digitizes preparation and/or it is not bicameral then the nicotine is not bicameral.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{O}x -> (¬{L}x & {N}x) sent2: (x): ¬({I}x & ¬{J}x) -> {H}x sent3: ¬{L}{g} -> ¬(¬{K}{g} & ¬{M}{g}) sent4: (x): ¬(¬{Q}x & {O}x) -> ¬{O}x sent5: {H}{d} -> {F}{d} sent6: (x): {F}x -> ¬(¬{F}{c} & {G}{c}) sent7: ¬(¬{K}{g} & ¬{M}{g}) -> {K}{f} sent8: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & {G}x) -> ¬{B}x sent9: {K}{f} -> ¬({I}{e} & ¬{J}{e}) sent10: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent11: (Ex): {A}x sent12: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬(¬{D}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent13: (x): {A}x -> ¬{B}{a} sent14: (x): ¬(¬{Q}x & {O}x) sent15: ¬{B}{c} -> ({E}{a} v ¬{A}{a}) sent16: {H}{e} -> {H}{d} sent17: (x): ({E}x v ¬{A}x) -> ¬{A}{b}
|
[
"sent11 & sent13 -> int1: the amrinone does not steepen.; sent12 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent11 & sent13 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; sent12 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the nicotine is non-fibrillose thing that is not a fund.
|
(¬{D}{b} & ¬{C}{b})
|
[
"sent8 -> int2: if that the archbishop does not fend Kansa and cleans alb is not true then it does not steepen.; sent2 -> int3: if the fact that the fact that the mebendazole does digitize guide and does not digitize lordship is right does not hold it is consonantal.; sent4 -> int4: the guide is not hydrographic if that it is a kind of inextinguishable thing that is hydrographic is not true.; sent14 -> int5: that the guide is not extinguishable and is hydrographic is incorrect.; int4 & int5 -> int6: that the guide is not hydrographic is not false.; int6 -> int7: everything is not hydrographic.; int7 -> int8: the layman is not hydrographic.; sent1 -> int9: if the layman is not hydrographic it does not clean daisybush and it is a barbican.; int8 & int9 -> int10: the layman does not clean daisybush and is a barbican.; int10 -> int11: everything does not clean daisybush and is a barbican.; int11 -> int12: the shallu does not clean daisybush but it is a kind of a barbican.; int12 -> int13: the shallu does not clean daisybush.; int13 -> int14: everything does not clean daisybush.; int14 -> int15: the fact that the paintbox does not clean daisybush is true.; int15 & sent3 -> int16: the fact that the paintbox is not a kind of a value and it is not a disavowal does not hold.; sent7 & int16 -> int17: the sourball is a value.; sent9 & int17 -> int18: the fact that the fact that the mebendazole digitizes guide and does not digitize lordship is not correct is not false.; int3 & int18 -> int19: the mebendazole is consonantal.; sent16 & int19 -> int20: the Pavlova is consonantal.; int20 & sent5 -> int21: the Pavlova fends Kansa.; int21 -> int22: there is something such that it fends Kansa.; sent6 & int22 -> int23: the fact that the archbishop does not fend Kansa but it cleans alb is wrong.; int2 & int23 -> int24: the archbishop does not steepen.; sent15 & int24 -> int25: the amrinone digitizes preparation or is not bicameral or both.; int25 -> int26: there is something such that it does digitize preparation or is not bicameral or both.; int26 & sent17 -> int27: the nicotine is not bicameral.;"
] | 23 | 2 | 2 | 14 | 0 | 14 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the nicotine is both not fibrillose and not a fund. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not hydrographic then it does not clean daisybush and is a barbican. sent2: something is consonantal if the fact that it digitizes guide and does not digitize lordship is not right. sent3: that the paintbox is not a value and it is not a kind of a disavowal does not hold if it does not clean daisybush. sent4: if that something is both not extinguishable and not non-hydrographic is not right then it is not non-hydrographic. sent5: the Pavlova fends Kansa if it is consonantal. sent6: that the archbishop does not fend Kansa and cleans alb is wrong if there exists something such that it fend Kansa. sent7: if that the paintbox is not a value and it is not a disavowal is wrong then the sourball is a value. sent8: if the fact that something does not fend Kansa and cleans alb is not true then it does not steepen. sent9: if the sourball is a value then the fact that the mebendazole digitizes guide but it does not digitize lordship is wrong. sent10: that the amrinone steepens and is not a fund is false. sent11: there is something such that it is bicameral. sent12: that the nicotine is not fibrillose and it is not a fund does not hold if the amrinone does not steepen. sent13: the amrinone does not steepen if there exists something such that that it is bicameral is right. sent14: there exists nothing such that it is not extinguishable and it is hydrographic. sent15: if that the archbishop does not steepen hold then the amrinone does digitize preparation or is not bicameral or both. sent16: the fact that the Pavlova is consonantal if the mebendazole is not consonantal hold. sent17: if there exists something such that it digitizes preparation and/or it is not bicameral then the nicotine is not bicameral. ; $proof$ =
|
sent11 & sent13 -> int1: the amrinone does not steepen.; sent12 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if the fact that it does not full diapir and is not bimodal is incorrect it relocates.
|
(Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x
|
sent1: there is something such that if that it does full diapir and it is not bimodal is incorrect it does relocate. sent2: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not animatistic and not cytophotometric is wrong then it is a kind of a longshot. sent3: there exists something such that if it fulls diapir it does relocate. sent4: there is something such that if the fact that it does not full diapir and it is bimodal is not right then it relocates. sent5: if that the reductase does not full diapir and it is not bimodal is not correct then it relocates. sent6: there is something such that if that it is not a rent and it is not a kind of a Methodists is wrong then it cleans breakfast. sent7: the reductase relocates if the fact that it does not full diapir and is bimodal does not hold. sent8: the fact that if that the reductase does not full diapir and is not bimodal is right then the reductase does relocate hold. sent9: if the fact that something does not clean Appenzeller and it does not full freckled is false it is a cubism. sent10: there is something such that if it is a kind of a homestead then that it does clean twin is not false. sent11: there is something such that if it does not full diapir and is not bimodal it does relocate. sent12: if the reductase does full diapir it relocates.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent2: (Ex): ¬(¬{JC}x & ¬{HJ}x) -> {HU}x sent3: (Ex): {AA}x -> {B}x sent4: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent5: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent6: (Ex): ¬(¬{CO}x & ¬{CU}x) -> {HG}x sent7: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent8: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent9: (x): ¬(¬{FT}x & ¬{IE}x) -> {IQ}x sent10: (Ex): {CG}x -> {DR}x sent11: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent12: {AA}{aa} -> {B}{aa}
|
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there is something such that if the fact that it does not clean Appenzeller and does not full freckled is incorrect then it is a cubism.
|
(Ex): ¬(¬{FT}x & ¬{IE}x) -> {IQ}x
|
[
"sent9 -> int1: if that the Appenzeller does not clean Appenzeller and it does not full freckled does not hold then it is a cubism.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if the fact that it does not full diapir and is not bimodal is incorrect it relocates. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if that it does full diapir and it is not bimodal is incorrect it does relocate. sent2: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not animatistic and not cytophotometric is wrong then it is a kind of a longshot. sent3: there exists something such that if it fulls diapir it does relocate. sent4: there is something such that if the fact that it does not full diapir and it is bimodal is not right then it relocates. sent5: if that the reductase does not full diapir and it is not bimodal is not correct then it relocates. sent6: there is something such that if that it is not a rent and it is not a kind of a Methodists is wrong then it cleans breakfast. sent7: the reductase relocates if the fact that it does not full diapir and is bimodal does not hold. sent8: the fact that if that the reductase does not full diapir and is not bimodal is right then the reductase does relocate hold. sent9: if the fact that something does not clean Appenzeller and it does not full freckled is false it is a cubism. sent10: there is something such that if it is a kind of a homestead then that it does clean twin is not false. sent11: there is something such that if it does not full diapir and is not bimodal it does relocate. sent12: if the reductase does full diapir it relocates. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the typhoon does not occur.
|
¬{A}
|
sent1: the hunting does not occur if the cellulosidness does not occur. sent2: that the fending Astragalus does not occur but the licentiousness occurs prevents the conceptualization. sent3: the heading does not occur. sent4: if the seeling occurs the cleaning maltreatment does not occur. sent5: the digitizing kieserite does not occur. sent6: the relocating does not occur and the seeling does not occur if that the conceptualization does not occur is not wrong. sent7: that the relocating does not occur and the seeling does not occur is not true. sent8: if that the ritualism happens hold then not the fending Astragalus but the licentiousness happens. sent9: the fulling Aramaic does not occur if that the dullness does not occur and the mischance does not occur is false. sent10: the fending workwear does not occur if that the consolableness does not occur and the e-mail does not occur is not true. sent11: the cleaning maltreatment does not occur if the fact that the relocating does not occur and the seeling does not occur does not hold. sent12: if the hunt does not occur then both the ritualism and the fending unsatisfactoriness happens. sent13: the fact that the relocating does not occur but the seeling occurs is not correct. sent14: the fending saucepot does not occur. sent15: the imperialisticness does not occur. sent16: if the fending malted occurs then the Klondike happens. sent17: that the seeling does not occur results in that the typhoon and the cleaning maltreatment occurs.
|
sent1: ¬{K} -> ¬{J} sent2: (¬{F} & {G}) -> ¬{E} sent3: ¬{FF} sent4: {C} -> ¬{B} sent5: ¬{CH} sent6: ¬{E} -> (¬{D} & ¬{C}) sent7: ¬(¬{D} & ¬{C}) sent8: {H} -> (¬{F} & {G}) sent9: ¬(¬{AL} & ¬{IN}) -> ¬{JH} sent10: ¬(¬{IM} & ¬{DR}) -> ¬{IU} sent11: ¬(¬{D} & ¬{C}) -> ¬{B} sent12: ¬{J} -> ({H} & {I}) sent13: ¬(¬{D} & {C}) sent14: ¬{AT} sent15: ¬{GO} sent16: {HU} -> {BO} sent17: ¬{C} -> ({A} & {B})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the typhoon happens.; sent11 & sent7 -> int1: the cleaning maltreatment does not occur.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}; sent11 & sent7 -> int1: ¬{B};"
] |
the typhoon happens.
|
{A}
|
[] | 11 | 3 | null | 15 | 0 | 15 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the typhoon does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the hunting does not occur if the cellulosidness does not occur. sent2: that the fending Astragalus does not occur but the licentiousness occurs prevents the conceptualization. sent3: the heading does not occur. sent4: if the seeling occurs the cleaning maltreatment does not occur. sent5: the digitizing kieserite does not occur. sent6: the relocating does not occur and the seeling does not occur if that the conceptualization does not occur is not wrong. sent7: that the relocating does not occur and the seeling does not occur is not true. sent8: if that the ritualism happens hold then not the fending Astragalus but the licentiousness happens. sent9: the fulling Aramaic does not occur if that the dullness does not occur and the mischance does not occur is false. sent10: the fending workwear does not occur if that the consolableness does not occur and the e-mail does not occur is not true. sent11: the cleaning maltreatment does not occur if the fact that the relocating does not occur and the seeling does not occur does not hold. sent12: if the hunt does not occur then both the ritualism and the fending unsatisfactoriness happens. sent13: the fact that the relocating does not occur but the seeling occurs is not correct. sent14: the fending saucepot does not occur. sent15: the imperialisticness does not occur. sent16: if the fending malted occurs then the Klondike happens. sent17: that the seeling does not occur results in that the typhoon and the cleaning maltreatment occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the typhoon happens.; sent11 & sent7 -> int1: the cleaning maltreatment does not occur.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the befalling happens.
|
{A}
|
sent1: the fending guide does not occur if that the befalling does not occur and the fulling firecracker does not occur is not right. sent2: the flicker occurs. sent3: the flicker occurs and the fulling firecracker does not occur. sent4: the flickering and the serial occurs if that the enterprise does not occur is true. sent5: the fulling firecracker happens if the befalling happens. sent6: that the intestinalness occurs is true. sent7: the enterprise does not occur but the conglomeration occurs.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{A} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{JG} sent2: {C} sent3: ({C} & ¬{B}) sent4: ¬{G} -> ({C} & {HM}) sent5: {A} -> {B} sent6: {ET} sent7: (¬{G} & {H})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the befalling happens is correct.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the fulling firecracker occurs is not wrong.; sent3 -> int2: the fulling firecracker does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: {B}; sent3 -> int2: ¬{B}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the serialness but not the fending guide happens.
|
({HM} & ¬{JG})
|
[
"sent7 -> int4: the enterprise does not occur.; sent4 & int4 -> int5: the flicker occurs and the serialness occurs.; int5 -> int6: the serialness occurs.;"
] | 5 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the befalling happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the fending guide does not occur if that the befalling does not occur and the fulling firecracker does not occur is not right. sent2: the flicker occurs. sent3: the flicker occurs and the fulling firecracker does not occur. sent4: the flickering and the serial occurs if that the enterprise does not occur is true. sent5: the fulling firecracker happens if the befalling happens. sent6: that the intestinalness occurs is true. sent7: the enterprise does not occur but the conglomeration occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the befalling happens is correct.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the fulling firecracker occurs is not wrong.; sent3 -> int2: the fulling firecracker does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the jockey does not fend bugbear and ricks does not hold if it is not a navigator.
|
¬{B}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})
|
[
"void -> assump2: Let's assume that the jockey does not fend bugbear but it ricks.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump2: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a});"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 4 | null | 0 | 0 | 0 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the jockey does not fend bugbear and ricks does not hold if it is not a navigator. ; $context$ = ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the jockey does not fend bugbear but it ricks.; __UNKNOWN__
|
||
DeductionInstance
|
that the timberline is a Wykehamist and is a Cenozoic is not true.
|
¬({E}{a} & {D}{a})
|
sent1: if the timberline is cyprian then it is a kind of a Cenozoic. sent2: something is Cenozoic if it is cyprian. sent3: there exists something such that it does not clean blather. sent4: there is something such that that it is not unnoticeable is true. sent5: the timberline does not Latinize. sent6: if that something is interplanetary and/or cyprian is incorrect it is not anagrammatic. sent7: something is a Wykehamist if it is interplanetary. sent8: the fact that something is both a Wykehamist and Cenozoic is incorrect if it is not noticeable. sent9: if there are noticeable things that the timberline is anagrammatic but it is not cyprian is false. sent10: the timberline is a kind of interplanetary thing that does not Latinize. sent11: if something is not anagrammatic it is not noticeable. sent12: something is Cenozoic if that it is anagrammatic but not cyprian is incorrect. sent13: the timberline is noticeable if it is a kind of an ephedrine. sent14: if the fact that the horseleech cleans blather but it is not anagrammatic is not correct then it cleans steppe. sent15: if that the yeoman Latinizes and is a kind of a Tosk is not correct it does not Latinizes.
|
sent1: {C}{a} -> {D}{a} sent2: (x): {C}x -> {D}x sent3: (Ex): ¬{I}x sent4: (Ex): {A}x sent5: ¬{G}{a} sent6: (x): ¬({F}x v {C}x) -> ¬{B}x sent7: (x): {F}x -> {E}x sent8: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({E}x & {D}x) sent9: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent10: ({F}{a} & ¬{G}{a}) sent11: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{A}x sent12: (x): ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x) -> {D}x sent13: {GE}{a} -> {A}{a} sent14: ¬({I}{ak} & ¬{B}{ak}) -> {GO}{ak} sent15: ¬({G}{b} & {H}{b}) -> ¬{G}{b}
|
[
"sent4 & sent9 -> int1: that the timberline is anagrammatic and is not cyprian is not right.; sent12 -> int2: if that the timberline is both anagrammatic and non-cyprian is incorrect it is a kind of a Cenozoic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the timberline is a kind of a Cenozoic.; sent7 -> int4: the timberline is a Wykehamist if it is interplanetary.; sent10 -> int5: the timberline is interplanetary.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the timberline is a Wykehamist.; int3 & int6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 & sent9 -> int1: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); sent12 -> int2: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {D}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {D}{a}; sent7 -> int4: {F}{a} -> {E}{a}; sent10 -> int5: {F}{a}; int4 & int5 -> int6: {E}{a}; int3 & int6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the timberline is a kind of a Wykehamist that is a kind of a Cenozoic does not hold.
|
¬({E}{a} & {D}{a})
|
[
"sent8 -> int7: if that the timberline is not noticeable hold then that it is a Wykehamist and it is a Cenozoic is false.; sent11 -> int8: if the timberline is not anagrammatic then the fact that it is not noticeable is not incorrect.; sent6 -> int9: the timberline is not anagrammatic if that it is interplanetary and/or it is cyprian does not hold.;"
] | 7 | 3 | 3 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the timberline is a Wykehamist and is a Cenozoic is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: if the timberline is cyprian then it is a kind of a Cenozoic. sent2: something is Cenozoic if it is cyprian. sent3: there exists something such that it does not clean blather. sent4: there is something such that that it is not unnoticeable is true. sent5: the timberline does not Latinize. sent6: if that something is interplanetary and/or cyprian is incorrect it is not anagrammatic. sent7: something is a Wykehamist if it is interplanetary. sent8: the fact that something is both a Wykehamist and Cenozoic is incorrect if it is not noticeable. sent9: if there are noticeable things that the timberline is anagrammatic but it is not cyprian is false. sent10: the timberline is a kind of interplanetary thing that does not Latinize. sent11: if something is not anagrammatic it is not noticeable. sent12: something is Cenozoic if that it is anagrammatic but not cyprian is incorrect. sent13: the timberline is noticeable if it is a kind of an ephedrine. sent14: if the fact that the horseleech cleans blather but it is not anagrammatic is not correct then it cleans steppe. sent15: if that the yeoman Latinizes and is a kind of a Tosk is not correct it does not Latinizes. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 & sent9 -> int1: that the timberline is anagrammatic and is not cyprian is not right.; sent12 -> int2: if that the timberline is both anagrammatic and non-cyprian is incorrect it is a kind of a Cenozoic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the timberline is a kind of a Cenozoic.; sent7 -> int4: the timberline is a Wykehamist if it is interplanetary.; sent10 -> int5: the timberline is interplanetary.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the timberline is a Wykehamist.; int3 & int6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the stronghold is not a serow.
|
¬{B}{b}
|
sent1: that the hypochondriac is bivalent and it is a serow does not hold if the stronghold does not clean pachysandra. sent2: the stronghold does not clean plunderer. sent3: something does not clean pachysandra if that it is bivalent and it is proud is not correct. sent4: the fact that that the stronghold cleans pachysandra and is bivalent is true is not correct if the hypochondriac is not a serow. sent5: the stronghold is not lactic. sent6: the stronghold is not a herd. sent7: that the stronghold does clean pachysandra and is proud is not right if the hypochondriac is not a kind of a serow. sent8: if the hypochondriac does not clean pachysandra that the stronghold is proud and it is bivalent is not true. sent9: if that the fact that something is a kind of a serow and it is bivalent hold is wrong then it does not clean pachysandra. sent10: if that something is not non-proud but bivalent is false then it is not a serow. sent11: something is not a serow if it is not bivalent. sent12: the fact that the stronghold is a serow and it cleans pachysandra is wrong if that the hypochondriac is not bivalent hold. sent13: the primer is not bivalent. sent14: The pachysandra does not clean hypochondriac. sent15: that the pothead is not proud is right. sent16: the hypochondriac does not clean pachysandra. sent17: if the fact that something is proud and it is bivalent is incorrect then it does not clean pachysandra. sent18: if the stronghold is not bivalent it is not a kind of a serow. sent19: if the chromophore is not a lateen-rig and is not regimentals the hypochondriac is not a kind of a Latin. sent20: the fact that the sunstone does clean pachysandra and it is a kind of a circuitry is false.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬({AB}{a} & {B}{a}) sent2: ¬{IO}{b} sent3: (x): ¬({AB}x & {AA}x) -> ¬{A}x sent4: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬({A}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent5: ¬{IB}{b} sent6: ¬{AR}{b} sent7: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬({A}{b} & {AA}{b}) sent8: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent9: (x): ¬({B}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}x sent10: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent11: (x): ¬{AB}x -> ¬{B}x sent12: ¬{AB}{a} -> ¬({B}{b} & {A}{b}) sent13: ¬{AB}{br} sent14: ¬{AC}{aa} sent15: ¬{AA}{gr} sent16: ¬{A}{a} sent17: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}x sent18: ¬{AB}{b} -> ¬{B}{b} sent19: (¬{E}{c} & ¬{F}{c}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent20: ¬({A}{ap} & {IH}{ap})
|
[
"sent8 & sent16 -> int1: that the stronghold is proud and it is bivalent is not correct.; sent10 -> int2: the stronghold is not a serow if the fact that it is proud and it is bivalent is not correct.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 & sent16 -> int1: ¬({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}); sent10 -> int2: ¬({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{b}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the stronghold is a serow.
|
{B}{b}
|
[] | 5 | 2 | 2 | 17 | 0 | 17 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the stronghold is not a serow. ; $context$ = sent1: that the hypochondriac is bivalent and it is a serow does not hold if the stronghold does not clean pachysandra. sent2: the stronghold does not clean plunderer. sent3: something does not clean pachysandra if that it is bivalent and it is proud is not correct. sent4: the fact that that the stronghold cleans pachysandra and is bivalent is true is not correct if the hypochondriac is not a serow. sent5: the stronghold is not lactic. sent6: the stronghold is not a herd. sent7: that the stronghold does clean pachysandra and is proud is not right if the hypochondriac is not a kind of a serow. sent8: if the hypochondriac does not clean pachysandra that the stronghold is proud and it is bivalent is not true. sent9: if that the fact that something is a kind of a serow and it is bivalent hold is wrong then it does not clean pachysandra. sent10: if that something is not non-proud but bivalent is false then it is not a serow. sent11: something is not a serow if it is not bivalent. sent12: the fact that the stronghold is a serow and it cleans pachysandra is wrong if that the hypochondriac is not bivalent hold. sent13: the primer is not bivalent. sent14: The pachysandra does not clean hypochondriac. sent15: that the pothead is not proud is right. sent16: the hypochondriac does not clean pachysandra. sent17: if the fact that something is proud and it is bivalent is incorrect then it does not clean pachysandra. sent18: if the stronghold is not bivalent it is not a kind of a serow. sent19: if the chromophore is not a lateen-rig and is not regimentals the hypochondriac is not a kind of a Latin. sent20: the fact that the sunstone does clean pachysandra and it is a kind of a circuitry is false. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 & sent16 -> int1: that the stronghold is proud and it is bivalent is not correct.; sent10 -> int2: the stronghold is not a serow if the fact that it is proud and it is bivalent is not correct.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the gunfire does not occur.
|
¬{A}
|
sent1: that the questioning does not occur and the gunfire does not occur is false if the radiopaqueness does not occur. sent2: the fact that the questioning does not occur hold if both the gunfire and the radiopaqueness occurs. sent3: the questioning happens.
|
sent1: ¬{B} -> ¬(¬{C} & ¬{A}) sent2: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent3: {C}
|
[] |
[] |
that the gunfire happens is true.
|
{A}
|
[] | 6 | 4 | null | 1 | 0 | 1 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the gunfire does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the questioning does not occur and the gunfire does not occur is false if the radiopaqueness does not occur. sent2: the fact that the questioning does not occur hold if both the gunfire and the radiopaqueness occurs. sent3: the questioning happens. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Tsimshian is a kind of a clerid.
|
{D}{b}
|
sent1: something is not Hebraic if it cleans theorization. sent2: the lion's-ear is not stored-program if it does clean malingerer. sent3: the armadillo does not clean malingerer. sent4: the tropic does fend lifeline and it is a kind of a clerid. sent5: the tropic is a kind of a clerid. sent6: the Tsimshian is both Masoretic and a tenderloin. sent7: the Tsimshian fends lifeline. sent8: the Tsimshian is not a chink if it does fend lifeline. sent9: the Tsimshian is a clerid if the tropic is not endodontic. sent10: the buckram is a clerid. sent11: the malacologist is a clerid and it is a playmaker. sent12: the Tsimshian does not clean malingerer if it is a clerid. sent13: something does not devalue if it is a chair. sent14: the tropic does fend lifeline. sent15: if the Tsimshian is a clerid it is not endodontic. sent16: the tropic does clean malingerer and it fends lifeline. sent17: the adaptation cramps and it is functional. sent18: if the malingerer does mismanage it is not a porcupine. sent19: the tropic is gallinaceous. sent20: if the tropic fends lifeline and does not clean malingerer the Tsimshian is not a clerid. sent21: if the Tsimshian does not clean malingerer the tropic is a clerid.
|
sent1: (x): {AJ}x -> ¬{HE}x sent2: {A}{fu} -> ¬{DS}{fu} sent3: ¬{A}{dm} sent4: ({B}{a} & {D}{a}) sent5: {D}{a} sent6: ({CG}{b} & {GT}{b}) sent7: {B}{b} sent8: {B}{b} -> ¬{HI}{b} sent9: ¬{C}{a} -> {D}{b} sent10: {D}{ct} sent11: ({D}{iu} & {EI}{iu}) sent12: {D}{b} -> ¬{A}{b} sent13: (x): {JA}x -> ¬{HN}x sent14: {B}{a} sent15: {D}{b} -> ¬{C}{b} sent16: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent17: ({GC}{q} & {HT}{q}) sent18: {FI}{fr} -> ¬{BS}{fr} sent19: {IC}{a} sent20: ({B}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent21: ¬{A}{b} -> {D}{a}
|
[
"sent16 -> int1: the tropic does clean malingerer.;"
] |
[
"sent16 -> int1: {A}{a};"
] |
the Tsimshian is not a clerid.
|
¬{D}{b}
|
[] | 6 | 3 | null | 19 | 0 | 19 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the Tsimshian is a kind of a clerid. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not Hebraic if it cleans theorization. sent2: the lion's-ear is not stored-program if it does clean malingerer. sent3: the armadillo does not clean malingerer. sent4: the tropic does fend lifeline and it is a kind of a clerid. sent5: the tropic is a kind of a clerid. sent6: the Tsimshian is both Masoretic and a tenderloin. sent7: the Tsimshian fends lifeline. sent8: the Tsimshian is not a chink if it does fend lifeline. sent9: the Tsimshian is a clerid if the tropic is not endodontic. sent10: the buckram is a clerid. sent11: the malacologist is a clerid and it is a playmaker. sent12: the Tsimshian does not clean malingerer if it is a clerid. sent13: something does not devalue if it is a chair. sent14: the tropic does fend lifeline. sent15: if the Tsimshian is a clerid it is not endodontic. sent16: the tropic does clean malingerer and it fends lifeline. sent17: the adaptation cramps and it is functional. sent18: if the malingerer does mismanage it is not a porcupine. sent19: the tropic is gallinaceous. sent20: if the tropic fends lifeline and does not clean malingerer the Tsimshian is not a clerid. sent21: if the Tsimshian does not clean malingerer the tropic is a clerid. ; $proof$ =
|
sent16 -> int1: the tropic does clean malingerer.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the collar sports and/or it is an antlered.
|
({A}{a} v {B}{a})
|
sent1: if something is not a pragmatics it is a kind of an antlered that sports. sent2: the fact that the Roquefort does not dehisce hold. sent3: the collar is an antlered. sent4: the collar is non-pragmatics if the lipid is a non-pragmatics and it is a kind of a polyelectrolyte. sent5: the fact that the Roquefort is not a fitter but it is a baa-lamb is not right if it does not dehisce. sent6: the musketeer is a sport if the collar is a sport.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) sent2: ¬{G}{c} sent3: {B}{a} sent4: ({C}{b} & {E}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent5: ¬{G}{c} -> ¬(¬{D}{c} & {F}{c}) sent6: {A}{a} -> {A}{hr}
|
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the musketeer is a sport.
|
{A}{hr}
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: the collar is an antlered and it is a sport if it is not a pragmatics.; sent5 & sent2 -> int2: the fact that the Roquefort is not a fitter but it is a kind of a baa-lamb is not true.; int2 -> int3: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a fitter and it is a baa-lamb is incorrect.;"
] | 8 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the collar sports and/or it is an antlered. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not a pragmatics it is a kind of an antlered that sports. sent2: the fact that the Roquefort does not dehisce hold. sent3: the collar is an antlered. sent4: the collar is non-pragmatics if the lipid is a non-pragmatics and it is a kind of a polyelectrolyte. sent5: the fact that the Roquefort is not a fitter but it is a baa-lamb is not right if it does not dehisce. sent6: the musketeer is a sport if the collar is a sport. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the horsewoman is not a danger is right.
|
¬{B}{a}
|
sent1: the horsewoman is an advocacy. sent2: the horsewoman is not unprovocative but it is an advocacy. sent3: something is not an advocacy but it is a parquet if it digitizes nomad. sent4: if the horsewoman is not unprovocative and is an advocacy it is a kind of a danger. sent5: if the fact that the nomad is not a osteoclast but it is a danger is incorrect then it is not a kind of a danger.
|
sent1: {AB}{a} sent2: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent3: (x): {A}x -> (¬{AB}x & {IO}x) sent4: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent5: ¬(¬{C}{b} & {B}{b}) -> ¬{B}{b}
|
[
"sent4 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the veery is not an advocacy but a parquet.
|
(¬{AB}{gb} & {IO}{gb})
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: if the veery does digitize nomad then it is both not an advocacy and a parquet.;"
] | 4 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the horsewoman is not a danger is right. ; $context$ = sent1: the horsewoman is an advocacy. sent2: the horsewoman is not unprovocative but it is an advocacy. sent3: something is not an advocacy but it is a parquet if it digitizes nomad. sent4: if the horsewoman is not unprovocative and is an advocacy it is a kind of a danger. sent5: if the fact that the nomad is not a osteoclast but it is a danger is incorrect then it is not a kind of a danger. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fulling thunderclap does not occur.
|
¬{A}
|
sent1: the digitizing solubility happens. sent2: the snake does not occur if that the fulling thunderclap does not occur and the milchness does not occur is false. sent3: the sunray occurs. sent4: the milchness occurs if the thunder does not occur. sent5: the fulling Medicare happens and the nominalness occurs. sent6: the fending doom does not occur. sent7: the fact that the fulling thunderclap does not occur and the milchness does not occur is not right if the thunder occurs. sent8: if the electromagneticness does not occur then the manifesting occurs and/or the fending vindication occurs. sent9: that the dramaticness does not occur is true. sent10: the apocryphalness does not occur. sent11: that the cleaning perjury occurs and the milchness occurs is brought about by that the thundering does not occur. sent12: the fact that the tap does not occur is not false. sent13: if the fending vindication does not occur the manifesting happens and/or the myrmecophyticness occurs. sent14: if the fulling atomization happens then the receiving happens. sent15: the thundering does not occur. sent16: the milchness occurs. sent17: the unfairness happens. sent18: the cleaning Perutz happens and the arboricalness occurs if the pluck does not occur. sent19: the thundering and the milchness occurs if the myrmecophyticness does not occur.
|
sent1: {EE} sent2: ¬(¬{A} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{DN} sent3: {GR} sent4: ¬{C} -> {B} sent5: ({BK} & {BL}) sent6: ¬{DT} sent7: {C} -> ¬(¬{A} & ¬{B}) sent8: ¬{G} -> ({E} v {F}) sent9: ¬{ED} sent10: ¬{EK} sent11: ¬{C} -> ({AB} & {B}) sent12: ¬{IG} sent13: ¬{F} -> ({E} v {D}) sent14: {AU} -> {GG} sent15: ¬{C} sent16: {B} sent17: {AA} sent18: ¬{IR} -> ({AN} & {BP}) sent19: ¬{D} -> ({C} & {B})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fulling thunderclap happens.; sent11 & sent15 -> int1: both the cleaning perjury and the milchness happens.; int1 -> int2: the cleaning perjury occurs.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}; sent11 & sent15 -> int1: ({AB} & {B}); int1 -> int2: {AB};"
] |
the fulling thunderclap happens.
|
{A}
|
[] | 7 | 4 | null | 17 | 0 | 17 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fulling thunderclap does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the digitizing solubility happens. sent2: the snake does not occur if that the fulling thunderclap does not occur and the milchness does not occur is false. sent3: the sunray occurs. sent4: the milchness occurs if the thunder does not occur. sent5: the fulling Medicare happens and the nominalness occurs. sent6: the fending doom does not occur. sent7: the fact that the fulling thunderclap does not occur and the milchness does not occur is not right if the thunder occurs. sent8: if the electromagneticness does not occur then the manifesting occurs and/or the fending vindication occurs. sent9: that the dramaticness does not occur is true. sent10: the apocryphalness does not occur. sent11: that the cleaning perjury occurs and the milchness occurs is brought about by that the thundering does not occur. sent12: the fact that the tap does not occur is not false. sent13: if the fending vindication does not occur the manifesting happens and/or the myrmecophyticness occurs. sent14: if the fulling atomization happens then the receiving happens. sent15: the thundering does not occur. sent16: the milchness occurs. sent17: the unfairness happens. sent18: the cleaning Perutz happens and the arboricalness occurs if the pluck does not occur. sent19: the thundering and the milchness occurs if the myrmecophyticness does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fulling thunderclap happens.; sent11 & sent15 -> int1: both the cleaning perjury and the milchness happens.; int1 -> int2: the cleaning perjury occurs.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the collagen does not digitize Chateaubriand.
|
¬{B}{c}
|
sent1: the collagen is translational. sent2: if the capitulum either is not non-sartorial or is not a Binet or both then the fiddleneck is non-sartorial. sent3: the fiddleneck is a press but it is not hyperemic if the capitulum does clean pinche. sent4: the capitulum is a kind of a French that does clean pinche if the splat does not rob. sent5: the capitulum is translational but it is not a Limnodromus if that the fiddleneck is not sartorial is right. sent6: the splat does not rob if the fact that it birdies and it does not fend Goya is not true. sent7: if something that is translational is not a Limnodromus that the collagen does not digitize Chateaubriand is correct. sent8: something is a press. sent9: that the splat birdies but it does not fend Goya is not right. sent10: if that the fiddleneck does not digitize Chateaubriand but it is translational is not true the valine is not translational. sent11: that something does not digitize Chateaubriand and is translational is not correct if it is sartorial. sent12: the fiddleneck is not sartorial. sent13: something is a kind of sartorial thing that digitizes Chateaubriand if that it is not a Binet is right. sent14: the capitulum is translational. sent15: something is not a Binet if it is not comparable.
|
sent1: {AA}{c} sent2: ({A}{b} v ¬{C}{b}) -> {A}{a} sent3: {G}{b} -> ({F}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) sent4: ¬{I}{d} -> ({H}{b} & {G}{b}) sent5: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent6: ¬({J}{d} & ¬{K}{d}) -> ¬{I}{d} sent7: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}{c} sent8: (Ex): {F}x sent9: ¬({J}{d} & ¬{K}{d}) sent10: ¬(¬{B}{a} & {AA}{a}) -> ¬{AA}{fg} sent11: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & {AA}x) sent12: ¬{A}{a} sent13: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({A}x & {B}x) sent14: {AA}{b} sent15: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬{C}x
|
[
"sent5 & sent12 -> int1: the capitulum is translational and is not a Limnodromus.; int1 -> int2: something is translational and not a Limnodromus.; int2 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 & sent12 -> int1: ({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x); int2 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the valine is not translational.
|
¬{AA}{fg}
|
[
"sent11 -> int3: that the fiddleneck does not digitize Chateaubriand and is translational is false if it is sartorial.;"
] | 8 | 3 | 3 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the collagen does not digitize Chateaubriand. ; $context$ = sent1: the collagen is translational. sent2: if the capitulum either is not non-sartorial or is not a Binet or both then the fiddleneck is non-sartorial. sent3: the fiddleneck is a press but it is not hyperemic if the capitulum does clean pinche. sent4: the capitulum is a kind of a French that does clean pinche if the splat does not rob. sent5: the capitulum is translational but it is not a Limnodromus if that the fiddleneck is not sartorial is right. sent6: the splat does not rob if the fact that it birdies and it does not fend Goya is not true. sent7: if something that is translational is not a Limnodromus that the collagen does not digitize Chateaubriand is correct. sent8: something is a press. sent9: that the splat birdies but it does not fend Goya is not right. sent10: if that the fiddleneck does not digitize Chateaubriand but it is translational is not true the valine is not translational. sent11: that something does not digitize Chateaubriand and is translational is not correct if it is sartorial. sent12: the fiddleneck is not sartorial. sent13: something is a kind of sartorial thing that digitizes Chateaubriand if that it is not a Binet is right. sent14: the capitulum is translational. sent15: something is not a Binet if it is not comparable. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 & sent12 -> int1: the capitulum is translational and is not a Limnodromus.; int1 -> int2: something is translational and not a Limnodromus.; int2 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Tulu does not buckle and cleans Tulu.
|
(¬{C}{b} & {D}{b})
|
sent1: the Tulu is not unimpressionable if the fact that the barbasco is a shore is correct. sent2: the fact that the taffrail is an aesthetics is true if the blanquillo is aesthetics. sent3: the blanquillo does hallucinate and/or it is a fencing. sent4: the fact that the Tulu is a shore and it is a clasp is wrong. sent5: the barbasco does shore. sent6: if the taffrail does not underscore but it is cacodemonic then the barbasco is not an underscore. sent7: that the barbasco is not impressionable and it is not a soldiery is not right if it is not a kind of an underscore. sent8: something that is a shore is not a buckle and cleans Tulu. sent9: the Madagascan is impressionable. sent10: something is both not an underscore and cacodemonic if it is a kind of an aesthetics. sent11: the fact that something is not a buckle is right if that it cleans Tulu and is a soldiery does not hold. sent12: if the Tulu is impressionable the fact that it is not a buckle and cleans Tulu is incorrect.
|
sent1: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent2: {G}{d} -> {G}{c} sent3: ({J}{d} v {I}{d}) sent4: ¬({A}{b} & {FR}{b}) sent5: {A}{a} sent6: (¬{F}{c} & {H}{c}) -> ¬{F}{a} sent7: ¬{F}{a} -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) sent8: (x): {A}x -> (¬{C}x & {D}x) sent9: {B}{ee} sent10: (x): {G}x -> (¬{F}x & {H}x) sent11: (x): ¬({D}x & {E}x) -> ¬{C}x sent12: {B}{b} -> ¬(¬{C}{b} & {D}{b})
|
[
"sent1 & sent5 -> int1: the Tulu is impressionable.; int1 & sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 & sent5 -> int1: {B}{b}; int1 & sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the confidante does shore is correct.
|
{A}{ij}
|
[
"sent11 -> int2: the fact that the barbasco is not a kind of a buckle is right if the fact that it does clean Tulu and it is a soldiery is wrong.;"
] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the Tulu does not buckle and cleans Tulu. ; $context$ = sent1: the Tulu is not unimpressionable if the fact that the barbasco is a shore is correct. sent2: the fact that the taffrail is an aesthetics is true if the blanquillo is aesthetics. sent3: the blanquillo does hallucinate and/or it is a fencing. sent4: the fact that the Tulu is a shore and it is a clasp is wrong. sent5: the barbasco does shore. sent6: if the taffrail does not underscore but it is cacodemonic then the barbasco is not an underscore. sent7: that the barbasco is not impressionable and it is not a soldiery is not right if it is not a kind of an underscore. sent8: something that is a shore is not a buckle and cleans Tulu. sent9: the Madagascan is impressionable. sent10: something is both not an underscore and cacodemonic if it is a kind of an aesthetics. sent11: the fact that something is not a buckle is right if that it cleans Tulu and is a soldiery does not hold. sent12: if the Tulu is impressionable the fact that it is not a buckle and cleans Tulu is incorrect. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 & sent5 -> int1: the Tulu is impressionable.; int1 & sent12 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the whooper is a rabbinate but it is not a minimalist is not true.
|
¬({A}{c} & ¬{C}{c})
|
sent1: there exists nothing such that it is both not nonsubmersible and biogenetic. sent2: the fact that something is both not a polypody and mesonic hold if it is a NSW. sent3: if there is something such that it is a NSW then that the agar is not a rabbinate and is a polypody does not hold. sent4: if the fact that the ketone is not a rabbinate is wrong then the agar is not nonsubmersible but it is biogenetic. sent5: if there exists something such that the fact that it is incongruent and it does not clean four-hitter does not hold then the whooper is a NSW. sent6: if there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a rabbinate and it is a polypody is false the ketone is mesonic. sent7: something that is not mesonic is a rabbinate and is not minimalist. sent8: that the cryptomonad is a kind of incongruent thing that does not clean four-hitter does not hold if it cleaves. sent9: the agar does not clean four-hitter. sent10: if the fact that something is both not mesonic and a minimalist is incorrect it is not a kind of a minimalist. sent11: the cryptomonad does cleave. sent12: the fact that the agar is not a NSW but it is incongruent is not correct if it does not clean four-hitter.
|
sent1: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent2: (x): {E}x -> (¬{D}x & {B}x) sent3: (x): {E}x -> ¬(¬{A}{b} & {D}{b}) sent4: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent5: (x): ¬({G}x & ¬{F}x) -> {E}{c} sent6: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & {D}x) -> {B}{a} sent7: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({A}x & ¬{C}x) sent8: {H}{d} -> ¬({G}{d} & ¬{F}{d}) sent9: ¬{F}{b} sent10: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & {C}x) -> ¬{C}x sent11: {H}{d} sent12: ¬{F}{b} -> ¬(¬{E}{b} & {G}{b})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the ketone is a rabbinate.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the agar is not nonsubmersible and is biogenetic.; sent1 -> int2: the fact that the agar is not nonsubmersible but it is biogenetic does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the ketone is not a kind of a rabbinate.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}{a}; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}); sent1 -> int2: ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}); int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: ¬{A}{a};"
] |
the whooper is a rabbinate but it is not a minimalist.
|
({A}{c} & ¬{C}{c})
|
[
"sent7 -> int5: that the whooper is both the rabbinate and not minimalist if the whooper is not mesonic is not incorrect.; sent2 -> int6: if the ketone is a NSW it is not a polypody but mesonic.; sent12 & sent9 -> int7: that the agar is not a kind of a NSW and is incongruent is not true.; int7 -> int8: there exists something such that that it is both not a NSW and incongruent is not correct.;"
] | 7 | 4 | null | 10 | 0 | 10 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the whooper is a rabbinate but it is not a minimalist is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists nothing such that it is both not nonsubmersible and biogenetic. sent2: the fact that something is both not a polypody and mesonic hold if it is a NSW. sent3: if there is something such that it is a NSW then that the agar is not a rabbinate and is a polypody does not hold. sent4: if the fact that the ketone is not a rabbinate is wrong then the agar is not nonsubmersible but it is biogenetic. sent5: if there exists something such that the fact that it is incongruent and it does not clean four-hitter does not hold then the whooper is a NSW. sent6: if there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a rabbinate and it is a polypody is false the ketone is mesonic. sent7: something that is not mesonic is a rabbinate and is not minimalist. sent8: that the cryptomonad is a kind of incongruent thing that does not clean four-hitter does not hold if it cleaves. sent9: the agar does not clean four-hitter. sent10: if the fact that something is both not mesonic and a minimalist is incorrect it is not a kind of a minimalist. sent11: the cryptomonad does cleave. sent12: the fact that the agar is not a NSW but it is incongruent is not correct if it does not clean four-hitter. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the ketone is a rabbinate.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the agar is not nonsubmersible and is biogenetic.; sent1 -> int2: the fact that the agar is not nonsubmersible but it is biogenetic does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the ketone is not a kind of a rabbinate.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there is something such that if it is not mesomorphic and it does fend leer then that it is not curable is incorrect does not hold.
|
¬((Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x)
|
sent1: there exists something such that if it is mesomorphic and does fend leer then it is curable. sent2: there is something such that if that it is both not a lift and a Aegean hold then it is a kind of a luckiness. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not excretory and it does depopulate then that it dispatches is not false. sent4: there is something such that if it is not a kind of an affair and it is sensible then it is a kind of a fluorescence. sent5: if the nubbin is a kind of non-attentional thing that is mesomorphic then it is a Isherwood. sent6: something that does not fend mug and fends Franklin is a burgundy. sent7: the hailstorm is a strip if it is a kind of non-pentatonic thing that does fend leer. sent8: if the hailstorm is mesomorphic and fends leer it is curable. sent9: the hailstorm is curable if it is not mesomorphic and fends leer. sent10: if something that is not a door is a Osaka then it is untruthful.
|
sent1: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent2: (Ex): (¬{EI}x & {HT}x) -> {DD}x sent3: (Ex): (¬{JC}x & {EC}x) -> {E}x sent4: (Ex): (¬{II}x & {EP}x) -> {CO}x sent5: (¬{ET}{es} & {AA}{es}) -> {FL}{es} sent6: (x): (¬{GH}x & {HO}x) -> {CH}x sent7: (¬{S}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {R}{aa} sent8: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent9: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent10: (x): (¬{FO}x & {CQ}x) -> {FF}x
|
[
"sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there exists something such that if it is not a door and it is a Osaka it is untruthful.
|
(Ex): (¬{FO}x & {CQ}x) -> {FF}x
|
[
"sent10 -> int1: if the Franklin is not a door but it is a Osaka it is untruthful.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if it is not mesomorphic and it does fend leer then that it is not curable is incorrect does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it is mesomorphic and does fend leer then it is curable. sent2: there is something such that if that it is both not a lift and a Aegean hold then it is a kind of a luckiness. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not excretory and it does depopulate then that it dispatches is not false. sent4: there is something such that if it is not a kind of an affair and it is sensible then it is a kind of a fluorescence. sent5: if the nubbin is a kind of non-attentional thing that is mesomorphic then it is a Isherwood. sent6: something that does not fend mug and fends Franklin is a burgundy. sent7: the hailstorm is a strip if it is a kind of non-pentatonic thing that does fend leer. sent8: if the hailstorm is mesomorphic and fends leer it is curable. sent9: the hailstorm is curable if it is not mesomorphic and fends leer. sent10: if something that is not a door is a Osaka then it is untruthful. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fending Ozawa occurs.
|
{D}
|
sent1: the Canadianness happens. sent2: that that the lateness but not the cleaning lidar happens is incorrect is correct if the Masoreticness does not occur. sent3: the aposiopeticness happens if the digitizing fecula occurs. sent4: that the fending Ozawa does not occur is not wrong if the digitizing defecator and the aposiopeticness happens. sent5: if the hypsometry happens the fact that the fulling Lepidothamnus but not the recission occurs is not true. sent6: the Masoreticness does not occur if that the fulling Lepidothamnus happens but the recission does not occur is not right. sent7: if that the Canadian does not occur and the digitizing defecator does not occur is incorrect the Canadian happens. sent8: the Canadian and the digitizing defecator happens. sent9: if the aposiopeticness does not occur that the Canadian does not occur and the digitizing defecator does not occur is not true. sent10: the non-Slavonicness leads to that not the aposiopeticness but the digitizing fecula occurs. sent11: the digitizing fecula occurs. sent12: the blizzard does not occur. sent13: if that the lateness but not the cleaning lidar happens is incorrect then the Slavonicness does not occur.
|
sent1: {A} sent2: ¬{I} -> ¬({G} & ¬{H}) sent3: {E} -> {C} sent4: ({B} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent5: {L} -> ¬({K} & ¬{J}) sent6: ¬({K} & ¬{J}) -> ¬{I} sent7: ¬(¬{A} & ¬{B}) -> {A} sent8: ({A} & {B}) sent9: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{A} & ¬{B}) sent10: ¬{F} -> (¬{C} & {E}) sent11: {E} sent12: ¬{IQ} sent13: ¬({G} & ¬{H}) -> ¬{F}
|
[
"sent8 -> int1: the digitizing defecator happens.; sent3 & sent11 -> int2: the aposiopeticness occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the digitizing defecator occurs and the aposiopeticness occurs.; int3 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 -> int1: {B}; sent3 & sent11 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({B} & {C}); int3 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fending Ozawa happens.
|
{D}
|
[] | 12 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fending Ozawa occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the Canadianness happens. sent2: that that the lateness but not the cleaning lidar happens is incorrect is correct if the Masoreticness does not occur. sent3: the aposiopeticness happens if the digitizing fecula occurs. sent4: that the fending Ozawa does not occur is not wrong if the digitizing defecator and the aposiopeticness happens. sent5: if the hypsometry happens the fact that the fulling Lepidothamnus but not the recission occurs is not true. sent6: the Masoreticness does not occur if that the fulling Lepidothamnus happens but the recission does not occur is not right. sent7: if that the Canadian does not occur and the digitizing defecator does not occur is incorrect the Canadian happens. sent8: the Canadian and the digitizing defecator happens. sent9: if the aposiopeticness does not occur that the Canadian does not occur and the digitizing defecator does not occur is not true. sent10: the non-Slavonicness leads to that not the aposiopeticness but the digitizing fecula occurs. sent11: the digitizing fecula occurs. sent12: the blizzard does not occur. sent13: if that the lateness but not the cleaning lidar happens is incorrect then the Slavonicness does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 -> int1: the digitizing defecator happens.; sent3 & sent11 -> int2: the aposiopeticness occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the digitizing defecator occurs and the aposiopeticness occurs.; int3 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the poorhouse is blond.
|
{C}{b}
|
sent1: the poorhouse is a European if the nimbus is not a blond. sent2: the nimbus is not an overdraft if there are European things. sent3: if the fact that something does not fend rumen and is an overdraft does not hold it does fend rumen. sent4: that if something is not a kind of a European that it does not fend rumen and it is an overdraft is not true is correct. sent5: if there is something such that it is a kind of an overdraft the poorhouse is not a blond. sent6: that the poorhouse is not an overdraft is not false if the fact that something is blond hold. sent7: the poorhouse is not non-blond if the nimbus is not an overdraft. sent8: there exists something such that it is a European. sent9: if the fact that the pater does digitize russet but it is not censorial is incorrect the rumen is not biosystematics. sent10: the nimbus is a blond if the poorhouse is not a European. sent11: if the fact that something does not full NASA and is a menorah is not correct it is an overdraft. sent12: something does fend abominator. sent13: if that the nimbus is a European but it is not a kind of a blond is wrong then the poorhouse is not a blond.
|
sent1: ¬{C}{a} -> {A}{b} sent2: (x): {A}x -> ¬{B}{a} sent3: (x): ¬(¬{CE}x & {B}x) -> {CE}x sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{CE}x & {B}x) sent5: (x): {B}x -> ¬{C}{b} sent6: (x): {C}x -> ¬{B}{b} sent7: ¬{B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent8: (Ex): {A}x sent9: ¬({H}{e} & ¬{G}{e}) -> ¬{F}{d} sent10: ¬{A}{b} -> {C}{a} sent11: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & {D}x) -> {B}x sent12: (Ex): {I}x sent13: ¬({A}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b}
|
[
"sent8 & sent2 -> int1: the nimbus is not an overdraft.; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 & sent2 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there is something such that the fact that it does fend rumen hold.
|
(Ex): {CE}x
|
[
"sent3 -> int2: if the fact that the nimbus does not fend rumen but it is an overdraft does not hold then it does fend rumen.; sent4 -> int3: if the nimbus is not a European the fact that it does not fend rumen and it is a kind of an overdraft is wrong.;"
] | 5 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the poorhouse is blond. ; $context$ = sent1: the poorhouse is a European if the nimbus is not a blond. sent2: the nimbus is not an overdraft if there are European things. sent3: if the fact that something does not fend rumen and is an overdraft does not hold it does fend rumen. sent4: that if something is not a kind of a European that it does not fend rumen and it is an overdraft is not true is correct. sent5: if there is something such that it is a kind of an overdraft the poorhouse is not a blond. sent6: that the poorhouse is not an overdraft is not false if the fact that something is blond hold. sent7: the poorhouse is not non-blond if the nimbus is not an overdraft. sent8: there exists something such that it is a European. sent9: if the fact that the pater does digitize russet but it is not censorial is incorrect the rumen is not biosystematics. sent10: the nimbus is a blond if the poorhouse is not a European. sent11: if the fact that something does not full NASA and is a menorah is not correct it is an overdraft. sent12: something does fend abominator. sent13: if that the nimbus is a European but it is not a kind of a blond is wrong then the poorhouse is not a blond. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 & sent2 -> int1: the nimbus is not an overdraft.; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the wrench is a dark.
|
{AA}{b}
|
sent1: if the Seine is not unsarcastic then the wrench is a dark and it is not non-trabecular. sent2: the wrench is trabecular if the Seine is not unsarcastic. sent3: the energizer is weightless. sent4: if the pahoehoe is not polar then the sociobiologist does fend Osaka and it is not conquerable. sent5: the Seine is a dark. sent6: if the energizer is weightless that it is polar and not a Watertown is incorrect. sent7: the sociobiologist is not trabecular. sent8: if the Seine is not a kind of a dark then the wrench is unsarcastic thing that is not non-trabecular. sent9: if something that does not full strafer coincides then it is unsarcastic. sent10: something is not protestant but it is a lip-gloss if it is a armature. sent11: if the fact that the sociobiologist fends Osaka is not wrong the fact that the Seine is not a kind of an antlered but it is a tortuosity is incorrect. sent12: if something does coincide that it is not unsarcastic and/or it does not full strafer does not hold. sent13: if the fact that the fact that something is not unsarcastic and/or it does not full strafer is not incorrect is incorrect then it is not a dark. sent14: the pahoehoe is not polar if there is something such that the fact that it is polar but not a Watertown is not right. sent15: the wrench is trabecular. sent16: that the Seine is not trabecular is not right. sent17: if that something is not an antlered and is a tortuosity is not true then it is a armature.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent2: ¬{A}{a} -> {AB}{b} sent3: {L}{e} sent4: ¬{K}{d} -> ({I}{c} & {J}{c}) sent5: {AA}{a} sent6: {L}{e} -> ¬({K}{e} & ¬{M}{e}) sent7: ¬{AB}{c} sent8: ¬{AA}{a} -> ({A}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent9: (x): (¬{B}x & {C}x) -> {A}x sent10: (x): {F}x -> (¬{D}x & {E}x) sent11: {I}{c} -> ¬(¬{H}{a} & {G}{a}) sent12: (x): {C}x -> ¬(¬{A}x v ¬{B}x) sent13: (x): ¬(¬{A}x v ¬{B}x) -> ¬{AA}x sent14: (x): ¬({K}x & ¬{M}x) -> ¬{K}{d} sent15: {AB}{b} sent16: {AB}{a} sent17: (x): ¬(¬{H}x & {G}x) -> {F}x
|
[] |
[] |
the moonflower is unsarcastic and it is immunological.
|
({A}{ep} & {DP}{ep})
|
[
"sent9 -> int1: the moonflower is not sarcastic if it does not full strafer and it does coincide.;"
] | 4 | 2 | null | 16 | 0 | 16 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the wrench is a dark. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Seine is not unsarcastic then the wrench is a dark and it is not non-trabecular. sent2: the wrench is trabecular if the Seine is not unsarcastic. sent3: the energizer is weightless. sent4: if the pahoehoe is not polar then the sociobiologist does fend Osaka and it is not conquerable. sent5: the Seine is a dark. sent6: if the energizer is weightless that it is polar and not a Watertown is incorrect. sent7: the sociobiologist is not trabecular. sent8: if the Seine is not a kind of a dark then the wrench is unsarcastic thing that is not non-trabecular. sent9: if something that does not full strafer coincides then it is unsarcastic. sent10: something is not protestant but it is a lip-gloss if it is a armature. sent11: if the fact that the sociobiologist fends Osaka is not wrong the fact that the Seine is not a kind of an antlered but it is a tortuosity is incorrect. sent12: if something does coincide that it is not unsarcastic and/or it does not full strafer does not hold. sent13: if the fact that the fact that something is not unsarcastic and/or it does not full strafer is not incorrect is incorrect then it is not a dark. sent14: the pahoehoe is not polar if there is something such that the fact that it is polar but not a Watertown is not right. sent15: the wrench is trabecular. sent16: that the Seine is not trabecular is not right. sent17: if that something is not an antlered and is a tortuosity is not true then it is a armature. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the formulation is not a kind of a Fagopyrum and it is not an unpredictability.
|
(¬{B}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa})
|
sent1: something is not Swedish and does not clean groundsheet if it is a kind of a Lucite. sent2: if something is not a kind of a theorization that it is not a Fagopyrum and it is not an unpredictability is false. sent3: if the fact that the formulation is a spine but not penetrable is wrong it is not a hemorrhoid. sent4: if something is not Swedish and it does not clean groundsheet it is a kind of a theorization. sent5: if something is not penetrable it is not a kind of a Fagopyrum. sent6: if the fact that the formulation is not penetrable is correct then it is not a Fagopyrum. sent7: the fact that something is not a kind of a Swedish but it does clean groundsheet is incorrect if it is a kind of a Lucite. sent8: if that the Emmenthal is not a playmaker but it is a Respighi is wrong the fact that the diffraction is not a kind of a Respighi is true. sent9: the Emmenthal is not a solvency if the brake is not non-virological and not non-forwarding. sent10: the formulation is not a theorization if the diffraction is a theorization. sent11: that something is not a playmaker and is a Respighi is incorrect if it is not a kind of a solvency. sent12: that the formulation is not a kind of a theorization is not wrong if the fact that the diffraction is not a Swedish but it cleans groundsheet does not hold. sent13: the diffraction is a Lucite if it is not a kind of a fragility. sent14: the formulation is not an unpredictability. sent15: the Roquefort is not a Fagopyrum. sent16: the papaw is not a Cockcroft but it is not non-isomorphous if the upstage is not a viceroyalty. sent17: the upstage does not clean casuistry and does stump. sent18: that the formulation is penetrable but it is not congruous is not right. sent19: if the fact that the backplate does not fend speeder is correct then the brake is virological and it is a kind of a forwarding. sent20: the formulation does not clean trajectory. sent21: something is not a kind of a Fagopyrum if the fact that it is penetrable but not congruous is not right. sent22: if the upstage does not clean casuistry but it stumps it is not a viceroyalty. sent23: something that is not a Respighi is a fragility and is a Lucite.
|
sent1: (x): {F}x -> (¬{E}x & ¬{D}x) sent2: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) sent3: ¬({CN}{aa} & ¬{AA}{aa}) -> ¬{FA}{aa} sent4: (x): (¬{E}x & ¬{D}x) -> {C}x sent5: (x): ¬{AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent6: ¬{AA}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent7: (x): {F}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & {D}x) sent8: ¬(¬{J}{b} & {H}{b}) -> ¬{H}{a} sent9: ({L}{c} & {K}{c}) -> ¬{I}{b} sent10: {C}{a} -> ¬{C}{aa} sent11: (x): ¬{I}x -> ¬(¬{J}x & {H}x) sent12: ¬(¬{E}{a} & {D}{a}) -> ¬{C}{aa} sent13: ¬{G}{a} -> {F}{a} sent14: ¬{A}{aa} sent15: ¬{B}{fm} sent16: ¬{P}{f} -> (¬{N}{e} & {O}{e}) sent17: (¬{Q}{f} & {R}{f}) sent18: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent19: ¬{M}{d} -> ({L}{c} & {K}{c}) sent20: ¬{JC}{aa} sent21: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent22: (¬{Q}{f} & {R}{f}) -> ¬{P}{f} sent23: (x): ¬{H}x -> ({G}x & {F}x)
|
[
"sent21 -> int1: the formulation is not a Fagopyrum if that it is a kind of penetrable thing that is not congruous does not hold.; int1 & sent18 -> int2: the formulation is not a Fagopyrum.; int2 & sent14 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent21 -> int1: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; int1 & sent18 -> int2: ¬{B}{aa}; int2 & sent14 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the formulation is both not a Fagopyrum and not an unpredictability is incorrect.
|
¬(¬{B}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa})
|
[
"sent2 -> int3: if the formulation is not a kind of a theorization then the fact that it is not a Fagopyrum and is not an unpredictability is incorrect.; sent4 -> int4: if the diffraction is a kind of non-Swedish thing that does not clean groundsheet then it is a theorization.; sent1 -> int5: if the diffraction is a Lucite then it is not a Swedish and it does not clean groundsheet.; sent23 -> int6: if the diffraction is not a kind of a Respighi it is both a fragility and a Lucite.; sent11 -> int7: the fact that the Emmenthal is not a playmaker and is a Respighi is false if it is not a solvency.; sent22 & sent17 -> int8: the upstage is not a viceroyalty.; sent16 & int8 -> int9: the papaw is not a Cockcroft but it is isomorphous.; int9 -> int10: the fact that the papaw is not a Cockcroft is not wrong.; int10 -> int11: there is something such that it is not a Cockcroft.;"
] | 15 | 3 | 3 | 20 | 0 | 20 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the formulation is not a kind of a Fagopyrum and it is not an unpredictability. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not Swedish and does not clean groundsheet if it is a kind of a Lucite. sent2: if something is not a kind of a theorization that it is not a Fagopyrum and it is not an unpredictability is false. sent3: if the fact that the formulation is a spine but not penetrable is wrong it is not a hemorrhoid. sent4: if something is not Swedish and it does not clean groundsheet it is a kind of a theorization. sent5: if something is not penetrable it is not a kind of a Fagopyrum. sent6: if the fact that the formulation is not penetrable is correct then it is not a Fagopyrum. sent7: the fact that something is not a kind of a Swedish but it does clean groundsheet is incorrect if it is a kind of a Lucite. sent8: if that the Emmenthal is not a playmaker but it is a Respighi is wrong the fact that the diffraction is not a kind of a Respighi is true. sent9: the Emmenthal is not a solvency if the brake is not non-virological and not non-forwarding. sent10: the formulation is not a theorization if the diffraction is a theorization. sent11: that something is not a playmaker and is a Respighi is incorrect if it is not a kind of a solvency. sent12: that the formulation is not a kind of a theorization is not wrong if the fact that the diffraction is not a Swedish but it cleans groundsheet does not hold. sent13: the diffraction is a Lucite if it is not a kind of a fragility. sent14: the formulation is not an unpredictability. sent15: the Roquefort is not a Fagopyrum. sent16: the papaw is not a Cockcroft but it is not non-isomorphous if the upstage is not a viceroyalty. sent17: the upstage does not clean casuistry and does stump. sent18: that the formulation is penetrable but it is not congruous is not right. sent19: if the fact that the backplate does not fend speeder is correct then the brake is virological and it is a kind of a forwarding. sent20: the formulation does not clean trajectory. sent21: something is not a kind of a Fagopyrum if the fact that it is penetrable but not congruous is not right. sent22: if the upstage does not clean casuistry but it stumps it is not a viceroyalty. sent23: something that is not a Respighi is a fragility and is a Lucite. ; $proof$ =
|
sent21 -> int1: the formulation is not a Fagopyrum if that it is a kind of penetrable thing that is not congruous does not hold.; int1 & sent18 -> int2: the formulation is not a Fagopyrum.; int2 & sent14 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the sewage digitizes sewage but it does not digitize roughrider does not hold.
|
¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})
|
sent1: the duff does not digitize roughrider. sent2: the sewage is a kind of a subjunctive and does not fend neodymium. sent3: the sewage is a Ederle and it digitizes sewage. sent4: the fact that the duff is a fecula is correct. sent5: the duff does not full Struthionidae. sent6: the sewage fends summarization and it is a Ederle. sent7: the plaice is not a Ederle. sent8: the Franklin scissors and does not digitize roughrider. sent9: there is something such that the fact that it does not fend counterplot is true. sent10: something is not a fecula if the fact that it is a kind of a fecula and cleans slave-maker is not true. sent11: that something is a kind of a adjudicator but it is not a Ping does not hold if the fact that it is not a kind of a fecula is right. sent12: if the sewage does digitize roughrider but it is not a fecula then the duff does not digitize sewage. sent13: if there is something such that the fact that it is not a fecula hold the sewage digitizes sewage. sent14: the duff does not digitize sewage. sent15: if the duff does not full Struthionidae then the sewage does fend counterplot and cleans slave-maker. sent16: the duff is not a Ederle if the sewage digitizes sewage but it does not digitize roughrider. sent17: the sewage does digitize sewage. sent18: the duff does not digitize roughrider if the sewage is a kind of a Ederle that does not digitize sewage.
|
sent1: ¬{AB}{b} sent2: ({IL}{a} & ¬{HJ}{a}) sent3: ({B}{a} & {AA}{a}) sent4: {A}{b} sent5: ¬{E}{b} sent6: ({N}{a} & {B}{a}) sent7: ¬{B}{hs} sent8: ({R}{hi} & ¬{AB}{hi}) sent9: (Ex): ¬{C}x sent10: (x): ¬({A}x & {D}x) -> ¬{A}x sent11: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({GA}x & ¬{EB}x) sent12: ({AB}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> ¬{AA}{b} sent13: (x): ¬{A}x -> {AA}{a} sent14: ¬{AA}{b} sent15: ¬{E}{b} -> ({C}{a} & {D}{a}) sent16: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent17: {AA}{a} sent18: ({B}{a} & ¬{AA}{a}) -> ¬{AB}{b}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the sewage digitizes sewage but it does not digitize roughrider.; sent16 & assump1 -> int1: the duff is not a Ederle.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); sent16 & assump1 -> int1: ¬{B}{b};"
] |
the sewage does digitize sewage and does not digitize roughrider.
|
({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})
|
[
"sent10 -> int2: the duff is not a fecula if the fact that it is a fecula and it cleans slave-maker is wrong.;"
] | 5 | 3 | null | 17 | 0 | 17 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the sewage digitizes sewage but it does not digitize roughrider does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the duff does not digitize roughrider. sent2: the sewage is a kind of a subjunctive and does not fend neodymium. sent3: the sewage is a Ederle and it digitizes sewage. sent4: the fact that the duff is a fecula is correct. sent5: the duff does not full Struthionidae. sent6: the sewage fends summarization and it is a Ederle. sent7: the plaice is not a Ederle. sent8: the Franklin scissors and does not digitize roughrider. sent9: there is something such that the fact that it does not fend counterplot is true. sent10: something is not a fecula if the fact that it is a kind of a fecula and cleans slave-maker is not true. sent11: that something is a kind of a adjudicator but it is not a Ping does not hold if the fact that it is not a kind of a fecula is right. sent12: if the sewage does digitize roughrider but it is not a fecula then the duff does not digitize sewage. sent13: if there is something such that the fact that it is not a fecula hold the sewage digitizes sewage. sent14: the duff does not digitize sewage. sent15: if the duff does not full Struthionidae then the sewage does fend counterplot and cleans slave-maker. sent16: the duff is not a Ederle if the sewage digitizes sewage but it does not digitize roughrider. sent17: the sewage does digitize sewage. sent18: the duff does not digitize roughrider if the sewage is a kind of a Ederle that does not digitize sewage. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the sewage digitizes sewage but it does not digitize roughrider.; sent16 & assump1 -> int1: the duff is not a Ederle.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if either it fulls Cottus or it is not a areaway or both it is sick.
|
(Ex): ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x
|
sent1: something is planographic if either it is different or it does not full Cottus or both. sent2: there is something such that if it fulls Cottus or it is a areaway or both it is a sick. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a bornite then it is a Sabbatarian. sent4: there exists something such that if either it is atonic or it is spiritless or both the fact that it volatilizes is right. sent5: the fishery is a kind of a sick if it does not full Perejil. sent6: something does digitize Acnidosporidia if that either it does relocate or it does not clean Savoy or both is not false. sent7: there exists something such that if it does not fend neodymium then it is atrioventricular. sent8: the urease is a kind of a goodwill if it is not a kind of a sick. sent9: if the fishery is not a areaway then it is sick. sent10: there exists something such that if it quotes and/or it fends gymnosophist it is visible. sent11: if the fishery fulls Cottus or is not a fresco or both it is cartographic. sent12: something is a sick if it fulls Cottus and/or is not a areaway. sent13: that there is something such that if it is auxetic it fulls Perejil hold. sent14: that the vermiculite does full Cottus is right if it does not clean Asarh. sent15: if either the fishery is a kind of a areaway or it is not uptown or both then it is analytic. sent16: there exists something such that if it does full Cottus it is a sick. sent17: if either something is a parentage or it is not a kind of a tramontane or both it is a kind of a Madagascan. sent18: there exists something such that if it is not a areaway then it is a sick. sent19: something is uninstructive if it is psychomotor and/or does not clean Benin. sent20: there exists something such that if it is not a Alsace it is a Petromyzontidae.
|
sent1: (x): ({HH}x v ¬{AA}x) -> {JF}x sent2: (Ex): ({AA}x v {AB}x) -> {B}x sent3: (Ex): ¬{AM}x -> {C}x sent4: (Ex): ({IS}x v {EI}x) -> {HN}x sent5: ¬{FD}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent6: (x): ({FQ}x v ¬{DB}x) -> {FR}x sent7: (Ex): ¬{BL}x -> {EA}x sent8: ¬{B}{fn} -> {CS}{fn} sent9: ¬{AB}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent10: (Ex): ({HJ}x v {CH}x) -> {GL}x sent11: ({AA}{aa} v ¬{IM}{aa}) -> {JC}{aa} sent12: (x): ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent13: (Ex): {IN}x -> {FD}x sent14: ¬{GT}{hh} -> {AA}{hh} sent15: ({AB}{aa} v ¬{EC}{aa}) -> {HC}{aa} sent16: (Ex): {AA}x -> {B}x sent17: (x): ({CA}x v ¬{GK}x) -> {HL}x sent18: (Ex): ¬{AB}x -> {B}x sent19: (x): ({CG}x v ¬{DE}x) -> {DG}x sent20: (Ex): ¬{AJ}x -> {DP}x
|
[
"sent12 -> int1: the fishery is a sick if it does full Cottus and/or it is not a kind of a areaway.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent12 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fishery is planographic if it is different or it does not full Cottus or both.
|
({HH}{aa} v ¬{AA}{aa}) -> {JF}{aa}
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 2 | 2 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if either it fulls Cottus or it is not a areaway or both it is sick. ; $context$ = sent1: something is planographic if either it is different or it does not full Cottus or both. sent2: there is something such that if it fulls Cottus or it is a areaway or both it is a sick. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a bornite then it is a Sabbatarian. sent4: there exists something such that if either it is atonic or it is spiritless or both the fact that it volatilizes is right. sent5: the fishery is a kind of a sick if it does not full Perejil. sent6: something does digitize Acnidosporidia if that either it does relocate or it does not clean Savoy or both is not false. sent7: there exists something such that if it does not fend neodymium then it is atrioventricular. sent8: the urease is a kind of a goodwill if it is not a kind of a sick. sent9: if the fishery is not a areaway then it is sick. sent10: there exists something such that if it quotes and/or it fends gymnosophist it is visible. sent11: if the fishery fulls Cottus or is not a fresco or both it is cartographic. sent12: something is a sick if it fulls Cottus and/or is not a areaway. sent13: that there is something such that if it is auxetic it fulls Perejil hold. sent14: that the vermiculite does full Cottus is right if it does not clean Asarh. sent15: if either the fishery is a kind of a areaway or it is not uptown or both then it is analytic. sent16: there exists something such that if it does full Cottus it is a sick. sent17: if either something is a parentage or it is not a kind of a tramontane or both it is a kind of a Madagascan. sent18: there exists something such that if it is not a areaway then it is a sick. sent19: something is uninstructive if it is psychomotor and/or does not clean Benin. sent20: there exists something such that if it is not a Alsace it is a Petromyzontidae. ; $proof$ =
|
sent12 -> int1: the fishery is a sick if it does full Cottus and/or it is not a kind of a areaway.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the chick is a pseudopod and it is rationalistic does not hold.
|
¬({E}{b} & {D}{b})
|
sent1: if that the shuttle cleans Ozawa is right the fact that the dune is not obligatory hold. sent2: the chick is rationalistic if that the dune does not clean Ozawa is correct. sent3: either the dune is a examen or it cleans Ozawa or both. sent4: the fact that the damsel is a pseudopod and a solid is not false. sent5: the shuttle is obligatory or it is a examen or both. sent6: the dune does not clean Ozawa if the shuttle is obligatory. sent7: the shuttle does not clean Ozawa if the dune is obligatory. sent8: if the shuttle is a examen the dune does not clean Ozawa. sent9: the chick is a kind of a pseudopod. sent10: if the chick cleans Ozawa then that the dune is not rationalistic is not wrong. sent11: if the shuttle is rationalistic the chick is not a examen. sent12: the shuttle is not a pseudopod if that the dune is obligatory and is not a examen does not hold. sent13: the dune does clean Ozawa if the shuttle is obligatory. sent14: if the chick is not obligatory then the shuttle is rationalistic.
|
sent1: {C}{a} -> ¬{A}{c} sent2: ¬{C}{c} -> {D}{b} sent3: ({B}{c} v {C}{c}) sent4: ({E}{o} & {HJ}{o}) sent5: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}) sent6: {A}{a} -> ¬{C}{c} sent7: {A}{c} -> ¬{C}{a} sent8: {B}{a} -> ¬{C}{c} sent9: {E}{b} sent10: {C}{b} -> ¬{D}{c} sent11: {D}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent12: ¬({A}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent13: {A}{a} -> {C}{c} sent14: ¬{A}{b} -> {D}{a}
|
[
"sent5 & sent6 & sent8 -> int1: the dune does not clean Ozawa.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the chick is rationalistic.; int2 & sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 & sent6 & sent8 -> int1: ¬{C}{c}; int1 & sent2 -> int2: {D}{b}; int2 & sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the chick is a pseudopod and rationalistic does not hold.
|
¬({E}{b} & {D}{b})
|
[] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the chick is a pseudopod and it is rationalistic does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the shuttle cleans Ozawa is right the fact that the dune is not obligatory hold. sent2: the chick is rationalistic if that the dune does not clean Ozawa is correct. sent3: either the dune is a examen or it cleans Ozawa or both. sent4: the fact that the damsel is a pseudopod and a solid is not false. sent5: the shuttle is obligatory or it is a examen or both. sent6: the dune does not clean Ozawa if the shuttle is obligatory. sent7: the shuttle does not clean Ozawa if the dune is obligatory. sent8: if the shuttle is a examen the dune does not clean Ozawa. sent9: the chick is a kind of a pseudopod. sent10: if the chick cleans Ozawa then that the dune is not rationalistic is not wrong. sent11: if the shuttle is rationalistic the chick is not a examen. sent12: the shuttle is not a pseudopod if that the dune is obligatory and is not a examen does not hold. sent13: the dune does clean Ozawa if the shuttle is obligatory. sent14: if the chick is not obligatory then the shuttle is rationalistic. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 & sent6 & sent8 -> int1: the dune does not clean Ozawa.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the chick is rationalistic.; int2 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there exists something such that if it fends olivine it is non-heterodactyl thing that is a Prionace does not hold.
|
¬((Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x))
|
sent1: that the crossover is not heterodactyl but it is a Prionace is true if it fends olivine.
|
sent1: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it fends olivine it is non-heterodactyl thing that is a Prionace does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that the crossover is not heterodactyl but it is a Prionace is true if it fends olivine. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the grapnel is non-generic and does clean greengrocery is incorrect.
|
¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})
|
sent1: if something does clean cupid then the Hindu is partisan and it is a Asphodelus. sent2: the stokehold is partisan if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a Azerbaijani and it does not fend obsessive-compulsive does not hold. sent3: the grapnel is not a generic. sent4: the elk is not discreet if the grapnel is not a generic and does clean greengrocery. sent5: the Hindu does not clean cupid and is chaetal. sent6: that the grapnel is not indiscreet and it does clean greengrocery is not true. sent7: that the nosh-up is non-Azerbaijani thing that does not fend obsessive-compulsive is not correct. sent8: the Antiguan is not a Asphodelus if a partisan thing cleans cupid. sent9: if the nosh-up is barographic then the Hindu is barographic. sent10: if the elk does not full preciseness then the grapnel is not generic and cleans greengrocery. sent11: if something does not full preciseness then it is not a kind of a generic and cleans greengrocery. sent12: if the stokehold is not nonresidential either the Antiguan is discreet or it does not full preciseness or both. sent13: the elk is discreet and it fulls preciseness. sent14: if something is barographic and it is discreet it is not nonresidential. sent15: if the Hindu does not clean cupid but it is chaetal the stokehold does clean cupid. sent16: something that is not nonresidential or does not full preciseness or both does not full preciseness. sent17: the elk does full preciseness. sent18: there exists something such that it does clean cupid. sent19: the nosh-up is barographic.
|
sent1: (x): {G}x -> ({F}{e} & {E}{e}) sent2: (x): ¬(¬{I}x & ¬{H}x) -> {F}{d} sent3: ¬{AA}{a} sent4: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent5: (¬{G}{e} & {J}{e}) sent6: ¬({B}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent7: ¬(¬{I}{f} & ¬{H}{f}) sent8: (x): ({F}x & {G}x) -> ¬{E}{c} sent9: {D}{f} -> {D}{e} sent10: ¬{A}{b} -> (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent11: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent12: ¬{C}{d} -> ({B}{c} v ¬{A}{c}) sent13: ({B}{b} & {A}{b}) sent14: (x): ({D}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}x sent15: (¬{G}{e} & {J}{e}) -> {G}{d} sent16: (x): (¬{C}x v ¬{A}x) -> ¬{A}x sent17: {A}{b} sent18: (Ex): {G}x sent19: {D}{f}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the grapnel is a kind of non-generic thing that cleans greengrocery.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the elk is not discreet.; sent13 -> int2: the elk is discreet.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}); sent4 & assump1 -> int1: ¬{B}{b}; sent13 -> int2: {B}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the grapnel is not a kind of a generic but it cleans greengrocery.
|
(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})
|
[
"sent11 -> int4: the grapnel is not a generic but it cleans greengrocery if it does not full preciseness.;"
] | 4 | 3 | 3 | 17 | 0 | 17 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the grapnel is non-generic and does clean greengrocery is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does clean cupid then the Hindu is partisan and it is a Asphodelus. sent2: the stokehold is partisan if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a Azerbaijani and it does not fend obsessive-compulsive does not hold. sent3: the grapnel is not a generic. sent4: the elk is not discreet if the grapnel is not a generic and does clean greengrocery. sent5: the Hindu does not clean cupid and is chaetal. sent6: that the grapnel is not indiscreet and it does clean greengrocery is not true. sent7: that the nosh-up is non-Azerbaijani thing that does not fend obsessive-compulsive is not correct. sent8: the Antiguan is not a Asphodelus if a partisan thing cleans cupid. sent9: if the nosh-up is barographic then the Hindu is barographic. sent10: if the elk does not full preciseness then the grapnel is not generic and cleans greengrocery. sent11: if something does not full preciseness then it is not a kind of a generic and cleans greengrocery. sent12: if the stokehold is not nonresidential either the Antiguan is discreet or it does not full preciseness or both. sent13: the elk is discreet and it fulls preciseness. sent14: if something is barographic and it is discreet it is not nonresidential. sent15: if the Hindu does not clean cupid but it is chaetal the stokehold does clean cupid. sent16: something that is not nonresidential or does not full preciseness or both does not full preciseness. sent17: the elk does full preciseness. sent18: there exists something such that it does clean cupid. sent19: the nosh-up is barographic. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the grapnel is a kind of non-generic thing that cleans greengrocery.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the elk is not discreet.; sent13 -> int2: the elk is discreet.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if it is unrhetorical then it is both not phagocytic and untheatrical.
|
(Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x)
|
sent1: if the MSH is a guesstimate then it is not a Potemkin and it is not rhetorical. sent2: something is not phagocytic if it is unrhetorical. sent3: there exists something such that if it is unrhetorical it is not phagocytic. sent4: the specialist is not phagocytic if that it is unrhetorical is true. sent5: the fact that if the specialist is phagocytic the specialist is not topographical but inactive is not incorrect.
|
sent1: {EA}{bc} -> (¬{DG}{bc} & {A}{bc}) sent2: (x): {A}x -> ¬{AA}x sent3: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬{AA}x sent4: {A}{aa} -> ¬{AA}{aa} sent5: {AA}{aa} -> (¬{J}{aa} & {DT}{aa})
|
[] |
[] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | null | 5 | 0 | 5 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is unrhetorical then it is both not phagocytic and untheatrical. ; $context$ = sent1: if the MSH is a guesstimate then it is not a Potemkin and it is not rhetorical. sent2: something is not phagocytic if it is unrhetorical. sent3: there exists something such that if it is unrhetorical it is not phagocytic. sent4: the specialist is not phagocytic if that it is unrhetorical is true. sent5: the fact that if the specialist is phagocytic the specialist is not topographical but inactive is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the sodalite cleans Augustine is right.
|
{A}{a}
|
sent1: if the diapason is pemphigous then the domicile does bite but it is not a kind of a tie. sent2: the domicile does not happen if the diapason does not digitize Mazatlan. sent3: the sodalite does not digitize Mazatlan. sent4: the thornbill does happen. sent5: the diapason is pemphigous if that the annulet is both non-onomatopoeic and pemphigous is false. sent6: if the sodalite does clean Augustine the domicile does happen. sent7: something digitizes Mazatlan if it bites and it does not tie. sent8: that the fact that the annulet is not onomatopoeic but it is pemphigous is right does not hold if it does fend protuberance. sent9: the diapason does not digitize Mazatlan. sent10: The Mazatlan does not digitize diapason.
|
sent1: {F}{c} -> ({E}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent2: ¬{C}{c} -> ¬{B}{b} sent3: ¬{C}{a} sent4: {B}{ap} sent5: ¬(¬{G}{d} & {F}{d}) -> {F}{c} sent6: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent7: (x): ({E}x & ¬{D}x) -> {C}x sent8: {H}{d} -> ¬(¬{G}{d} & {F}{d}) sent9: ¬{C}{c} sent10: ¬{AC}{ac}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the sodalite cleans Augustine.; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: the domicile does happen.; sent2 & sent9 -> int2: the domicile does not happen.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}{a}; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: {B}{b}; sent2 & sent9 -> int2: ¬{B}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the sodalite happens.
|
{B}{a}
|
[
"sent7 -> int4: if the domicile is a bit but not a tie then it digitizes Mazatlan.;"
] | 8 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the sodalite cleans Augustine is right. ; $context$ = sent1: if the diapason is pemphigous then the domicile does bite but it is not a kind of a tie. sent2: the domicile does not happen if the diapason does not digitize Mazatlan. sent3: the sodalite does not digitize Mazatlan. sent4: the thornbill does happen. sent5: the diapason is pemphigous if that the annulet is both non-onomatopoeic and pemphigous is false. sent6: if the sodalite does clean Augustine the domicile does happen. sent7: something digitizes Mazatlan if it bites and it does not tie. sent8: that the fact that the annulet is not onomatopoeic but it is pemphigous is right does not hold if it does fend protuberance. sent9: the diapason does not digitize Mazatlan. sent10: The Mazatlan does not digitize diapason. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the sodalite cleans Augustine.; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: the domicile does happen.; sent2 & sent9 -> int2: the domicile does not happen.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the trainee is not tubercular.
|
¬{C}{b}
|
sent1: the churn is acroscopic. sent2: the trainee is not tubercular if either the churn is Moldovan or it is acroscopic or both.
|
sent1: {B}{a} sent2: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b}
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: the churn is Moldovan and/or it is acroscopic.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}); sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the trainee is not tubercular. ; $context$ = sent1: the churn is acroscopic. sent2: the trainee is not tubercular if either the churn is Moldovan or it is acroscopic or both. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: the churn is Moldovan and/or it is acroscopic.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the pop is a aalii.
|
{A}{c}
|
sent1: the RV is not a kind of a band if that the futurist does clean arability or it does not digitize Zingiber or both is incorrect. sent2: the RV does not clean arability if the fact that the futurist does digitize Zingiber and/or it is not a kind of a band is not correct. sent3: the RV does not band if that the futurist cleans arability or it does digitize Zingiber or both is false. sent4: if the fact that the RV either cleans arability or does not band or both does not hold then the futurist is not a aalii. sent5: if the RV is not unconquerable that it is non-Texan thing that is not a pseudopod does not hold. sent6: if something is a pseudopod then it does not clean arability and it is not a aalii. sent7: that either the futurist does digitize Zingiber or it is not a kind of a band or both is incorrect. sent8: if the futurist is a pseudopod the pop is a pseudopod. sent9: the pop does digitize Zingiber. sent10: the futurist does band.
|
sent1: ¬({B}{a} v ¬{AA}{a}) -> ¬{AB}{b} sent2: ¬({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent3: ¬({B}{a} v {AA}{a}) -> ¬{AB}{b} sent4: ¬({B}{b} v ¬{AB}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent5: ¬{D}{b} -> ¬(¬{E}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent6: (x): {C}x -> (¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) sent7: ¬({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent8: {C}{a} -> {C}{c} sent9: {AA}{c} sent10: {AB}{a}
|
[
"sent2 & sent7 -> int1: the RV does not clean arability.;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent7 -> int1: ¬{B}{b};"
] |
the pop is not a aalii.
|
¬{A}{c}
|
[
"sent6 -> int2: if the pop is a pseudopod then it does not clean arability and is not a aalii.;"
] | 7 | 2 | null | 8 | 0 | 8 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the pop is a aalii. ; $context$ = sent1: the RV is not a kind of a band if that the futurist does clean arability or it does not digitize Zingiber or both is incorrect. sent2: the RV does not clean arability if the fact that the futurist does digitize Zingiber and/or it is not a kind of a band is not correct. sent3: the RV does not band if that the futurist cleans arability or it does digitize Zingiber or both is false. sent4: if the fact that the RV either cleans arability or does not band or both does not hold then the futurist is not a aalii. sent5: if the RV is not unconquerable that it is non-Texan thing that is not a pseudopod does not hold. sent6: if something is a pseudopod then it does not clean arability and it is not a aalii. sent7: that either the futurist does digitize Zingiber or it is not a kind of a band or both is incorrect. sent8: if the futurist is a pseudopod the pop is a pseudopod. sent9: the pop does digitize Zingiber. sent10: the futurist does band. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent7 -> int1: the RV does not clean arability.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the fact that there is something such that if the fact that it does fend dissent and does not fend nativism does not hold it is not a kind of a commute is not incorrect is incorrect.
|
¬((Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x)
|
sent1: there is something such that if that it does fend dissent and it fends nativism does not hold it is not a commute. sent2: there is something such that if it does not fend dissent it is not a commute. sent3: if the fact that something is a kind of a commute that does not clean sarsaparilla is incorrect it is not a dialectics. sent4: the stool is a kind of a commute if the fact that it fends dissent and does not fend nativism is wrong. sent5: if the stool does fend nativism then it is not a kind of a commute. sent6: there is something such that if it does fend nativism then it is not a commute. sent7: if that the stool does fend dissent but it does not fend nativism is not right it is not a kind of a commute. sent8: the plastic is not unconventional if that it does fend pitch and it is not phyllodial is incorrect. sent9: there exists something such that if it does fend dissent and it does not fend nativism then it does not commute. sent10: the fact that there exists something such that if the fact that it fends dissent and does not fend nativism is not right then it commutes is right.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent2: (Ex): ¬{AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent3: (x): ¬({B}x & ¬{GC}x) -> ¬{HE}x sent4: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent5: {AB}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent6: (Ex): {AB}x -> ¬{B}x sent7: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent8: ¬({BJ}{u} & ¬{GE}{u}) -> ¬{IK}{u} sent9: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent10: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x
|
[
"sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
if the fact that the devourer does commute and does not clean sarsaparilla is false then it is not a dialectics.
|
¬({B}{da} & ¬{GC}{da}) -> ¬{HE}{da}
|
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = that the fact that there is something such that if the fact that it does fend dissent and does not fend nativism does not hold it is not a kind of a commute is not incorrect is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if that it does fend dissent and it fends nativism does not hold it is not a commute. sent2: there is something such that if it does not fend dissent it is not a commute. sent3: if the fact that something is a kind of a commute that does not clean sarsaparilla is incorrect it is not a dialectics. sent4: the stool is a kind of a commute if the fact that it fends dissent and does not fend nativism is wrong. sent5: if the stool does fend nativism then it is not a kind of a commute. sent6: there is something such that if it does fend nativism then it is not a commute. sent7: if that the stool does fend dissent but it does not fend nativism is not right it is not a kind of a commute. sent8: the plastic is not unconventional if that it does fend pitch and it is not phyllodial is incorrect. sent9: there exists something such that if it does fend dissent and it does not fend nativism then it does not commute. sent10: the fact that there exists something such that if the fact that it fends dissent and does not fend nativism is not right then it commutes is right. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the retrial does not occur.
|
¬{D}
|
sent1: if the goldbrick does not occur and the Coleridgianness happens then the technophilicness does not occur. sent2: if the fending lipid does not occur then the goldbrick does not occur and the Coleridgianness happens. sent3: both the show-stopper and the pitching occurs if the technophilicness does not occur. sent4: if the fact that the chokehold does not occur is true then the lap does not occur. sent5: that both the efficaciousness and the fending lipid occurs is not true. sent6: that the incoherentness does not occur and the fulling stocks does not occur is not right if the jamming happens. sent7: if that the efficaciousness and the fending lipid occurs does not hold then the fending lipid does not occur. sent8: the chokehold does not occur if the fulling stocks happens. sent9: both the clawback and the Marathon occurs. sent10: both the paddling and the lapping occurs. sent11: the jamming happens and the operationalistness occurs if that the exception does not occur is correct. sent12: that the clawback and the meander happens prevents that the retrial occurs. sent13: that the fending rupee but not the visiting happens does not hold if the lapping does not occur. sent14: if the fact that the clawback occurs and the Marathon occurs is false then the fact that the cleaning irresponsibility does not occur hold. sent15: both the meander and the show-stopper occurs. sent16: the Marathon occurs. sent17: the fulling stocks occurs if the fact that the incoherentness does not occur and the fulling stocks does not occur is false. sent18: that the logicalness happens prevents that the retrial does not occur. sent19: that the logicalness and the fartlek occurs is triggered by that the digitizing PTO does not occur. sent20: if the fact that the fending rupee but not the visiting occurs is not true then the digitizing PTO does not occur.
|
sent1: (¬{O} & {P}) -> ¬{M} sent2: ¬{T} -> (¬{O} & {P}) sent3: ¬{M} -> ({E} & {F}) sent4: ¬{N} -> ¬{L} sent5: ¬({U} & {T}) sent6: {S} -> ¬(¬{R} & ¬{Q}) sent7: ¬({U} & {T}) -> ¬{T} sent8: {Q} -> ¬{N} sent9: ({A} & {B}) sent10: ({GF} & {L}) sent11: ¬{AB} -> ({S} & {AA}) sent12: ({A} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent13: ¬{L} -> ¬({K} & ¬{J}) sent14: ¬({A} & {B}) -> ¬{CL} sent15: ({C} & {E}) sent16: {B} sent17: ¬(¬{R} & ¬{Q}) -> {Q} sent18: {G} -> {D} sent19: ¬{I} -> ({G} & {H}) sent20: ¬({K} & ¬{J}) -> ¬{I}
|
[
"sent9 -> int1: the fact that the clawback occurs is right.; sent15 -> int2: the meander happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the clawback and the meander happens.; int3 & sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 -> int1: {A}; sent15 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({A} & {C}); int3 & sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the cleaning irresponsibility does not occur.
|
¬{CL}
|
[
"sent7 & sent5 -> int4: the fending lipid does not occur.; sent2 & int4 -> int5: that the goldbrick does not occur and the Coleridgianness happens hold.; sent1 & int5 -> int6: the technophilicness does not occur.; sent3 & int6 -> int7: the show-stopper and the pitching occurs.; int7 -> int8: the show-stopper occurs.;"
] | 15 | 3 | 3 | 17 | 0 | 17 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the retrial does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the goldbrick does not occur and the Coleridgianness happens then the technophilicness does not occur. sent2: if the fending lipid does not occur then the goldbrick does not occur and the Coleridgianness happens. sent3: both the show-stopper and the pitching occurs if the technophilicness does not occur. sent4: if the fact that the chokehold does not occur is true then the lap does not occur. sent5: that both the efficaciousness and the fending lipid occurs is not true. sent6: that the incoherentness does not occur and the fulling stocks does not occur is not right if the jamming happens. sent7: if that the efficaciousness and the fending lipid occurs does not hold then the fending lipid does not occur. sent8: the chokehold does not occur if the fulling stocks happens. sent9: both the clawback and the Marathon occurs. sent10: both the paddling and the lapping occurs. sent11: the jamming happens and the operationalistness occurs if that the exception does not occur is correct. sent12: that the clawback and the meander happens prevents that the retrial occurs. sent13: that the fending rupee but not the visiting happens does not hold if the lapping does not occur. sent14: if the fact that the clawback occurs and the Marathon occurs is false then the fact that the cleaning irresponsibility does not occur hold. sent15: both the meander and the show-stopper occurs. sent16: the Marathon occurs. sent17: the fulling stocks occurs if the fact that the incoherentness does not occur and the fulling stocks does not occur is false. sent18: that the logicalness happens prevents that the retrial does not occur. sent19: that the logicalness and the fartlek occurs is triggered by that the digitizing PTO does not occur. sent20: if the fact that the fending rupee but not the visiting occurs is not true then the digitizing PTO does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 -> int1: the fact that the clawback occurs is right.; sent15 -> int2: the meander happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the clawback and the meander happens.; int3 & sent12 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there is something such that it cleans bubo and it is not a camel is false.
|
¬((Ex): ({A}x & ¬{C}x))
|
sent1: there exists something such that it does clean bubo and is a kind of a camel. sent2: the backbench is a kind of a dishonor but it does not fend lidar. sent3: there is something such that the fact that it cleans bubo is right. sent4: something is both an interface and not bacteroidal. sent5: the microbalance is important but it does not digitize austral. sent6: the waiter does clean bubo and is not a camel if the microbalance does clean bubo. sent7: something is a kind of a Udmurt that does clean bubo if it is not a camel. sent8: the waiter does clean bubo. sent9: everything does clean bubo. sent10: something does doss but it does not full restrainer.
|
sent1: (Ex): ({A}x & {C}x) sent2: ({AL}{dk} & ¬{EJ}{dk}) sent3: (Ex): {A}x sent4: (Ex): ({AC}x & ¬{AU}x) sent5: ({BH}{aa} & ¬{JH}{aa}) sent6: {A}{aa} -> ({A}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent7: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({JJ}x & {A}x) sent8: {A}{a} sent9: (x): {A}x sent10: (Ex): ({BB}x & ¬{BL}x)
|
[
"sent9 -> int1: the microbalance cleans bubo.; sent6 & int1 -> int2: the waiter does clean bubo but it is not a camel.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 -> int1: {A}{aa}; sent6 & int1 -> int2: ({A}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the phototropism is a Udmurt but it is not epizoan hold.
|
({JJ}{ht} & ¬{DE}{ht})
|
[
"sent7 -> int3: the phototropism is a kind of a Udmurt that cleans bubo if it is not a camel.;"
] | 4 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that it cleans bubo and it is not a camel is false. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it does clean bubo and is a kind of a camel. sent2: the backbench is a kind of a dishonor but it does not fend lidar. sent3: there is something such that the fact that it cleans bubo is right. sent4: something is both an interface and not bacteroidal. sent5: the microbalance is important but it does not digitize austral. sent6: the waiter does clean bubo and is not a camel if the microbalance does clean bubo. sent7: something is a kind of a Udmurt that does clean bubo if it is not a camel. sent8: the waiter does clean bubo. sent9: everything does clean bubo. sent10: something does doss but it does not full restrainer. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 -> int1: the microbalance cleans bubo.; sent6 & int1 -> int2: the waiter does clean bubo but it is not a camel.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the mimic does not confront and is Einsteinian.
|
(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})
|
sent1: something does not careen if the fact that it does not full amygdalotomy and it does clean kirpan does not hold. sent2: if the mimic is not a Peridiniidae it does not confront. sent3: the mimic does not confront. sent4: the parquet does not sit. sent5: the scientist is not pacific if there exists something such that that it does not sit is not wrong. sent6: the clostridium is not a kind of a grits if it does not confront. sent7: if the mimic does confront that it does not clean kirpan is not wrong. sent8: something does full amygdalotomy and it is a anticholinergic if it is not pacific. sent9: that the mimic confronts and it is Einsteinian is not correct. sent10: The kirpan cleans mimic. sent11: if that the swizzle does not clean kirpan but it is adequate is wrong then it is not nectariferous. sent12: the freeloader is not a colpocele but it is a sidewall. sent13: the mimic cleans kirpan. sent14: that the mimic does not confront is not wrong if the fact that it does not wail and it does vulcanize is incorrect. sent15: if that the mimic does not confront and is Einsteinian does not hold it does not clean kirpan. sent16: if that the filmmaker does not careen is not false that the mimic does not confront and is Einsteinian does not hold.
|
sent1: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & {B}x) -> ¬{A}x sent2: ¬{G}{a} -> ¬{AA}{a} sent3: ¬{AA}{a} sent4: ¬{F}{d} sent5: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬{E}{c} sent6: ¬{AA}{cg} -> ¬{IB}{cg} sent7: {AA}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent8: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({C}x & {D}x) sent9: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent10: {AE}{ab} sent11: ¬(¬{B}{jd} & {BQ}{jd}) -> ¬{JD}{jd} sent12: (¬{AD}{bu} & {AK}{bu}) sent13: {B}{a} sent14: ¬(¬{CP}{a} & {DM}{a}) -> ¬{AA}{a} sent15: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent16: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the mimic does not confront and is Einsteinian does not hold.; sent15 & assump1 -> int1: the mimic does not clean kirpan.; int1 & sent13 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}); sent15 & assump1 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; int1 & sent13 -> int2: #F#; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the mimic does not confront but it is not non-Einsteinian is not right.
|
¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})
|
[
"sent1 -> int3: the filmmaker does not careen if that it does not full amygdalotomy and cleans kirpan is not correct.; sent8 -> int4: if the scientist is not pacific then it fulls amygdalotomy and is a anticholinergic.; sent4 -> int5: there is something such that it does not sit.; int5 & sent5 -> int6: that the scientist is not pacific is true.; int4 & int6 -> int7: the scientist does full amygdalotomy and is a kind of a anticholinergic.; int7 -> int8: the scientist does full amygdalotomy.; int8 -> int9: there exists something such that it does full amygdalotomy.;"
] | 8 | 3 | 3 | 14 | 0 | 14 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the mimic does not confront and is Einsteinian. ; $context$ = sent1: something does not careen if the fact that it does not full amygdalotomy and it does clean kirpan does not hold. sent2: if the mimic is not a Peridiniidae it does not confront. sent3: the mimic does not confront. sent4: the parquet does not sit. sent5: the scientist is not pacific if there exists something such that that it does not sit is not wrong. sent6: the clostridium is not a kind of a grits if it does not confront. sent7: if the mimic does confront that it does not clean kirpan is not wrong. sent8: something does full amygdalotomy and it is a anticholinergic if it is not pacific. sent9: that the mimic confronts and it is Einsteinian is not correct. sent10: The kirpan cleans mimic. sent11: if that the swizzle does not clean kirpan but it is adequate is wrong then it is not nectariferous. sent12: the freeloader is not a colpocele but it is a sidewall. sent13: the mimic cleans kirpan. sent14: that the mimic does not confront is not wrong if the fact that it does not wail and it does vulcanize is incorrect. sent15: if that the mimic does not confront and is Einsteinian does not hold it does not clean kirpan. sent16: if that the filmmaker does not careen is not false that the mimic does not confront and is Einsteinian does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the mimic does not confront and is Einsteinian does not hold.; sent15 & assump1 -> int1: the mimic does not clean kirpan.; int1 & sent13 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the dura does not digitize solubility is correct if the charm is bivariate and it is a revenant.
|
({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b}
|
sent1: the dura does digitize solubility. sent2: the dura is a kind of a congealment and it is bivariate. sent3: if the charm does digitize solubility and is a kind of a revenant then the dura is not bivariate. sent4: if that something does digitize solubility is not incorrect either it is not revenant or it is not bivariate or both. sent5: that the charm does digitize solubility is right if the dura is a revenant and it is bivariate.
|
sent1: {C}{b} sent2: ({HN}{b} & {A}{b}) sent3: ({C}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{A}{b} sent4: (x): {C}x -> (¬{B}x v ¬{A}x) sent5: ({B}{b} & {A}{b}) -> {C}{a}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the charm is bivariate and it is a revenant.; assump1 -> int1: the charm is a revenant.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}); assump1 -> int1: {B}{a};"
] |
the stopwatch is not a revenant.
|
¬{B}{ie}
|
[
"sent4 -> int2: either the charm is not a revenant or it is not bivariate or both if it does digitize solubility.;"
] | 5 | 2 | null | 5 | 0 | 5 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the dura does not digitize solubility is correct if the charm is bivariate and it is a revenant. ; $context$ = sent1: the dura does digitize solubility. sent2: the dura is a kind of a congealment and it is bivariate. sent3: if the charm does digitize solubility and is a kind of a revenant then the dura is not bivariate. sent4: if that something does digitize solubility is not incorrect either it is not revenant or it is not bivariate or both. sent5: that the charm does digitize solubility is right if the dura is a revenant and it is bivariate. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the charm is bivariate and it is a revenant.; assump1 -> int1: the charm is a revenant.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there exists something such that if that it does not clean warehouser is false then the fact that it is not hydrophilic and it does not scrub does not hold does not hold.
|
¬((Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x))
|
sent1: the fact that something is not asphaltic and it is not a scrub is wrong if it is side-to-side. sent2: if the spa does clean warehouser then that it is not hydrophilic and it scrubs is incorrect. sent3: there is something such that if it is a kind of a maxi then that it is non-oneiric thing that does not digitize Victrola is not correct. sent4: there exists something such that if it does clean warehouser then the fact that it is not hydrophilic but a scrub is incorrect. sent5: there is something such that if it is a Renaissance the fact that it is both not incidental and not a ripper is false. sent6: there exists something such that if it cleans warehouser that that it is hydrophilic and does not scrub is not wrong does not hold. sent7: the fact that the spa is not a huddle and does not scrub does not hold if it is toll-free. sent8: that the pineapple is not a scrub and it is not a Canada is wrong if it cowls. sent9: there exists something such that if it does double then the fact that it does not fag and it is not a kind of a murrain is not right. sent10: if the spa does clean warehouser it is not hydrophilic and it is not a scrub. sent11: there is something such that if it is a kind of a personal the fact that it is not an expedient and it is not a spine is false. sent12: that the spa is hydrophilic but it does not scrub is not true if it cleans warehouser. sent13: that the spa is not hydrophilic and not a scrub does not hold if it does clean warehouser. sent14: the fact that that something is not a inkle and it is not a cowled is not true if that it scrubs is true is correct. sent15: there is something such that if it does clean warehouser it is not hydrophilic and it is not a scrub. sent16: that the spa does not fend Gadus and does not fag is false if it is pemphigous. sent17: that the Galliano does not clean warehouser and it does not lull is false if it does fend Gadus. sent18: if the afterdamp does digitize geometry then the fact that it does not clean daystar and it is not hydrophilic is not correct. sent19: if the GHQ fends sister that it is a kind of non-insubordinate thing that is not a scrub is not correct. sent20: there is something such that if it fulls rainstorm that it is not a politeness and it is not a solferino does not hold. sent21: there exists something such that if it is a kind of an outcast then the fact that it is both not annunciatory and not bacteroidal is wrong.
|
sent1: (x): {EK}x -> ¬(¬{CE}x & ¬{AB}x) sent2: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: (Ex): {AH}x -> ¬(¬{JI}x & ¬{ET}x) sent4: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent5: (Ex): {Q}x -> ¬(¬{GS}x & ¬{DN}x) sent6: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent7: {AL}{aa} -> ¬(¬{O}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent8: {H}{ir} -> ¬(¬{AB}{ir} & ¬{DJ}{ir}) sent9: (Ex): {GE}x -> ¬(¬{IS}x & ¬{FE}x) sent10: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent11: (Ex): {AI}x -> ¬(¬{DO}x & ¬{CQ}x) sent12: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent13: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent14: (x): {AB}x -> ¬(¬{DE}x & ¬{H}x) sent15: (Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent16: {AM}{aa} -> ¬(¬{GA}{aa} & ¬{IS}{aa}) sent17: {GA}{iq} -> ¬(¬{A}{iq} & ¬{BT}{iq}) sent18: {GK}{gd} -> ¬(¬{ES}{gd} & ¬{AA}{gd}) sent19: {BJ}{t} -> ¬(¬{BI}{t} & ¬{AB}{t}) sent20: (Ex): {AJ}x -> ¬(¬{IE}x & ¬{GP}x) sent21: (Ex): {L}x -> ¬(¬{IO}x & ¬{HU}x)
|
[
"sent13 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent13 -> hypothesis;"
] |
if the silverberry does scrub then the fact that it is not a inkle and it is not a kind of a cowled does not hold.
|
{AB}{g} -> ¬(¬{DE}{g} & ¬{H}{g})
|
[
"sent14 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 20 | 0 | 20 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if that it does not clean warehouser is false then the fact that it is not hydrophilic and it does not scrub does not hold does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is not asphaltic and it is not a scrub is wrong if it is side-to-side. sent2: if the spa does clean warehouser then that it is not hydrophilic and it scrubs is incorrect. sent3: there is something such that if it is a kind of a maxi then that it is non-oneiric thing that does not digitize Victrola is not correct. sent4: there exists something such that if it does clean warehouser then the fact that it is not hydrophilic but a scrub is incorrect. sent5: there is something such that if it is a Renaissance the fact that it is both not incidental and not a ripper is false. sent6: there exists something such that if it cleans warehouser that that it is hydrophilic and does not scrub is not wrong does not hold. sent7: the fact that the spa is not a huddle and does not scrub does not hold if it is toll-free. sent8: that the pineapple is not a scrub and it is not a Canada is wrong if it cowls. sent9: there exists something such that if it does double then the fact that it does not fag and it is not a kind of a murrain is not right. sent10: if the spa does clean warehouser it is not hydrophilic and it is not a scrub. sent11: there is something such that if it is a kind of a personal the fact that it is not an expedient and it is not a spine is false. sent12: that the spa is hydrophilic but it does not scrub is not true if it cleans warehouser. sent13: that the spa is not hydrophilic and not a scrub does not hold if it does clean warehouser. sent14: the fact that that something is not a inkle and it is not a cowled is not true if that it scrubs is true is correct. sent15: there is something such that if it does clean warehouser it is not hydrophilic and it is not a scrub. sent16: that the spa does not fend Gadus and does not fag is false if it is pemphigous. sent17: that the Galliano does not clean warehouser and it does not lull is false if it does fend Gadus. sent18: if the afterdamp does digitize geometry then the fact that it does not clean daystar and it is not hydrophilic is not correct. sent19: if the GHQ fends sister that it is a kind of non-insubordinate thing that is not a scrub is not correct. sent20: there is something such that if it fulls rainstorm that it is not a politeness and it is not a solferino does not hold. sent21: there exists something such that if it is a kind of an outcast then the fact that it is both not annunciatory and not bacteroidal is wrong. ; $proof$ =
|
sent13 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the cockerel is a standee is incorrect.
|
¬{C}{a}
|
sent1: that the educator is hemiparasitic and it is a kind of a smog is not wrong. sent2: the educator cleans walkingstick if it cleans Curl. sent3: the sandbag is not a Nestorian. sent4: the fact that the educator does not clean Curl and it is not diabetic is not correct if the sandbag is not a Nestorian. sent5: if the fact that something does not clean Curl and it is not a kind of a diabetic is not right it does clean walkingstick.
|
sent1: ({A}{aa} & {D}{aa}) sent2: {AA}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent3: ¬{E}{b} sent4: ¬{E}{b} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent5: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x
|
[
"sent5 -> int1: the educator cleans walkingstick if that it does not clean Curl and is not diabetic is incorrect.; sent4 & sent3 -> int2: the fact that the educator does not clean Curl and is not diabetic is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the educator does clean walkingstick.; sent1 -> int4: that the educator is hemiparasitic is true.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the educator is hemiparasitic thing that does clean walkingstick.;"
] |
[
"sent5 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; sent4 & sent3 -> int2: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> int3: {B}{aa}; sent1 -> int4: {A}{aa}; int3 & int4 -> int5: ({A}{aa} & {B}{aa});"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 4 | null | 1 | 0 | 1 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = that the cockerel is a standee is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: that the educator is hemiparasitic and it is a kind of a smog is not wrong. sent2: the educator cleans walkingstick if it cleans Curl. sent3: the sandbag is not a Nestorian. sent4: the fact that the educator does not clean Curl and it is not diabetic is not correct if the sandbag is not a Nestorian. sent5: if the fact that something does not clean Curl and it is not a kind of a diabetic is not right it does clean walkingstick. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 -> int1: the educator cleans walkingstick if that it does not clean Curl and is not diabetic is incorrect.; sent4 & sent3 -> int2: the fact that the educator does not clean Curl and is not diabetic is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the educator does clean walkingstick.; sent1 -> int4: that the educator is hemiparasitic is true.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the educator is hemiparasitic thing that does clean walkingstick.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if the fact that it is an eccentric but not purposeful is not true the fact that it does pontificate hold.
|
(Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x
|
sent1: there is something such that if the fact that it is a kind of an upgrade and is not outside does not hold then it sponges. sent2: something is a cursor if it does not poleax. sent3: there exists something such that if it is a introit and it does not clean groundsheet then it is a kind of a poon. sent4: if the hazelnut is not an eccentric then it does digitize Tintoretto. sent5: that there is something such that if it is steady and it is not an eroticism then it is vegetative hold. sent6: the fact that there exists something such that if the fact that it is a Aframomum and it is not intense is incorrect then it cleans profanity is right. sent7: something is a nymph if that it is barytic and it is a vampirism is not correct.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬({EH}x & ¬{CA}x) -> {JF}x sent2: (x): ¬{AK}x -> {CF}x sent3: (Ex): ({FM}x & ¬{IP}x) -> {IS}x sent4: ¬{AA}{aa} -> {BH}{aa} sent5: (Ex): ({BG}x & ¬{ES}x) -> {GQ}x sent6: (Ex): ¬({GL}x & ¬{DA}x) -> {JD}x sent7: (x): ¬({CG}x & {AM}x) -> {IN}x
|
[] |
[] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | null | 7 | 0 | 7 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if the fact that it is an eccentric but not purposeful is not true the fact that it does pontificate hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if the fact that it is a kind of an upgrade and is not outside does not hold then it sponges. sent2: something is a cursor if it does not poleax. sent3: there exists something such that if it is a introit and it does not clean groundsheet then it is a kind of a poon. sent4: if the hazelnut is not an eccentric then it does digitize Tintoretto. sent5: that there is something such that if it is steady and it is not an eroticism then it is vegetative hold. sent6: the fact that there exists something such that if the fact that it is a Aframomum and it is not intense is incorrect then it cleans profanity is right. sent7: something is a nymph if that it is barytic and it is a vampirism is not correct. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.