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 impressionableness does not occur.
|
¬{C}
|
sent1: the cleaning orchiopexy happens. sent2: the fact that not the impetiginousness but the fulling rumen happens is not true if the flapping occurs. sent3: both the cleaning netball and the postprandialness happens. sent4: the carotidness is caused by that not the noncollapsibleness but the fulling hail occurs. sent5: the electrolytic occurs. sent6: if the fulling rumen does not occur then that the laxness occurs is not wrong. sent7: that not the fulling shape but the fulling hailstorm happens is triggered by the mutableness. sent8: the laxness does not occur if the electrolytic does not occur. sent9: if the fending ironmonger happens that the mutableness occurs is not wrong. sent10: the impressionableness does not occur if the laxness happens. sent11: if that the carotidness happens is not false then the fulling Qiang does not occur. sent12: the flap occurs. sent13: the yoga does not occur if the cleaning netball and the postprandialness happens. sent14: if the yoga does not occur then either the ichorousness or the fending ironmonger or both happens. sent15: the unhealthiness occurs. sent16: the collapsibleness is triggered by that not the fulling shape but the fulling hailstorm occurs. sent17: that the frontalness happens causes that the divisionalness does not occur. sent18: the electrolyticness does not occur if the fulling Qiang does not occur. sent19: if the ichorousness happens the mutableness occurs. sent20: if the fact that the crossover does not occur and the Jungian occurs is not right the cleaning archer occurs.
|
sent1: {FN} sent2: {A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent3: ({T} & {S}) sent4: (¬{G} & {H}) -> {F} sent5: {D} sent6: ¬{AB} -> {B} sent7: {N} -> (¬{K} & {J}) sent8: ¬{D} -> ¬{B} sent9: {O} -> {N} sent10: {B} -> ¬{C} sent11: {F} -> ¬{E} sent12: {A} sent13: ({T} & {S}) -> ¬{Q} sent14: ¬{Q} -> ({P} v {O}) sent15: {FG} sent16: (¬{K} & {J}) -> ¬{G} sent17: {FJ} -> ¬{GR} sent18: ¬{E} -> ¬{D} sent19: {P} -> {N} sent20: ¬(¬{FQ} & {CO}) -> {BB}
|
[
"sent2 & sent12 -> int1: that the non-impetiginousness and the fulling rumen happens is incorrect.;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent12 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB});"
] |
the impressionableness happens.
|
{C}
|
[
"sent13 & sent3 -> int2: the yoga does not occur.; sent14 & int2 -> int3: the ichorousness occurs or the fending ironmonger occurs or both.; int3 & sent19 & sent9 -> int4: the mutableness happens.; sent7 & int4 -> int5: not the fulling shape but the fulling hailstorm occurs.; sent16 & int5 -> int6: the noncollapsibleness does not occur.;"
] | 12 | 3 | null | 17 | 0 | 17 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the impressionableness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the cleaning orchiopexy happens. sent2: the fact that not the impetiginousness but the fulling rumen happens is not true if the flapping occurs. sent3: both the cleaning netball and the postprandialness happens. sent4: the carotidness is caused by that not the noncollapsibleness but the fulling hail occurs. sent5: the electrolytic occurs. sent6: if the fulling rumen does not occur then that the laxness occurs is not wrong. sent7: that not the fulling shape but the fulling hailstorm happens is triggered by the mutableness. sent8: the laxness does not occur if the electrolytic does not occur. sent9: if the fending ironmonger happens that the mutableness occurs is not wrong. sent10: the impressionableness does not occur if the laxness happens. sent11: if that the carotidness happens is not false then the fulling Qiang does not occur. sent12: the flap occurs. sent13: the yoga does not occur if the cleaning netball and the postprandialness happens. sent14: if the yoga does not occur then either the ichorousness or the fending ironmonger or both happens. sent15: the unhealthiness occurs. sent16: the collapsibleness is triggered by that not the fulling shape but the fulling hailstorm occurs. sent17: that the frontalness happens causes that the divisionalness does not occur. sent18: the electrolyticness does not occur if the fulling Qiang does not occur. sent19: if the ichorousness happens the mutableness occurs. sent20: if the fact that the crossover does not occur and the Jungian occurs is not right the cleaning archer occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent12 -> int1: that the non-impetiginousness and the fulling rumen happens is incorrect.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Hittite is not a Zinzendorf.
|
¬{C}{c}
|
sent1: the bandoneon is not an arbor. sent2: the bandoneon is a kind of a Struthionidae if it is a Zinzendorf. sent3: if the fact that the Italian is not extralinguistic and not a mandator is wrong then it is not a kind of a revel. sent4: the waste is a Dalmatian. sent5: the bandoneon is not a homopteran if the luciferin is not a homopteran and does bate. sent6: if the bandoneon is not a kind of a Struthionidae then that the Hittite is an arbor is correct. sent7: if there is something such that that it does not full hindquarter and is a homopteran is not correct then the luciferin is not a kind of a homopteran. sent8: if the waste is not a brawl but it is a Dalmatian the bandoneon is not a Struthionidae. sent9: that the Italian is not extralinguistic and it is not a mandator is wrong. sent10: if something is not a Struthionidae then it is not a kind of a Zinzendorf and it is not an arbor. sent11: the regur does bate or is a morphophoneme or both. sent12: something is a Zinzendorf if it is an arbor. sent13: the waste is not a brawl but it is Dalmatian. sent14: if that the waste is not a Struthionidae but Dalmatian hold the bandoneon is not an arbor. sent15: if something is not a kind of a homopteran it is a Erewhon and ropy. sent16: the fact that the waste is not a mackintosh and it does not full ana does not hold if the bandoneon is ropy. sent17: the luciferin does bate if the regur does bate. sent18: if the regur is a kind of a morphophoneme the luciferin bates. sent19: if the Italian does not revel that the fact that the satin does not full hindquarter and is a homopteran is correct is incorrect. sent20: the Hittite is a Dalmatian if it is a Zinzendorf. sent21: if the Hittite is both not a Dalmatian and a Zinzendorf the waste is not an arbor. sent22: if something is a Zinzendorf then it is a Dalmatian. sent23: if the Hittite is a Zinzendorf it is a kind of a Struthionidae.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{b} sent2: {C}{b} -> {B}{b} sent3: ¬(¬{L}{f} & ¬{M}{f}) -> ¬{K}{f} sent4: {AB}{a} sent5: (¬{H}{d} & {J}{d}) -> ¬{H}{b} sent6: ¬{B}{b} -> {A}{c} sent7: (x): ¬(¬{I}x & {H}x) -> ¬{H}{d} sent8: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent9: ¬(¬{L}{f} & ¬{M}{f}) sent10: (x): ¬{B}x -> (¬{C}x & ¬{A}x) sent11: ({J}{g} v {N}{g}) sent12: (x): {A}x -> {C}x sent13: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent14: (¬{B}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{A}{b} sent15: (x): ¬{H}x -> ({G}x & {F}x) sent16: {F}{b} -> ¬(¬{E}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent17: {J}{g} -> {J}{d} sent18: {N}{g} -> {J}{d} sent19: ¬{K}{f} -> ¬(¬{I}{e} & {H}{e}) sent20: {C}{c} -> {AB}{c} sent21: (¬{AB}{c} & {C}{c}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent22: (x): {C}x -> {AB}x sent23: {C}{c} -> {B}{c}
|
[
"sent8 & sent13 -> int1: the bandoneon is not a kind of a Struthionidae.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the Hittite is an arbor.; sent12 -> int3: the Hittite is a Zinzendorf if it is a kind of an arbor.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 & sent13 -> int1: ¬{B}{b}; int1 & sent6 -> int2: {A}{c}; sent12 -> int3: {A}{c} -> {C}{c}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the Hittite is not a Zinzendorf.
|
¬{C}{c}
|
[
"sent10 -> int4: if the Hittite is not a Struthionidae it is not a kind of a Zinzendorf and it is not an arbor.; sent15 -> int5: the bandoneon is a kind of a Erewhon and it is ropy if it is not a homopteran.; sent3 & sent9 -> int6: the Italian does not revel.; sent19 & int6 -> int7: the fact that the satin does not full hindquarter and is a kind of a homopteran is wrong.; int7 -> int8: there is something such that that it does not full hindquarter and is a homopteran is not true.; int8 & sent7 -> int9: the luciferin is not a kind of a homopteran.; sent11 & sent17 & sent18 -> int10: the luciferin does bate.; int9 & int10 -> int11: the luciferin is not a homopteran and bates.; sent5 & int11 -> int12: the bandoneon is not a homopteran.; int5 & int12 -> int13: the bandoneon is a Erewhon and it is ropy.; int13 -> int14: the bandoneon is ropy.; sent16 & int14 -> int15: the fact that the waste is not a mackintosh and does not full ana does not hold.; int15 -> int16: there is something such that that it is not a mackintosh and it does not full ana does not hold.;"
] | 13 | 3 | 3 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the Hittite is not a Zinzendorf. ; $context$ = sent1: the bandoneon is not an arbor. sent2: the bandoneon is a kind of a Struthionidae if it is a Zinzendorf. sent3: if the fact that the Italian is not extralinguistic and not a mandator is wrong then it is not a kind of a revel. sent4: the waste is a Dalmatian. sent5: the bandoneon is not a homopteran if the luciferin is not a homopteran and does bate. sent6: if the bandoneon is not a kind of a Struthionidae then that the Hittite is an arbor is correct. sent7: if there is something such that that it does not full hindquarter and is a homopteran is not correct then the luciferin is not a kind of a homopteran. sent8: if the waste is not a brawl but it is a Dalmatian the bandoneon is not a Struthionidae. sent9: that the Italian is not extralinguistic and it is not a mandator is wrong. sent10: if something is not a Struthionidae then it is not a kind of a Zinzendorf and it is not an arbor. sent11: the regur does bate or is a morphophoneme or both. sent12: something is a Zinzendorf if it is an arbor. sent13: the waste is not a brawl but it is Dalmatian. sent14: if that the waste is not a Struthionidae but Dalmatian hold the bandoneon is not an arbor. sent15: if something is not a kind of a homopteran it is a Erewhon and ropy. sent16: the fact that the waste is not a mackintosh and it does not full ana does not hold if the bandoneon is ropy. sent17: the luciferin does bate if the regur does bate. sent18: if the regur is a kind of a morphophoneme the luciferin bates. sent19: if the Italian does not revel that the fact that the satin does not full hindquarter and is a homopteran is correct is incorrect. sent20: the Hittite is a Dalmatian if it is a Zinzendorf. sent21: if the Hittite is both not a Dalmatian and a Zinzendorf the waste is not an arbor. sent22: if something is a Zinzendorf then it is a Dalmatian. sent23: if the Hittite is a Zinzendorf it is a kind of a Struthionidae. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 & sent13 -> int1: the bandoneon is not a kind of a Struthionidae.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the Hittite is an arbor.; sent12 -> int3: the Hittite is a Zinzendorf if it is a kind of an arbor.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fraxinella is not estuarine and/or it is a bimillennium.
|
(¬{B}{a} v {C}{a})
|
sent1: the fraxinella is not natal. sent2: the fraxinella is not a echocardiography and/or does send. sent3: the Pearmain is a bimillennium. sent4: the brewer is a kind of a bimillennium. sent5: the fraxinella is not estuarine if it does send. sent6: if the fraxinella rets brewer it does not drive crash.
|
sent1: ¬{J}{a} sent2: (¬{H}{a} v {A}{a}) sent3: {C}{as} sent4: {C}{fk} sent5: {A}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent6: {GJ}{a} -> ¬{FD}{a}
|
[] |
[] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | null | 5 | 0 | 5 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fraxinella is not estuarine and/or it is a bimillennium. ; $context$ = sent1: the fraxinella is not natal. sent2: the fraxinella is not a echocardiography and/or does send. sent3: the Pearmain is a bimillennium. sent4: the brewer is a kind of a bimillennium. sent5: the fraxinella is not estuarine if it does send. sent6: if the fraxinella rets brewer it does not drive crash. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the automat is both a proctorship and a perfumed.
|
({C}{a} & {D}{a})
|
sent1: if the fact that there exists something such that the fact that it is a airbrush or it is a kind of a Salmon or both is wrong is correct the automat does not engage. sent2: something is a kind of a perfumed if that it labels attester and is not a perfumed is false. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it airbrushes and/or it is a Salmon is not correct. sent4: the fact that the automat labels attester and is a kind of a perfumed is wrong. sent5: the fact that that the automat does label attester but it does not perfume is not true hold if it does not engage. sent6: the dominatrix labels automat. sent7: something airbrushes and/or it is a Salmon. sent8: something is not a Salmon. sent9: if that the dominatrix is a kind of a clerid is not incorrect the automat is a proctorship. sent10: something is not a airbrush.
|
sent1: (x): ¬({G}x v {H}x) -> ¬{F}{a} sent2: (x): ¬({E}x & ¬{D}x) -> {D}x sent3: (Ex): ¬({G}x v {H}x) sent4: ¬({E}{a} & {D}{a}) sent5: ¬{F}{a} -> ¬({E}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent6: {B}{aa} sent7: (Ex): ({G}x v {H}x) sent8: (Ex): ¬{H}x sent9: {A}{aa} -> {C}{a} sent10: (Ex): ¬{G}x
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: if that the automat labels attester but it is not a perfumed is not true it perfumed.; sent3 & sent1 -> int2: the automat does not engage.; sent5 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the automat does label attester but it does not perfume does not hold.; int1 & int3 -> int4: the automat is a perfumed.;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> int1: ¬({E}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) -> {D}{a}; sent3 & sent1 -> int2: ¬{F}{a}; sent5 & int2 -> int3: ¬({E}{a} & ¬{D}{a}); int1 & int3 -> int4: {D}{a};"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 4 | null | 5 | 0 | 5 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the automat is both a proctorship and a perfumed. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that there exists something such that the fact that it is a airbrush or it is a kind of a Salmon or both is wrong is correct the automat does not engage. sent2: something is a kind of a perfumed if that it labels attester and is not a perfumed is false. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it airbrushes and/or it is a Salmon is not correct. sent4: the fact that the automat labels attester and is a kind of a perfumed is wrong. sent5: the fact that that the automat does label attester but it does not perfume is not true hold if it does not engage. sent6: the dominatrix labels automat. sent7: something airbrushes and/or it is a Salmon. sent8: something is not a Salmon. sent9: if that the dominatrix is a kind of a clerid is not incorrect the automat is a proctorship. sent10: something is not a airbrush. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> int1: if that the automat labels attester but it is not a perfumed is not true it perfumed.; sent3 & sent1 -> int2: the automat does not engage.; sent5 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the automat does label attester but it does not perfume does not hold.; int1 & int3 -> int4: the automat is a perfumed.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the ursinia does end.
|
{C}{b}
|
sent1: the buck does not underpay swiftlet. sent2: that the conenose does underpay swiftlet and it is a saddlecloth does not hold. sent3: the conenose does end but it is not a saddlecloth if there is something such that it is not a retinopathy. sent4: the conenose is not a saddlecloth. sent5: the fact that the ursinia is a kind of an ending that does not underpay swiftlet is false. sent6: something is not a saddlecloth if it is a kind of an ending that is a retinopathy. sent7: the ursinia is an ending if that the conenose does underpay swiftlet but it is not a kind of a saddlecloth does not hold. sent8: the ursinia is not a conformity. sent9: the ursinia does not underpay swiftlet if the conenose is not a kind of a retinopathy and it is not a kind of a saddlecloth. sent10: the ursinia is an ending if the conenose is a kind of a saddlecloth. sent11: if that the ursinia does underpay swiftlet is true then the conenose ends. sent12: everything is a kind of a Kabbalism and it is Honduran. sent13: that the conenose does not underpay swiftlet is right. sent14: if something is a kind of a Kabbalism it is capsular. sent15: the ursinia does not drive Teton. sent16: if something is capsular the ursinia is not a retinopathy. sent17: That the swiftlet does not underpay conenose is right. sent18: if the conenose is not a saddlecloth the ileum is a rugged that does not underpay swiftlet.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{ii} sent2: ¬({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent3: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({C}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent4: ¬{B}{a} sent5: ¬({C}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent6: (x): ({C}x & {D}x) -> ¬{B}x sent7: ¬({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> {C}{b} sent8: ¬{IS}{b} sent9: (¬{D}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{A}{b} sent10: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent11: {A}{b} -> {C}{a} sent12: (x): ({F}x & {G}x) sent13: ¬{A}{a} sent14: (x): {F}x -> {E}x sent15: ¬{O}{b} sent16: (x): {E}x -> ¬{D}{b} sent17: ¬{AB}{ab} sent18: ¬{B}{a} -> ({BA}{go} & ¬{A}{go})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the conenose underpays swiftlet but it is not a kind of a saddlecloth.; assump1 -> int1: the conenose underpays swiftlet.; int1 & sent13 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: that the conenose underpays swiftlet but it is not a kind of a saddlecloth does not hold.; sent7 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}); assump1 -> int1: {A}{a}; int1 & sent13 -> int2: #F#; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: ¬({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}); sent7 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the ileum is a rugged and does not underpay swiftlet.
|
({BA}{go} & ¬{A}{go})
|
[
"sent14 -> int4: the holmium is capsular if it is a Kabbalism.; sent12 -> int5: the undercut is a Kabbalism and is a Honduran.; int5 -> int6: that the undercut is a Kabbalism is not incorrect.; int6 -> int7: everything is a Kabbalism.; int7 -> int8: the holmium is a Kabbalism.; int4 & int8 -> int9: the holmium is not non-capsular.; int9 -> int10: something is capsular.; int10 & sent16 -> int11: the ursinia is not a retinopathy.; int11 -> int12: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a retinopathy.; sent3 & int12 -> int13: the conenose ends but it is not a kind of a saddlecloth.; int13 -> int14: that the conenose is not a kind of a saddlecloth hold.; sent18 & int14 -> hypothesis;"
] | 11 | 3 | 3 | 16 | 0 | 16 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the ursinia does end. ; $context$ = sent1: the buck does not underpay swiftlet. sent2: that the conenose does underpay swiftlet and it is a saddlecloth does not hold. sent3: the conenose does end but it is not a saddlecloth if there is something such that it is not a retinopathy. sent4: the conenose is not a saddlecloth. sent5: the fact that the ursinia is a kind of an ending that does not underpay swiftlet is false. sent6: something is not a saddlecloth if it is a kind of an ending that is a retinopathy. sent7: the ursinia is an ending if that the conenose does underpay swiftlet but it is not a kind of a saddlecloth does not hold. sent8: the ursinia is not a conformity. sent9: the ursinia does not underpay swiftlet if the conenose is not a kind of a retinopathy and it is not a kind of a saddlecloth. sent10: the ursinia is an ending if the conenose is a kind of a saddlecloth. sent11: if that the ursinia does underpay swiftlet is true then the conenose ends. sent12: everything is a kind of a Kabbalism and it is Honduran. sent13: that the conenose does not underpay swiftlet is right. sent14: if something is a kind of a Kabbalism it is capsular. sent15: the ursinia does not drive Teton. sent16: if something is capsular the ursinia is not a retinopathy. sent17: That the swiftlet does not underpay conenose is right. sent18: if the conenose is not a saddlecloth the ileum is a rugged that does not underpay swiftlet. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the conenose underpays swiftlet but it is not a kind of a saddlecloth.; assump1 -> int1: the conenose underpays swiftlet.; int1 & sent13 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: that the conenose underpays swiftlet but it is not a kind of a saddlecloth does not hold.; sent7 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the craniotomy occurs is right.
|
{D}
|
sent1: that the non-autoeciousness and the non-Malaysianness happens is caused by that the metacarpal occurs. sent2: if the autoeciousness does not occur then both the nonfatalness and the Malaysian happens. sent3: if the roping does not occur the metacarpal happens and the hang occurs. sent4: if both the retting squire and the psychosexualness occurs the nonfatalness does not occur. sent5: the craniotomy does not occur if the psychosexualness occurs but the retting squire does not occur. sent6: if the underpaying criticality occurs then the roping does not occur. sent7: if the psychosexualness does not occur then the buccalness and the retting squire happens. sent8: the Ukrainianness occurs. sent9: the hooting does not occur. sent10: the proctoplasty happens. sent11: the non-Malaysianness results in that the nonfatalness but not the craniotomy occurs. sent12: that the craniotomy does not occur is prevented by the fatalness. sent13: the retting squire occurs.
|
sent1: {H} -> (¬{F} & ¬{E}) sent2: ¬{F} -> ({C} & {E}) sent3: ¬{J} -> ({H} & {I}) sent4: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent5: ({B} & ¬{A}) -> ¬{D} sent6: {K} -> ¬{J} sent7: ¬{B} -> ({G} & {A}) sent8: {GI} sent9: ¬{ED} sent10: {AJ} sent11: ¬{E} -> ({C} & ¬{D}) sent12: ¬{C} -> {D} sent13: {A}
|
[] |
[] |
the buccalness happens.
|
{G}
|
[] | 10 | 3 | null | 10 | 0 | 10 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the craniotomy occurs is right. ; $context$ = sent1: that the non-autoeciousness and the non-Malaysianness happens is caused by that the metacarpal occurs. sent2: if the autoeciousness does not occur then both the nonfatalness and the Malaysian happens. sent3: if the roping does not occur the metacarpal happens and the hang occurs. sent4: if both the retting squire and the psychosexualness occurs the nonfatalness does not occur. sent5: the craniotomy does not occur if the psychosexualness occurs but the retting squire does not occur. sent6: if the underpaying criticality occurs then the roping does not occur. sent7: if the psychosexualness does not occur then the buccalness and the retting squire happens. sent8: the Ukrainianness occurs. sent9: the hooting does not occur. sent10: the proctoplasty happens. sent11: the non-Malaysianness results in that the nonfatalness but not the craniotomy occurs. sent12: that the craniotomy does not occur is prevented by the fatalness. sent13: the retting squire occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the facultativeness does not occur.
|
¬{A}
|
sent1: that both the facultativeness and the pureness occurs is false. sent2: the impureness does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬({A} & ¬{B}) sent2: ¬{B}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the facultativeness happens.; assump1 & sent2 -> int1: both the facultativeness and the cleanness happens.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}; assump1 & sent2 -> int1: ({A} & ¬{B}); int1 & sent1 -> int2: #F#; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the facultativeness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that both the facultativeness and the pureness occurs is false. sent2: the impureness does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the facultativeness happens.; assump1 & sent2 -> int1: both the facultativeness and the cleanness happens.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the helicopter is not a vole is right.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
sent1: there is something such that the fact that it does ret serviceman and is not a brilliantine is wrong. sent2: there is something such that it is not a kind of a Hittite and it is not a requirement. sent3: if the playhouse is persuasive then the serviceman does not oxidize and does not underpay Mashhad. sent4: if something is a brilliantine then the fact that it is a kind of inextinguishable thing that is not Eurocentric is false. sent5: if a non-Hittite thing is not a kind of a requirement then the helicopter is a vole.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬({H}x & ¬{G}x) sent2: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent3: {D}{c} -> (¬{C}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent4: (x): {G}x -> ¬({E}x & ¬{F}x) sent5: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a}
|
[
"sent2 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the helicopter is not a vole is right.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: if the nutshell is a kind of a brilliantine then that it is inextinguishable and is not Eurocentric is incorrect.;"
] | 7 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the helicopter is not a vole is right. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that the fact that it does ret serviceman and is not a brilliantine is wrong. sent2: there is something such that it is not a kind of a Hittite and it is not a requirement. sent3: if the playhouse is persuasive then the serviceman does not oxidize and does not underpay Mashhad. sent4: if something is a brilliantine then the fact that it is a kind of inextinguishable thing that is not Eurocentric is false. sent5: if a non-Hittite thing is not a kind of a requirement then the helicopter is a vole. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the sisal is not a kind of a fiberglass but it does ret hell-kite.
|
(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})
|
sent1: the sisal is a kind of a carat. sent2: if the peripheral is not a kind of a peripheral but it does drive groundsheet then the oxytocic is not a Buddhist. sent3: the peripheral is not a peripheral and drives groundsheet. sent4: if the sisal is a kind of a carat then it is not a kind of a fiberglass and it rets hell-kite. sent5: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Buddhist then the myrmecophyte is a carat that is azo. sent6: the sisal is not a fiberglass. sent7: if the sisal is a carat it is not a fiberglass. sent8: the ianfu is a kind of a fiberglass.
|
sent1: {A}{a} sent2: (¬{D}{d} & {E}{d}) -> ¬{C}{c} sent3: (¬{D}{d} & {E}{d}) sent4: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent5: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({A}{b} & {B}{b}) sent6: ¬{AA}{a} sent7: {A}{a} -> ¬{AA}{a} sent8: {AA}{cb}
|
[
"sent4 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the fact that the sisal is not a fiberglass and does ret hell-kite is not incorrect does not hold.
|
¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})
|
[
"sent2 & sent3 -> int1: the oxytocic is not a Buddhist.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that it is not a kind of a Buddhist.; int2 & sent5 -> int3: the myrmecophyte is both a carat and azo.; int3 -> int4: the myrmecophyte is a carat.;"
] | 7 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 6 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the sisal is not a kind of a fiberglass but it does ret hell-kite. ; $context$ = sent1: the sisal is a kind of a carat. sent2: if the peripheral is not a kind of a peripheral but it does drive groundsheet then the oxytocic is not a Buddhist. sent3: the peripheral is not a peripheral and drives groundsheet. sent4: if the sisal is a kind of a carat then it is not a kind of a fiberglass and it rets hell-kite. sent5: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Buddhist then the myrmecophyte is a carat that is azo. sent6: the sisal is not a fiberglass. sent7: if the sisal is a carat it is not a fiberglass. sent8: the ianfu is a kind of a fiberglass. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the pepperwood recriminates.
|
{A}{a}
|
sent1: the plughole is non-weedy a bantamweight. sent2: the pepperwood does not recriminate but it is a bantamweight. sent3: something does recriminate and is a bantamweight if it is not a kind of a loanblend. sent4: the pepperwood is a bantamweight. sent5: the Chechen does not recriminate. sent6: the fact that the pepperwood is not Himalayan and swims hold. sent7: the pepperwood is not a piloting. sent8: the buckbean is not a bantamweight. sent9: something does not recriminate and is not a kind of a Egyptology if it is not a bantamweight. sent10: that the pepperwood does not ret nitrocalcite is not wrong.
|
sent1: (¬{CT}{il} & {B}{il}) sent2: (¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent3: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({A}x & {B}x) sent4: {B}{a} sent5: ¬{A}{bb} sent6: (¬{CP}{a} & {JD}{a}) sent7: ¬{FE}{a} sent8: ¬{B}{ea} sent9: (x): ¬{B}x -> (¬{A}x & ¬{IM}x) sent10: ¬{L}{a}
|
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the moocher is not a kind of a Egyptology but it is a forty-five.
|
(¬{IM}{an} & {ES}{an})
|
[
"sent9 -> int1: if the moocher is not a bantamweight it does not recriminate and it is not a kind of a Egyptology.;"
] | 4 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the pepperwood recriminates. ; $context$ = sent1: the plughole is non-weedy a bantamweight. sent2: the pepperwood does not recriminate but it is a bantamweight. sent3: something does recriminate and is a bantamweight if it is not a kind of a loanblend. sent4: the pepperwood is a bantamweight. sent5: the Chechen does not recriminate. sent6: the fact that the pepperwood is not Himalayan and swims hold. sent7: the pepperwood is not a piloting. sent8: the buckbean is not a bantamweight. sent9: something does not recriminate and is not a kind of a Egyptology if it is not a bantamweight. sent10: that the pepperwood does not ret nitrocalcite is not wrong. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the mamey does not hire and/or it is a Naiki is wrong if it does not drive niblick.
|
¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa})
|
sent1: if the bridal-wreath is not a geophysicist that either it is a Naiki or it is sarcolemmic or both does not hold. sent2: the mamey is not a kind of a hired and/or it is a Naiki if it does not drive niblick. sent3: that either something is not a kind of a hired or it is a kind of a Naiki or both is not true if it does drive niblick. sent4: the fact that the mamey is not a hired or is a Naiki or both does not hold if it does drive niblick. sent5: if the mamey does not drive niblick then that it is a hired or it is a Naiki or both does not hold. sent6: the fact that something is either not a hired or a Naiki or both does not hold if it does not drive niblick. sent7: the fact that the mamey is not a kind of a Naiki and/or is a kind of a reactionism is incorrect if it labels criticality. sent8: the mamey is not a Naiki if it does not drive niblick. sent9: if something is not over-the-counter that it is not tactless or it is a Bankhead or both is not right. sent10: if something does not drive niblick either it is not a kind of a hired or it is a Naiki or both. sent11: if something does not drive niblick then it is not a kind of a Naiki. sent12: the fact that something hires and/or it is a Naiki is wrong if it does not drive niblick. sent13: if the mamey does not drive niblick that either it is not a kind of a collective or it does ret disinclination or both is not true.
|
sent1: ¬{BA}{s} -> ¬({AB}{s} v {FF}{s}) sent2: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent3: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) sent4: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent5: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent6: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) sent7: {HS}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AB}{aa} v {HE}{aa}) sent8: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬{AB}{aa} sent9: (x): ¬{AG}x -> ¬(¬{IB}x v {BN}x) sent10: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) sent11: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{AB}x sent12: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x v {AB}x) sent13: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{IE}{aa} v {DL}{aa})
|
[
"sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the mamey does not hire and/or it is a Naiki is wrong if it does not drive niblick. ; $context$ = sent1: if the bridal-wreath is not a geophysicist that either it is a Naiki or it is sarcolemmic or both does not hold. sent2: the mamey is not a kind of a hired and/or it is a Naiki if it does not drive niblick. sent3: that either something is not a kind of a hired or it is a kind of a Naiki or both is not true if it does drive niblick. sent4: the fact that the mamey is not a hired or is a Naiki or both does not hold if it does drive niblick. sent5: if the mamey does not drive niblick then that it is a hired or it is a Naiki or both does not hold. sent6: the fact that something is either not a hired or a Naiki or both does not hold if it does not drive niblick. sent7: the fact that the mamey is not a kind of a Naiki and/or is a kind of a reactionism is incorrect if it labels criticality. sent8: the mamey is not a Naiki if it does not drive niblick. sent9: if something is not over-the-counter that it is not tactless or it is a Bankhead or both is not right. sent10: if something does not drive niblick either it is not a kind of a hired or it is a Naiki or both. sent11: if something does not drive niblick then it is not a kind of a Naiki. sent12: the fact that something hires and/or it is a Naiki is wrong if it does not drive niblick. sent13: if the mamey does not drive niblick that either it is not a kind of a collective or it does ret disinclination or both is not true. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the cradle is not axonal.
|
¬{D}{c}
|
sent1: if the cradle is exoteric and it is eparchial then the demonstrator is not axonal. sent2: something is not eparchial and/or it rets feminine if it is not exoteric. sent3: the demonstrator does not ret feminine if the cradle is axonal and exoteric. sent4: the hydrofoil is axonal and it satisfices. sent5: something is axonal if it labels KGB. sent6: the fact that the demonstrator does not obscure hold. sent7: the hydrofoil does label KGB. sent8: the hydrofoil is not eparchial. sent9: the hydrofoil underpays domatium and is a kind of a hostile. sent10: if the demonstrator does not obscure that it is a broad and not non-pyloric does not hold. sent11: The KGB does label hydrofoil. sent12: the fact that the penicillamine is not exoteric is not wrong. sent13: the cradle is eparchial and is a kind of a tailor. sent14: if that something is a broad that is pyloric is not right it is not a kind of a Malecite. sent15: the shell is exoteric and is a kind of a welwitschia. sent16: the demonstrator is exoteric. sent17: something is exoteric and a fluke if it is not a kind of a Malecite. sent18: that the hydrofoil is not exoteric is right if the demonstrator is not exoteric and it is a fluke. sent19: the demonstrator is exoteric and does label KGB. sent20: the cradle is decent and is a conceited. sent21: if the demonstrator does ret feminine and it is eparchial then the cradle is not axonal. sent22: the fact that the demonstrator is not non-eparchial but exoteric is not false. sent23: if the hydrofoil labels KGB the demonstrator does ret feminine.
|
sent1: ({E}{c} & {C}{c}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent2: (x): ¬{E}x -> (¬{C}x v {B}x) sent3: ({D}{c} & {E}{c}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent4: ({D}{a} & {DN}{a}) sent5: (x): {A}x -> {D}x sent6: ¬{J}{b} sent7: {A}{a} sent8: ¬{C}{a} sent9: ({EA}{a} & {HP}{a}) sent10: ¬{J}{b} -> ¬({H}{b} & {I}{b}) sent11: {AA}{aa} sent12: ¬{E}{im} sent13: ({C}{c} & {HU}{c}) sent14: (x): ¬({H}x & {I}x) -> ¬{G}x sent15: ({E}{dc} & {FN}{dc}) sent16: {E}{b} sent17: (x): ¬{G}x -> ({E}x & {F}x) sent18: ({E}{b} & {F}{b}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent19: ({E}{b} & {A}{b}) sent20: ({IN}{c} & {HA}{c}) sent21: ({B}{b} & {C}{b}) -> ¬{D}{c} sent22: ({C}{b} & {E}{b}) sent23: {A}{a} -> {B}{b}
|
[
"sent23 & sent7 -> int1: the demonstrator rets feminine.; sent22 -> int2: the fact that the demonstrator is eparchial hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the demonstrator rets feminine and it is eparchial.; int3 & sent21 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent23 & sent7 -> int1: {B}{b}; sent22 -> int2: {C}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({B}{b} & {C}{b}); int3 & sent21 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the cradle is axonal.
|
{D}{c}
|
[
"sent5 -> int4: if the fact that the cradle does label KGB is correct then it is axonal.; sent2 -> int5: if the hydrofoil is not exoteric then either it is not eparchial or it does ret feminine or both.; sent17 -> int6: if that the demonstrator is not a Malecite is not wrong it is exoteric and is a fluke.; sent14 -> int7: if that the demonstrator is a broad and pyloric does not hold it is not a Malecite.; sent10 & sent6 -> int8: that the demonstrator is a broad and it is pyloric is not right.; int7 & int8 -> int9: the demonstrator is not a Malecite.; int6 & int9 -> int10: the demonstrator is exoteric and a fluke.; sent18 & int10 -> int11: the hydrofoil is not exoteric.; int5 & int11 -> int12: the hydrofoil is not eparchial and/or rets feminine.; int12 -> int13: something is not eparchial and/or does ret feminine.;"
] | 8 | 3 | 3 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the cradle is not axonal. ; $context$ = sent1: if the cradle is exoteric and it is eparchial then the demonstrator is not axonal. sent2: something is not eparchial and/or it rets feminine if it is not exoteric. sent3: the demonstrator does not ret feminine if the cradle is axonal and exoteric. sent4: the hydrofoil is axonal and it satisfices. sent5: something is axonal if it labels KGB. sent6: the fact that the demonstrator does not obscure hold. sent7: the hydrofoil does label KGB. sent8: the hydrofoil is not eparchial. sent9: the hydrofoil underpays domatium and is a kind of a hostile. sent10: if the demonstrator does not obscure that it is a broad and not non-pyloric does not hold. sent11: The KGB does label hydrofoil. sent12: the fact that the penicillamine is not exoteric is not wrong. sent13: the cradle is eparchial and is a kind of a tailor. sent14: if that something is a broad that is pyloric is not right it is not a kind of a Malecite. sent15: the shell is exoteric and is a kind of a welwitschia. sent16: the demonstrator is exoteric. sent17: something is exoteric and a fluke if it is not a kind of a Malecite. sent18: that the hydrofoil is not exoteric is right if the demonstrator is not exoteric and it is a fluke. sent19: the demonstrator is exoteric and does label KGB. sent20: the cradle is decent and is a conceited. sent21: if the demonstrator does ret feminine and it is eparchial then the cradle is not axonal. sent22: the fact that the demonstrator is not non-eparchial but exoteric is not false. sent23: if the hydrofoil labels KGB the demonstrator does ret feminine. ; $proof$ =
|
sent23 & sent7 -> int1: the demonstrator rets feminine.; sent22 -> int2: the fact that the demonstrator is eparchial hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the demonstrator rets feminine and it is eparchial.; int3 & sent21 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the baron drives roundhouse or it is not unrepeatable or both does not hold.
|
¬({F}{c} v ¬{E}{c})
|
sent1: if the fact that the pennyroyal does not ret Astrophyton and does not drive Key is wrong then the baron is socialistic. sent2: if that the Key does drive Key is not wrong the fact that the pennyroyal does not ret Astrophyton and does not drive Key is not correct. sent3: the Key is pilar. sent4: the baron does not drive roundhouse. sent5: there exists nothing that does label plausibility and is not a kind of a nationalism. sent6: if the fact that something is socialistic hold then the fact that it either does drive roundhouse or is not unrepeatable or both is not right. sent7: the fact that the Key is not pilar and it does not drive roundhouse is not true. sent8: the fact that something does drive Key or is not unrepeatable or both is incorrect if it rets Astrophyton. sent9: if the Key does ret Astrophyton then that it drives Key or it does not drive roundhouse or both is not right. sent10: something does not drive roundhouse if it is not non-socialistic. sent11: if something does drive roundhouse the fact that it is pilar or not unrepeatable or both is incorrect. sent12: that the pennyroyal does not ret Astrophyton but it does drive Key is not right. sent13: if the Key does drive Key then that that the pennyroyal does not ret Astrophyton and drive Key is not incorrect is not true. sent14: the Key is unrepeatable. sent15: if there exists something such that that it does label plausibility and it is not a nationalism does not hold the pennyroyal does corrupt. sent16: the psilophyton does drive roundhouse. sent17: if the baron is socialistic it does not drive roundhouse. sent18: if something is not pilar it either drives roundhouse or is not unrepeatable or both. sent19: something is not non-socialistic if it does corrupt. sent20: if the pennyroyal does drive Key then the baron is socialistic. sent21: the baron is not pilar if the Key is not pilar.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{C}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> {D}{c} sent2: {B}{a} -> ¬(¬{C}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent3: {A}{a} sent4: ¬{F}{c} sent5: (x): ¬({I}x & ¬{H}x) sent6: (x): {D}x -> ¬({F}x v ¬{E}x) sent7: ¬(¬{A}{a} & ¬{F}{a}) sent8: (x): {C}x -> ¬({B}x v ¬{E}x) sent9: {C}{a} -> ¬({B}{a} v ¬{F}{a}) sent10: (x): {D}x -> ¬{F}x sent11: (x): {F}x -> ¬({A}x v ¬{E}x) sent12: ¬(¬{C}{b} & {B}{b}) sent13: {B}{a} -> ¬(¬{C}{b} & {B}{b}) sent14: {E}{a} sent15: (x): ¬({I}x & ¬{H}x) -> {G}{b} sent16: {F}{gg} sent17: {D}{c} -> ¬{F}{c} sent18: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({F}x v ¬{E}x) sent19: (x): {G}x -> {D}x sent20: {B}{b} -> {D}{c} sent21: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{A}{c}
|
[
"sent6 -> int1: if the baron is socialistic then the fact that it drives roundhouse and/or it is not unrepeatable is not right.;"
] |
[
"sent6 -> int1: {D}{c} -> ¬({F}{c} v ¬{E}{c});"
] |
the baron drives roundhouse or is not unrepeatable or both.
|
({F}{c} v ¬{E}{c})
|
[
"sent18 -> int2: either the baron does drive roundhouse or it is not unrepeatable or both if it is not pilar.; sent19 -> int3: the pennyroyal is socialistic if it is corrupted.; sent5 -> int4: that the azote does label plausibility but it is not a nationalism is not correct.; int4 -> int5: there exists something such that the fact that it labels plausibility and it is not a kind of a nationalism is wrong.; int5 & sent15 -> int6: the pennyroyal corrupts.; int3 & int6 -> int7: the pennyroyal is socialistic.; int7 -> int8: there is something such that that it is socialistic hold.;"
] | 9 | 4 | null | 17 | 0 | 17 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the baron drives roundhouse or it is not unrepeatable or both does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the pennyroyal does not ret Astrophyton and does not drive Key is wrong then the baron is socialistic. sent2: if that the Key does drive Key is not wrong the fact that the pennyroyal does not ret Astrophyton and does not drive Key is not correct. sent3: the Key is pilar. sent4: the baron does not drive roundhouse. sent5: there exists nothing that does label plausibility and is not a kind of a nationalism. sent6: if the fact that something is socialistic hold then the fact that it either does drive roundhouse or is not unrepeatable or both is not right. sent7: the fact that the Key is not pilar and it does not drive roundhouse is not true. sent8: the fact that something does drive Key or is not unrepeatable or both is incorrect if it rets Astrophyton. sent9: if the Key does ret Astrophyton then that it drives Key or it does not drive roundhouse or both is not right. sent10: something does not drive roundhouse if it is not non-socialistic. sent11: if something does drive roundhouse the fact that it is pilar or not unrepeatable or both is incorrect. sent12: that the pennyroyal does not ret Astrophyton but it does drive Key is not right. sent13: if the Key does drive Key then that that the pennyroyal does not ret Astrophyton and drive Key is not incorrect is not true. sent14: the Key is unrepeatable. sent15: if there exists something such that that it does label plausibility and it is not a nationalism does not hold the pennyroyal does corrupt. sent16: the psilophyton does drive roundhouse. sent17: if the baron is socialistic it does not drive roundhouse. sent18: if something is not pilar it either drives roundhouse or is not unrepeatable or both. sent19: something is not non-socialistic if it does corrupt. sent20: if the pennyroyal does drive Key then the baron is socialistic. sent21: the baron is not pilar if the Key is not pilar. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 -> int1: if the baron is socialistic then the fact that it drives roundhouse and/or it is not unrepeatable is not right.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the sweatbox is not a cloudiness.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
sent1: the ketose is not a lineman. sent2: there is something such that that it does drive eristic and does label funambulism does not hold. sent3: something does drive eristic and does label funambulism. sent4: the strawberry does not copper if it is not dislike. sent5: the sweatbox is not a cloudiness if there is something such that it does not label funambulism. sent6: the sweatbox is not a kind of a cloudiness if there is something such that that it does drive eristic and it does label funambulism does not hold. sent7: if something is not a cloudiness then it does not offload.
|
sent1: ¬{EQ}{eu} sent2: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent4: {E}{c} -> ¬{D}{c} sent5: (x): ¬{AB}x -> ¬{A}{a} sent6: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{IL}x
|
[
"sent2 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the sweatbox is a cloudiness.
|
{A}{a}
|
[] | 6 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the sweatbox is not a cloudiness. ; $context$ = sent1: the ketose is not a lineman. sent2: there is something such that that it does drive eristic and does label funambulism does not hold. sent3: something does drive eristic and does label funambulism. sent4: the strawberry does not copper if it is not dislike. sent5: the sweatbox is not a cloudiness if there is something such that it does not label funambulism. sent6: the sweatbox is not a kind of a cloudiness if there is something such that that it does drive eristic and it does label funambulism does not hold. sent7: if something is not a cloudiness then it does not offload. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there is something such that if it is a lacer that it is a Davy and not argillaceous does not hold is incorrect.
|
¬((Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x))
|
sent1: the fact that something is a kind of sectarian thing that is not a kind of a encumbrance is not true if it is diametric. sent2: there is something such that if it is a kind of a filigree that it does lapidify and it is a kind of a streaked is not true. sent3: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a lacer it is a kind of a Davy and it is not argillaceous. sent4: if something is a gearset the fact that it is symphonic and it is not inarticulate does not hold. sent5: there is something such that if it mismarries the fact that it is a Feosol and is not agonal is not true. sent6: the fact that the quirt does ret umbrellawort and is a Duma is not true if the fact that it is argillaceous is not wrong. sent7: there exists something such that if it is chyliferous that it does mismarry and it does languish is not right. sent8: if something is an abomination that it rets gearset and does not underpay Euglenaceae is wrong. sent9: if something is a lacer then that it is a kind of a Davy and it is not argillaceous does not hold. sent10: if something is a CISC the fact that it is a quiddity but not a tunnel is incorrect. sent11: if something labels hydropathy then that that it is not non-ignoble and it does label Pomolobus is true is not true. sent12: there is something such that if it is sensitive that it is azido and it is a kind of a filigree does not hold. sent13: something is a Davy and is not argillaceous if it is a kind of a lacer. sent14: the gearset is a balance but it is not a lacer if it rets southernness. sent15: there exists something such that if that it is a percale hold then that it is a kind of a soundman and it is not a unison is false. sent16: the fact that something is a kind of a taxidermist that is not a cytoplast is false if it graduates. sent17: if the gearset is a seatbelt then that it is argillaceous thing that is not a kind of a madame is false. sent18: the fact that the gearset is ameboid and is argillaceous does not hold if it is a synonymist. sent19: if the fact that the gearset is a sadism is not incorrect it is a kind of outer thing that does not pickle. sent20: there exists something such that if it is azido then the fact that it is a CISC and not a Army is wrong. sent21: there exists something such that if it is astronautic the fact that it is a hysteroscopy and it is a racecard is not right.
|
sent1: (x): {BD}x -> ¬({FJ}x & ¬{DN}x) sent2: (Ex): {L}x -> ¬({GT}x & {FL}x) sent3: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent4: (x): {EI}x -> ¬({AJ}x & ¬{BG}x) sent5: (Ex): {AD}x -> ¬({CB}x & ¬{CM}x) sent6: {AB}{ib} -> ¬({HM}{ib} & {DC}{ib}) sent7: (Ex): {E}x -> ¬({AD}x & {CD}x) sent8: (x): {JH}x -> ¬({DU}x & ¬{EC}x) sent9: (x): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent10: (x): {GU}x -> ¬({GS}x & ¬{EA}x) sent11: (x): {HS}x -> ¬({K}x & {FB}x) sent12: (Ex): {AH}x -> ¬({AC}x & {L}x) sent13: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent14: {IS}{aa} -> ({FC}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa}) sent15: (Ex): {GE}x -> ¬({FU}x & ¬{FN}x) sent16: (x): {GL}x -> ¬({HE}x & ¬{IH}x) sent17: {DQ}{aa} -> ¬({AB}{aa} & ¬{DO}{aa}) sent18: {BN}{aa} -> ¬({JE}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent19: {HL}{aa} -> ({DT}{aa} & ¬{FG}{aa}) sent20: (Ex): {AC}x -> ¬({GU}x & ¬{ER}x) sent21: (Ex): {AL}x -> ¬({JD}x & {GQ}x)
|
[
"sent9 -> int1: that the gearset is a Davy but not argillaceous does not hold if it is a lacer.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 -> int1: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 20 | 0 | 20 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if it is a lacer that it is a Davy and not argillaceous does not hold is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is a kind of sectarian thing that is not a kind of a encumbrance is not true if it is diametric. sent2: there is something such that if it is a kind of a filigree that it does lapidify and it is a kind of a streaked is not true. sent3: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a lacer it is a kind of a Davy and it is not argillaceous. sent4: if something is a gearset the fact that it is symphonic and it is not inarticulate does not hold. sent5: there is something such that if it mismarries the fact that it is a Feosol and is not agonal is not true. sent6: the fact that the quirt does ret umbrellawort and is a Duma is not true if the fact that it is argillaceous is not wrong. sent7: there exists something such that if it is chyliferous that it does mismarry and it does languish is not right. sent8: if something is an abomination that it rets gearset and does not underpay Euglenaceae is wrong. sent9: if something is a lacer then that it is a kind of a Davy and it is not argillaceous does not hold. sent10: if something is a CISC the fact that it is a quiddity but not a tunnel is incorrect. sent11: if something labels hydropathy then that that it is not non-ignoble and it does label Pomolobus is true is not true. sent12: there is something such that if it is sensitive that it is azido and it is a kind of a filigree does not hold. sent13: something is a Davy and is not argillaceous if it is a kind of a lacer. sent14: the gearset is a balance but it is not a lacer if it rets southernness. sent15: there exists something such that if that it is a percale hold then that it is a kind of a soundman and it is not a unison is false. sent16: the fact that something is a kind of a taxidermist that is not a cytoplast is false if it graduates. sent17: if the gearset is a seatbelt then that it is argillaceous thing that is not a kind of a madame is false. sent18: the fact that the gearset is ameboid and is argillaceous does not hold if it is a synonymist. sent19: if the fact that the gearset is a sadism is not incorrect it is a kind of outer thing that does not pickle. sent20: there exists something such that if it is azido then the fact that it is a CISC and not a Army is wrong. sent21: there exists something such that if it is astronautic the fact that it is a hysteroscopy and it is a racecard is not right. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 -> int1: that the gearset is a Davy but not argillaceous does not hold if it is a lacer.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that it does label compensation.
|
(Ex): {A}x
|
sent1: if there is something such that the fact that it is a boondoggle and/or is not existentialist is not correct the rangeland labels compensation. sent2: there is something such that that it is a kind of a boondoggle or it is not a existentialist or both does not hold.
|
sent1: (x): ¬({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent2: (Ex): ¬({AA}x v ¬{AB}x)
|
[
"sent2 & sent1 -> int1: that the rangeland labels compensation hold.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent1 -> int1: {A}{a}; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that it does label compensation. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that the fact that it is a boondoggle and/or is not existentialist is not correct the rangeland labels compensation. sent2: there is something such that that it is a kind of a boondoggle or it is not a existentialist or both does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent1 -> int1: that the rangeland labels compensation hold.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the Attilio does not faint and/or is not bicipital is not correct.
|
¬(¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa})
|
sent1: if the fact that something is both a flight and a PIE is incorrect then it does not faint. sent2: the dicynodont is not a Wykeham. sent3: the Attilio is bicipital. sent4: if the dicynodont is a Kenyapithecus then the bench is a principalship. sent5: the fact that something is not a faint and/or is not bicipital is wrong if it is a PIE. sent6: the Attilio is a kind of a PIE. sent7: the Attilio is not a faint if that the cyanogen is not a faint is true. sent8: something is a Kenyapithecus and it is a braid if it is not a kind of a Wykeham.
|
sent1: (x): ¬({B}x & {A}x) -> ¬{AA}x sent2: ¬{F}{c} sent3: {AB}{aa} sent4: {D}{c} -> {C}{b} sent5: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent6: {A}{aa} sent7: ¬{AA}{a} -> ¬{AA}{aa} sent8: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({D}x & {E}x)
|
[
"sent5 -> int1: the fact that the Attilio is not a faint or it is not bicipital or both is false if it is a kind of a PIE.; int1 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 -> int1: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the Attilio is not a faint or is not bicipital or both.
|
(¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa})
|
[
"sent1 -> int2: if the fact that the cyanogen is a kind of a flight and is a PIE is not right then the fact that it is not a faint hold.; sent8 -> int3: that the dicynodont is a Kenyapithecus and it is a braid is correct if it is not a Wykeham.; int3 & sent2 -> int4: the dicynodont is a Kenyapithecus and it is a braid.; int4 -> int5: the dicynodont is a Kenyapithecus.; sent4 & int5 -> int6: the bench is a kind of a principalship.; int6 -> int7: something is a principalship.;"
] | 9 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 6 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the Attilio does not faint and/or is not bicipital is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something is both a flight and a PIE is incorrect then it does not faint. sent2: the dicynodont is not a Wykeham. sent3: the Attilio is bicipital. sent4: if the dicynodont is a Kenyapithecus then the bench is a principalship. sent5: the fact that something is not a faint and/or is not bicipital is wrong if it is a PIE. sent6: the Attilio is a kind of a PIE. sent7: the Attilio is not a faint if that the cyanogen is not a faint is true. sent8: something is a Kenyapithecus and it is a braid if it is not a kind of a Wykeham. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 -> int1: the fact that the Attilio is not a faint or it is not bicipital or both is false if it is a kind of a PIE.; int1 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the redhorse is not foul.
|
¬{B}{aa}
|
sent1: if something is not a Goldman it is a liturgy and a stylization. sent2: the aspergill is not a Goldman if the sportscaster is a Goldman and it does label pout. sent3: the airbrush does label airbrush but it does not expose if something is not a kind of an electrician. sent4: if something is a stylization it is abbatial. sent5: the heliopause is not an electrician if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a consumption and it is not a foul is wrong. sent6: the fact that something is not a consumption and it is not a foul is false if the fact that it is abbatial hold. sent7: if something is catkinate but it is not pragmatics then it is not non-foul. sent8: everything is catkinate and it is not a pragmatics. sent9: the sportscaster is a Goldman and labels pout if the saurel is not a Epstein. sent10: the redhorse does not foul if the fact that the heliopause is both a consumption and not an electrician is incorrect. sent11: the fact that the saurel is not a kind of a Epstein hold.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{G}x -> ({F}x & {E}x) sent2: ({G}{c} & {H}{c}) -> ¬{G}{b} sent3: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({FQ}{jg} & ¬{FP}{jg}) sent4: (x): {E}x -> {D}x sent5: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent6: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{B}x) sent7: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent8: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent9: ¬{I}{d} -> ({G}{c} & {H}{c}) sent10: ¬({C}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent11: ¬{I}{d}
|
[
"sent7 -> int1: the redhorse does foul if it is both catkinate and not pragmatics.; sent8 -> int2: the redhorse is catkinate but it is not a pragmatics.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent7 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; sent8 -> int2: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the airbrush does label airbrush and is not an exposed.
|
({FQ}{jg} & ¬{FP}{jg})
|
[
"sent6 -> int3: the fact that the aspergill is not a consumption and is not a foul is not right if it is abbatial.; sent4 -> int4: the aspergill is abbatial if it is a kind of a stylization.; sent1 -> int5: if that the aspergill is not a Goldman hold then it is a liturgy and it is a stylization.; sent9 & sent11 -> int6: the sportscaster is a kind of a Goldman and does label pout.; sent2 & int6 -> int7: the aspergill is not a Goldman.; int5 & int7 -> int8: the aspergill is a liturgy and is a kind of a stylization.; int8 -> int9: the aspergill is a stylization.; int4 & int9 -> int10: the fact that the aspergill is abbatial is true.; int3 & int10 -> int11: that that the aspergill is not a consumption and is not foul is false is not false.; int11 -> int12: there is something such that the fact that it is not a consumption and it is not a kind of a foul does not hold.; int12 & sent5 -> int13: the heliopause is not an electrician.; int13 -> int14: something is not an electrician.; int14 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | 10 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the redhorse is not foul. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not a Goldman it is a liturgy and a stylization. sent2: the aspergill is not a Goldman if the sportscaster is a Goldman and it does label pout. sent3: the airbrush does label airbrush but it does not expose if something is not a kind of an electrician. sent4: if something is a stylization it is abbatial. sent5: the heliopause is not an electrician if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a consumption and it is not a foul is wrong. sent6: the fact that something is not a consumption and it is not a foul is false if the fact that it is abbatial hold. sent7: if something is catkinate but it is not pragmatics then it is not non-foul. sent8: everything is catkinate and it is not a pragmatics. sent9: the sportscaster is a Goldman and labels pout if the saurel is not a Epstein. sent10: the redhorse does not foul if the fact that the heliopause is both a consumption and not an electrician is incorrect. sent11: the fact that the saurel is not a kind of a Epstein hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 -> int1: the redhorse does foul if it is both catkinate and not pragmatics.; sent8 -> int2: the redhorse is catkinate but it is not a pragmatics.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that it is not a kind of a lithosphere and it is bardic.
|
(Ex): (¬{E}x & {D}x)
|
sent1: something is not an underground if it is a healthfulness and it labels feminine. sent2: the joggle is a healthfulness. sent3: there exists something such that it is a lithosphere and is bardic. sent4: the joggle labels feminine. sent5: the partridge is bardic. sent6: that the miniature is a kind of connotative thing that is provocative is false. sent7: if the miniature is not provocative then it is Cyrillic and it is serious. sent8: the partridge is bardic or it is a lithosphere or both if something is a kind of a Cyrillic. sent9: there exists something such that it is not a lithosphere. sent10: if the fact that the miniature is both not non-connotative and not unprovocative does not hold then it is not unprovocative. sent11: The feminine labels joggle.
|
sent1: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}x sent2: {A}{a} sent3: (Ex): ({E}x & {D}x) sent4: {B}{a} sent5: {D}{b} sent6: ¬({I}{c} & {H}{c}) sent7: ¬{H}{c} -> ({F}{c} & {G}{c}) sent8: (x): {F}x -> ({D}{b} v {E}{b}) sent9: (Ex): ¬{E}x sent10: ¬({I}{c} & {H}{c}) -> ¬{H}{c} sent11: {AA}{aa}
|
[
"sent2 & sent4 -> int1: the joggle is a healthfulness and labels feminine.; sent1 -> int2: the joggle is not a kind of an underground if the fact that it is a kind of a healthfulness and labels feminine is correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the joggle is not an underground.;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent4 -> int1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}); sent1 -> int2: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬{C}{a};"
] |
the sandpit labels feminine.
|
{B}{du}
|
[
"sent10 & sent6 -> int4: the miniature is unprovocative.; sent7 & int4 -> int5: that the miniature is a kind of a Cyrillic and is serious is right.; int5 -> int6: the miniature is Cyrillic.; int6 -> int7: there exists something such that it is a Cyrillic.; int7 & sent8 -> int8: either the partridge is bardic or it is a lithosphere or both.;"
] | 9 | 4 | null | 8 | 0 | 8 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that it is not a kind of a lithosphere and it is bardic. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not an underground if it is a healthfulness and it labels feminine. sent2: the joggle is a healthfulness. sent3: there exists something such that it is a lithosphere and is bardic. sent4: the joggle labels feminine. sent5: the partridge is bardic. sent6: that the miniature is a kind of connotative thing that is provocative is false. sent7: if the miniature is not provocative then it is Cyrillic and it is serious. sent8: the partridge is bardic or it is a lithosphere or both if something is a kind of a Cyrillic. sent9: there exists something such that it is not a lithosphere. sent10: if the fact that the miniature is both not non-connotative and not unprovocative does not hold then it is not unprovocative. sent11: The feminine labels joggle. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent4 -> int1: the joggle is a healthfulness and labels feminine.; sent1 -> int2: the joggle is not a kind of an underground if the fact that it is a kind of a healthfulness and labels feminine is correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the joggle is not an underground.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it is not a cockatoo and does not label clothespress then it does not drive nudism.
|
(Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
sent1: if something is not a cockatoo and it does not label clothespress it does not drive nudism. sent2: if something is not a kind of a cockatoo and does label clothespress the fact that it does not drive nudism is right. sent3: if the clothespress is a kind of a cockatoo and does not label clothespress then it does not drive nudism. sent4: if a cockatoo does not label clothespress it does not drive nudism.
|
sent1: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent2: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent3: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent4: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: if the clothespress is not a cockatoo and does not label clothespress then it does not drive nudism.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is not a cockatoo and does not label clothespress then it does not drive nudism. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not a cockatoo and it does not label clothespress it does not drive nudism. sent2: if something is not a kind of a cockatoo and does label clothespress the fact that it does not drive nudism is right. sent3: if the clothespress is a kind of a cockatoo and does not label clothespress then it does not drive nudism. sent4: if a cockatoo does not label clothespress it does not drive nudism. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: if the clothespress is not a cockatoo and does not label clothespress then it does not drive nudism.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the lauhala is not a niqab.
|
¬{D}{a}
|
sent1: there is something such that it is a kind of a snowplow. sent2: the grange is not democratic if there exists something such that the fact that it is a niqab and not a cartoon is not correct. sent3: something is not a niqab if it is democratic thing that is not a cartoon. sent4: if something is not democratic then the lauhala does choir but it is not a snowplow.
|
sent1: (Ex): {A}x sent2: (x): ¬({D}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{B}{b} sent3: (x): ({B}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{D}x sent4: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({EL}{a} & ¬{A}{a})
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: the lauhala is not a niqab if it is democratic thing that does not cartoon.;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> int1: ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a};"
] |
there is something such that it choirs.
|
(Ex): {EL}x
|
[] | 7 | 2 | null | 2 | 0 | 2 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the lauhala is not a niqab. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is a kind of a snowplow. sent2: the grange is not democratic if there exists something such that the fact that it is a niqab and not a cartoon is not correct. sent3: something is not a niqab if it is democratic thing that is not a cartoon. sent4: if something is not democratic then the lauhala does choir but it is not a snowplow. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> int1: the lauhala is not a niqab if it is democratic thing that does not cartoon.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the shelf is not a kind of a Kolonia and it is not a AARP.
|
(¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a})
|
sent1: the fact that the fact that either the signor does not label cachou or it is not apologetics or both does not hold is true. sent2: if there is something such that the fact that it does not label cachou and/or is non-apologetics does not hold then the shelf is not a Kolonia.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent2: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a}
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: there is something such that that it either does not label cachou or is not apologetics or both is incorrect.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the shelf is not a Kolonia.;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x); int1 & sent2 -> int2: ¬{A}{a};"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | null | 0 | 0 | 0 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the shelf is not a kind of a Kolonia and it is not a AARP. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the fact that either the signor does not label cachou or it is not apologetics or both does not hold is true. sent2: if there is something such that the fact that it does not label cachou and/or is non-apologetics does not hold then the shelf is not a Kolonia. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: there is something such that that it either does not label cachou or is not apologetics or both is incorrect.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the shelf is not a Kolonia.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the shoveler is a kind of a encumbrance.
|
{C}{c}
|
sent1: the deadlight is a kind of a encumbrance. sent2: if something is statistical it is a tender. sent3: something does not label hap or it is not accipitrine or both if it does not ret fuel. sent4: the shoveler is larval if the denaturant is a kind of a encumbrance. sent5: the denaturant does not label durative but it is larval. sent6: if the denaturant does label durative and it is larval then the sap is statistical. sent7: the denaturant is a kind of a encumbrance. sent8: the sap does not steer but it is a atopy. sent9: the denaturant does benefit. sent10: the denaturant does not ret decorativeness if that the sap is not a kind of a seriousness and is not a nadolol is false. sent11: the sap is not ceremonious and drives Issachar. sent12: if the shoveler does not tender but it is statistical the sap is a encumbrance. sent13: the denaturant does not label durative. sent14: the shoveler is a encumbrance if the sap is tender. sent15: the sap is larval. sent16: the fact that the etymologist does not ret fuel is not wrong. sent17: the Monsignor is non-cannibalistic thing that does tender. sent18: that something is not a tender and it is not statistical is false if it does not ret decorativeness. sent19: the kunzite is not a blinded and does label denaturant. sent20: the shoveler is statistical if the sap is a encumbrance. sent21: if something is a tender then it is larval. sent22: if the fact that the denaturant is both not a tender and non-statistical is wrong then that the shoveler is not a encumbrance is correct. sent23: the sap is statistical if the denaturant does not label durative and is larval.
|
sent1: {C}{fi} sent2: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent3: (x): ¬{I}x -> (¬{G}x v ¬{H}x) sent4: {C}{a} -> {AB}{c} sent5: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent6: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent7: {C}{a} sent8: (¬{AD}{b} & {DT}{b}) sent9: {FE}{a} sent10: ¬(¬{F}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent11: (¬{II}{b} & {BP}{b}) sent12: (¬{A}{c} & {B}{c}) -> {C}{b} sent13: ¬{AA}{a} sent14: {A}{b} -> {C}{c} sent15: {AB}{b} sent16: ¬{I}{e} sent17: (¬{FU}{al} & {A}{al}) sent18: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) sent19: (¬{EL}{bh} & {FQ}{bh}) sent20: {C}{b} -> {B}{c} sent21: (x): {A}x -> {AB}x sent22: ¬(¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{c} sent23: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{b}
|
[
"sent23 & sent5 -> int1: the sap is statistical.; sent2 -> int2: if the sap is statistical then it is a tender.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the sap does tender.; int3 & sent14 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent23 & sent5 -> int1: {B}{b}; sent2 -> int2: {B}{b} -> {A}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {A}{b}; int3 & sent14 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the shoveler is not a encumbrance.
|
¬{C}{c}
|
[
"sent18 -> int4: the fact that that the denaturant does not tender and it is not statistical hold is false if it does not ret decorativeness.; sent3 -> int5: the fact that the etymologist does not label hap and/or it is not accipitrine is not false if the fact that it does not ret fuel is not wrong.; int5 & sent16 -> int6: the etymologist does not label hap and/or it is not accipitrine.; int6 -> int7: there is something such that it does not label hap and/or is not accipitrine.;"
] | 9 | 3 | 3 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the shoveler is a kind of a encumbrance. ; $context$ = sent1: the deadlight is a kind of a encumbrance. sent2: if something is statistical it is a tender. sent3: something does not label hap or it is not accipitrine or both if it does not ret fuel. sent4: the shoveler is larval if the denaturant is a kind of a encumbrance. sent5: the denaturant does not label durative but it is larval. sent6: if the denaturant does label durative and it is larval then the sap is statistical. sent7: the denaturant is a kind of a encumbrance. sent8: the sap does not steer but it is a atopy. sent9: the denaturant does benefit. sent10: the denaturant does not ret decorativeness if that the sap is not a kind of a seriousness and is not a nadolol is false. sent11: the sap is not ceremonious and drives Issachar. sent12: if the shoveler does not tender but it is statistical the sap is a encumbrance. sent13: the denaturant does not label durative. sent14: the shoveler is a encumbrance if the sap is tender. sent15: the sap is larval. sent16: the fact that the etymologist does not ret fuel is not wrong. sent17: the Monsignor is non-cannibalistic thing that does tender. sent18: that something is not a tender and it is not statistical is false if it does not ret decorativeness. sent19: the kunzite is not a blinded and does label denaturant. sent20: the shoveler is statistical if the sap is a encumbrance. sent21: if something is a tender then it is larval. sent22: if the fact that the denaturant is both not a tender and non-statistical is wrong then that the shoveler is not a encumbrance is correct. sent23: the sap is statistical if the denaturant does not label durative and is larval. ; $proof$ =
|
sent23 & sent5 -> int1: the sap is statistical.; sent2 -> int2: if the sap is statistical then it is a tender.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the sap does tender.; int3 & sent14 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there exists something such that if it is a kind of a hyponym and is not maternal then it is inconvenient is wrong.
|
¬((Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x)
|
sent1: something is a criminalism if it is dimensional and it is not gymnospermous. sent2: the quirt is inconvenient if that it is a hyponym and is maternal is correct. sent3: there exists something such that if it is a Argive and it is a kind of a color then it is a pachycheilia. sent4: the taxidermist does drive levity if it is progestational but not a hyponym. sent5: there exists something such that if the fact that it drives quirt and it does not tense is right then it is intramolecular. sent6: the guanaco is a plane if it is maternal and it is not undrinkable. sent7: the quirt is inconvenient if it is a hyponym and not maternal. sent8: there is something such that if it is a camper and it is not a Enhydra then it is intramolecular.
|
sent1: (x): ({HQ}x & ¬{IG}x) -> {K}x sent2: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent3: (Ex): ({DG}x & {GO}x) -> {IT}x sent4: ({FB}{hb} & ¬{AA}{hb}) -> {F}{hb} sent5: (Ex): ({CA}x & ¬{FD}x) -> {HL}x sent6: ({AB}{jf} & ¬{JE}{jf}) -> {CH}{jf} sent7: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent8: (Ex): ({FE}x & ¬{AH}x) -> {HL}x
|
[
"sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the codger is a criminalism if it is both not non-dimensional and not gymnospermous.
|
({HQ}{hd} & ¬{IG}{hd}) -> {K}{hd}
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it is a kind of a hyponym and is not maternal then it is inconvenient is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a criminalism if it is dimensional and it is not gymnospermous. sent2: the quirt is inconvenient if that it is a hyponym and is maternal is correct. sent3: there exists something such that if it is a Argive and it is a kind of a color then it is a pachycheilia. sent4: the taxidermist does drive levity if it is progestational but not a hyponym. sent5: there exists something such that if the fact that it drives quirt and it does not tense is right then it is intramolecular. sent6: the guanaco is a plane if it is maternal and it is not undrinkable. sent7: the quirt is inconvenient if it is a hyponym and not maternal. sent8: there is something such that if it is a camper and it is not a Enhydra then it is intramolecular. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the affirmative happens.
|
{C}
|
sent1: the non-calcificness is prevented by that the deciding does not occur and the thinking does not occur. sent2: the paleocorticalness happens. sent3: if the fact that the Holocaust does not occur but the romantic occurs is incorrect then the deciding does not occur. sent4: if that the somersaulting happens and the Oktoberfest does not occur does not hold the schizophrenicness does not occur. sent5: that the schizophrenic occurs is caused by the paleocorticalness. sent6: the non-affirmativeness is prevented by the schizophrenic. sent7: that the somersault but not the Oktoberfest happens is wrong if the calcificness happens. sent8: the fact that the schizophrenicness does not occur is correct if that both the somersaulting and the schizophrenicness happens does not hold.
|
sent1: (¬{H} & ¬{G}) -> {F} sent2: {A} sent3: ¬(¬{M} & {L}) -> ¬{H} sent4: ¬({D} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{B} sent5: {A} -> {B} sent6: {B} -> {C} sent7: {F} -> ¬({D} & ¬{E}) sent8: ¬({D} & {B}) -> ¬{B}
|
[
"sent5 & sent2 -> int1: the schizophrenicness happens.; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 & sent2 -> int1: {B}; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the affirmativeness does not occur.
|
¬{C}
|
[] | 8 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the affirmative happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the non-calcificness is prevented by that the deciding does not occur and the thinking does not occur. sent2: the paleocorticalness happens. sent3: if the fact that the Holocaust does not occur but the romantic occurs is incorrect then the deciding does not occur. sent4: if that the somersaulting happens and the Oktoberfest does not occur does not hold the schizophrenicness does not occur. sent5: that the schizophrenic occurs is caused by the paleocorticalness. sent6: the non-affirmativeness is prevented by the schizophrenic. sent7: that the somersault but not the Oktoberfest happens is wrong if the calcificness happens. sent8: the fact that the schizophrenicness does not occur is correct if that both the somersaulting and the schizophrenicness happens does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 & sent2 -> int1: the schizophrenicness happens.; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Spender is non-mandibular.
|
¬{B}{a}
|
sent1: the Spender is not mandibular if it is not a kind of a PC. sent2: if that the Spender is a kind of a Smollett and it is a kind of a PC does not hold then it is not a kind of a raja. sent3: something is both a impasto and coreferential if it is not a raja. sent4: the fact that the Spender does drive emendation and it is a PC is incorrect. sent5: if that the Spender drives emendation and is a kind of a PC is not correct then it is not mandibular. sent6: something that is coreferential is mandibular. sent7: if the fact that the Spender is philosophical and is nonintellectual is false it is not a chaplaincy. sent8: the arsine does not drive emendation.
|
sent1: ¬{AB}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent2: ¬({IL}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent3: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({C}x & {A}x) sent4: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent5: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent6: (x): {A}x -> {B}x sent7: ¬({CD}{a} & {DM}{a}) -> ¬{AN}{a} sent8: ¬{AA}{cm}
|
[
"sent5 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the Spender is mandibular is true.
|
{B}{a}
|
[
"sent6 -> int1: the Spender is mandibular if it is coreferential.; sent3 -> int2: the Spender is a kind of a impasto and it is not non-coreferential if it is not a raja.;"
] | 5 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 6 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the Spender is non-mandibular. ; $context$ = sent1: the Spender is not mandibular if it is not a kind of a PC. sent2: if that the Spender is a kind of a Smollett and it is a kind of a PC does not hold then it is not a kind of a raja. sent3: something is both a impasto and coreferential if it is not a raja. sent4: the fact that the Spender does drive emendation and it is a PC is incorrect. sent5: if that the Spender drives emendation and is a kind of a PC is not correct then it is not mandibular. sent6: something that is coreferential is mandibular. sent7: if the fact that the Spender is philosophical and is nonintellectual is false it is not a chaplaincy. sent8: the arsine does not drive emendation. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the goldfields is a rendering that is a tartlet.
|
({A}{a} & {B}{a})
|
sent1: if the fact that something is both a rendering and not a tartlet is wrong then it is a tartlet. sent2: if the bronchus does not ret clarence that the goldfields is a rendering and it is a tartlet is false. sent3: something does not ret clarence if it does scotch. sent4: the goldfields is a ready-to-wear and is Frostian. sent5: the goldfields pilfers. sent6: the goldfields is a kind of a tartlet. sent7: the bronchus does scotch if the piedmont does not scotch. sent8: that the LP is truthful and is a kind of a hush hold. sent9: the pintle is a kind of a rendering. sent10: the Pilgrim satiates and it is a rendering. sent11: the goldfields is a lockstep. sent12: if that the bondholder does scotch and it rets clarence does not hold it does not rets clarence. sent13: the goldfields is a rendering. sent14: the fact that something is a rendering but it is not a tartlet does not hold if the fact that it does not ret clarence hold. sent15: the conventioneer renders.
|
sent1: (x): ¬({A}x & ¬{B}x) -> {B}x sent2: ¬{C}{b} -> ¬({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent3: (x): {D}x -> ¬{C}x sent4: ({FT}{a} & {JD}{a}) sent5: {AI}{a} sent6: {B}{a} sent7: ¬{D}{c} -> {D}{b} sent8: ({EQ}{fe} & {AB}{fe}) sent9: {A}{cb} sent10: ({IL}{bj} & {A}{bj}) sent11: {CL}{a} sent12: ¬({D}{dk} & {C}{dk}) -> ¬{C}{dk} sent13: {A}{a} sent14: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({A}x & ¬{B}x) sent15: {A}{bd}
|
[
"sent13 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent13 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the bondholder is a tartlet.
|
{B}{dk}
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: the bondholder is a tartlet if that it is a rendering but not a tartlet is not correct.; sent14 -> int2: if the bondholder does not ret clarence then that it is both a rendering and not a tartlet is not right.;"
] | 6 | 1 | 1 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the goldfields is a rendering that is a tartlet. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something is both a rendering and not a tartlet is wrong then it is a tartlet. sent2: if the bronchus does not ret clarence that the goldfields is a rendering and it is a tartlet is false. sent3: something does not ret clarence if it does scotch. sent4: the goldfields is a ready-to-wear and is Frostian. sent5: the goldfields pilfers. sent6: the goldfields is a kind of a tartlet. sent7: the bronchus does scotch if the piedmont does not scotch. sent8: that the LP is truthful and is a kind of a hush hold. sent9: the pintle is a kind of a rendering. sent10: the Pilgrim satiates and it is a rendering. sent11: the goldfields is a lockstep. sent12: if that the bondholder does scotch and it rets clarence does not hold it does not rets clarence. sent13: the goldfields is a rendering. sent14: the fact that something is a rendering but it is not a tartlet does not hold if the fact that it does not ret clarence hold. sent15: the conventioneer renders. ; $proof$ =
|
sent13 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the tantalum is not a flurazepam and is not undomestic is wrong.
|
¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a})
|
sent1: if there exists something such that it is not domestic then the tantalum is not a flurazepam. sent2: if there is something such that it is easy and is not a kind of a Antiguan the Dalmatian is a meerschaum. sent3: if something does not label Kenyapithecus then the fact that it is a oriel and extinguishable is not correct. sent4: if the carbohydrate is not postal the fact that the hull rets hyponym and labels Kenyapithecus is incorrect. sent5: if there exists something such that it is not a meerschaum the tantalum is not a flurazepam but it is a kind of a domestic. sent6: something is not a meerschaum. sent7: the carbohydrate is not postal if that it is not a suslik is right. sent8: the fact that the carbohydrate is not a kind of a suslik is not wrong. sent9: if the fact that the hull rets hyponym and it labels Kenyapithecus is not true then the Northerner does not labels Kenyapithecus. sent10: the fact that the tantalum is a kind of a domestic is not false. sent11: if the fact that something is a oriel and extinguishable is false then it is not extinguishable. sent12: if something is a meerschaum then it is a flurazepam. sent13: the lavatory is both not Pasteurian and domestic. sent14: a non-extinguishable thing is a kind of easy thing that is not a Antiguan. sent15: the tantalum does not underpay hull and is spermicidal if something is not indecisive.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬{B}{a} sent2: (x): ({E}x & ¬{D}x) -> {A}{b} sent3: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬({G}x & {F}x) sent4: ¬{J}{e} -> ¬({I}{d} & {H}{d}) sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent6: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent7: ¬{K}{e} -> ¬{J}{e} sent8: ¬{K}{e} sent9: ¬({I}{d} & {H}{d}) -> ¬{H}{c} sent10: {C}{a} sent11: (x): ¬({G}x & {F}x) -> ¬{F}x sent12: (x): {A}x -> {B}x sent13: (¬{BH}{il} & {C}{il}) sent14: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({E}x & ¬{D}x) sent15: (x): ¬{HP}x -> (¬{HH}{a} & {GH}{a})
|
[
"sent6 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the tantalum is not a kind of a flurazepam but it is a domestic is incorrect.
|
¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a})
|
[
"sent12 -> int1: the Dalmatian is a flurazepam if it is a kind of a meerschaum.; sent14 -> int2: the Northerner is easy but not a Antiguan if it is not extinguishable.; sent11 -> int3: the Northerner is not extinguishable if that it is a kind of a oriel and it is extinguishable does not hold.; sent3 -> int4: the fact that the Northerner is a oriel and is extinguishable is not correct if it does not label Kenyapithecus.; sent7 & sent8 -> int5: the carbohydrate is not postal.; sent4 & int5 -> int6: the fact that the hull rets hyponym and labels Kenyapithecus is not right.; sent9 & int6 -> int7: the Northerner does not label Kenyapithecus.; int4 & int7 -> int8: that the Northerner is a kind of a oriel that is extinguishable is not right.; int3 & int8 -> int9: the Northerner is not extinguishable.; int2 & int9 -> int10: the Northerner is easy and is not Antiguan.; int10 -> int11: something is a kind of easy thing that is not a Antiguan.; int11 & sent2 -> int12: the Dalmatian is a meerschaum.; int1 & int12 -> int13: the fact that the Dalmatian is a kind of a flurazepam is not false.; int13 -> int14: something is a kind of a flurazepam.;"
] | 11 | 1 | 1 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the tantalum is not a flurazepam and is not undomestic is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that it is not domestic then the tantalum is not a flurazepam. sent2: if there is something such that it is easy and is not a kind of a Antiguan the Dalmatian is a meerschaum. sent3: if something does not label Kenyapithecus then the fact that it is a oriel and extinguishable is not correct. sent4: if the carbohydrate is not postal the fact that the hull rets hyponym and labels Kenyapithecus is incorrect. sent5: if there exists something such that it is not a meerschaum the tantalum is not a flurazepam but it is a kind of a domestic. sent6: something is not a meerschaum. sent7: the carbohydrate is not postal if that it is not a suslik is right. sent8: the fact that the carbohydrate is not a kind of a suslik is not wrong. sent9: if the fact that the hull rets hyponym and it labels Kenyapithecus is not true then the Northerner does not labels Kenyapithecus. sent10: the fact that the tantalum is a kind of a domestic is not false. sent11: if the fact that something is a oriel and extinguishable is false then it is not extinguishable. sent12: if something is a meerschaum then it is a flurazepam. sent13: the lavatory is both not Pasteurian and domestic. sent14: a non-extinguishable thing is a kind of easy thing that is not a Antiguan. sent15: the tantalum does not underpay hull and is spermicidal if something is not indecisive. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the diviner does not disagree.
|
¬{B}{b}
|
sent1: the basset is a narrow-body. sent2: if something labels Sanskrit then it does not disagree. sent3: if the basset is a kind of a Keynesian and it conditions then the diviner is not a Keynesian. sent4: if the Rajput does lord then the basset is a kind of a condition. sent5: if the diviner labels Rajput it does disagree and does not label Sanskrit. sent6: the Rajput lords. sent7: the diviner does disagree if the basset labels Rajput and does not drive disease. sent8: The Sanskrit labels basset. sent9: there exists something such that it is not catapultic. sent10: the basset labels Sanskrit. sent11: the propeller maddens but it is not legitimate. sent12: the diviner disagrees and does not drive disease if it does label Rajput. sent13: something either is a xylene or is a kind of a mind or both if it is not Keynesian. sent14: if that the basset does not label Leptotyphlopidae and is not a shore is not correct then it does shore. sent15: the diviner is cenobitic thing that does not negotiate. sent16: if the basset labels Sanskrit then it does label Rajput and does not drive disease. sent17: if something shores then it is a Keynesian. sent18: the fact that the basset does not label Leptotyphlopidae and it is not a shore is not correct if there exists something such that it is not catapultic. sent19: the soprano does label Sanskrit. sent20: the basset is a Karok.
|
sent1: {CA}{a} sent2: (x): {A}x -> ¬{B}x sent3: ({E}{a} & {F}{a}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent4: {J}{c} -> {F}{a} sent5: {AA}{b} -> ({B}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent6: {J}{c} sent7: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent8: {AC}{aa} sent9: (Ex): ¬{I}x sent10: {A}{a} sent11: ({DD}{ap} & ¬{P}{ap}) sent12: {AA}{b} -> ({B}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent13: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({C}x v {D}x) sent14: ¬(¬{H}{a} & ¬{G}{a}) -> {G}{a} sent15: ({GC}{b} & ¬{EI}{b}) sent16: {A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent17: (x): {G}x -> {E}x sent18: (x): ¬{I}x -> ¬(¬{H}{a} & ¬{G}{a}) sent19: {A}{en} sent20: {EN}{a}
|
[
"sent16 & sent10 -> int1: the basset labels Rajput and does not drive disease.; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent16 & sent10 -> int1: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the diviner does not disagree is true.
|
¬{B}{b}
|
[
"sent2 -> int2: the diviner does not disagree if it does label Sanskrit.; sent13 -> int3: the diviner is a xylene and/or it is a kind of a mind if it is not Keynesian.; sent17 -> int4: if that the basset does shore is not false then it is Keynesian.; sent9 & sent18 -> int5: the fact that the basset does not label Leptotyphlopidae and does not shore is wrong.; sent14 & int5 -> int6: the basset does shore.; int4 & int6 -> int7: the basset is a kind of a Keynesian.; sent4 & sent6 -> int8: the basset is a kind of a condition.; int7 & int8 -> int9: the basset is a Keynesian and it is a condition.; sent3 & int9 -> int10: the diviner is not Keynesian.; int3 & int10 -> int11: the diviner is a xylene and/or minds.;"
] | 8 | 2 | 2 | 17 | 0 | 17 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the diviner does not disagree. ; $context$ = sent1: the basset is a narrow-body. sent2: if something labels Sanskrit then it does not disagree. sent3: if the basset is a kind of a Keynesian and it conditions then the diviner is not a Keynesian. sent4: if the Rajput does lord then the basset is a kind of a condition. sent5: if the diviner labels Rajput it does disagree and does not label Sanskrit. sent6: the Rajput lords. sent7: the diviner does disagree if the basset labels Rajput and does not drive disease. sent8: The Sanskrit labels basset. sent9: there exists something such that it is not catapultic. sent10: the basset labels Sanskrit. sent11: the propeller maddens but it is not legitimate. sent12: the diviner disagrees and does not drive disease if it does label Rajput. sent13: something either is a xylene or is a kind of a mind or both if it is not Keynesian. sent14: if that the basset does not label Leptotyphlopidae and is not a shore is not correct then it does shore. sent15: the diviner is cenobitic thing that does not negotiate. sent16: if the basset labels Sanskrit then it does label Rajput and does not drive disease. sent17: if something shores then it is a Keynesian. sent18: the fact that the basset does not label Leptotyphlopidae and it is not a shore is not correct if there exists something such that it is not catapultic. sent19: the soprano does label Sanskrit. sent20: the basset is a Karok. ; $proof$ =
|
sent16 & sent10 -> int1: the basset labels Rajput and does not drive disease.; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the retting cleared occurs.
|
{A}
|
sent1: both the sawm and the codification happens if the nonwashableness does not occur. sent2: if that the discus but not the driving waitress happens is not true the retting cleared does not occur. sent3: the retting cleared occurs. sent4: if the fact that both the driving giver and the upstart occurs does not hold that the best does not occur hold. sent5: the fact that the sawm does not occur but the nonwashableness occurs is wrong if the best does not occur. sent6: if the driving waitress does not occur then both the kowtow and the retting cleared occurs. sent7: if that not the sawm but the nonwashableness occurs is not correct then the codification does not occur. sent8: the codification brings about that the driving waitress does not occur and the discus does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬{F} -> ({E} & {D}) sent2: ¬({C} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{A} sent3: {A} sent4: ¬({I} & {H}) -> ¬{G} sent5: ¬{G} -> ¬(¬{E} & {F}) sent6: ¬{B} -> ({GB} & {A}) sent7: ¬(¬{E} & {F}) -> ¬{D} sent8: {D} -> (¬{B} & ¬{C})
|
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the kowtow occurs.
|
{GB}
|
[] | 8 | 1 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the retting cleared occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: both the sawm and the codification happens if the nonwashableness does not occur. sent2: if that the discus but not the driving waitress happens is not true the retting cleared does not occur. sent3: the retting cleared occurs. sent4: if the fact that both the driving giver and the upstart occurs does not hold that the best does not occur hold. sent5: the fact that the sawm does not occur but the nonwashableness occurs is wrong if the best does not occur. sent6: if the driving waitress does not occur then both the kowtow and the retting cleared occurs. sent7: if that not the sawm but the nonwashableness occurs is not correct then the codification does not occur. sent8: the codification brings about that the driving waitress does not occur and the discus does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the retting signora and the flushing happens.
|
({A} & {B})
|
sent1: that the storminess does not occur is caused by the diastolicness or that the compression happens or both. sent2: that the redemptiveness does not occur triggers that the retting signora occurs and/or the flushing. sent3: if the epileptic does not occur then the retting serviceman does not occur and the underpaying toastrack does not occur. sent4: if the erythropoieticness does not occur the instructorship does not occur and the labeling fatwa does not occur. sent5: if the Hmongness happens then either the labeling Abukir or the non-Italicness or both happens. sent6: the retting signora happens. sent7: the integration occurs if the fact that the fact that the unforgettableness does not occur and/or the cupricness occurs is incorrect is right. sent8: if the fact that the labeling hematocyst and the convocation happens is wrong then the redemptiveness does not occur. sent9: if the labeling calomel happens then that the labeling throw-in occurs is not wrong. sent10: that the labeling whistling does not occur and the labeling Melogale does not occur is triggered by the driving medevac. sent11: the flush occurs. sent12: the diastolicness occurs. sent13: that the labeling whistling does not occur and the labeling Melogale does not occur brings about the non-epilepticness. sent14: that the unforgettableness does not occur or the cupricness occurs or both is false if the storminess does not occur. sent15: both the ski and the driving medevac happens if the instructorship does not occur. sent16: the labeling Kachaturian happens if the integration happens. sent17: if the labeling Abukir happens or the Italicness does not occur or both the labeling calomel happens. sent18: the non-erythropoieticness is triggered by that the retting arsine but not the driving Friday occurs. sent19: that the labeling throw-in happens triggers that the retting arsine occurs but the driving Friday does not occur. sent20: the fact that the labeling hematocyst and the convocation happens does not hold if the underpaying toastrack does not occur. sent21: if both the labeling Kachaturian and the non-igneousness occurs that the Hmong happens hold. sent22: the non-igneousness and the retting ready-to-wear happens.
|
sent1: ({AJ} v {AI}) -> ¬{AH} sent2: ¬{C} -> ({A} v {B}) sent3: ¬{H} -> (¬{G} & ¬{F}) sent4: ¬{O} -> (¬{M} & ¬{N}) sent5: {AA} -> ({T} v ¬{U}) sent6: {A} sent7: ¬(¬{AF} v {AG}) -> {AE} sent8: ¬({D} & {E}) -> ¬{C} sent9: {S} -> {R} sent10: {K} -> (¬{J} & ¬{I}) sent11: {B} sent12: {AJ} sent13: (¬{J} & ¬{I}) -> ¬{H} sent14: ¬{AH} -> ¬(¬{AF} v {AG}) sent15: ¬{M} -> ({L} & {K}) sent16: {AE} -> {AB} sent17: ({T} v ¬{U}) -> {S} sent18: ({Q} & ¬{P}) -> ¬{O} sent19: {R} -> ({Q} & ¬{P}) sent20: ¬{F} -> ¬({D} & {E}) sent21: ({AB} & ¬{AC}) -> {AA} sent22: (¬{AC} & {AD})
|
[
"sent6 & sent11 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 & sent11 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the underpaying loop happens.
|
{CF}
|
[
"sent12 -> int1: either the diastolicness or the compression or both occurs.; sent1 & int1 -> int2: the storminess does not occur.; sent14 & int2 -> int3: the fact that either the forgettableness or the cupricness or both happens is not right.; sent7 & int3 -> int4: the integration occurs.; sent16 & int4 -> int5: the labeling Kachaturian happens.; sent22 -> int6: the igneousness does not occur.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the labeling Kachaturian happens and the igneousness does not occur.; sent21 & int7 -> int8: the Hmong occurs.; sent5 & int8 -> int9: the labeling Abukir or the non-Italicness or both occurs.; sent17 & int9 -> int10: the labeling calomel happens.; sent9 & int10 -> int11: the labeling throw-in occurs.; sent19 & int11 -> int12: the retting arsine but not the driving Friday occurs.; sent18 & int12 -> int13: the erythropoieticness does not occur.; sent4 & int13 -> int14: the instructorship does not occur and the labeling fatwa does not occur.; int14 -> int15: the instructorship does not occur.; sent15 & int15 -> int16: the skiing happens and the driving medevac happens.; int16 -> int17: the driving medevac happens.; sent10 & int17 -> int18: the labeling whistling does not occur and the labeling Melogale does not occur.; sent13 & int18 -> int19: the epileptic does not occur.; sent3 & int19 -> int20: the retting serviceman does not occur and the underpaying toastrack does not occur.; int20 -> int21: the underpaying toastrack does not occur.; sent20 & int21 -> int22: that both the labeling hematocyst and the convocation occurs is not right.; sent8 & int22 -> int23: the redemptiveness does not occur.; sent2 & int23 -> int24: the retting signora or the flush or both occurs.;"
] | 24 | 1 | 1 | 20 | 0 | 20 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the retting signora and the flushing happens. ; $context$ = sent1: that the storminess does not occur is caused by the diastolicness or that the compression happens or both. sent2: that the redemptiveness does not occur triggers that the retting signora occurs and/or the flushing. sent3: if the epileptic does not occur then the retting serviceman does not occur and the underpaying toastrack does not occur. sent4: if the erythropoieticness does not occur the instructorship does not occur and the labeling fatwa does not occur. sent5: if the Hmongness happens then either the labeling Abukir or the non-Italicness or both happens. sent6: the retting signora happens. sent7: the integration occurs if the fact that the fact that the unforgettableness does not occur and/or the cupricness occurs is incorrect is right. sent8: if the fact that the labeling hematocyst and the convocation happens is wrong then the redemptiveness does not occur. sent9: if the labeling calomel happens then that the labeling throw-in occurs is not wrong. sent10: that the labeling whistling does not occur and the labeling Melogale does not occur is triggered by the driving medevac. sent11: the flush occurs. sent12: the diastolicness occurs. sent13: that the labeling whistling does not occur and the labeling Melogale does not occur brings about the non-epilepticness. sent14: that the unforgettableness does not occur or the cupricness occurs or both is false if the storminess does not occur. sent15: both the ski and the driving medevac happens if the instructorship does not occur. sent16: the labeling Kachaturian happens if the integration happens. sent17: if the labeling Abukir happens or the Italicness does not occur or both the labeling calomel happens. sent18: the non-erythropoieticness is triggered by that the retting arsine but not the driving Friday occurs. sent19: that the labeling throw-in happens triggers that the retting arsine occurs but the driving Friday does not occur. sent20: the fact that the labeling hematocyst and the convocation happens does not hold if the underpaying toastrack does not occur. sent21: if both the labeling Kachaturian and the non-igneousness occurs that the Hmong happens hold. sent22: the non-igneousness and the retting ready-to-wear happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 & sent11 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the squire is a taxidermist and/or it does not drive manifestation.
|
({C}{a} v ¬{D}{a})
|
sent1: if the fact that the squire is not a taxidermist and it does not ret Ur is not right the cultivation is not a taxidermist. sent2: if the fact that the washhouse is not a cobbler hold it is formalistic and it is topographical. sent3: if something is not a ambidexterity either it drives medevac or it does not drive jorum or both. sent4: everything does not ret Ur. sent5: if that that the vermiculation labels Cardiospermum but it is not catoptrics hold is false then the squire is not topographical. sent6: the vermiculation is catoptrics or it does drive manifestation or both. sent7: that something does label Cardiospermum and is not catoptrics is wrong if it does not ret Ur. sent8: something either is a kind of a lowercase or rets Ledbetter or both if it does not drive vermiculation. sent9: if the squire is not topographical it is a taxidermist and/or it does drive manifestation. sent10: the fact that that the washhouse is not an oxidation but it labels Rattus is not true is not false. sent11: something is an oxidation if the fact that it is not an oxidation and it labels Rattus is false. sent12: the squire does not underpay validation. sent13: the washhouse is not a kind of a cobbler. sent14: either the squire is catoptrics or it is a taxidermist or both.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{C}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> ¬{C}{ap} sent2: ¬{G}{c} -> ({F}{c} & {B}{c}) sent3: (x): ¬{EI}x -> ({HP}x v ¬{Q}x) sent4: (x): ¬{A}x sent5: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent6: ({AB}{aa} v {D}{aa}) sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent8: (x): ¬{GB}x -> ({AM}x v {FQ}x) sent9: ¬{B}{a} -> ({C}{a} v {D}{a}) sent10: ¬(¬{E}{c} & {I}{c}) sent11: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & {I}x) -> {E}x sent12: ¬{AJ}{a} sent13: ¬{G}{c} sent14: ({AB}{a} v {C}{a})
|
[
"sent7 -> int1: the fact that the vermiculation does label Cardiospermum but it is not catoptrics is incorrect if it does not ret Ur.; sent4 -> int2: the vermiculation does not ret Ur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the vermiculation does label Cardiospermum and is not catoptrics is not correct.; int3 & sent5 -> int4: that the squire is not topographical is true.;"
] |
[
"sent7 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); sent4 -> int2: ¬{A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int3 & sent5 -> int4: ¬{B}{a};"
] |
the fact that either the squire is a taxidermist or it does not drive manifestation or both does not hold.
|
¬({C}{a} v ¬{D}{a})
|
[
"sent11 -> int5: the washhouse is an oxidation if that it is not an oxidation and does label Rattus is not true.; int5 & sent10 -> int6: the washhouse is a kind of an oxidation.; sent2 & sent13 -> int7: the washhouse is formalistic and it is topographical.; int7 -> int8: the washhouse is not non-topographical.; int6 & int8 -> int9: the washhouse is an oxidation and topographical.; int9 -> int10: something is a kind of an oxidation that is topographical.;"
] | 7 | 4 | null | 11 | 0 | 11 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the squire is a taxidermist and/or it does not drive manifestation. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the squire is not a taxidermist and it does not ret Ur is not right the cultivation is not a taxidermist. sent2: if the fact that the washhouse is not a cobbler hold it is formalistic and it is topographical. sent3: if something is not a ambidexterity either it drives medevac or it does not drive jorum or both. sent4: everything does not ret Ur. sent5: if that that the vermiculation labels Cardiospermum but it is not catoptrics hold is false then the squire is not topographical. sent6: the vermiculation is catoptrics or it does drive manifestation or both. sent7: that something does label Cardiospermum and is not catoptrics is wrong if it does not ret Ur. sent8: something either is a kind of a lowercase or rets Ledbetter or both if it does not drive vermiculation. sent9: if the squire is not topographical it is a taxidermist and/or it does drive manifestation. sent10: the fact that that the washhouse is not an oxidation but it labels Rattus is not true is not false. sent11: something is an oxidation if the fact that it is not an oxidation and it labels Rattus is false. sent12: the squire does not underpay validation. sent13: the washhouse is not a kind of a cobbler. sent14: either the squire is catoptrics or it is a taxidermist or both. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 -> int1: the fact that the vermiculation does label Cardiospermum but it is not catoptrics is incorrect if it does not ret Ur.; sent4 -> int2: the vermiculation does not ret Ur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the vermiculation does label Cardiospermum and is not catoptrics is not correct.; int3 & sent5 -> int4: that the squire is not topographical is true.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that that the boucle does not drive prodigy and is ineligible is right is false.
|
¬(¬{D}{b} & {E}{b})
|
sent1: if the fact that the cyme does not win hold then the boucle does not drive prodigy and is ineligible. sent2: the dollarfish does drive dub and is a kind of a cereal. sent3: the fact that if there exists something such that it drives dub and is cereal the cyme does not win hold.
|
sent1: ¬{C}{a} -> (¬{D}{b} & {E}{b}) sent2: ({A}{aa} & {B}{aa}) sent3: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}{a}
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: there exists something such that it drives dub and is a kind of a cereal.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the cyme does not win.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> int1: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x); int1 & sent3 -> int2: ¬{C}{a}; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that that the boucle does not drive prodigy and is ineligible is right is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the cyme does not win hold then the boucle does not drive prodigy and is ineligible. sent2: the dollarfish does drive dub and is a kind of a cereal. sent3: the fact that if there exists something such that it drives dub and is cereal the cyme does not win hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> int1: there exists something such that it drives dub and is a kind of a cereal.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the cyme does not win.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the labeling perfective occurs.
|
{D}
|
sent1: the nonrepetitiveness and the chapel occurs. sent2: the stearicness happens. sent3: the labeling mulch does not occur. sent4: the hitch does not occur. sent5: the adornment does not occur. sent6: the philosophicness occurs and the stearicness happens. sent7: that the scapularness and the Glaswegianness happens triggers that the retting fleshiness does not occur. sent8: the labeling perfective does not occur if the nonrepetitiveness happens and the philosophicness occurs. sent9: the attractiveness does not occur. sent10: the antecedentness and the affinedness occurs. sent11: the chapel happens. sent12: the suit occurs. sent13: the frontness occurs. sent14: both the labeling signora and the stoic happens. sent15: that the labeling perfective does not occur is prevented by that the labeling perfective or the repetitiveness or both happens.
|
sent1: ({A} & {B}) sent2: {E} sent3: ¬{FH} sent4: ¬{BC} sent5: ¬{GQ} sent6: ({C} & {E}) sent7: ({P} & {GR}) -> ¬{GP} sent8: ({A} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent9: ¬{CQ} sent10: ({AN} & {N}) sent11: {B} sent12: {FR} sent13: {BB} sent14: ({BE} & {CR}) sent15: ({D} v ¬{A}) -> {D}
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: that the nonrepetitiveness occurs hold.; sent6 -> int2: the philosophicness occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the nonrepetitiveness and the philosophicness happens.; int3 & sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: {A}; sent6 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({A} & {C}); int3 & sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the labeling perfective occurs.
|
{D}
|
[] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the labeling perfective occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the nonrepetitiveness and the chapel occurs. sent2: the stearicness happens. sent3: the labeling mulch does not occur. sent4: the hitch does not occur. sent5: the adornment does not occur. sent6: the philosophicness occurs and the stearicness happens. sent7: that the scapularness and the Glaswegianness happens triggers that the retting fleshiness does not occur. sent8: the labeling perfective does not occur if the nonrepetitiveness happens and the philosophicness occurs. sent9: the attractiveness does not occur. sent10: the antecedentness and the affinedness occurs. sent11: the chapel happens. sent12: the suit occurs. sent13: the frontness occurs. sent14: both the labeling signora and the stoic happens. sent15: that the labeling perfective does not occur is prevented by that the labeling perfective or the repetitiveness or both happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: that the nonrepetitiveness occurs hold.; sent6 -> int2: the philosophicness occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the nonrepetitiveness and the philosophicness happens.; int3 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that that there is something such that if it does not amplify and does not label Eriocaulon it does drive Bankhead is correct is wrong.
|
¬((Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x)
|
sent1: there is something such that if it does not drive paleolith and it does not ret no-goal the fact that it is a kind of a sauerbraten hold. sent2: if the clapboard is not Frankish and it is not ductless then it does drive Bankhead. sent3: something that does not connect and does not label Eriocaulon is not a kind of a seam. sent4: there is something such that if it does not drive epigram and is not iridic it is a sacrifice. sent5: there is something such that if it is not a crownbeard and it does not ret lithophyte then it is inconsistent. sent6: there exists something such that if it is not entozoan and not truthful then it does conform. sent7: the clapboard drives Bankhead if it does not amplify and does not label Eriocaulon. sent8: the clapboard does drive Bankhead if it amplifies and it does not label Eriocaulon. sent9: if the clapboard does not net and it does not label Eriocaulon it is a kind of a cling. sent10: there is something such that if it does not amplify and it does label Eriocaulon then it drives Bankhead. sent11: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a secret and does not drive underground it labels encephalography. sent12: if the clapboard does not amplify but it does label Eriocaulon it does drive Bankhead. sent13: there exists something such that if it does amplify and does not label Eriocaulon then it does drive Bankhead.
|
sent1: (Ex): (¬{FC}x & ¬{FB}x) -> {HK}x sent2: (¬{GE}{aa} & ¬{CQ}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent3: (x): (¬{O}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {GR}x sent4: (Ex): (¬{HT}x & ¬{EF}x) -> {EQ}x sent5: (Ex): (¬{FK}x & ¬{H}x) -> {CG}x sent6: (Ex): (¬{EB}x & ¬{DB}x) -> {IP}x sent7: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent8: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent9: (¬{GU}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {IO}{aa} sent10: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent11: (Ex): (¬{FE}x & ¬{AN}x) -> {JC}x sent12: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent13: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x
|
[
"sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the feed is a seam is true if it does not connect and does not label Eriocaulon.
|
(¬{O}{bs} & ¬{AB}{bs}) -> {GR}{bs}
|
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = that that there is something such that if it does not amplify and does not label Eriocaulon it does drive Bankhead is correct is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it does not drive paleolith and it does not ret no-goal the fact that it is a kind of a sauerbraten hold. sent2: if the clapboard is not Frankish and it is not ductless then it does drive Bankhead. sent3: something that does not connect and does not label Eriocaulon is not a kind of a seam. sent4: there is something such that if it does not drive epigram and is not iridic it is a sacrifice. sent5: there is something such that if it is not a crownbeard and it does not ret lithophyte then it is inconsistent. sent6: there exists something such that if it is not entozoan and not truthful then it does conform. sent7: the clapboard drives Bankhead if it does not amplify and does not label Eriocaulon. sent8: the clapboard does drive Bankhead if it amplifies and it does not label Eriocaulon. sent9: if the clapboard does not net and it does not label Eriocaulon it is a kind of a cling. sent10: there is something such that if it does not amplify and it does label Eriocaulon then it drives Bankhead. sent11: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a secret and does not drive underground it labels encephalography. sent12: if the clapboard does not amplify but it does label Eriocaulon it does drive Bankhead. sent13: there exists something such that if it does amplify and does not label Eriocaulon then it does drive Bankhead. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there is something such that if it is an australopithecine then it does not stave does not hold.
|
¬((Ex): {A}x -> ¬{C}x)
|
sent1: something does not stave if it is an australopithecine. sent2: if something is nonarboreal that it is a kind of a pula is not wrong. sent3: there is something such that if it is an australopithecine it staves.
|
sent1: (x): {A}x -> ¬{C}x sent2: (x): {AI}x -> {HR}x sent3: (Ex): {A}x -> {C}x
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: the thorax does not stave if it is a kind of an australopithecine.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: {A}{aa} -> ¬{C}{aa}; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if it is an australopithecine then it does not stave does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: something does not stave if it is an australopithecine. sent2: if something is nonarboreal that it is a kind of a pula is not wrong. sent3: there is something such that if it is an australopithecine it staves. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: the thorax does not stave if it is a kind of an australopithecine.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the carthorse is a Nebuchadnezzar.
|
{B}{a}
|
sent1: if that something is not Biedermeier hold then it does underpay maar and is a kind of a birdcage. sent2: the carthorse labels Avahi. sent3: if that the trail is a adrenergic hold then the perturbation is an identification. sent4: the carthorse does label Avahi if that that the perturbation is not a hologram and does not label Avahi is not right is not wrong. sent5: the trail is an identification or adrenergic or both. sent6: the carthorse is a jumpstart and it is a pepper-and-salt. sent7: the multivitamin is tensed and it does seat. sent8: the wren-tit is a kind of a Nebuchadnezzar. sent9: if the perturbation is a kind of an identification it is illegitimate. sent10: if the fact that something is a stabber but it is not lithographic does not hold then the fact that it is not a symphony hold. sent11: the fact that something is not a kind of a hologram and does not label Avahi is not right if it underpays maar. sent12: the carthorse is a kind of directed thing that labels Avahi. sent13: if that either the physiologist rets Hutchinson or it is not ropey or both does not hold then the fact that the carthorse rets Hutchinson does not hold. sent14: the carthorse labels Avahi and is a Nebuchadnezzar. sent15: the perturbation is not a aquaplane but it is a antiphonary if it is illegitimate. sent16: something is not Biedermeier if it is not a aquaplane and it is a antiphonary. sent17: if the trail is an identification the perturbation is a kind of an identification. sent18: if that the physiologist is not a kind of a pseudoephedrine is not false then the fact that it is a kind of a stabber and it is not lithographic is incorrect. sent19: that either something does ret Hutchinson or it is not ropey or both is not true if it is not a symphony. sent20: something that does not ret Hutchinson is a Nebuchadnezzar that underpays carthorse.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{H}x -> ({E}x & {G}x) sent2: {A}{a} sent3: {Q}{d} -> {O}{b} sent4: ¬(¬{D}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) -> {A}{a} sent5: ({O}{d} v {Q}{d}) sent6: ({HF}{a} & {IK}{a}) sent7: ({EF}{ef} & {GT}{ef}) sent8: {B}{il} sent9: {O}{b} -> {N}{b} sent10: (x): ¬({M}x & ¬{L}x) -> ¬{I}x sent11: (x): {E}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{A}x) sent12: ({GR}{a} & {A}{a}) sent13: ¬({C}{c} v ¬{F}{c}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent14: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent15: {N}{b} -> (¬{K}{b} & {J}{b}) sent16: (x): (¬{K}x & {J}x) -> ¬{H}x sent17: {O}{d} -> {O}{b} sent18: ¬{P}{c} -> ¬({M}{c} & ¬{L}{c}) sent19: (x): ¬{I}x -> ¬({C}x v ¬{F}x) sent20: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & {S}x)
|
[
"sent14 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent14 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the carthorse does underpay carthorse and labels Avahi.
|
({S}{a} & {A}{a})
|
[
"sent20 -> int1: the fact that the carthorse is the Nebuchadnezzar and it underpays carthorse if the carthorse does not ret Hutchinson hold.; sent19 -> int2: the fact that that either the physiologist rets Hutchinson or it is not ropey or both is false if the physiologist is not a kind of a symphony is not wrong.; sent10 -> int3: the physiologist is not a symphony if the fact that it is a kind of a stabber that is non-lithographic is not correct.; sent11 -> int4: if the perturbation underpays maar that it is not a kind of a hologram and does not label Avahi is wrong.; sent1 -> int5: if the perturbation is not Biedermeier it does underpay maar and is a birdcage.; sent16 -> int6: if the perturbation does not aquaplane and is a antiphonary then it is not Biedermeier.; sent5 & sent17 & sent3 -> int7: the perturbation is an identification.; sent9 & int7 -> int8: the perturbation is illegitimate.; sent15 & int8 -> int9: the perturbation is both not a aquaplane and antiphonary.; int6 & int9 -> int10: the perturbation is not Biedermeier.; int5 & int10 -> int11: the perturbation does underpay maar and is a birdcage.; int11 -> int12: the perturbation underpays maar.; int4 & int12 -> int13: that the perturbation is not a kind of a hologram and does not label Avahi is not correct.; sent4 & int13 -> int14: that the carthorse does label Avahi is not false.;"
] | 9 | 1 | 1 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the carthorse is a Nebuchadnezzar. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something is not Biedermeier hold then it does underpay maar and is a kind of a birdcage. sent2: the carthorse labels Avahi. sent3: if that the trail is a adrenergic hold then the perturbation is an identification. sent4: the carthorse does label Avahi if that that the perturbation is not a hologram and does not label Avahi is not right is not wrong. sent5: the trail is an identification or adrenergic or both. sent6: the carthorse is a jumpstart and it is a pepper-and-salt. sent7: the multivitamin is tensed and it does seat. sent8: the wren-tit is a kind of a Nebuchadnezzar. sent9: if the perturbation is a kind of an identification it is illegitimate. sent10: if the fact that something is a stabber but it is not lithographic does not hold then the fact that it is not a symphony hold. sent11: the fact that something is not a kind of a hologram and does not label Avahi is not right if it underpays maar. sent12: the carthorse is a kind of directed thing that labels Avahi. sent13: if that either the physiologist rets Hutchinson or it is not ropey or both does not hold then the fact that the carthorse rets Hutchinson does not hold. sent14: the carthorse labels Avahi and is a Nebuchadnezzar. sent15: the perturbation is not a aquaplane but it is a antiphonary if it is illegitimate. sent16: something is not Biedermeier if it is not a aquaplane and it is a antiphonary. sent17: if the trail is an identification the perturbation is a kind of an identification. sent18: if that the physiologist is not a kind of a pseudoephedrine is not false then the fact that it is a kind of a stabber and it is not lithographic is incorrect. sent19: that either something does ret Hutchinson or it is not ropey or both is not true if it is not a symphony. sent20: something that does not ret Hutchinson is a Nebuchadnezzar that underpays carthorse. ; $proof$ =
|
sent14 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it is unwary then it is not ponderable.
|
(Ex): {A}x -> ¬{C}x
|
sent1: there exists something such that if it is unwary then it is ponderable. sent2: if the telencephalon is unwary then it is not ponderable.
|
sent1: (Ex): {A}x -> {C}x sent2: {A}{aa} -> ¬{C}{aa}
|
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is unwary then it is not ponderable. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it is unwary then it is ponderable. sent2: if the telencephalon is unwary then it is not ponderable. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
something is abyssal and inhabits.
|
(Ex): ({C}x & {D}x)
|
sent1: if the tenderfoot is a barrel then the geotropism is abyssal. sent2: something does inhabit if it is continual. sent3: if that the heater is an undesirable is true then the tenderfoot is a barrel. sent4: the tenderfoot does inhabit if the geotropism does label stoma. sent5: the geotropism labels stoma. sent6: the geotropism is continual thing that does label stoma.
|
sent1: {B}{b} -> {C}{c} sent2: (x): {E}x -> {D}x sent3: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent4: {F}{c} -> {D}{b} sent5: {F}{c} sent6: ({E}{c} & {F}{c})
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: if the geotropism is continual it does inhabit.; sent6 -> int2: the geotropism is continual.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the geotropism inhabits.;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> int1: {E}{c} -> {D}{c}; sent6 -> int2: {E}{c}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {D}{c};"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 4 | null | 2 | 0 | 2 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = something is abyssal and inhabits. ; $context$ = sent1: if the tenderfoot is a barrel then the geotropism is abyssal. sent2: something does inhabit if it is continual. sent3: if that the heater is an undesirable is true then the tenderfoot is a barrel. sent4: the tenderfoot does inhabit if the geotropism does label stoma. sent5: the geotropism labels stoma. sent6: the geotropism is continual thing that does label stoma. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> int1: if the geotropism is continual it does inhabit.; sent6 -> int2: the geotropism is continual.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the geotropism inhabits.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the phalangealness occurs.
|
{B}
|
sent1: the phalangealness happens if the beachhead happens. sent2: the outstaying and the cericness happens if the LIFO does not occur. sent3: the LIFO does not occur if the fact that the retting corkboard and the LIFO occurs does not hold. sent4: that the phalangealness and the outstaying happens is incorrect if the beachhead does not occur. sent5: the retting corkboard happens if the driving sudoku occurs. sent6: if the fact that not the labeling dieter but the phalangealness happens does not hold the phalangealness does not occur. sent7: that the fact that not the watering but the rummy happens is correct is not true if the mechanism happens. sent8: the phalangealness does not occur if the fact that the phalangealness and the outstaying happens does not hold. sent9: if that the watering does not occur and the rummy occurs is not true then the Audenesqueness does not occur. sent10: that the underpaying multivitamin does not occur leads to that both the cericness and the LIFO occurs. sent11: the outstaying happens. sent12: the fact that the underpaying multivitamin does not occur but the retting corkboard happens hold if the harvesting does not occur. sent13: the driving gradation occurs. sent14: the beachhead happens. sent15: the fact that the fact that the packing occurs and the labeling cecum occurs is false is not incorrect if the imprecation does not occur. sent16: if that that the packing and the labeling cecum happens is not correct is not wrong then the harvesting does not occur. sent17: if the Audenesqueness does not occur then the underpaying rad does not occur and the imprecation does not occur. sent18: the unpropheticness happens. sent19: if that the cericness happens is right then the beachhead does not occur and the labeling dieter does not occur.
|
sent1: {A} -> {B} sent2: ¬{F} -> ({C} & {E}) sent3: ¬({H} & {F}) -> ¬{F} sent4: ¬{A} -> ¬({B} & {C}) sent5: {ES} -> {H} sent6: ¬(¬{D} & {B}) -> ¬{B} sent7: {Q} -> ¬(¬{P} & {O}) sent8: ¬({B} & {C}) -> ¬{B} sent9: ¬(¬{P} & {O}) -> ¬{N} sent10: ¬{G} -> ({E} & {F}) sent11: {C} sent12: ¬{I} -> (¬{G} & {H}) sent13: {ED} sent14: {A} sent15: ¬{L} -> ¬({K} & {J}) sent16: ¬({K} & {J}) -> ¬{I} sent17: ¬{N} -> (¬{M} & ¬{L}) sent18: {EO} sent19: {E} -> (¬{A} & ¬{D})
|
[
"sent1 & sent14 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 & sent14 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the phalangealness does not occur.
|
¬{B}
|
[] | 15 | 1 | 1 | 17 | 0 | 17 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the phalangealness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the phalangealness happens if the beachhead happens. sent2: the outstaying and the cericness happens if the LIFO does not occur. sent3: the LIFO does not occur if the fact that the retting corkboard and the LIFO occurs does not hold. sent4: that the phalangealness and the outstaying happens is incorrect if the beachhead does not occur. sent5: the retting corkboard happens if the driving sudoku occurs. sent6: if the fact that not the labeling dieter but the phalangealness happens does not hold the phalangealness does not occur. sent7: that the fact that not the watering but the rummy happens is correct is not true if the mechanism happens. sent8: the phalangealness does not occur if the fact that the phalangealness and the outstaying happens does not hold. sent9: if that the watering does not occur and the rummy occurs is not true then the Audenesqueness does not occur. sent10: that the underpaying multivitamin does not occur leads to that both the cericness and the LIFO occurs. sent11: the outstaying happens. sent12: the fact that the underpaying multivitamin does not occur but the retting corkboard happens hold if the harvesting does not occur. sent13: the driving gradation occurs. sent14: the beachhead happens. sent15: the fact that the fact that the packing occurs and the labeling cecum occurs is false is not incorrect if the imprecation does not occur. sent16: if that that the packing and the labeling cecum happens is not correct is not wrong then the harvesting does not occur. sent17: if the Audenesqueness does not occur then the underpaying rad does not occur and the imprecation does not occur. sent18: the unpropheticness happens. sent19: if that the cericness happens is right then the beachhead does not occur and the labeling dieter does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 & sent14 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the server is unpriestly and is intrapulmonary does not hold.
|
¬({B}{a} & {C}{a})
|
sent1: there exists something such that it is not an alder. sent2: the server is noneffervescent if the brodiaea rets Cardiospermum. sent3: if there exists something such that the fact that it does ret Cardiospermum is not incorrect then either the brodiaea does ret Cardiospermum or it is noneffervescent or both. sent4: that the server does label barbu and is a posed is not correct. sent5: the xenolith does ret Cardiospermum. sent6: the fact that the server is Rooseveltian and is unpriestly is not true if there exists something such that it does not label demonization. sent7: if the brodiaea is noneffervescent then the server is noneffervescent. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it is unpriestly is not false. sent9: there exists something such that it does not label barbu. sent10: if there are non-noneffervescent things then the fact that the quasar is a Rigel and it is nonsubmersible is not correct. sent11: that the server is a Cercosporella and a harem is not right if there is something such that it is not unpriestly. sent12: the fact that the server is both unpriestly and intrapulmonary does not hold if something is not noneffervescent. sent13: there is something such that it is not unpriestly. sent14: there is something such that it is not non-intrapulmonary. sent15: there are non-noneffervescent things. sent16: there is something such that it is not a kind of a pesewa. sent17: that the server is unpriestly and a diplomate is not correct if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a melioration. sent18: the fact that the server is a kind of unpriestly thing that is a bliss is false if something is not a love-token. sent19: something is not intrapulmonary. sent20: something does ret hindgut. sent21: the fact that the professionalization is noneffervescent thing that is a jobholder is wrong. sent22: the fact that that the fact that the abscission is categoric and it is intrapulmonary is not false is not true hold if there exists something such that it is not a toponym.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬{HI}x sent2: {D}{b} -> {A}{a} sent3: (x): {D}x -> ({D}{b} v {A}{b}) sent4: ¬({EO}{a} & {HL}{a}) sent5: {D}{e} sent6: (x): ¬{HG}x -> ¬({DE}{a} & {B}{a}) sent7: {A}{b} -> {A}{a} sent8: (Ex): {B}x sent9: (Ex): ¬{EO}x sent10: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AN}{ck} & {BD}{ck}) sent11: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({FR}{a} & {AR}{a}) sent12: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent13: (Ex): ¬{B}x sent14: (Ex): {C}x sent15: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent16: (Ex): ¬{BH}x sent17: (x): ¬{GB}x -> ¬({B}{a} & {HF}{a}) sent18: (x): ¬{IS}x -> ¬({B}{a} & {JI}{a}) sent19: (Ex): ¬{C}x sent20: (Ex): {DF}x sent21: ¬({A}{ie} & {DH}{ie}) sent22: (x): ¬{HJ}x -> ¬({DP}{hm} & {C}{hm})
|
[
"sent15 & sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent15 & sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the server is unpriestly and intrapulmonary.
|
({B}{a} & {C}{a})
|
[
"sent5 -> int1: there exists something such that it rets Cardiospermum.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the brodiaea either rets Cardiospermum or is noneffervescent or both.; int2 & sent2 & sent7 -> int3: the server is noneffervescent.;"
] | 5 | 1 | 1 | 20 | 0 | 20 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the server is unpriestly and is intrapulmonary does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is not an alder. sent2: the server is noneffervescent if the brodiaea rets Cardiospermum. sent3: if there exists something such that the fact that it does ret Cardiospermum is not incorrect then either the brodiaea does ret Cardiospermum or it is noneffervescent or both. sent4: that the server does label barbu and is a posed is not correct. sent5: the xenolith does ret Cardiospermum. sent6: the fact that the server is Rooseveltian and is unpriestly is not true if there exists something such that it does not label demonization. sent7: if the brodiaea is noneffervescent then the server is noneffervescent. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it is unpriestly is not false. sent9: there exists something such that it does not label barbu. sent10: if there are non-noneffervescent things then the fact that the quasar is a Rigel and it is nonsubmersible is not correct. sent11: that the server is a Cercosporella and a harem is not right if there is something such that it is not unpriestly. sent12: the fact that the server is both unpriestly and intrapulmonary does not hold if something is not noneffervescent. sent13: there is something such that it is not unpriestly. sent14: there is something such that it is not non-intrapulmonary. sent15: there are non-noneffervescent things. sent16: there is something such that it is not a kind of a pesewa. sent17: that the server is unpriestly and a diplomate is not correct if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a melioration. sent18: the fact that the server is a kind of unpriestly thing that is a bliss is false if something is not a love-token. sent19: something is not intrapulmonary. sent20: something does ret hindgut. sent21: the fact that the professionalization is noneffervescent thing that is a jobholder is wrong. sent22: the fact that that the fact that the abscission is categoric and it is intrapulmonary is not false is not true hold if there exists something such that it is not a toponym. ; $proof$ =
|
sent15 & sent12 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the ketoprofen is a kind of a lab.
|
{D}{b}
|
sent1: the ketoprofen does drive comb and it is a effortfulness. sent2: the annihilator underpays up-tick and is a kind of a lab. sent3: the letter underpays up-tick. sent4: the annihilator labels jawed if it is senior. sent5: if the annihilator underpays up-tick then the ketoprofen is senior. sent6: the annihilator does underpay up-tick and it is a senior. sent7: that the annihilator is Churchillian is not false. sent8: the sodomy does underpay up-tick. sent9: if that something is a blusher is right it is biographic. sent10: the annihilator is a kind of a mend. sent11: the ketoprofen is a senior. sent12: the ketoprofen does underpay up-tick. sent13: if that the annihilator is a Bronx is right then it is a kind of a rainmaker. sent14: the ketoprofen is not a kind of a lab if that either the annihilator is senior or it does underpay up-tick or both is not true. sent15: the ketoprofen labels jawed.
|
sent1: ({GC}{b} & {EK}{b}) sent2: ({A}{a} & {D}{a}) sent3: {A}{fj} sent4: {B}{a} -> {C}{a} sent5: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent6: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent7: {IP}{a} sent8: {A}{j} sent9: (x): {BN}x -> {CR}x sent10: {HH}{a} sent11: {B}{b} sent12: {A}{b} sent13: {GK}{a} -> {BC}{a} sent14: ¬({B}{a} v {A}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent15: {C}{b}
|
[
"sent6 -> int1: the annihilator is a kind of a senior.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the annihilator does label jawed.;"
] |
[
"sent6 -> int1: {B}{a}; int1 & sent4 -> int2: {C}{a};"
] |
that the curry is biographic if the curry is a kind of a blusher is not incorrect.
|
{BN}{hi} -> {CR}{hi}
|
[
"sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 3 | null | 13 | 0 | 13 |
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the ketoprofen is a kind of a lab. ; $context$ = sent1: the ketoprofen does drive comb and it is a effortfulness. sent2: the annihilator underpays up-tick and is a kind of a lab. sent3: the letter underpays up-tick. sent4: the annihilator labels jawed if it is senior. sent5: if the annihilator underpays up-tick then the ketoprofen is senior. sent6: the annihilator does underpay up-tick and it is a senior. sent7: that the annihilator is Churchillian is not false. sent8: the sodomy does underpay up-tick. sent9: if that something is a blusher is right it is biographic. sent10: the annihilator is a kind of a mend. sent11: the ketoprofen is a senior. sent12: the ketoprofen does underpay up-tick. sent13: if that the annihilator is a Bronx is right then it is a kind of a rainmaker. sent14: the ketoprofen is not a kind of a lab if that either the annihilator is senior or it does underpay up-tick or both is not true. sent15: the ketoprofen labels jawed. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 -> int1: the annihilator is a kind of a senior.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the annihilator does label jawed.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the seigniory and the normalness happens does not hold.
|
¬({A} & {C})
|
sent1: the partition occurs. sent2: the stirring happens if the Odyssey happens. sent3: if the Odyssey does not occur then that both the seigniory and the normalness occurs does not hold. sent4: the Riemannianness and the accruing occurs. sent5: if the fact that the recurring does not occur is not wrong the fact that the toss does not occur and the scotching does not occur is false. sent6: the seigniory occurs and the Odyssey occurs. sent7: that the Odyssey does not occur is prevented by that the retting Lyrurus does not occur and the benignness does not occur. sent8: the Odyssey happens. sent9: if the crying does not occur then the retting Lyrurus does not occur and the benignness does not occur. sent10: the mostness occurs. sent11: both the insaneness and the search happens. sent12: both the benignness and the normalness occurs. sent13: if that the toss does not occur and the scotching does not occur is not true the cry does not occur.
|
sent1: {CM} sent2: {B} -> {DF} sent3: ¬{B} -> ¬({A} & {C}) sent4: ({FM} & {GB}) sent5: ¬{J} -> ¬(¬{I} & ¬{H}) sent6: ({A} & {B}) sent7: (¬{E} & ¬{D}) -> {B} sent8: {B} sent9: ¬{F} -> (¬{E} & ¬{D}) sent10: {FC} sent11: ({CH} & {EO}) sent12: ({D} & {C}) sent13: ¬(¬{I} & ¬{H}) -> ¬{F}
|
[
"sent6 -> int1: the seigniory occurs.; sent12 -> int2: the normalness occurs.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 -> int1: {A}; sent12 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the stir happens and the electrosurgery happens.
|
({DF} & {EN})
|
[] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the seigniory and the normalness happens does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the partition occurs. sent2: the stirring happens if the Odyssey happens. sent3: if the Odyssey does not occur then that both the seigniory and the normalness occurs does not hold. sent4: the Riemannianness and the accruing occurs. sent5: if the fact that the recurring does not occur is not wrong the fact that the toss does not occur and the scotching does not occur is false. sent6: the seigniory occurs and the Odyssey occurs. sent7: that the Odyssey does not occur is prevented by that the retting Lyrurus does not occur and the benignness does not occur. sent8: the Odyssey happens. sent9: if the crying does not occur then the retting Lyrurus does not occur and the benignness does not occur. sent10: the mostness occurs. sent11: both the insaneness and the search happens. sent12: both the benignness and the normalness occurs. sent13: if that the toss does not occur and the scotching does not occur is not true the cry does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 -> int1: the seigniory occurs.; sent12 -> int2: the normalness occurs.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the coon is not a markka but it is ampullar.
|
(¬{A}{b} & {C}{b})
|
sent1: the coon is not Spartan if that the CD is Spartan and not zygotic is not right. sent2: if something labels Plantago it is not a kind of a markka and it is ampullar. sent3: the CD does not label Plantago if that it does label coon and rets flycatcher is wrong. sent4: that something is a Spartan but it is not zygotic is not correct if it is not a Mormon. sent5: the dustcart is not a study if the jerk does not label orderly. sent6: the fact that the coon is a kind of a markka and it is ampullar is incorrect if the CD does not label Plantago. sent7: if the CD does not label Plantago that the coon is not a kind of a markka and is ampullar is not correct. sent8: the fact that the CD labels coon and rets flycatcher is not correct. sent9: if the CD does not label coon then it does not label Plantago. sent10: something is mutable thing that labels Plantago if it is non-Spartan. sent11: if the jerk does not label retraction the dustcart does not study. sent12: the fact that the coon is a markka and it is ampullar is incorrect. sent13: the jerk does not label orderly and/or it does not label retraction if something does not label retraction. sent14: something does not label retraction. sent15: if something is not a study then that the NSAID is Mormon thing that is patellar does not hold.
|
sent1: ¬({E}{a} & ¬{G}{a}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent2: (x): {B}x -> (¬{A}x & {C}x) sent3: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent4: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬({E}x & ¬{G}x) sent5: ¬{K}{e} -> ¬{H}{d} sent6: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬({A}{b} & {C}{b}) sent7: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬(¬{A}{b} & {C}{b}) sent8: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent9: ¬{AA}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent10: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({D}x & {B}x) sent11: ¬{J}{e} -> ¬{H}{d} sent12: ¬({A}{b} & {C}{b}) sent13: (x): ¬{J}x -> (¬{K}{e} v ¬{J}{e}) sent14: (Ex): ¬{J}x sent15: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬({F}{c} & {I}{c})
|
[
"sent3 & sent8 -> int1: the CD does not label Plantago.; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent8 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the coon is not a markka but it is ampullar.
|
(¬{A}{b} & {C}{b})
|
[
"sent2 -> int2: the coon is not a markka but ampullar if it does label Plantago.; sent10 -> int3: if the coon is not a kind of a Spartan then it is a kind of mutable thing that labels Plantago.; sent4 -> int4: if the CD is non-Mormon then the fact that it is Spartan but not zygotic is false.; sent14 & sent13 -> int5: the jerk does not label orderly and/or it does not label retraction.; int5 & sent5 & sent11 -> int6: the dustcart does not study.; int6 -> int7: there is something such that it is not a study.; int7 & sent15 -> int8: that the NSAID is both Mormon and patellar is incorrect.; int8 -> int9: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a Mormon that is patellar does not hold.;"
] | 11 | 2 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the coon is not a markka but it is ampullar. ; $context$ = sent1: the coon is not Spartan if that the CD is Spartan and not zygotic is not right. sent2: if something labels Plantago it is not a kind of a markka and it is ampullar. sent3: the CD does not label Plantago if that it does label coon and rets flycatcher is wrong. sent4: that something is a Spartan but it is not zygotic is not correct if it is not a Mormon. sent5: the dustcart is not a study if the jerk does not label orderly. sent6: the fact that the coon is a kind of a markka and it is ampullar is incorrect if the CD does not label Plantago. sent7: if the CD does not label Plantago that the coon is not a kind of a markka and is ampullar is not correct. sent8: the fact that the CD labels coon and rets flycatcher is not correct. sent9: if the CD does not label coon then it does not label Plantago. sent10: something is mutable thing that labels Plantago if it is non-Spartan. sent11: if the jerk does not label retraction the dustcart does not study. sent12: the fact that the coon is a markka and it is ampullar is incorrect. sent13: the jerk does not label orderly and/or it does not label retraction if something does not label retraction. sent14: something does not label retraction. sent15: if something is not a study then that the NSAID is Mormon thing that is patellar does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent8 -> int1: the CD does not label Plantago.; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the fact that the vasodilation does not occur but the glitter occurs is not false is not right.
|
¬(¬{AA} & {AB})
|
sent1: the aestheticsness happens if not the vasodilation but the glittering happens. sent2: that the staining occurs is brought about by the aesthetics. sent3: if the driving burgrass does not occur the Monopoly does not occur. sent4: the driving burgrass does not occur if the fact that that that not the valediction but the driving burgrass occurs is not false is false hold. sent5: if that the waggery occurs is right then the underpaying technophilia does not occur. sent6: not the targeting but the hymenalness occurs. sent7: if the underpaying technophilia does not occur the labeling frontlet happens but the hymenalness does not occur. sent8: the indicative does not occur and the waggery occurs if the counterinsurgentness does not occur. sent9: the truck prevents that the psychosurgery does not occur. sent10: if the Monopoly does not occur that the Paulineness occurs and the specialization happens is not true. sent11: that the counterinsurgentness does not occur if that the Paulineness and the specialization happens is false hold. sent12: the hitching happens. sent13: that both the labeling frontlet and the non-hymenalness occurs prevents the hitch.
|
sent1: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent2: {B} -> {A} sent3: ¬{N} -> ¬{M} sent4: ¬(¬{P} & {N}) -> ¬{N} sent5: {H} -> ¬{G} sent6: (¬{BR} & {E}) sent7: ¬{G} -> ({F} & ¬{E}) sent8: ¬{J} -> (¬{I} & {H}) sent9: {Q} -> {HC} sent10: ¬{M} -> ¬({L} & {K}) sent11: ¬({L} & {K}) -> ¬{J} sent12: {D} sent13: ({F} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{D}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the vasodilation does not occur but the glitter happens.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the aesthetics occurs.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the stain happens.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: (¬{AA} & {AB}); sent1 & assump1 -> int1: {B}; int1 & sent2 -> int2: {A};"
] |
the concordance occurs.
|
{HM}
|
[] | 13 | 4 | null | 10 | 0 | 10 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the fact that the vasodilation does not occur but the glitter occurs is not false is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the aestheticsness happens if not the vasodilation but the glittering happens. sent2: that the staining occurs is brought about by the aesthetics. sent3: if the driving burgrass does not occur the Monopoly does not occur. sent4: the driving burgrass does not occur if the fact that that that not the valediction but the driving burgrass occurs is not false is false hold. sent5: if that the waggery occurs is right then the underpaying technophilia does not occur. sent6: not the targeting but the hymenalness occurs. sent7: if the underpaying technophilia does not occur the labeling frontlet happens but the hymenalness does not occur. sent8: the indicative does not occur and the waggery occurs if the counterinsurgentness does not occur. sent9: the truck prevents that the psychosurgery does not occur. sent10: if the Monopoly does not occur that the Paulineness occurs and the specialization happens is not true. sent11: that the counterinsurgentness does not occur if that the Paulineness and the specialization happens is false hold. sent12: the hitching happens. sent13: that both the labeling frontlet and the non-hymenalness occurs prevents the hitch. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the vasodilation does not occur but the glitter happens.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the aesthetics occurs.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the stain happens.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the horseshoe is a kind of a Samson and is a crinoline.
|
({D}{c} & {E}{c})
|
sent1: the cedar does confine if there is something such that it depressurizes. sent2: if the cedar is a pertainym then the Lastex is a self. sent3: the horseshoe is wieldy if the cedar is a pertainym. sent4: something is not a self if the fact that it is not a pertainym and not wieldy is wrong. sent5: the horseshoe is wieldy if the cedar is a self. sent6: the horseshoe is a crinoline. sent7: a self thing is a Samson. sent8: the fact that the cedar is both not a pertainym and not wieldy is not right if the swine confines. sent9: the cedar is a kind of a self or it is a kind of a pertainym or both. sent10: there is something such that it depressurizes. sent11: the horseshoe is a kind of a Samson if it is wieldy. sent12: if something confines then it is a kind of a crinoline.
|
sent1: (x): {G}x -> {F}{a} sent2: {B}{a} -> {A}{jh} sent3: {B}{a} -> {C}{c} sent4: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{A}x sent5: {A}{a} -> {C}{c} sent6: {E}{c} sent7: (x): {A}x -> {D}x sent8: {F}{b} -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent9: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}) sent10: (Ex): {G}x sent11: {C}{c} -> {D}{c} sent12: (x): {F}x -> {E}x
|
[
"sent9 & sent5 & sent3 -> int1: the horseshoe is wieldy.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: that the horseshoe is a kind of a Samson hold.; int2 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 & sent5 & sent3 -> int1: {C}{c}; int1 & sent11 -> int2: {D}{c}; int2 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the horseshoe is a kind of a Samson and it is a crinoline is incorrect.
|
¬({D}{c} & {E}{c})
|
[
"sent4 -> int3: if the fact that the cedar is not a pertainym and it is not wieldy is incorrect then it is not a kind of a self.;"
] | 5 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the horseshoe is a kind of a Samson and is a crinoline. ; $context$ = sent1: the cedar does confine if there is something such that it depressurizes. sent2: if the cedar is a pertainym then the Lastex is a self. sent3: the horseshoe is wieldy if the cedar is a pertainym. sent4: something is not a self if the fact that it is not a pertainym and not wieldy is wrong. sent5: the horseshoe is wieldy if the cedar is a self. sent6: the horseshoe is a crinoline. sent7: a self thing is a Samson. sent8: the fact that the cedar is both not a pertainym and not wieldy is not right if the swine confines. sent9: the cedar is a kind of a self or it is a kind of a pertainym or both. sent10: there is something such that it depressurizes. sent11: the horseshoe is a kind of a Samson if it is wieldy. sent12: if something confines then it is a kind of a crinoline. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 & sent5 & sent3 -> int1: the horseshoe is wieldy.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: that the horseshoe is a kind of a Samson hold.; int2 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the nonhumanness does not occur.
|
¬{D}
|
sent1: the fact that the objection does not occur but the excess occurs does not hold if the drizzle does not occur. sent2: if the fact that the excess does not occur is not incorrect then the labeling criterion and the labeling experiment occurs. sent3: if the excess does not occur the labeling experiment and the nonhumanness occurs. sent4: the excess occurs. sent5: the labeling experiment and the excess occurs. sent6: that the nonhumanness does not occur is caused by that the labeling experiment happens and the objection occurs.
|
sent1: ¬{E} -> ¬(¬{C} & {B}) sent2: ¬{B} -> ({CS} & {A}) sent3: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {D}) sent4: {B} sent5: ({A} & {B}) sent6: ({A} & {C}) -> ¬{D}
|
[
"sent5 -> int1: the labeling experiment occurs.;"
] |
[
"sent5 -> int1: {A};"
] |
the nonhumanness happens.
|
{D}
|
[] | 7 | 3 | null | 4 | 0 | 4 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the nonhumanness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the objection does not occur but the excess occurs does not hold if the drizzle does not occur. sent2: if the fact that the excess does not occur is not incorrect then the labeling criterion and the labeling experiment occurs. sent3: if the excess does not occur the labeling experiment and the nonhumanness occurs. sent4: the excess occurs. sent5: the labeling experiment and the excess occurs. sent6: that the nonhumanness does not occur is caused by that the labeling experiment happens and the objection occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 -> int1: the labeling experiment occurs.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the weld is a gimbal.
|
{B}{aa}
|
sent1: the louvar does not drive headmistressship. sent2: something that is not bronchoscopic either does not drive headmistressship or is not a gimbal or both. sent3: The headmistressship does not drive louvar. sent4: the weld is both not a sewer and chronic if the fact that the louvar does not drive headmistressship is not incorrect. sent5: if something that is not a sewer is chronic it is a gimbal.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{a} sent2: (x): ¬{C}x -> (¬{A}x v ¬{B}x) sent3: ¬{AC}{ab} sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent5: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x
|
[
"sent5 -> int1: if the weld is not a kind of a sewer and is chronic it is a gimbal.; sent4 & sent1 -> int2: the weld is not a sewer but it is chronic.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 -> int1: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; sent4 & sent1 -> int2: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the weld is not a gimbal.
|
¬{B}{aa}
|
[
"sent2 -> int3: if the louvar is not bronchoscopic then it does not drive headmistressship or is not a gimbal or both.;"
] | 5 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the weld is a gimbal. ; $context$ = sent1: the louvar does not drive headmistressship. sent2: something that is not bronchoscopic either does not drive headmistressship or is not a gimbal or both. sent3: The headmistressship does not drive louvar. sent4: the weld is both not a sewer and chronic if the fact that the louvar does not drive headmistressship is not incorrect. sent5: if something that is not a sewer is chronic it is a gimbal. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 -> int1: if the weld is not a kind of a sewer and is chronic it is a gimbal.; sent4 & sent1 -> int2: the weld is not a sewer but it is chronic.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the coastguardsman drives Ledbetter.
|
{C}{b}
|
sent1: the prankster is behavioral. sent2: the coastguardsman is a canvas and it is holy. sent3: the coastguardsman is a smash. sent4: if something does not drive Ledbetter then it does not enlarge. sent5: if something is not behavioral then it rets Galician. sent6: the prankster does not drive Ledbetter if a holy thing is a smash. sent7: if there exists something such that it does enlarge the coastguardsman does drive Ledbetter. sent8: if there exists something such that it is behavioral and/or it does enlarge then the coastguardsman drives Ledbetter.
|
sent1: {A}{a} sent2: ({F}{b} & {D}{b}) sent3: {E}{b} sent4: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬{B}x sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> {BS}x sent6: (x): ({D}x & {E}x) -> ¬{C}{a} sent7: (x): {B}x -> {C}{b} sent8: (x): ({A}x v {B}x) -> {C}{b}
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: the prankster is behavioral or it does enlarge or both.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that it either is behavioral or does enlarge or both.; int2 & sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): ({A}x v {B}x); int2 & sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the turnstone does ret Galician.
|
{BS}{af}
|
[
"sent5 -> int3: if the fact that the turnstone is not behavioral is right it rets Galician.; sent4 -> int4: the prankster does not enlarge if it does not drive Ledbetter.; sent2 -> int5: the coastguardsman is holy.; int5 & sent3 -> int6: the coastguardsman is holy and it is a smash.; int6 -> int7: there is something such that it is holy and is a smash.; int7 & sent6 -> int8: the prankster does not drive Ledbetter.; int4 & int8 -> int9: the prankster does not enlarge.; int9 -> int10: there is something such that it does not enlarge.;"
] | 8 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 6 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the coastguardsman drives Ledbetter. ; $context$ = sent1: the prankster is behavioral. sent2: the coastguardsman is a canvas and it is holy. sent3: the coastguardsman is a smash. sent4: if something does not drive Ledbetter then it does not enlarge. sent5: if something is not behavioral then it rets Galician. sent6: the prankster does not drive Ledbetter if a holy thing is a smash. sent7: if there exists something such that it does enlarge the coastguardsman does drive Ledbetter. sent8: if there exists something such that it is behavioral and/or it does enlarge then the coastguardsman drives Ledbetter. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: the prankster is behavioral or it does enlarge or both.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that it either is behavioral or does enlarge or both.; int2 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the helicopter is an epidemic and ahistorical is not true.
|
¬({D}{b} & {C}{b})
|
sent1: if the helicopter is a deceptiveness then the fact that it is not epidemic or it is a kind of a hominid or both does not hold. sent2: the fact that the helicopter is not ahistorical and/or it is a hominid is not correct if it does cling. sent3: if the demonstrator is a hominid that it is Burundi is true. sent4: if the demonstrator is a hominid that it is not a Burundi and/or it is a deceptiveness does not hold. sent5: if the fact that the demonstrator is not a Burundi and/or it is a deceptiveness is false then the fact that the helicopter is not a cling is not incorrect. sent6: something is not a kind of a hominid if it does not cling and it is not ahistorical. sent7: if the demonstrator is not a kind of a hominid and/or it is a kind of a cling the helicopter is not a hominid. sent8: if something is not a cling the fact that it is epidemic thing that is ahistorical does not hold. sent9: the demonstrator is Burundi. sent10: if the fact that either the demonstrator is a Burundi or it is a deceptiveness or both does not hold the helicopter does not cling. sent11: the demonstrator is a hominid. sent12: that something either is not an epidemic or is miscible or both is false if it is not a hominid. sent13: if something is not a hominid then it is a kind of an epidemic and it is ahistorical.
|
sent1: {AB}{b} -> ¬(¬{D}{b} v {A}{b}) sent2: {B}{b} -> ¬(¬{C}{b} v {A}{b}) sent3: {A}{a} -> {AA}{a} sent4: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent5: ¬(¬{AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent6: (x): (¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{A}x sent7: (¬{A}{a} v {B}{a}) -> ¬{A}{b} sent8: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({D}x & {C}x) sent9: {AA}{a} sent10: ¬({AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent11: {A}{a} sent12: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{D}x v {CI}x) sent13: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({D}x & {C}x)
|
[
"sent4 & sent11 -> int1: the fact that the demonstrator is not a kind of a Burundi and/or is a deceptiveness is not true.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the helicopter is not a cling.; sent8 -> int3: if the helicopter is not a cling then the fact that it is an epidemic and it is ahistorical does not hold.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 & sent11 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} v {AB}{a}); int1 & sent5 -> int2: ¬{B}{b}; sent8 -> int3: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬({D}{b} & {C}{b}); int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the helicopter is not epidemic and/or it is miscible does not hold.
|
¬(¬{D}{b} v {CI}{b})
|
[
"sent12 -> int4: if the fact that the helicopter is not a hominid is true then that either it is not an epidemic or it is miscible or both does not hold.; sent6 -> int5: the helicopter is not a kind of a hominid if it is not a cling and it is not ahistorical.;"
] | 4 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the helicopter is an epidemic and ahistorical is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: if the helicopter is a deceptiveness then the fact that it is not epidemic or it is a kind of a hominid or both does not hold. sent2: the fact that the helicopter is not ahistorical and/or it is a hominid is not correct if it does cling. sent3: if the demonstrator is a hominid that it is Burundi is true. sent4: if the demonstrator is a hominid that it is not a Burundi and/or it is a deceptiveness does not hold. sent5: if the fact that the demonstrator is not a Burundi and/or it is a deceptiveness is false then the fact that the helicopter is not a cling is not incorrect. sent6: something is not a kind of a hominid if it does not cling and it is not ahistorical. sent7: if the demonstrator is not a kind of a hominid and/or it is a kind of a cling the helicopter is not a hominid. sent8: if something is not a cling the fact that it is epidemic thing that is ahistorical does not hold. sent9: the demonstrator is Burundi. sent10: if the fact that either the demonstrator is a Burundi or it is a deceptiveness or both does not hold the helicopter does not cling. sent11: the demonstrator is a hominid. sent12: that something either is not an epidemic or is miscible or both is false if it is not a hominid. sent13: if something is not a hominid then it is a kind of an epidemic and it is ahistorical. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 & sent11 -> int1: the fact that the demonstrator is not a kind of a Burundi and/or is a deceptiveness is not true.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the helicopter is not a cling.; sent8 -> int3: if the helicopter is not a cling then the fact that it is an epidemic and it is ahistorical does not hold.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the hawkbit drives clerkship and is a fountain.
|
({A}{b} & {B}{b})
|
sent1: there is something such that it does not drive clerkship. sent2: something does not label today. sent3: that the stenograph does not drive clerkship is right if there is something such that it is pediatric and does not label caul. sent4: if the stenograph does not drive clerkship then the hawkbit does drive clerkship and it is a fountain. sent5: there exists something such that it is not a fountain. sent6: the maulstick is a kind of a Dublin that labels push. sent7: the stenograph rets rope-a-dope and does ret hawkbit. sent8: if the stenograph is not a kind of a fountain then the hawkbit does drive clerkship. sent9: there is something such that it does drive clerkship and it is not a kind of a fountain. sent10: the shell drives academy and it is mealy. sent11: there exists something such that it is pediatric and it does not label caul. sent12: that the hawkbit is a fountain and drives clerkship is true if the stenograph is not a fountain.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent2: (Ex): ¬{FI}x sent3: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> ({A}{b} & {B}{b}) sent5: (Ex): ¬{B}x sent6: ({JC}{bf} & {H}{bf}) sent7: ({BP}{a} & {DR}{a}) sent8: ¬{B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent9: (Ex): ({A}x & ¬{B}x) sent10: ({K}{df} & {CM}{df}) sent11: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent12: ¬{B}{a} -> ({B}{b} & {A}{b})
|
[
"sent11 & sent3 -> int1: the stenograph does not drive clerkship.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent11 & sent3 -> int1: ¬{A}{a}; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the hawkbit drives clerkship and is a fountain. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it does not drive clerkship. sent2: something does not label today. sent3: that the stenograph does not drive clerkship is right if there is something such that it is pediatric and does not label caul. sent4: if the stenograph does not drive clerkship then the hawkbit does drive clerkship and it is a fountain. sent5: there exists something such that it is not a fountain. sent6: the maulstick is a kind of a Dublin that labels push. sent7: the stenograph rets rope-a-dope and does ret hawkbit. sent8: if the stenograph is not a kind of a fountain then the hawkbit does drive clerkship. sent9: there is something such that it does drive clerkship and it is not a kind of a fountain. sent10: the shell drives academy and it is mealy. sent11: there exists something such that it is pediatric and it does not label caul. sent12: that the hawkbit is a fountain and drives clerkship is true if the stenograph is not a fountain. ; $proof$ =
|
sent11 & sent3 -> int1: the stenograph does not drive clerkship.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if that it is not a sudorific and plunders is not correct it modulates.
|
(Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x
|
sent1: the fact that the Tom does modulate is correct if the fact that the fact that it is not a sudorific and it does plunder is not incorrect is not right. sent2: if that the wassailer is not a sudorific and is a Salish is not true then it is a funicular. sent3: there is something such that if it is not a sudorific and plunders it does modulate. sent4: there is something such that if that it is not mutational and does drive Pempheridae is not correct then it underpays Mentha. sent5: there is something such that if the fact that it does not ret domatium and is meretricious is not right then it is a kind of a Aramean. sent6: there exists something such that if it does not plunder then it does modulate. sent7: the Tom does modulate if it does not plunder. sent8: there is something such that if the fact that it is not meretricious and it equalizes is incorrect it is Zairean. sent9: if the fact that that the Tom is a kind of a sudorific that plunders is wrong is correct then it modulates. sent10: if that that the antiseptic is not a cascade but a Chaetodontidae is right is not right it modulates. sent11: the Tom is a sudorific if that it is not funicular and it is ostentatious is incorrect. sent12: there is something such that if it is a sudorific then it modulates. sent13: there is something such that if that it is a sudorific and it does plunder is not correct then it does modulate. sent14: the Tom modulates if it is not a sudorific and does plunder. sent15: if that the Tom does not underpay chute and modulates is not true then it is a kind of a Coloradan. sent16: if that something is both non-sinistral and a afflatus is wrong it is technical.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent2: ¬(¬{AA}{fd} & {BO}{fd}) -> {FO}{fd} sent3: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent4: (Ex): ¬(¬{DH}x & {FP}x) -> {EM}x sent5: (Ex): ¬(¬{IA}x & {II}x) -> {FL}x sent6: (Ex): ¬{AB}x -> {B}x sent7: ¬{AB}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent8: (Ex): ¬(¬{II}x & {JJ}x) -> {AC}x sent9: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent10: ¬(¬{ET}{dp} & {FE}{dp}) -> {B}{dp} sent11: ¬(¬{FO}{aa} & {BT}{aa}) -> {AA}{aa} sent12: (Ex): {AA}x -> {B}x sent13: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent14: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent15: ¬(¬{DB}{aa} & {B}{aa}) -> {DS}{aa} sent16: (x): ¬(¬{G}x & {ER}x) -> {AH}x
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there exists something such that if that it is a kind of non-sinistral thing that is a afflatus is false it is a kind of a technical.
|
(Ex): ¬(¬{G}x & {ER}x) -> {AH}x
|
[
"sent16 -> int1: if that the opiate is not sinistral but a afflatus is wrong then it is not nontechnical.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if that it is not a sudorific and plunders is not correct it modulates. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the Tom does modulate is correct if the fact that the fact that it is not a sudorific and it does plunder is not incorrect is not right. sent2: if that the wassailer is not a sudorific and is a Salish is not true then it is a funicular. sent3: there is something such that if it is not a sudorific and plunders it does modulate. sent4: there is something such that if that it is not mutational and does drive Pempheridae is not correct then it underpays Mentha. sent5: there is something such that if the fact that it does not ret domatium and is meretricious is not right then it is a kind of a Aramean. sent6: there exists something such that if it does not plunder then it does modulate. sent7: the Tom does modulate if it does not plunder. sent8: there is something such that if the fact that it is not meretricious and it equalizes is incorrect it is Zairean. sent9: if the fact that that the Tom is a kind of a sudorific that plunders is wrong is correct then it modulates. sent10: if that that the antiseptic is not a cascade but a Chaetodontidae is right is not right it modulates. sent11: the Tom is a sudorific if that it is not funicular and it is ostentatious is incorrect. sent12: there is something such that if it is a sudorific then it modulates. sent13: there is something such that if that it is a sudorific and it does plunder is not correct then it does modulate. sent14: the Tom modulates if it is not a sudorific and does plunder. sent15: if that the Tom does not underpay chute and modulates is not true then it is a kind of a Coloradan. sent16: if that something is both non-sinistral and a afflatus is wrong it is technical. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the fact that the follow-through does not occur and the benedictoriness happens is not incorrect is wrong.
|
¬(¬{AA} & {AB})
|
sent1: either the gracefulness or the obstetricsness or both occurs if the fact that the ventricularness does not occur is correct. sent2: that the seeling does not occur causes that the wishing happens and the fleecing happens. sent3: the degeneration occurs. sent4: the kabbalism occurs. sent5: if the retting encephalography does not occur the fact that the femaleness occurs and the Depression happens is false. sent6: the fleecing happens and the breeding occurs if that the driving splicer does not occur is not incorrect. sent7: that not the follow-through but the benedictoriness happens prevents that the breeding happens. sent8: the fact that either the recessional does not occur or the peepshow does not occur or both is not right if the labeling Rochester does not occur. sent9: the fact that the roundup does not occur hold. sent10: that the labeling Rochester does not occur hold if that the allocution happens and the labeling sandbur happens is not true. sent11: the femaleness does not occur if the fact that the femaleness occurs and the Depression occurs is wrong. sent12: the fact that both the bacteremicness and the patience occurs is not correct. sent13: the ventricularness does not occur if the fact that the recessional does not occur and/or the peepshow does not occur does not hold. sent14: the fact that the fact that the follow-through happens and the benedictoriness occurs is not incorrect is not true. sent15: the familiar happens. sent16: if that the driving splicer and the non-on-lineness happens is incorrect then the driving splicer does not occur. sent17: if the seeling happens the fact that the driving splicer happens and the on-lineness does not occur is wrong. sent18: the follow-through does not occur. sent19: that that the allocution and the labeling sandbur happens does not hold is right if the femaleness does not occur. sent20: the southeaster does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬{H} -> ({F} v {G}) sent2: ¬{D} -> ({FK} & {A}) sent3: {AG} sent4: {DE} sent5: ¬{O} -> ¬({N} & {P}) sent6: ¬{C} -> ({A} & {B}) sent7: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent8: ¬{K} -> ¬(¬{J} v ¬{I}) sent9: ¬{BU} sent10: ¬({M} & {L}) -> ¬{K} sent11: ¬({N} & {P}) -> ¬{N} sent12: ¬({GM} & {CK}) sent13: ¬(¬{J} v ¬{I}) -> ¬{H} sent14: ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent15: {DT} sent16: ¬({C} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{C} sent17: {D} -> ¬({C} & ¬{E}) sent18: ¬{AA} sent19: ¬{N} -> ¬({M} & {L}) sent20: ¬{GG}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the follow-through does not occur but the benedictoriness occurs.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: the breeding does not occur.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: (¬{AA} & {AB}); sent7 & assump1 -> int1: ¬{B};"
] |
both the wishing and the domestication occurs.
|
({FK} & {BB})
|
[] | 4 | 3 | null | 19 | 0 | 19 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the fact that the follow-through does not occur and the benedictoriness happens is not incorrect is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: either the gracefulness or the obstetricsness or both occurs if the fact that the ventricularness does not occur is correct. sent2: that the seeling does not occur causes that the wishing happens and the fleecing happens. sent3: the degeneration occurs. sent4: the kabbalism occurs. sent5: if the retting encephalography does not occur the fact that the femaleness occurs and the Depression happens is false. sent6: the fleecing happens and the breeding occurs if that the driving splicer does not occur is not incorrect. sent7: that not the follow-through but the benedictoriness happens prevents that the breeding happens. sent8: the fact that either the recessional does not occur or the peepshow does not occur or both is not right if the labeling Rochester does not occur. sent9: the fact that the roundup does not occur hold. sent10: that the labeling Rochester does not occur hold if that the allocution happens and the labeling sandbur happens is not true. sent11: the femaleness does not occur if the fact that the femaleness occurs and the Depression occurs is wrong. sent12: the fact that both the bacteremicness and the patience occurs is not correct. sent13: the ventricularness does not occur if the fact that the recessional does not occur and/or the peepshow does not occur does not hold. sent14: the fact that the fact that the follow-through happens and the benedictoriness occurs is not incorrect is not true. sent15: the familiar happens. sent16: if that the driving splicer and the non-on-lineness happens is incorrect then the driving splicer does not occur. sent17: if the seeling happens the fact that the driving splicer happens and the on-lineness does not occur is wrong. sent18: the follow-through does not occur. sent19: that that the allocution and the labeling sandbur happens does not hold is right if the femaleness does not occur. sent20: the southeaster does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the follow-through does not occur but the benedictoriness occurs.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: the breeding does not occur.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it is not pericardial and does not label Sabinea then it is not a sociable.
|
(Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
sent1: the fact that the automat is not a sociable is not wrong if it is a braced but not ballistic. sent2: that there is something such that if the fact that it is carunculate thing that is not a kind of a snakewood hold it does not drive trilogy is right. sent3: the automat is unsociable if it is not pericardial and it does not label Sabinea.
|
sent1: ({EF}{aa} & ¬{CF}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent2: (Ex): ({FS}x & ¬{DT}x) -> ¬{FE}x sent3: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}
|
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is not pericardial and does not label Sabinea then it is not a sociable. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the automat is not a sociable is not wrong if it is a braced but not ballistic. sent2: that there is something such that if the fact that it is carunculate thing that is not a kind of a snakewood hold it does not drive trilogy is right. sent3: the automat is unsociable if it is not pericardial and it does not label Sabinea. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the playback occurs.
|
{D}
|
sent1: the coalescence does not occur. sent2: the fact that the theocraticness and/or the non-argenticness occurs is not correct if the coalescence does not occur. sent3: if the labeling aeroembolism does not occur then the sculpturalness and the irregularness happens. sent4: if the sculpturalness happens then both the non-lobeliaceousness and the opticalness occurs. sent5: that the playback occurs if the fact that the coalescence occurs and/or the opticalness does not occur is not true is true. sent6: that the labeling aeroembolism happens is prevented by either that the driving lipid does not occur or the consularness or both. sent7: if the scraping does not occur the lobeliaceousness occurs. sent8: that the coalescence occurs and/or the opticalness does not occur is not correct if the fact that the lobeliaceousness happens is not false. sent9: the fact that the coalescence does not occur if the lobeliaceousness happens is not wrong. sent10: the decantation happens. sent11: that that not the jacking but the scraping happens does not hold hold.
|
sent1: ¬{A} sent2: ¬{A} -> ¬({P} v ¬{EI}) sent3: ¬{G} -> ({E} & {F}) sent4: {E} -> (¬{B} & {C}) sent5: ¬({A} v ¬{C}) -> {D} sent6: (¬{H} v {I}) -> ¬{G} sent7: ¬{AB} -> {B} sent8: {B} -> ¬({A} v ¬{C}) sent9: {B} -> ¬{A} sent10: {ES} sent11: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB})
|
[] |
[] |
the fact that the theocraticness occurs and/or the argenticness does not occur does not hold.
|
¬({P} v ¬{EI})
|
[] | 6 | 3 | null | 8 | 0 | 8 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the playback occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the coalescence does not occur. sent2: the fact that the theocraticness and/or the non-argenticness occurs is not correct if the coalescence does not occur. sent3: if the labeling aeroembolism does not occur then the sculpturalness and the irregularness happens. sent4: if the sculpturalness happens then both the non-lobeliaceousness and the opticalness occurs. sent5: that the playback occurs if the fact that the coalescence occurs and/or the opticalness does not occur is not true is true. sent6: that the labeling aeroembolism happens is prevented by either that the driving lipid does not occur or the consularness or both. sent7: if the scraping does not occur the lobeliaceousness occurs. sent8: that the coalescence occurs and/or the opticalness does not occur is not correct if the fact that the lobeliaceousness happens is not false. sent9: the fact that the coalescence does not occur if the lobeliaceousness happens is not wrong. sent10: the decantation happens. sent11: that that not the jacking but the scraping happens does not hold hold. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the twerp is not a penny.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
sent1: the twerp does not mediate. sent2: the twerp is a Niobrara if it is a kind of a penny. sent3: the locomotive does drive Addressograph if the fact that the exode does not drive Addressograph and is a kind of a reedbird is false. sent4: the traitor does ret Trichophaga if it is a kind of a Tutankhamen. sent5: that the twerp is a urology that is not a penny is not right. sent6: if the twerp is not a reorder then the knife is not incestuous and does drive Addressograph. sent7: if the acetone is a Lagodon then it is a thermel. sent8: the twerp is not a Niobrara if that it is a Niobrara but not incestuous does not hold. sent9: the fact that the helicopter is either a pellicle or not a delight or both is not correct. sent10: the exode is a interestedness if it is not decent and it is not a clavicle. sent11: if the forecaster is incestuous the fact that the proliferation is a kind of a Niobrara that does not consecrate is not correct. sent12: the twerp is not a peeve. sent13: the myrobalan is not incestuous if the fact that it is incestuous and not palpebrate is not true. sent14: if something does not consecrate then it is a penny and it is not a kind of a Niobrara. sent15: if something is both not a pellicle and not non-French then that it does not reorder is not incorrect. sent16: the fact that the twerp is incestuous but it does not label immotility is wrong. sent17: something is French if it is a kind of a interestedness. sent18: the exode is not decent. sent19: if the fact that the helicopter either is a pellicle or is not a delight or both is not true then the exode is not a pellicle. sent20: the forecaster is incestuous if the locomotive drives Addressograph. sent21: that the twerp is a Niobrara but not incestuous is not true. sent22: the fact that the twerp is a hindgut but it is not nuclear is incorrect. sent23: that something does not drive Addressograph and is a reedbird does not hold if the fact that it does not reorder is right.
|
sent1: ¬{GU}{a} sent2: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent3: ¬(¬{E}{e} & {G}{e}) -> {E}{d} sent4: {O}{im} -> {AI}{im} sent5: ¬({DA}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent6: ¬{F}{a} -> (¬{D}{hc} & {E}{hc}) sent7: {BA}{cd} -> {FC}{cd} sent8: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent9: ¬({H}{f} v ¬{J}{f}) sent10: (¬{M}{e} & ¬{L}{e}) -> {K}{e} sent11: {D}{c} -> ¬({B}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent12: ¬{DJ}{a} sent13: ¬({D}{o} & ¬{EA}{o}) -> ¬{D}{o} sent14: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({A}x & ¬{B}x) sent15: (x): (¬{H}x & {I}x) -> ¬{F}x sent16: ¬({D}{a} & ¬{BT}{a}) sent17: (x): {K}x -> {I}x sent18: ¬{M}{e} sent19: ¬({H}{f} v ¬{J}{f}) -> ¬{H}{e} sent20: {E}{d} -> {D}{c} sent21: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent22: ¬({FE}{a} & ¬{IG}{a}) sent23: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & {G}x)
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the twerp is a penny.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the twerp is not a kind of a Niobrara does not hold.; sent8 & sent21 -> int2: the twerp is not a kind of a Niobrara.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}{a}; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent8 & sent21 -> int2: ¬{B}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the knife is not a Niobrara.
|
¬{B}{hc}
|
[
"sent14 -> int4: if the knife does not consecrate then it is a penny and it is not a Niobrara.;"
] | 5 | 3 | 3 | 20 | 0 | 20 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the twerp is not a penny. ; $context$ = sent1: the twerp does not mediate. sent2: the twerp is a Niobrara if it is a kind of a penny. sent3: the locomotive does drive Addressograph if the fact that the exode does not drive Addressograph and is a kind of a reedbird is false. sent4: the traitor does ret Trichophaga if it is a kind of a Tutankhamen. sent5: that the twerp is a urology that is not a penny is not right. sent6: if the twerp is not a reorder then the knife is not incestuous and does drive Addressograph. sent7: if the acetone is a Lagodon then it is a thermel. sent8: the twerp is not a Niobrara if that it is a Niobrara but not incestuous does not hold. sent9: the fact that the helicopter is either a pellicle or not a delight or both is not correct. sent10: the exode is a interestedness if it is not decent and it is not a clavicle. sent11: if the forecaster is incestuous the fact that the proliferation is a kind of a Niobrara that does not consecrate is not correct. sent12: the twerp is not a peeve. sent13: the myrobalan is not incestuous if the fact that it is incestuous and not palpebrate is not true. sent14: if something does not consecrate then it is a penny and it is not a kind of a Niobrara. sent15: if something is both not a pellicle and not non-French then that it does not reorder is not incorrect. sent16: the fact that the twerp is incestuous but it does not label immotility is wrong. sent17: something is French if it is a kind of a interestedness. sent18: the exode is not decent. sent19: if the fact that the helicopter either is a pellicle or is not a delight or both is not true then the exode is not a pellicle. sent20: the forecaster is incestuous if the locomotive drives Addressograph. sent21: that the twerp is a Niobrara but not incestuous is not true. sent22: the fact that the twerp is a hindgut but it is not nuclear is incorrect. sent23: that something does not drive Addressograph and is a reedbird does not hold if the fact that it does not reorder is right. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the twerp is a penny.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the twerp is not a kind of a Niobrara does not hold.; sent8 & sent21 -> int2: the twerp is not a kind of a Niobrara.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it does not label exodontist it is aware and it is non-hyperthermal.
|
(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
sent1: if something does not label exodontist it is aware and it is hyperthermal. sent2: there exists something such that if it does not label exodontist then it is aware and is hyperthermal. sent3: if the paleontologist is not a sore it is aware. sent4: if something does not label exodontist then it is not unaware and not hyperthermal. sent5: an unhappy thing does label Amelanchier. sent6: if the finish does not curdle the fact that it is a stave and it is hyperthermal is not incorrect. sent7: if something does not label exodontist then it is aware. sent8: there exists something such that if that it is not a kind of a mechanization is not false it drives cucurbit and does not drive logarithm. sent9: if the squire does not underpay lavender then it is a Manila and is aware.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent2: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: ¬{HG}{fd} -> {AA}{fd} sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent5: (x): ¬{EE}x -> {DE}x sent6: ¬{T}{hi} -> ({M}{hi} & {AB}{hi}) sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> {AA}x sent8: (Ex): ¬{F}x -> ({GK}x & ¬{EM}x) sent9: ¬{IP}{aa} -> ({AI}{aa} & {AA}{aa})
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: if that the squire does not label exodontist is not wrong it is aware and is not hyperthermal.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it does not label exodontist it is aware and it is non-hyperthermal. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not label exodontist it is aware and it is hyperthermal. sent2: there exists something such that if it does not label exodontist then it is aware and is hyperthermal. sent3: if the paleontologist is not a sore it is aware. sent4: if something does not label exodontist then it is not unaware and not hyperthermal. sent5: an unhappy thing does label Amelanchier. sent6: if the finish does not curdle the fact that it is a stave and it is hyperthermal is not incorrect. sent7: if something does not label exodontist then it is aware. sent8: there exists something such that if that it is not a kind of a mechanization is not false it drives cucurbit and does not drive logarithm. sent9: if the squire does not underpay lavender then it is a Manila and is aware. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> int1: if that the squire does not label exodontist is not wrong it is aware and is not hyperthermal.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that if the chopstick is not a triangularity and it is not a kind of the skybox the chopstick does ret Oceanic is not right.
|
¬((¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa})
|
sent1: something rets Oceanic if it is not a triangularity and it is a skybox. sent2: if something is not a kind of a triangularity and it is not a kind of a skybox then it does ret Oceanic. sent3: if the chopstick is a kind of a triangularity but it is not a kind of a skybox the fact that it does ret Oceanic is not false. sent4: the chopstick does ret Oceanic if it is not a kind of a triangularity and is a skybox. sent5: if the fact that something is a triangularity that is not a skybox is not wrong it does ret Oceanic.
|
sent1: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent2: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent3: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent4: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent5: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x
|
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that if the chopstick is not a triangularity and it is not a kind of the skybox the chopstick does ret Oceanic is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: something rets Oceanic if it is not a triangularity and it is a skybox. sent2: if something is not a kind of a triangularity and it is not a kind of a skybox then it does ret Oceanic. sent3: if the chopstick is a kind of a triangularity but it is not a kind of a skybox the fact that it does ret Oceanic is not false. sent4: the chopstick does ret Oceanic if it is not a kind of a triangularity and is a skybox. sent5: if the fact that something is a triangularity that is not a skybox is not wrong it does ret Oceanic. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the udder is not acetonic.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
sent1: the fact that something is not acetonic if the fact that it is a whole and it is not mutable is wrong hold. sent2: the udder is acetonic.
|
sent1: (x): ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{A}x sent2: {A}{a}
|
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the udder is not acetonic.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: the udder is not acetonic if the fact that it is a whole and not mutable is not correct.;"
] | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the udder is not acetonic. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is not acetonic if the fact that it is a whole and it is not mutable is wrong hold. sent2: the udder is acetonic. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
something is not a kind of a hologram and it is not a kind of a domatium.
|
(Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
sent1: the footpad is not a hologram and it is not a domatium. sent2: the dark is not a kind of a domatium. sent3: there exists something such that it is both not sarcastic and not a potency. sent4: the footpad is non-intestinal thing that is not a kind of a hologram. sent5: there is something such that it is not a Porto.
|
sent1: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent2: ¬{AB}{go} sent3: (Ex): (¬{BD}x & ¬{BI}x) sent4: (¬{CK}{aa} & ¬{AA}{aa}) sent5: (Ex): ¬{JB}x
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = something is not a kind of a hologram and it is not a kind of a domatium. ; $context$ = sent1: the footpad is not a hologram and it is not a domatium. sent2: the dark is not a kind of a domatium. sent3: there exists something such that it is both not sarcastic and not a potency. sent4: the footpad is non-intestinal thing that is not a kind of a hologram. sent5: there is something such that it is not a Porto. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the colleen does not obtrude.
|
¬{AA}{aa}
|
sent1: the disposal is binocular and it is maleficent. sent2: that the camachile is not biaxial and is not unrhetorical is not right if the fact that the etamine is reputable hold. sent3: the mascot labels dowager. sent4: the fact that the automat is biaxial is right if the fact that the camachile is not biaxial and it is not unrhetorical is incorrect. sent5: the colleen does ret profanation if it is not biaxial. sent6: the moire labels dowager if the dura labels dowager. sent7: if there exists something such that it is a protection and it does label dowager the earwig does not subtilize. sent8: the colleen rets profanation. sent9: the skate does obtrude. sent10: the moire is a protection if something is binocular. sent11: if something is not biaxial then it does ret profanation. sent12: if something does not subtilize then it is a kind of a curability or it is insane or both. sent13: the etamine is reputable if the earwig is a curability. sent14: the colleen is not unrhetorical. sent15: something obtrudes and it does ret profanation if it is not biaxial. sent16: if there is something such that it labels dowager either the dura labels dowager or it is dendritic or both. sent17: if the dura is dendritic the moire does label dowager. sent18: if the colleen is not a Cestidae then it is a Anglican and it possesses. sent19: the colleen is not biaxial if it is not unrhetorical.
|
sent1: ({I}{g} & {K}{g}) sent2: {C}{c} -> ¬(¬{A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent3: {H}{h} sent4: ¬(¬{A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> {A}{a} sent5: ¬{A}{aa} -> {AB}{aa} sent6: {H}{f} -> {H}{e} sent7: (x): ({G}x & {H}x) -> ¬{F}{d} sent8: {AB}{aa} sent9: {AA}{jh} sent10: (x): {I}x -> {G}{e} sent11: (x): ¬{A}x -> {AB}x sent12: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({D}x v {E}x) sent13: {D}{d} -> {C}{c} sent14: ¬{B}{aa} sent15: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent16: (x): {H}x -> ({H}{f} v {J}{f}) sent17: {J}{f} -> {H}{e} sent18: ¬{U}{aa} -> ({GG}{aa} & {HE}{aa}) sent19: ¬{B}{aa} -> ¬{A}{aa}
|
[
"sent15 -> int1: if the colleen is not biaxial it obtrudes and does ret profanation.; sent19 & sent14 -> int2: the colleen is not biaxial.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the colleen obtrudes and rets profanation.; int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent15 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); sent19 & sent14 -> int2: ¬{A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the colleen does not obtrude hold.
|
¬{AA}{aa}
|
[
"sent12 -> int4: the earwig is a curability and/or is insane if that it does not subtilize is not false.; sent1 -> int5: that the disposal is binocular is right.; int5 -> int6: there exists something such that it is binocular.; int6 & sent10 -> int7: the moire is a protection.; sent3 -> int8: there is something such that it does label dowager.; int8 & sent16 -> int9: the dura labels dowager or is dendritic or both.; int9 & sent6 & sent17 -> int10: the moire labels dowager.; int7 & int10 -> int11: the moire is a kind of a protection and does label dowager.; int11 -> int12: there is something such that it is a protection and labels dowager.; int12 & sent7 -> int13: the fact that the earwig does not subtilize is not wrong.; int4 & int13 -> int14: the earwig is a curability and/or is insane.;"
] | 12 | 3 | 3 | 16 | 0 | 16 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the colleen does not obtrude. ; $context$ = sent1: the disposal is binocular and it is maleficent. sent2: that the camachile is not biaxial and is not unrhetorical is not right if the fact that the etamine is reputable hold. sent3: the mascot labels dowager. sent4: the fact that the automat is biaxial is right if the fact that the camachile is not biaxial and it is not unrhetorical is incorrect. sent5: the colleen does ret profanation if it is not biaxial. sent6: the moire labels dowager if the dura labels dowager. sent7: if there exists something such that it is a protection and it does label dowager the earwig does not subtilize. sent8: the colleen rets profanation. sent9: the skate does obtrude. sent10: the moire is a protection if something is binocular. sent11: if something is not biaxial then it does ret profanation. sent12: if something does not subtilize then it is a kind of a curability or it is insane or both. sent13: the etamine is reputable if the earwig is a curability. sent14: the colleen is not unrhetorical. sent15: something obtrudes and it does ret profanation if it is not biaxial. sent16: if there is something such that it labels dowager either the dura labels dowager or it is dendritic or both. sent17: if the dura is dendritic the moire does label dowager. sent18: if the colleen is not a Cestidae then it is a Anglican and it possesses. sent19: the colleen is not biaxial if it is not unrhetorical. ; $proof$ =
|
sent15 -> int1: if the colleen is not biaxial it obtrudes and does ret profanation.; sent19 & sent14 -> int2: the colleen is not biaxial.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the colleen obtrudes and rets profanation.; int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the scrubbing does not occur.
|
¬{B}
|
sent1: that the Eurafrican does not occur and the burn does not occur does not hold. sent2: that the farandole does not occur is not false if that both the driving underfelt and the farandole occurs is not true. sent3: if that the Eurafricanness does not occur and the burn does not occur does not hold the scrub does not occur. sent4: the raiding and the groom occurs if the horticulturalness does not occur. sent5: if the solarness occurs the fact that the scrubbing happens is not false. sent6: if the fact that the retting Callisto does not occur but the water occurs is incorrect the retting agglutinogen does not occur. sent7: that the maddening does not occur and the rampage occurs is not right. sent8: the fact that the fact that both the driving underfelt and the farandole occurs is not wrong does not hold if the labeling ununhexium does not occur. sent9: the fact that the retting Callisto does not occur and the watering happens is false if the fact that the groom happens is right. sent10: if the farandole does not occur both the solarness and the retting Pauling happens. sent11: the labeling ununhexium does not occur if that both the sedimenting and the muscularness occurs is not correct. sent12: that the fact that both the sediment and the muscularness happens is right does not hold if the retting agglutinogen does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent2: ¬({F} & {D}) -> ¬{D} sent3: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent4: ¬{N} -> ({M} & {L}) sent5: {A} -> {B} sent6: ¬(¬{J} & {K}) -> ¬{I} sent7: ¬(¬{DM} & {GS}) sent8: ¬{E} -> ¬({F} & {D}) sent9: {L} -> ¬(¬{J} & {K}) sent10: ¬{D} -> ({A} & {C}) sent11: ¬({G} & {H}) -> ¬{E} sent12: ¬{I} -> ¬({G} & {H})
|
[
"sent3 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the scrub happens is not incorrect.
|
{B}
|
[] | 14 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the scrubbing does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the Eurafrican does not occur and the burn does not occur does not hold. sent2: that the farandole does not occur is not false if that both the driving underfelt and the farandole occurs is not true. sent3: if that the Eurafricanness does not occur and the burn does not occur does not hold the scrub does not occur. sent4: the raiding and the groom occurs if the horticulturalness does not occur. sent5: if the solarness occurs the fact that the scrubbing happens is not false. sent6: if the fact that the retting Callisto does not occur but the water occurs is incorrect the retting agglutinogen does not occur. sent7: that the maddening does not occur and the rampage occurs is not right. sent8: the fact that the fact that both the driving underfelt and the farandole occurs is not wrong does not hold if the labeling ununhexium does not occur. sent9: the fact that the retting Callisto does not occur and the watering happens is false if the fact that the groom happens is right. sent10: if the farandole does not occur both the solarness and the retting Pauling happens. sent11: the labeling ununhexium does not occur if that both the sedimenting and the muscularness occurs is not correct. sent12: that the fact that both the sediment and the muscularness happens is right does not hold if the retting agglutinogen does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the retting purulence does not occur.
|
¬{B}
|
sent1: that the retting purulence occurs is triggered by that the Semiticness occurs. sent2: that the real-timeness happens and the absolutist happens is brought about by that the perfumery does not occur. sent3: the perfumery does not occur and the retting vitalism does not occur if the fact that the heterologousness occurs hold. sent4: the real-timeness does not occur. sent5: the real-timeness prevents the retting purulence. sent6: the Semitic happens and the cultism occurs if the real-timeness does not occur. sent7: if the absolutist does not occur then the underpaying sculpture happens and the retting purulence happens.
|
sent1: {AA} -> {B} sent2: ¬{D} -> ({A} & {C}) sent3: {F} -> (¬{D} & ¬{E}) sent4: ¬{A} sent5: {A} -> ¬{B} sent6: ¬{A} -> ({AA} & {AB}) sent7: ¬{C} -> ({FI} & {B})
|
[
"sent6 & sent4 -> int1: the Semitic occurs and the cultism occurs.; int1 -> int2: the Semiticness happens.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 & sent4 -> int1: ({AA} & {AB}); int1 -> int2: {AA}; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the retting purulence does not occur is not false.
|
¬{B}
|
[] | 8 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the retting purulence does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the retting purulence occurs is triggered by that the Semiticness occurs. sent2: that the real-timeness happens and the absolutist happens is brought about by that the perfumery does not occur. sent3: the perfumery does not occur and the retting vitalism does not occur if the fact that the heterologousness occurs hold. sent4: the real-timeness does not occur. sent5: the real-timeness prevents the retting purulence. sent6: the Semitic happens and the cultism occurs if the real-timeness does not occur. sent7: if the absolutist does not occur then the underpaying sculpture happens and the retting purulence happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 & sent4 -> int1: the Semitic occurs and the cultism occurs.; int1 -> int2: the Semiticness happens.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the shell is classificatory and/or it does ret shell.
|
({D}{b} v {C}{b})
|
sent1: the fact that the shell does ret shell is not incorrect if the boxwood is facultative. sent2: if the boxwood is a kind of a Dnipropetrovsk it is facultative. sent3: the boxwood is a Dnipropetrovsk.
|
sent1: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent2: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent3: {A}{a}
|
[
"sent2 & sent3 -> int1: the boxwood is facultative.; sent1 & int1 -> int2: the shell rets shell.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent3 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent1 & int1 -> int2: {C}{b}; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the shell is classificatory and/or it does ret shell. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the shell does ret shell is not incorrect if the boxwood is facultative. sent2: if the boxwood is a kind of a Dnipropetrovsk it is facultative. sent3: the boxwood is a Dnipropetrovsk. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent3 -> int1: the boxwood is facultative.; sent1 & int1 -> int2: the shell rets shell.; int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the signor drives butty.
|
{B}{a}
|
sent1: the signor is hairy if that it labels hardship is true. sent2: if the earwig drives butty then it is a Megapodius. sent3: the fact that the fact that something is a clamor and a polyester hold is not true if it does not refer. sent4: the signor clamors. sent5: the signor drives butty if it is a clamor. sent6: that the signor weakens is true.
|
sent1: {GS}{a} -> {GJ}{a} sent2: {B}{gg} -> {EI}{gg} sent3: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬({A}x & {C}x) sent4: {A}{a} sent5: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent6: {EF}{a}
|
[
"sent5 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the signor does not drive butty.
|
¬{B}{a}
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: that the harrow is a clamor and a polyester is not correct if it does not refer.;"
] | 5 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the signor drives butty. ; $context$ = sent1: the signor is hairy if that it labels hardship is true. sent2: if the earwig drives butty then it is a Megapodius. sent3: the fact that the fact that something is a clamor and a polyester hold is not true if it does not refer. sent4: the signor clamors. sent5: the signor drives butty if it is a clamor. sent6: that the signor weakens is true. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the sarong is a permutability and it is intracellular is not true.
|
¬({A}{aa} & {C}{aa})
|
sent1: the sarong does gross. sent2: if something that is a predisposition is not unalterable then it does not seem. sent3: the sarong does not seem. sent4: the sarong is not a kind of a wakefulness. sent5: if the fact that the lavatory is alterable hold then the hairsplitter does not seem and it is not intracellular. sent6: if the lavatory is a predisposition it is alterable. sent7: something is intracellular if it does not seem. sent8: something is a permutability if it is not intracellular. sent9: if the diabetic is not a Orycteropodidae then it normalizes. sent10: the sarong is a permutability. sent11: the skybox is a kind of a permutability.
|
sent1: {AG}{aa} sent2: (x): ({E}x & {D}x) -> ¬{B}x sent3: ¬{B}{aa} sent4: ¬{IL}{aa} sent5: {D}{a} -> (¬{B}{gh} & ¬{C}{gh}) sent6: {E}{a} -> {D}{a} sent7: (x): ¬{B}x -> {C}x sent8: (x): ¬{C}x -> {A}x sent9: ¬{S}{ih} -> {FD}{ih} sent10: {A}{aa} sent11: {A}{fj}
|
[
"sent7 -> int1: if the sarong does not seem then that it is intracellular is not incorrect.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the sarong is intracellular.; int2 & sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent7 -> int1: ¬{B}{aa} -> {C}{aa}; int1 & sent3 -> int2: {C}{aa}; int2 & sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the sarong is a permutability and it is intracellular does not hold.
|
¬({A}{aa} & {C}{aa})
|
[
"sent2 -> int3: the lavatory does not seem if it is a predisposition that is alterable.;"
] | 5 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the sarong is a permutability and it is intracellular is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the sarong does gross. sent2: if something that is a predisposition is not unalterable then it does not seem. sent3: the sarong does not seem. sent4: the sarong is not a kind of a wakefulness. sent5: if the fact that the lavatory is alterable hold then the hairsplitter does not seem and it is not intracellular. sent6: if the lavatory is a predisposition it is alterable. sent7: something is intracellular if it does not seem. sent8: something is a permutability if it is not intracellular. sent9: if the diabetic is not a Orycteropodidae then it normalizes. sent10: the sarong is a permutability. sent11: the skybox is a kind of a permutability. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 -> int1: if the sarong does not seem then that it is intracellular is not incorrect.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the sarong is intracellular.; int2 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the cell does not gird and is a mahoe.
|
(¬{C}{aa} & {A}{aa})
|
sent1: the cell does label brilliantine. sent2: the cell is a Goldmark. sent3: The brilliantine does label cell. sent4: if something is a Goldmark that does label brilliantine the fact that it is not a kind of a stylization is right. sent5: the benzoin is not insufficient if it suppurates and it is a return.
|
sent1: {AB}{aa} sent2: {AA}{aa} sent3: {AC}{ab} sent4: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent5: ({FS}{ji} & {CJ}{ji}) -> ¬{AE}{ji}
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: the cell is not a stylization if it is a Goldmark and does label brilliantine.; sent2 & sent1 -> int2: the cell is a kind of a Goldmark and it does label brilliantine.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the cell is not a kind of a stylization.;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; sent2 & sent1 -> int2: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬{B}{aa};"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | null | 2 | 0 | 2 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the cell does not gird and is a mahoe. ; $context$ = sent1: the cell does label brilliantine. sent2: the cell is a Goldmark. sent3: The brilliantine does label cell. sent4: if something is a Goldmark that does label brilliantine the fact that it is not a kind of a stylization is right. sent5: the benzoin is not insufficient if it suppurates and it is a return. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> int1: the cell is not a stylization if it is a Goldmark and does label brilliantine.; sent2 & sent1 -> int2: the cell is a kind of a Goldmark and it does label brilliantine.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the cell is not a kind of a stylization.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Saskatoon is not a kind of a Fula.
|
¬{D}{b}
|
sent1: that there is something such that the fact that it is inappropriate and it is a octant is incorrect hold. sent2: the fact that the Saskatoon is not fragrant is not false if there is something such that that it is a kind of a Christian that is not a Fula is wrong. sent3: if there exists something such that it does not drive rad then the fact that the square-rigger is Christian but it is not fragrant is not true. sent4: there is something such that the fact that it is a Fula and it is a Christian is wrong. sent5: the fact that the pedicab is a drained and a reservoir is false. sent6: the radar is leaden if the dominatrix is leaden. sent7: if the electric is a Christian that the square-rigger is not a Fula and drives rad is not right. sent8: if something is leaden then it is both not fragrant and a Christian. sent9: if there exists something such that it does not drive rad that the square-rigger is a kind of Christian thing that is fragrant is not right. sent10: if the radar is leaden the electric is leaden. sent11: if the fact that the Key is not leaden but it does ret descender does not hold then the dominatrix is leaden. sent12: the grout bothers and is leaden. sent13: the Saskatoon is not a Fula if there is something such that the fact that it is Christian and it is not fragrant is wrong. sent14: if something is leaden the fact that the Key is non-leaden thing that rets descender is incorrect. sent15: if there exists something such that that it is not a Christian is not false then that the square-rigger is a Fula and fragrant is not true.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬({FI}x & {JK}x) sent2: (x): ¬({B}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{C}{b} sent3: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent4: (Ex): ¬({D}x & {B}x) sent5: ¬({DD}{bc} & {ES}{bc}) sent6: {E}{e} -> {E}{d} sent7: {B}{c} -> ¬(¬{D}{a} & {A}{a}) sent8: (x): {E}x -> (¬{C}x & {B}x) sent9: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent10: {E}{d} -> {E}{c} sent11: ¬(¬{E}{f} & {G}{f}) -> {E}{e} sent12: ({F}{g} & {E}{g}) sent13: (x): ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{D}{b} sent14: (x): {E}x -> ¬(¬{E}{f} & {G}{f}) sent15: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({D}{a} & {C}{a})
|
[] |
[] |
the Saskatoon is a kind of a Fula.
|
{D}{b}
|
[
"sent8 -> int1: if the electric is not non-leaden it is non-fragrant a Christian.; sent12 -> int2: the grout is leaden.; int2 -> int3: something is leaden.; int3 & sent14 -> int4: that the Key is not leaden and rets descender is not true.; sent11 & int4 -> int5: the dominatrix is leaden.; sent6 & int5 -> int6: the radar is leaden.; sent10 & int6 -> int7: the electric is leaden.; int1 & int7 -> int8: the electric is not fragrant but it is a kind of a Christian.; int8 -> int9: the electric is Christian.; sent7 & int9 -> int10: the fact that the square-rigger is not a kind of a Fula and drives rad is not correct.; int10 -> int11: there is something such that that it is not a kind of a Fula and it drives rad is false.;"
] | 11 | 3 | null | 13 | 0 | 13 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the Saskatoon is not a kind of a Fula. ; $context$ = sent1: that there is something such that the fact that it is inappropriate and it is a octant is incorrect hold. sent2: the fact that the Saskatoon is not fragrant is not false if there is something such that that it is a kind of a Christian that is not a Fula is wrong. sent3: if there exists something such that it does not drive rad then the fact that the square-rigger is Christian but it is not fragrant is not true. sent4: there is something such that the fact that it is a Fula and it is a Christian is wrong. sent5: the fact that the pedicab is a drained and a reservoir is false. sent6: the radar is leaden if the dominatrix is leaden. sent7: if the electric is a Christian that the square-rigger is not a Fula and drives rad is not right. sent8: if something is leaden then it is both not fragrant and a Christian. sent9: if there exists something such that it does not drive rad that the square-rigger is a kind of Christian thing that is fragrant is not right. sent10: if the radar is leaden the electric is leaden. sent11: if the fact that the Key is not leaden but it does ret descender does not hold then the dominatrix is leaden. sent12: the grout bothers and is leaden. sent13: the Saskatoon is not a Fula if there is something such that the fact that it is Christian and it is not fragrant is wrong. sent14: if something is leaden the fact that the Key is non-leaden thing that rets descender is incorrect. sent15: if there exists something such that that it is not a Christian is not false then that the square-rigger is a Fula and fragrant is not true. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it is not a harmonics it does not still and is not non-defiant.
|
(Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x)
|
sent1: if something is not adenoidal it does not abbreviate. sent2: something is defiant if the fact that it is not a harmonics is not false. sent3: there is something such that if it does not label part it is not lithographic and is a cant. sent4: if something is not a Chadian then it is not a pituitary and is higher. sent5: there is something such that if it is not a harmonics it is a still and is defiant. sent6: if something is not a harmonics then it is not a still and it is defiant. sent7: that there exists something such that if it is a harmonics then it is a kind of non-still thing that is defiant hold. sent8: there exists something such that if it is not harmonics it is defiant. sent9: if something is not a ramification then it does not drive ERT and it is defiant. sent10: something stills and it is defiant if it is not a harmonics. sent11: there exists something such that if it does not drive paramecium then it is not a layoff and it is a kind of a Bohr. sent12: there is something such that if it is not tactful it is not a jiggermast and it rets usurper. sent13: the pipefish is a kind of still thing that is defiant if it is not a harmonics. sent14: if the pipefish is a kind of a harmonics then it is non-still and defiant. sent15: if the pipefish is not a harmonics it is defiant. sent16: there is something such that if it is not apneic it is non-asymmetrical a Coprinus. sent17: something is not a kind of a still and is defiant if it is a harmonics.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{IM}x -> ¬{M}x sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> {AB}x sent3: (Ex): ¬{EM}x -> (¬{GL}x & {FH}x) sent4: (x): ¬{FO}x -> (¬{IN}x & {EA}x) sent5: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent6: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent7: (Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent8: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> {AB}x sent9: (x): ¬{JI}x -> (¬{IS}x & {AB}x) sent10: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent11: (Ex): ¬{IA}x -> (¬{AO}x & {ET}x) sent12: (Ex): {BI}x -> (¬{J}x & {ID}x) sent13: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent14: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent15: ¬{A}{aa} -> {AB}{aa} sent16: (Ex): ¬{FR}x -> (¬{GA}x & {DF}x) sent17: (x): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x)
|
[
"sent6 -> int1: the pipefish is not a still but it is defiant if it is not harmonics.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fellah does not drive ERT and is defiant if it is not a ramification.
|
¬{JI}{ga} -> (¬{IS}{ga} & {AB}{ga})
|
[
"sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 2 | 2 | 16 | 0 | 16 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is not a harmonics it does not still and is not non-defiant. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not adenoidal it does not abbreviate. sent2: something is defiant if the fact that it is not a harmonics is not false. sent3: there is something such that if it does not label part it is not lithographic and is a cant. sent4: if something is not a Chadian then it is not a pituitary and is higher. sent5: there is something such that if it is not a harmonics it is a still and is defiant. sent6: if something is not a harmonics then it is not a still and it is defiant. sent7: that there exists something such that if it is a harmonics then it is a kind of non-still thing that is defiant hold. sent8: there exists something such that if it is not harmonics it is defiant. sent9: if something is not a ramification then it does not drive ERT and it is defiant. sent10: something stills and it is defiant if it is not a harmonics. sent11: there exists something such that if it does not drive paramecium then it is not a layoff and it is a kind of a Bohr. sent12: there is something such that if it is not tactful it is not a jiggermast and it rets usurper. sent13: the pipefish is a kind of still thing that is defiant if it is not a harmonics. sent14: if the pipefish is a kind of a harmonics then it is non-still and defiant. sent15: if the pipefish is not a harmonics it is defiant. sent16: there is something such that if it is not apneic it is non-asymmetrical a Coprinus. sent17: something is not a kind of a still and is defiant if it is a harmonics. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 -> int1: the pipefish is not a still but it is defiant if it is not harmonics.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the pasha is fictile.
|
{B}{a}
|
sent1: there exists something such that that it is fictile or is not a gradual or both is not right. sent2: if something is a Verbascum but it is not immunodeficient then the phototropism is not a choc-ice. sent3: if there is something such that the fact that it is not a midafternoon and it is immunodeficient is not true then the thyrse is not immunodeficient. sent4: that the Phrygian is both a Bonaire and a receptacle is not right. sent5: the pisiform is not a Bonaire if there is something such that the fact that it is a Bonaire and is a receptacle is not correct. sent6: if the fact that something does rev and is a kind of a choc-ice is not correct that it is not fictile is not false. sent7: if the Ayrshire underpays Bangkok then the fact that the amulet is not a midafternoon and is immunodeficient is not correct. sent8: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a Bonaire hold then the fact that the thyrse is a Verbascum is right. sent9: there is something such that that either it is a choc-ice or it is not a Verbascum or both is not correct. sent10: the Ayrshire underpays Bangkok. sent11: if the desquamation is a kind of a gradual and/or it is not a lymphadenopathy then the pasha is fictile. sent12: if something revs it either is a gradual or is not a lymphadenopathy or both.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬({B}x v ¬{AA}x) sent2: (x): ({D}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{C}{b} sent3: (x): ¬(¬{H}x & {E}x) -> ¬{E}{c} sent4: ¬({F}{g} & {I}{g}) sent5: (x): ¬({F}x & {I}x) -> ¬{F}{e} sent6: (x): ¬({A}x & {C}x) -> ¬{B}x sent7: {G}{f} -> ¬(¬{H}{d} & {E}{d}) sent8: (x): ¬{F}x -> {D}{c} sent9: (Ex): ¬({C}x v ¬{D}x) sent10: {G}{f} sent11: ({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{a} sent12: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x)
|
[
"sent12 -> int1: if the desquamation does rev that it is a gradual and/or it is not a lymphadenopathy is not false.;"
] |
[
"sent12 -> int1: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa});"
] |
the pasha is not fictile.
|
¬{B}{a}
|
[
"sent6 -> int2: if that the pasha does rev and is a kind of a choc-ice is not true then the fact that it is not fictile is not incorrect.; sent4 -> int3: there is something such that the fact that it is a Bonaire and it is a receptacle does not hold.; int3 & sent5 -> int4: the pisiform is not a kind of a Bonaire.; int4 -> int5: there exists something such that it is not a Bonaire.; int5 & sent8 -> int6: the thyrse is a Verbascum.; sent7 & sent10 -> int7: that the amulet is not a kind of a midafternoon and is immunodeficient is not true.; int7 -> int8: there is something such that that it is both not a midafternoon and immunodeficient does not hold.; int8 & sent3 -> int9: the thyrse is not immunodeficient.; int6 & int9 -> int10: the thyrse is a kind of a Verbascum that is not immunodeficient.; int10 -> int11: there is something such that it is a Verbascum and it is not immunodeficient.; int11 & sent2 -> int12: the fact that the phototropism is not a choc-ice is right.; int12 -> int13: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a choc-ice.;"
] | 10 | 3 | null | 9 | 0 | 9 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the pasha is fictile. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that that it is fictile or is not a gradual or both is not right. sent2: if something is a Verbascum but it is not immunodeficient then the phototropism is not a choc-ice. sent3: if there is something such that the fact that it is not a midafternoon and it is immunodeficient is not true then the thyrse is not immunodeficient. sent4: that the Phrygian is both a Bonaire and a receptacle is not right. sent5: the pisiform is not a Bonaire if there is something such that the fact that it is a Bonaire and is a receptacle is not correct. sent6: if the fact that something does rev and is a kind of a choc-ice is not correct that it is not fictile is not false. sent7: if the Ayrshire underpays Bangkok then the fact that the amulet is not a midafternoon and is immunodeficient is not correct. sent8: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a Bonaire hold then the fact that the thyrse is a Verbascum is right. sent9: there is something such that that either it is a choc-ice or it is not a Verbascum or both is not correct. sent10: the Ayrshire underpays Bangkok. sent11: if the desquamation is a kind of a gradual and/or it is not a lymphadenopathy then the pasha is fictile. sent12: if something revs it either is a gradual or is not a lymphadenopathy or both. ; $proof$ =
|
sent12 -> int1: if the desquamation does rev that it is a gradual and/or it is not a lymphadenopathy is not false.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
if the arsenal is not micropylar it is chordal and it is not a bottleneck.
|
¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})
|
sent1: the arsenal is chordal but it does not bottleneck if it is not non-micropylar. sent2: the arsenal is shapely thing that does not ret burgrass if it is not a kind of a Anguillan. sent3: if something is micropylar it is chordal and not a bottleneck. sent4: something labels Mentha but it does not drive arsenal if it is not a hawkbit. sent5: if something does not ret burgrass it is both color and not a Steichen. sent6: if the arsenal is not a bottleneck it does drive Gallaudet and it is not a mesh. sent7: the arsenal is not a bottleneck if it is not micropylar. sent8: something is chordal thing that is not a kind of a bottleneck if it is not micropylar. sent9: if something is not micropylar then it is not a kind of a bottleneck.
|
sent1: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent2: ¬{HP}{aa} -> ({BA}{aa} & ¬{GM}{aa}) sent3: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent4: (x): ¬{ET}x -> ({IK}x & ¬{HO}x) sent5: (x): ¬{GM}x -> ({IH}x & ¬{FJ}x) sent6: ¬{AB}{aa} -> ({HU}{aa} & ¬{H}{aa}) sent7: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬{AB}{aa} sent8: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent9: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{AB}x
|
[
"sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = if the arsenal is not micropylar it is chordal and it is not a bottleneck. ; $context$ = sent1: the arsenal is chordal but it does not bottleneck if it is not non-micropylar. sent2: the arsenal is shapely thing that does not ret burgrass if it is not a kind of a Anguillan. sent3: if something is micropylar it is chordal and not a bottleneck. sent4: something labels Mentha but it does not drive arsenal if it is not a hawkbit. sent5: if something does not ret burgrass it is both color and not a Steichen. sent6: if the arsenal is not a bottleneck it does drive Gallaudet and it is not a mesh. sent7: the arsenal is not a bottleneck if it is not micropylar. sent8: something is chordal thing that is not a kind of a bottleneck if it is not micropylar. sent9: if something is not micropylar then it is not a kind of a bottleneck. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the labeling stannite happens.
|
{A}
|
sent1: the labeling stannite occurs if the fact that the farandole but not the RF happens is wrong. sent2: that the farandole but not the RF happens yields the non-earliness. sent3: the retting overlord occurs if that the indecency does not occur and the damasceneness does not occur does not hold. sent4: if the retting overlord happens that both the non-earlyness and the underpaying Pica occurs is not right.
|
sent1: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {A} sent2: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent3: ¬(¬{E} & ¬{F}) -> {D} sent4: {D} -> ¬(¬{B} & {C})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the farandole happens and the RF does not occur.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the earliness does not occur.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ({AA} & ¬{AB}); sent2 & assump1 -> int1: ¬{B};"
] |
the labeling stannite does not occur.
|
¬{A}
|
[] | 7 | 4 | null | 2 | 0 | 2 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the labeling stannite happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the labeling stannite occurs if the fact that the farandole but not the RF happens is wrong. sent2: that the farandole but not the RF happens yields the non-earliness. sent3: the retting overlord occurs if that the indecency does not occur and the damasceneness does not occur does not hold. sent4: if the retting overlord happens that both the non-earlyness and the underpaying Pica occurs is not right. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the farandole happens and the RF does not occur.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the earliness does not occur.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the strontianite does not ret clerkship and/or it is nonrepetitive.
|
(¬{C}{a} v {B}{a})
|
sent1: if there is something such that it is a kind of a anaphrodisia and it is a yesterday the strontianite is not a Austronesian. sent2: that something does not ret clerkship and/or it is not repetitive does not hold if it is a Austronesian. sent3: there is something such that it is not a kind of a anaphrodisia. sent4: the idolater is not a anaphrodisia. sent5: the idolater is not a anaphrodisia and is a kind of a yesterday. sent6: if something that is not a anaphrodisia is a yesterday the strontianite is not a kind of a Austronesian. sent7: either something does ret clerkship or it is nonrepetitive or both if it is not Austronesian.
|
sent1: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent2: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{C}x v {B}x) sent3: (Ex): ¬{AA}x sent4: ¬{AA}{aa} sent5: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent6: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({C}x v {B}x)
|
[
"sent5 -> int1: there is something such that it is both not a anaphrodisia and a yesterday.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the strontianite is not a Austronesian.;"
] |
[
"sent5 -> int1: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x); int1 & sent6 -> int2: ¬{A}{a};"
] |
the fact that the strontianite does not ret clerkship and/or it is nonrepetitive is incorrect.
|
¬(¬{C}{a} v {B}{a})
|
[
"sent2 -> int3: that the strontianite does not ret clerkship or it is nonrepetitive or both is wrong if it is a Austronesian.;"
] | 5 | 3 | null | 5 | 0 | 5 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the strontianite does not ret clerkship and/or it is nonrepetitive. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that it is a kind of a anaphrodisia and it is a yesterday the strontianite is not a Austronesian. sent2: that something does not ret clerkship and/or it is not repetitive does not hold if it is a Austronesian. sent3: there is something such that it is not a kind of a anaphrodisia. sent4: the idolater is not a anaphrodisia. sent5: the idolater is not a anaphrodisia and is a kind of a yesterday. sent6: if something that is not a anaphrodisia is a yesterday the strontianite is not a kind of a Austronesian. sent7: either something does ret clerkship or it is nonrepetitive or both if it is not Austronesian. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 -> int1: there is something such that it is both not a anaphrodisia and a yesterday.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the strontianite is not a Austronesian.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it does not drive yen then that it is not a magus and it does not label otherness is incorrect.
|
(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
sent1: the fact that something is not a kind of a magus and it does not label otherness is incorrect if it does not drive yen.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: that the scarecrow is not a magus and does not label otherness does not hold if it does not drive yen.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it does not drive yen then that it is not a magus and it does not label otherness is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is not a kind of a magus and it does not label otherness is incorrect if it does not drive yen. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: that the scarecrow is not a magus and does not label otherness does not hold if it does not drive yen.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that that it does not need and it is not voluble does not hold.
|
(Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
sent1: that the tyramine is not voluble and it does not ret sublimity is not correct. sent2: the fact that the Ionian is not a need and is voluble is wrong. sent3: something does not need and it is not voluble. sent4: the fact that the Ionian is a kind of a need that is not voluble is incorrect. sent5: that the Ionian is not a kind of a need and is not voluble is incorrect. sent6: there exists something such that that it is egoistic and it is not a Adonic is not right. sent7: there is something such that that it needs and it is not voluble is not right. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it does not need and it is voluble is wrong.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{AB}{bk} & ¬{GE}{bk}) sent2: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent4: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent5: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent6: (Ex): ¬({HR}x & ¬{ID}x) sent7: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent8: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x)
|
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that that it does not need and it is not voluble does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that the tyramine is not voluble and it does not ret sublimity is not correct. sent2: the fact that the Ionian is not a need and is voluble is wrong. sent3: something does not need and it is not voluble. sent4: the fact that the Ionian is a kind of a need that is not voluble is incorrect. sent5: that the Ionian is not a kind of a need and is not voluble is incorrect. sent6: there exists something such that that it is egoistic and it is not a Adonic is not right. sent7: there is something such that that it needs and it is not voluble is not right. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it does not need and it is voluble is wrong. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
something is not a Nunavut but it is a subsidization.
|
(Ex): (¬{B}x & {C}x)
|
sent1: the pest does not consociate but it is a kind of a Nunavut. sent2: something is not a synonymist and labels doxycycline. sent3: the moussaka is not a Nunavut. sent4: something is a subsidization. sent5: there is something such that it does not underpay pest and is an age. sent6: there is something such that it is not a Nunavut. sent7: there exists something such that it is actinomorphic. sent8: there is something such that it is not a surrealism and it is not leafy. sent9: the constitutionalist is not a kind of a Nunavut if there exists something such that it is a kind of a rupee. sent10: something is not a hailstone but it is a Pipile. sent11: there exists something such that it is a kind of a Nunavut that is a subsidization. sent12: the plot is not a subsidization. sent13: the constitutionalist is not a Nunavut and is a subsidization if there is something such that it is a rupee. sent14: something does not drive girlfriend but it is a Elli. sent15: the grape is not a rupee. sent16: the fact that the must is not a Nunavut hold. sent17: the constitutionalist is not a kind of a rupee. sent18: the constitutionalist does not drive Albatrellus but it is veterinary. sent19: something is run-on.
|
sent1: (¬{ES}{gh} & {B}{gh}) sent2: (Ex): (¬{BO}x & {BH}x) sent3: ¬{B}{eh} sent4: (Ex): {C}x sent5: (Ex): (¬{AD}x & {HR}x) sent6: (Ex): ¬{B}x sent7: (Ex): {EH}x sent8: (Ex): (¬{JH}x & {EL}x) sent9: (x): {A}x -> ¬{B}{a} sent10: (Ex): (¬{BQ}x & {BE}x) sent11: (Ex): ({B}x & {C}x) sent12: ¬{C}{fb} sent13: (x): {A}x -> (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent14: (Ex): (¬{JE}x & {GT}x) sent15: ¬{A}{ec} sent16: ¬{B}{cb} sent17: ¬{A}{a} sent18: (¬{HP}{a} & {IB}{a}) sent19: (Ex): {BT}x
|
[] |
[] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | null | 18 | 0 | 18 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = something is not a Nunavut but it is a subsidization. ; $context$ = sent1: the pest does not consociate but it is a kind of a Nunavut. sent2: something is not a synonymist and labels doxycycline. sent3: the moussaka is not a Nunavut. sent4: something is a subsidization. sent5: there is something such that it does not underpay pest and is an age. sent6: there is something such that it is not a Nunavut. sent7: there exists something such that it is actinomorphic. sent8: there is something such that it is not a surrealism and it is not leafy. sent9: the constitutionalist is not a kind of a Nunavut if there exists something such that it is a kind of a rupee. sent10: something is not a hailstone but it is a Pipile. sent11: there exists something such that it is a kind of a Nunavut that is a subsidization. sent12: the plot is not a subsidization. sent13: the constitutionalist is not a Nunavut and is a subsidization if there is something such that it is a rupee. sent14: something does not drive girlfriend but it is a Elli. sent15: the grape is not a rupee. sent16: the fact that the must is not a Nunavut hold. sent17: the constitutionalist is not a kind of a rupee. sent18: the constitutionalist does not drive Albatrellus but it is veterinary. sent19: something is run-on. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the transfusion occurs.
|
{B}
|
sent1: that not the transfusion but the megakaryocyticness happens is caused by that the gibbering happens. sent2: if the adding bulkiness does not occur the struggling ammonite and the Rastafarian happens. sent3: if the confrontationalness does not occur the automatic does not occur and/or the decortication does not occur. sent4: if the impaction happens not the transfusion but the gibbering happens. sent5: if that the ultramicroscopicness occurs but the rhonchus does not occur is wrong the stationing Clinidae happens. sent6: the confrontationalness does not occur if the fact that both the confrontationalness and the outgrowing poke occurs is not correct. sent7: the megakaryocyticness occurs and the transfusion happens. sent8: that both the confrontationalness and the outgrowing poke happens does not hold if the unitariness does not occur. sent9: that the adding bulkiness does not occur brings about that the Rastafarian and the impaction happens. sent10: the fact that the megakaryocyticness happens is not incorrect. sent11: the gibbering occurs if the Rastafarian occurs. sent12: that the stationing Clinidae happens prevents the unitariness. sent13: if the decortication does not occur the impaction occurs and the automaticness occurs. sent14: if the transfusion does not occur the megakaryocyticness and the repatriation occurs.
|
sent1: {C} -> (¬{B} & {A}) sent2: ¬{F} -> ({IE} & {D}) sent3: ¬{I} -> (¬{G} v ¬{H}) sent4: {E} -> (¬{B} & {C}) sent5: ¬({N} & ¬{M}) -> {L} sent6: ¬({I} & {J}) -> ¬{I} sent7: ({A} & {B}) sent8: ¬{K} -> ¬({I} & {J}) sent9: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) sent10: {A} sent11: {D} -> {C} sent12: {L} -> ¬{K} sent13: ¬{H} -> ({E} & {G}) sent14: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {AN})
|
[
"sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the transfusion does not occur.
|
¬{B}
|
[] | 13 | 1 | 1 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the transfusion occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that not the transfusion but the megakaryocyticness happens is caused by that the gibbering happens. sent2: if the adding bulkiness does not occur the struggling ammonite and the Rastafarian happens. sent3: if the confrontationalness does not occur the automatic does not occur and/or the decortication does not occur. sent4: if the impaction happens not the transfusion but the gibbering happens. sent5: if that the ultramicroscopicness occurs but the rhonchus does not occur is wrong the stationing Clinidae happens. sent6: the confrontationalness does not occur if the fact that both the confrontationalness and the outgrowing poke occurs is not correct. sent7: the megakaryocyticness occurs and the transfusion happens. sent8: that both the confrontationalness and the outgrowing poke happens does not hold if the unitariness does not occur. sent9: that the adding bulkiness does not occur brings about that the Rastafarian and the impaction happens. sent10: the fact that the megakaryocyticness happens is not incorrect. sent11: the gibbering occurs if the Rastafarian occurs. sent12: that the stationing Clinidae happens prevents the unitariness. sent13: if the decortication does not occur the impaction occurs and the automaticness occurs. sent14: if the transfusion does not occur the megakaryocyticness and the repatriation occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the stationing fuel does not occur and the croupiness does not occur.
|
(¬{E} & ¬{D})
|
sent1: if the fact that the ESR does not occur hold the stationing fuel does not occur and the croupiness does not occur. sent2: if that not the ESR but the beat occurs is not right the voyage does not occur. sent3: if the monocarpicness does not occur then that the outgrowing cotillion does not occur and the struggling demonstrator happens is not correct. sent4: the struggling taka does not occur. sent5: the tidalness does not occur. sent6: if the beat happens the muchness occurs and/or the ESR does not occur. sent7: if the freelancing happens then the monocarpicness does not occur. sent8: the beat does not occur. sent9: if the fact that the stationing Argo does not occur is right both the beating and the stationing wholesale happens. sent10: the fact that the stationing fuel does not occur and the croupiness does not occur is false if the fact that the much does not occur is not incorrect. sent11: the ESR happens. sent12: that the struggling demonstrator does not occur triggers that the stationing pip-squeak happens and the stationing Argo does not occur. sent13: if the ESR but not the beat occurs then the muchness does not occur. sent14: if that the outgrowing cotillion does not occur but the struggling demonstrator happens does not hold then that the struggling demonstrator does not occur is right.
|
sent1: ¬{A} -> (¬{E} & ¬{D}) sent2: ¬(¬{A} & {B}) -> ¬{AE} sent3: ¬{K} -> ¬(¬{J} & {I}) sent4: ¬{BU} sent5: ¬{FF} sent6: {B} -> ({C} v ¬{A}) sent7: {L} -> ¬{K} sent8: ¬{B} sent9: ¬{G} -> ({B} & {F}) sent10: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{E} & ¬{D}) sent11: {A} sent12: ¬{I} -> ({H} & ¬{G}) sent13: ({A} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{C} sent14: ¬(¬{J} & {I}) -> ¬{I}
|
[
"sent11 & sent8 -> int1: the ESR but not the beat happens.; sent13 & int1 -> int2: the muchness does not occur.; sent10 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent11 & sent8 -> int1: ({A} & ¬{B}); sent13 & int1 -> int2: ¬{C}; sent10 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the stationing fuel does not occur and the croupiness does not occur.
|
(¬{E} & ¬{D})
|
[] | 12 | 3 | 3 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the stationing fuel does not occur and the croupiness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the ESR does not occur hold the stationing fuel does not occur and the croupiness does not occur. sent2: if that not the ESR but the beat occurs is not right the voyage does not occur. sent3: if the monocarpicness does not occur then that the outgrowing cotillion does not occur and the struggling demonstrator happens is not correct. sent4: the struggling taka does not occur. sent5: the tidalness does not occur. sent6: if the beat happens the muchness occurs and/or the ESR does not occur. sent7: if the freelancing happens then the monocarpicness does not occur. sent8: the beat does not occur. sent9: if the fact that the stationing Argo does not occur is right both the beating and the stationing wholesale happens. sent10: the fact that the stationing fuel does not occur and the croupiness does not occur is false if the fact that the much does not occur is not incorrect. sent11: the ESR happens. sent12: that the struggling demonstrator does not occur triggers that the stationing pip-squeak happens and the stationing Argo does not occur. sent13: if the ESR but not the beat occurs then the muchness does not occur. sent14: if that the outgrowing cotillion does not occur but the struggling demonstrator happens does not hold then that the struggling demonstrator does not occur is right. ; $proof$ =
|
sent11 & sent8 -> int1: the ESR but not the beat happens.; sent13 & int1 -> int2: the muchness does not occur.; sent10 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the affectation occurs and the stationing Gabriel happens.
|
({D} & {C})
|
sent1: that both the fertilization and the rededication happens is triggered by that the outgrowing Devon does not occur. sent2: if the fact that the replacement does not occur but the stationing Heaven occurs is wrong then the stationing Gabriel happens. sent3: the fact that that the struggling great-nephew does not occur triggers that the affectation occurs and the sinkableness occurs hold. sent4: the outgrowing Kirghiz happens but the struggling great-nephew does not occur. sent5: if the stationing Heaven occurs the stationing macrame occurs but the replacement does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬{BQ} -> ({DA} & {CM}) sent2: ¬(¬{A} & {B}) -> {C} sent3: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) sent4: ({G} & ¬{F}) sent5: {B} -> ({AT} & ¬{A})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that not the replacement but the stationing Heaven occurs.; assump1 -> int1: the replacement does not occur.; sent4 -> int2: the struggling great-nephew does not occur.; sent3 & int2 -> int3: both the affectation and the sinkableness happens.; int3 -> int4: the affectation occurs.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: (¬{A} & {B}); assump1 -> int1: ¬{A}; sent4 -> int2: ¬{F}; sent3 & int2 -> int3: ({D} & {E}); int3 -> int4: {D};"
] |
the stationing macrame happens.
|
{AT}
|
[] | 6 | 4 | null | 2 | 0 | 2 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the affectation occurs and the stationing Gabriel happens. ; $context$ = sent1: that both the fertilization and the rededication happens is triggered by that the outgrowing Devon does not occur. sent2: if the fact that the replacement does not occur but the stationing Heaven occurs is wrong then the stationing Gabriel happens. sent3: the fact that that the struggling great-nephew does not occur triggers that the affectation occurs and the sinkableness occurs hold. sent4: the outgrowing Kirghiz happens but the struggling great-nephew does not occur. sent5: if the stationing Heaven occurs the stationing macrame occurs but the replacement does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that not the replacement but the stationing Heaven occurs.; assump1 -> int1: the replacement does not occur.; sent4 -> int2: the struggling great-nephew does not occur.; sent3 & int2 -> int3: both the affectation and the sinkableness happens.; int3 -> int4: the affectation occurs.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the bribery does not occur.
|
¬{A}
|
sent1: if the subsurfaceness does not occur then the snafu does not occur. sent2: the subsurfaceness does not occur or the backblast does not occur or both. sent3: the stationing Yoruba occurs and the outgrowing pluralization happens. sent4: the liplessness happens if the universalisticness happens. sent5: both the bribery and the acidifying happens. sent6: both the adding panicle and the stationing Commerce occurs. sent7: the acidifying occurs. sent8: the Ghanaianness happens if that the bribery but not the acidifying happens does not hold. sent9: that that the bribery happens and the acidifying does not occur is false is not incorrect if that the liplessness happens hold. sent10: the fact that if that the snafuing does not occur is not wrong then the masculine and the struggling weaver occurs is true. sent11: that the struggling weaver happens hold. sent12: the snafu does not occur if the backblast does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬{L} -> ¬{E} sent2: (¬{L} v ¬{K}) sent3: ({HH} & {JH}) sent4: {G} -> {F} sent5: ({A} & {B}) sent6: ({HJ} & {M}) sent7: {B} sent8: ¬({A} & ¬{B}) -> {GD} sent9: {F} -> ¬({A} & ¬{B}) sent10: ¬{E} -> ({C} & {D}) sent11: {D} sent12: ¬{K} -> ¬{E}
|
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
both the struggling weaver and the Ghanaianness happens.
|
({D} & {GD})
|
[
"sent2 & sent1 & sent12 -> int1: the snafu does not occur.; sent10 & int1 -> int2: both the masculine and the struggling weaver occurs.; int2 -> int3: the struggling weaver happens.;"
] | 9 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the bribery does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the subsurfaceness does not occur then the snafu does not occur. sent2: the subsurfaceness does not occur or the backblast does not occur or both. sent3: the stationing Yoruba occurs and the outgrowing pluralization happens. sent4: the liplessness happens if the universalisticness happens. sent5: both the bribery and the acidifying happens. sent6: both the adding panicle and the stationing Commerce occurs. sent7: the acidifying occurs. sent8: the Ghanaianness happens if that the bribery but not the acidifying happens does not hold. sent9: that that the bribery happens and the acidifying does not occur is false is not incorrect if that the liplessness happens hold. sent10: the fact that if that the snafuing does not occur is not wrong then the masculine and the struggling weaver occurs is true. sent11: that the struggling weaver happens hold. sent12: the snafu does not occur if the backblast does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the arranging happens is not incorrect.
|
{C}
|
sent1: the rowing happens if the outgrowing dogfight occurs. sent2: the arranging does not occur if the outgrowing dogfight occurs and the overproduction occurs. sent3: the nobleness happens and the outgrowing trichion happens. sent4: the overproduction occurs. sent5: the stationing dimple does not occur. sent6: if that the overproduction happens and the low-levelness happens is not true then the overproduction does not occur. sent7: if the German happens then the trailing does not occur and the low-levelness does not occur. sent8: both the stationing adenopathy and the arranging happens if the struggling u-turn does not occur. sent9: the outgrowing dogfight happens. sent10: if the trailing does not occur that the overproduction happens and the low-levelness happens is not true. sent11: the shuffleboard does not occur. sent12: that the overproduction does not occur leads to that the outgrowing dogfight occurs and the arranging occurs. sent13: that the outgrowing trichion occurs but the struggling journalism does not occur prevents the struggling u-turn. sent14: that the outgrowing dogfight occurs and/or the overproduction happens is caused by the non-low-levelness.
|
sent1: {A} -> {EO} sent2: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent3: ({K} & {H}) sent4: {B} sent5: ¬{AH} sent6: ¬({B} & {D}) -> ¬{B} sent7: {G} -> (¬{E} & ¬{D}) sent8: ¬{F} -> ({GH} & {C}) sent9: {A} sent10: ¬{E} -> ¬({B} & {D}) sent11: ¬{AF} sent12: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {C}) sent13: ({H} & ¬{I}) -> ¬{F} sent14: ¬{D} -> ({A} v {B})
|
[
"sent9 & sent4 -> int1: both the outgrowing dogfight and the overproduction happens.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 & sent4 -> int1: ({A} & {B}); sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the arranging happens.
|
{C}
|
[] | 8 | 2 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the arranging happens is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the rowing happens if the outgrowing dogfight occurs. sent2: the arranging does not occur if the outgrowing dogfight occurs and the overproduction occurs. sent3: the nobleness happens and the outgrowing trichion happens. sent4: the overproduction occurs. sent5: the stationing dimple does not occur. sent6: if that the overproduction happens and the low-levelness happens is not true then the overproduction does not occur. sent7: if the German happens then the trailing does not occur and the low-levelness does not occur. sent8: both the stationing adenopathy and the arranging happens if the struggling u-turn does not occur. sent9: the outgrowing dogfight happens. sent10: if the trailing does not occur that the overproduction happens and the low-levelness happens is not true. sent11: the shuffleboard does not occur. sent12: that the overproduction does not occur leads to that the outgrowing dogfight occurs and the arranging occurs. sent13: that the outgrowing trichion occurs but the struggling journalism does not occur prevents the struggling u-turn. sent14: that the outgrowing dogfight occurs and/or the overproduction happens is caused by the non-low-levelness. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 & sent4 -> int1: both the outgrowing dogfight and the overproduction happens.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the frontal is ideological and phrenological.
|
({A}{a} & {B}{a})
|
sent1: if something does not struggle vestryman then the fact that it is both ideological and phrenological is not true. sent2: the frontal is phrenological if that it is not a shadow and it is a zeaxanthin is not correct. sent3: the frontal struggles vestryman. sent4: the frontal does struggle vestryman and it is ideological. sent5: that the frontal is both not a shadow and a zeaxanthin is wrong.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({A}x & {B}x) sent2: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent3: {C}{a} sent4: ({C}{a} & {A}{a}) sent5: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})
|
[
"sent2 & sent5 -> int1: the frontal is phrenological.; sent4 -> int2: the frontal is ideological.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent5 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent4 -> int2: {A}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the frontal is both ideological and phrenological is false.
|
¬({A}{a} & {B}{a})
|
[
"sent1 -> int3: if the frontal does not struggle vestryman then that it is ideological and it is phrenological does not hold.;"
] | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the frontal is ideological and phrenological. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not struggle vestryman then the fact that it is both ideological and phrenological is not true. sent2: the frontal is phrenological if that it is not a shadow and it is a zeaxanthin is not correct. sent3: the frontal struggles vestryman. sent4: the frontal does struggle vestryman and it is ideological. sent5: that the frontal is both not a shadow and a zeaxanthin is wrong. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent5 -> int1: the frontal is phrenological.; sent4 -> int2: the frontal is ideological.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
not the unpicking but the outgrowing Avestan happens.
|
(¬{D} & {E})
|
sent1: the danger does not occur and the outgrowing Goldmark happens if the euphemizing occurs. sent2: the ding happens and the self-aggrandizement happens. sent3: the struggling formative is brought about by the firelight. sent4: the adoption happens and the presence happens. sent5: not the struggling Yangon but the stationing coalman happens. sent6: if the self-aggrandizement occurs then the struggling wedge happens. sent7: the microelectronicsness occurs. sent8: the conviction happens. sent9: the sphericalness and the adding carabiner happens. sent10: the struggling taka happens if the gluttonousness occurs. sent11: not the struggling Yangon but the struggling watercolorist happens. sent12: the indestructibleness occurs if the struggling mustachio happens.
|
sent1: {M} -> (¬{EO} & {CS}) sent2: ({A} & {B}) sent3: {J} -> {HG} sent4: ({CH} & {GM}) sent5: (¬{IO} & {IQ}) sent6: {B} -> {C} sent7: {GE} sent8: {JJ} sent9: ({GC} & {HJ}) sent10: {FK} -> {IK} sent11: (¬{IO} & {CQ}) sent12: {BB} -> {DA}
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: the self-aggrandizement occurs.; sent6 & int1 -> int2: the struggling wedge occurs.;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> int1: {B}; sent6 & int1 -> int2: {C};"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | null | 10 | 0 | 10 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = not the unpicking but the outgrowing Avestan happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the danger does not occur and the outgrowing Goldmark happens if the euphemizing occurs. sent2: the ding happens and the self-aggrandizement happens. sent3: the struggling formative is brought about by the firelight. sent4: the adoption happens and the presence happens. sent5: not the struggling Yangon but the stationing coalman happens. sent6: if the self-aggrandizement occurs then the struggling wedge happens. sent7: the microelectronicsness occurs. sent8: the conviction happens. sent9: the sphericalness and the adding carabiner happens. sent10: the struggling taka happens if the gluttonousness occurs. sent11: not the struggling Yangon but the struggling watercolorist happens. sent12: the indestructibleness occurs if the struggling mustachio happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> int1: the self-aggrandizement occurs.; sent6 & int1 -> int2: the struggling wedge occurs.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if the fact that it is not a kind of a snowshoe and it does inflate is false that it is not messianic is true.
|
(Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
sent1: if the nicad is a snowshoe it is not messianic. sent2: if something is a snowshoe it is not messianic. sent3: if that something is not a snowshoe and inflates is not true it is messianic.
|
sent1: {AA}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent2: (x): {AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent3: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x
|
[] |
[] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | null | 3 | 0 | 3 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if the fact that it is not a kind of a snowshoe and it does inflate is false that it is not messianic is true. ; $context$ = sent1: if the nicad is a snowshoe it is not messianic. sent2: if something is a snowshoe it is not messianic. sent3: if that something is not a snowshoe and inflates is not true it is messianic. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the extending occurs.
|
{D}
|
sent1: if that the rowing does not occur and the outgrowing Plethodon does not occur does not hold then the rowing happens. sent2: that the unlightedness or the struggling moon or both occurs is incorrect. sent3: if that the outgrowing triteness but not the mewing happens is wrong then that the outgrowing Plethodon does not occur hold. sent4: the stationing sight does not occur. sent5: that the rowing but not the struggling moon occurs brings about that the extending occurs.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{C} & ¬{F}) -> {C} sent2: ¬(¬{A} v {B}) sent3: ¬({G} & ¬{H}) -> ¬{F} sent4: ¬{E} sent5: ({C} & ¬{B}) -> {D}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the struggling moon occurs.; assump1 -> int1: the unlightedness and/or the struggling moon happens.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the struggling moon does not occur.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {B}; assump1 -> int1: (¬{A} v {B}); int1 & sent2 -> int2: #F#; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: ¬{B};"
] |
the extending does not occur.
|
¬{D}
|
[] | 6 | 4 | null | 1 | 0 | 1 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the extending occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the rowing does not occur and the outgrowing Plethodon does not occur does not hold then the rowing happens. sent2: that the unlightedness or the struggling moon or both occurs is incorrect. sent3: if that the outgrowing triteness but not the mewing happens is wrong then that the outgrowing Plethodon does not occur hold. sent4: the stationing sight does not occur. sent5: that the rowing but not the struggling moon occurs brings about that the extending occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the struggling moon occurs.; assump1 -> int1: the unlightedness and/or the struggling moon happens.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the struggling moon does not occur.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there is something such that the fact that it does not outgrow curliness and is not a Ndebele does not hold is false.
|
¬((Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x))
|
sent1: there is something such that that it does not outgrow curliness and is not a woodsman does not hold. sent2: if that the EDP is not a woodsman is correct that the Minoan is not a Ndebele and does not outgrow curliness does not hold. sent3: there is something such that that it outgrows curliness and is not a kind of a Ndebele is not correct. sent4: there is something such that that it does not outgrow curliness and is a kind of a Ndebele is incorrect. sent5: the Minoan is not messianic. sent6: if the Minoan is not a woodsman then the fact that the EDP does not outgrow curliness and is not a Ndebele is false. sent7: the fact that the EDP does outgrow curliness but it is not a Ndebele is incorrect. sent8: the Minoan is not a kind of a woodsman. sent9: there is something such that it does not outgrow curliness and it is not a Ndebele. sent10: that the EDP is not a Ndebele and it is not a woodsman is false if the Minoan does not outgrow curliness. sent11: the Bartlett is not a kind of a Ndebele. sent12: if that the Minoan is not a kind of a woodsman is not wrong then that the EDP outgrows curliness but it is not a kind of a Ndebele is incorrect. sent13: that the EDP does not outgrow curliness but it is a Ndebele does not hold. sent14: the fact that the EDP does not outgrow curliness but it is a Ndebele is wrong if the Minoan is not a woodsman.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{A}x) sent2: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬(¬{AB}{a} & ¬{AA}{a}) sent3: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent4: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent5: ¬{JB}{a} sent6: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent7: ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent8: ¬{A}{a} sent9: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent10: ¬{AA}{a} -> ¬(¬{AB}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent11: ¬{AB}{gr} sent12: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent13: ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent14: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b})
|
[
"sent6 & sent8 -> int1: the fact that that the EDP does not outgrow curliness and is not a Ndebele is not incorrect is wrong.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 & sent8 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that the fact that it does not outgrow curliness and is not a Ndebele does not hold is false. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that that it does not outgrow curliness and is not a woodsman does not hold. sent2: if that the EDP is not a woodsman is correct that the Minoan is not a Ndebele and does not outgrow curliness does not hold. sent3: there is something such that that it outgrows curliness and is not a kind of a Ndebele is not correct. sent4: there is something such that that it does not outgrow curliness and is a kind of a Ndebele is incorrect. sent5: the Minoan is not messianic. sent6: if the Minoan is not a woodsman then the fact that the EDP does not outgrow curliness and is not a Ndebele is false. sent7: the fact that the EDP does outgrow curliness but it is not a Ndebele is incorrect. sent8: the Minoan is not a kind of a woodsman. sent9: there is something such that it does not outgrow curliness and it is not a Ndebele. sent10: that the EDP is not a Ndebele and it is not a woodsman is false if the Minoan does not outgrow curliness. sent11: the Bartlett is not a kind of a Ndebele. sent12: if that the Minoan is not a kind of a woodsman is not wrong then that the EDP outgrows curliness but it is not a kind of a Ndebele is incorrect. sent13: that the EDP does not outgrow curliness but it is a Ndebele does not hold. sent14: the fact that the EDP does not outgrow curliness but it is a Ndebele is wrong if the Minoan is not a woodsman. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 & sent8 -> int1: the fact that that the EDP does not outgrow curliness and is not a Ndebele is not incorrect is wrong.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there exists something such that if it is not communicative the fact that the fact that it does not champ and it is Hippocratic is true does not hold is incorrect.
|
¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x))
|
sent1: there is something such that if it is communicative then the fact that it does not champ and it is Hippocratic is not correct. sent2: if the baa-lamb is not communicative then the fact that it does not champ and is Hippocratic is not true. sent3: that the baa-lamb is not a cayuse but a Camlan does not hold if it is not Hippocratic. sent4: there exists something such that if it does not station love-in-a-mist then the fact that it is not a smart and it is a acromphalus is not correct. sent5: if something does not outgrow ammonite that it does not dilute and is communicative does not hold. sent6: that the baa-lamb does champ and it is Hippocratic is not correct if it is not communicative. sent7: if that the love-in-a-mist is not a kind of a zone is correct the fact that it does not struggle Elul and stations plasminogen is not correct. sent8: there is something such that if that it is not communicative is correct it does not champ and is Hippocratic. sent9: there is something such that if it is not communicative then the fact that it champs and is Hippocratic does not hold. sent10: the fact that the baa-lamb does not champ and is Hippocratic does not hold if it is communicative. sent11: if the baa-lamb is not communicative it does not champ and is Hippocratic. sent12: if the baa-lamb is not renewable then the fact that it does not outgrow chirp and it stations statue is false. sent13: that that the baa-lamb is a kind of non-reproducible thing that champs is right is incorrect if it is not a certainty.
|
sent1: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent2: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: ¬{AB}{aa} -> ¬(¬{EH}{aa} & {HB}{aa}) sent4: (Ex): ¬{FN}x -> ¬(¬{II}x & {FG}x) sent5: (x): ¬{GD}x -> ¬(¬{F}x & {A}x) sent6: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent7: ¬{IH}{iu} -> ¬(¬{CO}{iu} & {DH}{iu}) sent8: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent9: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent10: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent11: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent12: ¬{GS}{aa} -> ¬(¬{FF}{aa} & {BJ}{aa}) sent13: ¬{FP}{aa} -> ¬(¬{IJ}{aa} & {AA}{aa})
|
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
if the baa-lamb does not outgrow ammonite then the fact that it does not dilute and it is communicative is wrong.
|
¬{GD}{aa} -> ¬(¬{F}{aa} & {A}{aa})
|
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if it is not communicative the fact that the fact that it does not champ and it is Hippocratic is true does not hold is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is communicative then the fact that it does not champ and it is Hippocratic is not correct. sent2: if the baa-lamb is not communicative then the fact that it does not champ and is Hippocratic is not true. sent3: that the baa-lamb is not a cayuse but a Camlan does not hold if it is not Hippocratic. sent4: there exists something such that if it does not station love-in-a-mist then the fact that it is not a smart and it is a acromphalus is not correct. sent5: if something does not outgrow ammonite that it does not dilute and is communicative does not hold. sent6: that the baa-lamb does champ and it is Hippocratic is not correct if it is not communicative. sent7: if that the love-in-a-mist is not a kind of a zone is correct the fact that it does not struggle Elul and stations plasminogen is not correct. sent8: there is something such that if that it is not communicative is correct it does not champ and is Hippocratic. sent9: there is something such that if it is not communicative then the fact that it champs and is Hippocratic does not hold. sent10: the fact that the baa-lamb does not champ and is Hippocratic does not hold if it is communicative. sent11: if the baa-lamb is not communicative it does not champ and is Hippocratic. sent12: if the baa-lamb is not renewable then the fact that it does not outgrow chirp and it stations statue is false. sent13: that that the baa-lamb is a kind of non-reproducible thing that champs is right is incorrect if it is not a certainty. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the wittol outgrows superego and does struggle hyperpigmentation is incorrect.
|
¬({A}{b} & {C}{b})
|
sent1: something that does outgrow Braille and is not a convert struggles hyperpigmentation. sent2: The manat outgrows wittol. sent3: that the perchlorate is Hellenic and it is avuncular is not incorrect. sent4: if the fact that the wittol does not outgrow Braille hold then it is a mnemonic. sent5: the perchlorate is two-dimensional but not non-Canadian. sent6: the perchlorate is Hellenic. sent7: the wittol is not a convert if it does outgrow manat. sent8: that if the wittol outgrows manat the wittol outgrows Braille and does not convert is true. sent9: the wittol outgrows manat. sent10: the fact that the perchlorate is polymorphemic hold if it is not a keeshond. sent11: if the perchlorate is a kind of Hellenic thing that is avuncular then the wittol is not polymorphemic. sent12: if a Hellenic thing struggles hyperpigmentation then it does outgrow manat. sent13: something does outgrow superego if it is not polymorphemic.
|
sent1: (x): ({E}x & ¬{D}x) -> {C}x sent2: {AE}{ac} sent3: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent4: ¬{E}{b} -> {FL}{b} sent5: ({GC}{a} & {BQ}{a}) sent6: {AA}{a} sent7: {F}{b} -> ¬{D}{b} sent8: {F}{b} -> ({E}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent9: {F}{b} sent10: ¬{GL}{a} -> {B}{a} sent11: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent12: (x): ({AA}x & {C}x) -> {F}x sent13: (x): ¬{B}x -> {A}x
|
[
"sent11 & sent3 -> int1: that the wittol is not polymorphemic is not incorrect.; sent13 -> int2: if the wittol is not polymorphemic then it outgrows superego.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the wittol outgrows superego hold.; sent1 -> int4: if the wittol does outgrow Braille but it is not a kind of a convert it does struggle hyperpigmentation.; sent8 & sent9 -> int5: the wittol does outgrow Braille and is not a kind of a convert.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the wittol does struggle hyperpigmentation.; int3 & int6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent11 & sent3 -> int1: ¬{B}{b}; sent13 -> int2: ¬{B}{b} -> {A}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {A}{b}; sent1 -> int4: ({E}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) -> {C}{b}; sent8 & sent9 -> int5: ({E}{b} & ¬{D}{b}); int4 & int5 -> int6: {C}{b}; int3 & int6 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the wittol outgrows superego and does struggle hyperpigmentation is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: something that does outgrow Braille and is not a convert struggles hyperpigmentation. sent2: The manat outgrows wittol. sent3: that the perchlorate is Hellenic and it is avuncular is not incorrect. sent4: if the fact that the wittol does not outgrow Braille hold then it is a mnemonic. sent5: the perchlorate is two-dimensional but not non-Canadian. sent6: the perchlorate is Hellenic. sent7: the wittol is not a convert if it does outgrow manat. sent8: that if the wittol outgrows manat the wittol outgrows Braille and does not convert is true. sent9: the wittol outgrows manat. sent10: the fact that the perchlorate is polymorphemic hold if it is not a keeshond. sent11: if the perchlorate is a kind of Hellenic thing that is avuncular then the wittol is not polymorphemic. sent12: if a Hellenic thing struggles hyperpigmentation then it does outgrow manat. sent13: something does outgrow superego if it is not polymorphemic. ; $proof$ =
|
sent11 & sent3 -> int1: that the wittol is not polymorphemic is not incorrect.; sent13 -> int2: if the wittol is not polymorphemic then it outgrows superego.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the wittol outgrows superego hold.; sent1 -> int4: if the wittol does outgrow Braille but it is not a kind of a convert it does struggle hyperpigmentation.; sent8 & sent9 -> int5: the wittol does outgrow Braille and is not a kind of a convert.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the wittol does struggle hyperpigmentation.; int3 & int6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the bronco is not a kind of a Kura.
|
¬{A}{b}
|
sent1: the DP adds whimper if it stations Calla and is not a Parisienne. sent2: the fact that something struggles firelight and is a kind of a Kura is not true if it does not add whimper. sent3: the bronco does station Calla. sent4: the DP does add whimper if it does not station Calla and it is not a Parisienne. sent5: the DP does station Calla if it is not a Kura and does not add whimper. sent6: if the DP adds whimper the bronco is a Kura. sent7: the DP does not station Calla and it is not a Parisienne. sent8: the bronco is a kind of a foreman if it is a Kura and it does not uncoil.
|
sent1: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent2: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({C}x & {A}x) sent3: {AA}{b} sent4: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent5: (¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> {AA}{a} sent6: {B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent7: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent8: ({A}{b} & ¬{IG}{b}) -> {AQ}{b}
|
[
"sent4 & sent7 -> int1: the fact that the DP does not add whimper does not hold.; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 & sent7 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the bronco is not a Kura.
|
¬{A}{b}
|
[
"sent2 -> int2: if the DP does not add whimper then that it does struggle firelight and it is a kind of a Kura is wrong.;"
] | 5 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the bronco is not a kind of a Kura. ; $context$ = sent1: the DP adds whimper if it stations Calla and is not a Parisienne. sent2: the fact that something struggles firelight and is a kind of a Kura is not true if it does not add whimper. sent3: the bronco does station Calla. sent4: the DP does add whimper if it does not station Calla and it is not a Parisienne. sent5: the DP does station Calla if it is not a Kura and does not add whimper. sent6: if the DP adds whimper the bronco is a Kura. sent7: the DP does not station Calla and it is not a Parisienne. sent8: the bronco is a kind of a foreman if it is a Kura and it does not uncoil. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 & sent7 -> int1: the fact that the DP does not add whimper does not hold.; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the silicone is riparian and/or it does croon does not hold.
|
¬({A}{a} v {C}{a})
|
sent1: everything is brimless and/or it is not a maxi. sent2: either the silicone is brimless or it does not station burlesque or both if that the Comanche is maxi is not wrong. sent3: the silicone is riparian a sphenion. sent4: something is a kind of a sphenion if it stations burlesque. sent5: if that the portwatcher is not a maxi and/or it does not struggle clozapine is not correct then the fact that the Comanche is a maxi is not false. sent6: the succulent is a hospice and/or not non-riparian. sent7: that the portwatcher is not maxi and/or it does not struggle clozapine is not true if it is not a Anguillan. sent8: the bibliopole is a sphenion. sent9: the silicone is a kind of a sphenion and it is overt. sent10: if the silicone does not station burlesque the fact that the fact that the backpacker croons and does not struggle cosmographer is incorrect is right. sent11: the portwatcher is not a kind of a Anguillan. sent12: if that that something does croon but it does not struggle cosmographer hold is not true it does not croon. sent13: the silicone is a kind of a sphenion. sent14: if either something is not non-brimless or it does not station burlesque or both it does not station burlesque. sent15: that either the cosmographer is riparian or it does station bottle-tree or both is not false. sent16: the Comanche does station burlesque if the portwatcher struggles cosmographer. sent17: the silicone is a Namibian.
|
sent1: (x): ({G}x v ¬{F}x) sent2: {F}{b} -> ({G}{a} v ¬{D}{a}) sent3: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent4: (x): {D}x -> {B}x sent5: ¬(¬{F}{c} v ¬{H}{c}) -> {F}{b} sent6: ({HC}{il} v {A}{il}) sent7: ¬{I}{c} -> ¬(¬{F}{c} v ¬{H}{c}) sent8: {B}{je} sent9: ({B}{a} & {GB}{a}) sent10: ¬{D}{a} -> ¬({C}{gr} & ¬{E}{gr}) sent11: ¬{I}{c} sent12: (x): ¬({C}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{C}x sent13: {B}{a} sent14: (x): ({G}x v ¬{D}x) -> ¬{D}x sent15: ({A}{ck} v {R}{ck}) sent16: {E}{c} -> {D}{b} sent17: {BC}{a}
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: the silicone is riparian.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> int1: {A}{a}; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
either the backpacker is riparian or it is managerial or both.
|
({A}{gr} v {BU}{gr})
|
[
"sent12 -> int2: the backpacker does not croon if the fact that it does croon and does not struggle cosmographer does not hold.; sent14 -> int3: the silicone does not station burlesque if it is brimless or it does not station burlesque or both.; sent7 & sent11 -> int4: the fact that either the portwatcher is not a maxi or it does not struggle clozapine or both is not true.; sent5 & int4 -> int5: the Comanche is a maxi.; sent2 & int5 -> int6: the silicone is brimless or does not station burlesque or both.; int3 & int6 -> int7: the silicone does not station burlesque.; sent10 & int7 -> int8: the fact that the backpacker croons but it does not struggle cosmographer is false.; int2 & int8 -> int9: the backpacker does not croon.;"
] | 9 | 2 | 2 | 16 | 0 | 16 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the silicone is riparian and/or it does croon does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: everything is brimless and/or it is not a maxi. sent2: either the silicone is brimless or it does not station burlesque or both if that the Comanche is maxi is not wrong. sent3: the silicone is riparian a sphenion. sent4: something is a kind of a sphenion if it stations burlesque. sent5: if that the portwatcher is not a maxi and/or it does not struggle clozapine is not correct then the fact that the Comanche is a maxi is not false. sent6: the succulent is a hospice and/or not non-riparian. sent7: that the portwatcher is not maxi and/or it does not struggle clozapine is not true if it is not a Anguillan. sent8: the bibliopole is a sphenion. sent9: the silicone is a kind of a sphenion and it is overt. sent10: if the silicone does not station burlesque the fact that the fact that the backpacker croons and does not struggle cosmographer is incorrect is right. sent11: the portwatcher is not a kind of a Anguillan. sent12: if that that something does croon but it does not struggle cosmographer hold is not true it does not croon. sent13: the silicone is a kind of a sphenion. sent14: if either something is not non-brimless or it does not station burlesque or both it does not station burlesque. sent15: that either the cosmographer is riparian or it does station bottle-tree or both is not false. sent16: the Comanche does station burlesque if the portwatcher struggles cosmographer. sent17: the silicone is a Namibian. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> int1: the silicone is riparian.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the thrush is a kind of a minuscule but it is not impenitent.
|
({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a})
|
sent1: there is something such that it is a Kirchhoff. sent2: if something is a Kirchhoff the fact that the thrush is a kind of a minuscule but it is not impenitent does not hold.
|
sent1: (Ex): {A}x sent2: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a})
|
[
"sent1 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the thrush is a kind of a minuscule but it is not impenitent. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is a Kirchhoff. sent2: if something is a Kirchhoff the fact that the thrush is a kind of a minuscule but it is not impenitent does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the recruiter is not papillary.
|
¬{B}{b}
|
sent1: the apple is papillary if the recruiter is a bride. sent2: if the fact that the apple is not a Anabantidae and it is not papillary does not hold the recruiter is not papillary. sent3: the recruiter is papillary if the apple is a bride. sent4: the apple is a bride. sent5: the Paraguayan is an equine. sent6: if the hemerobiid is an audition and dystopian then it is not a popover. sent7: the Costanoan is not a kind of a Anabantidae if that it is a kind of a Anabantidae and it is not a Italic is not true. sent8: the repairman is a bride if the apple is papillary. sent9: the apple is a kind of a houseboat. sent10: the fact that the blade is papillary is not false. sent11: if the fact that something is not a popover hold then it is not a Italic. sent12: the hemerobiid auditions if the Paraguayan is equine. sent13: something is a bride and incapable if it is not a kind of a Italic. sent14: the recruiter is a bride if the apple is papillary.
|
sent1: {A}{b} -> {B}{a} sent2: ¬(¬{C}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent3: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent4: {A}{a} sent5: {I}{d} sent6: ({G}{c} & {H}{c}) -> ¬{F}{c} sent7: ¬({C}{in} & ¬{E}{in}) -> ¬{C}{in} sent8: {B}{a} -> {A}{ec} sent9: {FR}{a} sent10: {B}{cs} sent11: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬{E}x sent12: {I}{d} -> {G}{c} sent13: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({A}x & {D}x) sent14: {B}{a} -> {A}{b}
|
[
"sent3 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the recruiter is not papillary.
|
¬{B}{b}
|
[
"sent13 -> int1: the hemerobiid is a bride and incapable if it is not Italic.; sent11 -> int2: if the hemerobiid is not a popover then it is not a Italic.; sent12 & sent5 -> int3: the hemerobiid is an audition.;"
] | 9 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the recruiter is not papillary. ; $context$ = sent1: the apple is papillary if the recruiter is a bride. sent2: if the fact that the apple is not a Anabantidae and it is not papillary does not hold the recruiter is not papillary. sent3: the recruiter is papillary if the apple is a bride. sent4: the apple is a bride. sent5: the Paraguayan is an equine. sent6: if the hemerobiid is an audition and dystopian then it is not a popover. sent7: the Costanoan is not a kind of a Anabantidae if that it is a kind of a Anabantidae and it is not a Italic is not true. sent8: the repairman is a bride if the apple is papillary. sent9: the apple is a kind of a houseboat. sent10: the fact that the blade is papillary is not false. sent11: if the fact that something is not a popover hold then it is not a Italic. sent12: the hemerobiid auditions if the Paraguayan is equine. sent13: something is a bride and incapable if it is not a kind of a Italic. sent14: the recruiter is a bride if the apple is papillary. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the subtropicalness occurs.
|
{A}
|
sent1: the subtropicalness occurs. sent2: the sciaticness happens. sent3: the lust happens.
|
sent1: {A} sent2: {IT} sent3: {HJ}
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the subtropicalness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the subtropicalness occurs. sent2: the sciaticness happens. sent3: the lust happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the rampion is not schismatic is not wrong.
|
¬{D}{b}
|
sent1: the Yoruba is a opsonization. sent2: there exists something such that it is a pictorial. sent3: if the Yoruba is a cause and it is bilious then the rampion is not schismatic. sent4: something is a opsonization. sent5: if there is something such that it is a kind of a pictorial the Yoruba causes. sent6: the cabin is a kind of a Malaga that is a kind of a typescript. sent7: the rampion is not a opsonization if the fact that the Yoruba is both bilious and schismatic hold. sent8: the rampion is a coyol and it is bilious. sent9: the Yoruba is both a opsonization and bilious.
|
sent1: {E}{a} sent2: (Ex): {A}x sent3: ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent4: (Ex): {E}x sent5: (x): {A}x -> {B}{a} sent6: ({JG}{ed} & {EQ}{ed}) sent7: ({C}{a} & {D}{a}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent8: ({GL}{b} & {C}{b}) sent9: ({E}{a} & {C}{a})
|
[
"sent2 & sent5 -> int1: the Yoruba is a cause.; sent9 -> int2: the Yoruba is bilious.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Yoruba is a kind of a cause and it is bilious.; int3 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent5 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent9 -> int2: {C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({B}{a} & {C}{a}); int3 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = that the rampion is not schismatic is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the Yoruba is a opsonization. sent2: there exists something such that it is a pictorial. sent3: if the Yoruba is a cause and it is bilious then the rampion is not schismatic. sent4: something is a opsonization. sent5: if there is something such that it is a kind of a pictorial the Yoruba causes. sent6: the cabin is a kind of a Malaga that is a kind of a typescript. sent7: the rampion is not a opsonization if the fact that the Yoruba is both bilious and schismatic hold. sent8: the rampion is a coyol and it is bilious. sent9: the Yoruba is both a opsonization and bilious. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent5 -> int1: the Yoruba is a cause.; sent9 -> int2: the Yoruba is bilious.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Yoruba is a kind of a cause and it is bilious.; int3 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the yardarm is a kind of a peekaboo.
|
{A}{a}
|
sent1: if the fact that the Miwok is a femtochemistry but not a dress is not true the yardarm is a peekaboo. sent2: the fact that the yardarm is a peekaboo and not a dress does not hold. sent3: the yardarm does dress. sent4: if the Lodge outgrows Logrono but it is not alkahestic then the spit is not a kind of a Z. sent5: if that the fact that the yardarm is a peekaboo but it is not a dress is wrong hold then the Miwok is a femtochemistry. sent6: if the Miwok is not a femtochemistry then that the yardarm is a kind of a peekaboo is not wrong. sent7: the yardarm is a femtochemistry. sent8: that the Miwok is a femtochemistry and it is a peekaboo does not hold. sent9: there is nothing that is a femtochemistry but not a dress. sent10: there is nothing that is an interjection but not dithyrambic. sent11: there exists nothing such that it is a fascist that is not an ethernet.
|
sent1: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {A}{a} sent2: ¬({A}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent3: {AB}{a} sent4: ({E}{d} & ¬{F}{d}) -> ¬{D}{c} sent5: ¬({A}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {AA}{aa} sent6: ¬{AA}{aa} -> {A}{a} sent7: {AA}{a} sent8: ¬({AA}{aa} & {A}{aa}) sent9: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent10: (x): ¬({HS}x & ¬{GF}x) sent11: (x): ¬({BL}x & ¬{DM}x)
|
[
"sent9 -> int1: the fact that the Miwok is a femtochemistry but it is not a dress is wrong.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 -> int1: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the yardarm is not a peekaboo is not false.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
[] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the yardarm is a kind of a peekaboo. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the Miwok is a femtochemistry but not a dress is not true the yardarm is a peekaboo. sent2: the fact that the yardarm is a peekaboo and not a dress does not hold. sent3: the yardarm does dress. sent4: if the Lodge outgrows Logrono but it is not alkahestic then the spit is not a kind of a Z. sent5: if that the fact that the yardarm is a peekaboo but it is not a dress is wrong hold then the Miwok is a femtochemistry. sent6: if the Miwok is not a femtochemistry then that the yardarm is a kind of a peekaboo is not wrong. sent7: the yardarm is a femtochemistry. sent8: that the Miwok is a femtochemistry and it is a peekaboo does not hold. sent9: there is nothing that is a femtochemistry but not a dress. sent10: there is nothing that is an interjection but not dithyrambic. sent11: there exists nothing such that it is a fascist that is not an ethernet. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 -> int1: the fact that the Miwok is a femtochemistry but it is not a dress is wrong.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the lawman is not Kafkaesque.
|
¬{C}{b}
|
sent1: something is a key or is hemiparasitic or both if it does not outgrow cakewalk. sent2: the lawman is not Kafkaesque if something that is a key does outgrow cakewalk. sent3: The cakewalk does outgrow bot. sent4: the fact that the bot is a key is not incorrect.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({A}x v {AJ}x) sent2: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}{b} sent3: {AA}{aa} sent4: {A}{a}
|
[] |
[] |
there are hemiparasitic and cyclic things.
|
(Ex): ({AJ}x & {BB}x)
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: the lawman is a kind of a key or it is hemiparasitic or both if it does not outgrow cakewalk.;"
] | 5 | 3 | null | 2 | 0 | 2 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the lawman is not Kafkaesque. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a key or is hemiparasitic or both if it does not outgrow cakewalk. sent2: the lawman is not Kafkaesque if something that is a key does outgrow cakewalk. sent3: The cakewalk does outgrow bot. sent4: the fact that the bot is a key is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the boarhound does not unmask and it is not a amberjack.
|
(¬{B}{c} & ¬{A}{c})
|
sent1: if the shaker is not a sideshow and it is not a kind of a shears then that the chebab does not unmask is not false. sent2: the shaker does not unmask. sent3: if the chebab does not unmask then the boarhound does not unmask and is not a amberjack. sent4: the shaker is not a kind of a sideshow and is not a shears. sent5: the boarhound is not a sideshow.
|
sent1: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent2: ¬{B}{a} sent3: ¬{B}{b} -> (¬{B}{c} & ¬{A}{c}) sent4: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent5: ¬{AA}{c}
|
[
"sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the chebab does not unmask.; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 & sent4 -> int1: ¬{B}{b}; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the boarhound does not unmask and it is not a amberjack. ; $context$ = sent1: if the shaker is not a sideshow and it is not a kind of a shears then that the chebab does not unmask is not false. sent2: the shaker does not unmask. sent3: if the chebab does not unmask then the boarhound does not unmask and is not a amberjack. sent4: the shaker is not a kind of a sideshow and is not a shears. sent5: the boarhound is not a sideshow. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the chebab does not unmask.; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
if the greenery is scrotal it is not a Stuart or it is not a kind of a consenting or both.
|
{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa})
|
sent1: if something is scrotal then it is not a kind of a Stuart and/or it is a consenting. sent2: something is not a blizzard and/or does not station carabiner if it is a multiprocessor. sent3: the greenery does not contort or does not station vestryman or both if it is a Castilian. sent4: something that is intimal either does not outgrow pentoxide or does not station macintosh or both. sent5: if something is scrotal it is not a Stuart and/or is not a consenting. sent6: if the fact that the greenery is a Stuart hold it does not ensnare or it is not hydrostatic or both. sent7: if something is mathematical it does not station journalism and/or it is not papillate. sent8: if the greenery is scrotal then it is not a kind of a Stuart or it is a consenting or both. sent9: if the greenery is scrotal it is a Stuart and/or it is not a kind of a consenting. sent10: something is not neurotic or not unscholarly or both if that it is sporadic hold. sent11: the Herero is not a ligament and/or it is not scrotal if it is not non-obstetric. sent12: if something is scrotal then either it is a Stuart or it is not a consenting or both.
|
sent1: (x): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) sent2: (x): {FT}x -> (¬{FD}x v ¬{EE}x) sent3: {BM}{aa} -> (¬{IL}{aa} v ¬{GP}{aa}) sent4: (x): {FP}x -> (¬{IG}x v ¬{BH}x) sent5: (x): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent6: {AA}{aa} -> (¬{HJ}{aa} v ¬{AG}{aa}) sent7: (x): {EO}x -> (¬{N}x v ¬{CL}x) sent8: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent9: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent10: (x): {DP}x -> (¬{EG}x v ¬{K}x) sent11: {EQ}{hn} -> (¬{EM}{hn} v ¬{A}{hn}) sent12: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x)
|
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = if the greenery is scrotal it is not a Stuart or it is not a kind of a consenting or both. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is scrotal then it is not a kind of a Stuart and/or it is a consenting. sent2: something is not a blizzard and/or does not station carabiner if it is a multiprocessor. sent3: the greenery does not contort or does not station vestryman or both if it is a Castilian. sent4: something that is intimal either does not outgrow pentoxide or does not station macintosh or both. sent5: if something is scrotal it is not a Stuart and/or is not a consenting. sent6: if the fact that the greenery is a Stuart hold it does not ensnare or it is not hydrostatic or both. sent7: if something is mathematical it does not station journalism and/or it is not papillate. sent8: if the greenery is scrotal then it is not a kind of a Stuart or it is a consenting or both. sent9: if the greenery is scrotal it is a Stuart and/or it is not a kind of a consenting. sent10: something is not neurotic or not unscholarly or both if that it is sporadic hold. sent11: the Herero is not a ligament and/or it is not scrotal if it is not non-obstetric. sent12: if something is scrotal then either it is a Stuart or it is not a consenting or both. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the phasianid is a kind of an advocate.
|
{D}{b}
|
sent1: the pennywhistle is finite if it struggles Stenocarpus. sent2: that the pennywhistle is an advocate and/or finite is not true if the fact that the sulfacetamide does not struggle Stenocarpus hold. sent3: the phasianid is a kind of an advocate if it is a kind of a pomelo. sent4: The Stenocarpus does struggle pennywhistle. sent5: the phasianid is a kind of a pomelo if the pennywhistle is finite. sent6: if that the pennywhistle is an advocate and/or finite is not true the fact that the phasianid is not an advocate is correct. sent7: if something stations ulcer then it is finite. sent8: the pennywhistle is an advocate.
|
sent1: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent2: ¬{A}{c} -> ¬({D}{a} v {B}{a}) sent3: {C}{b} -> {D}{b} sent4: {AA}{aa} sent5: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent6: ¬({D}{a} v {B}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent7: (x): {AL}x -> {B}x sent8: {D}{a}
|
[] |
[] |
the phasianid is not a kind of an advocate.
|
¬{D}{b}
|
[] | 6 | 3 | null | 5 | 0 | 5 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the phasianid is a kind of an advocate. ; $context$ = sent1: the pennywhistle is finite if it struggles Stenocarpus. sent2: that the pennywhistle is an advocate and/or finite is not true if the fact that the sulfacetamide does not struggle Stenocarpus hold. sent3: the phasianid is a kind of an advocate if it is a kind of a pomelo. sent4: The Stenocarpus does struggle pennywhistle. sent5: the phasianid is a kind of a pomelo if the pennywhistle is finite. sent6: if that the pennywhistle is an advocate and/or finite is not true the fact that the phasianid is not an advocate is correct. sent7: if something stations ulcer then it is finite. sent8: the pennywhistle is an advocate. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there is something such that it outgrows Falcatifolium is not correct.
|
¬((Ex): {B}x)
|
sent1: if the fact that the cerebrum is not a astrolatry and/or it is a kind of a Deneb is not correct it allows. sent2: that either something is not an equipment or it is not a UNICEF or both is not true if that it does not allow is right. sent3: something is a XX if the fact that it is not immunochemical and/or it is not agonal does not hold. sent4: the great-uncle does piffle. sent5: that something does outgrow Falcatifolium hold if the fact that it either is not a popularity or does allow or both is not true. sent6: if the kinin does allow then that it is not a kind of a Mozambican and/or it is not a popularity does not hold. sent7: the kinin does outgrow Falcatifolium if that it is not Mozambican or is a popularity or both is not right. sent8: the accentor is a kind of a popularity. sent9: if the fact that the kinin is not imperialistic and/or is not atonal does not hold it does outgrow Falcatifolium. sent10: if that something does not allow or it is a Mozambican or both is incorrect then it is a popularity. sent11: the kinin is a XX if it is a litter. sent12: the kinin allows. sent13: the alpenstock is a Mozambican. sent14: if the fact that something does not outgrow Falcatifolium and/or it allows is wrong it is a kind of a Mozambican. sent15: the kinin is a kind of a popularity if it allows. sent16: if that either something is not Mozambican or it is not a popularity or both is not correct it does outgrow Falcatifolium.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{GD}{al} v {IF}{al}) -> {A}{al} sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{CE}x v ¬{IT}x) sent3: (x): ¬(¬{DO}x v ¬{HR}x) -> {GC}x sent4: {IO}{gd} sent5: (x): ¬(¬{AB}x v {A}x) -> {B}x sent6: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent7: ¬(¬{AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent8: {AB}{at} sent9: ¬(¬{DK}{a} v ¬{HJ}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent10: (x): ¬(¬{A}x v {AA}x) -> {AB}x sent11: {IK}{a} -> {GC}{a} sent12: {A}{a} sent13: {AA}{ba} sent14: (x): ¬(¬{B}x v {A}x) -> {AA}x sent15: {A}{a} -> {AB}{a} sent16: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x
|
[
"sent6 & sent12 -> int1: the fact that the kinin is not a Mozambican or not a popularity or both does not hold.; sent16 -> int2: the kinin outgrows Falcatifolium if the fact that either it is not Mozambican or it is not a popularity or both is false.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the kinin does outgrow Falcatifolium.; int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 & sent12 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}); sent16 -> int2: ¬(¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {B}{a}; int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
if the fact that the fact that the kinin is not immunochemical and/or it is not agonal is false is correct it is a XX.
|
¬(¬{DO}{a} v ¬{HR}{a}) -> {GC}{a}
|
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 3 | 3 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that it outgrows Falcatifolium is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the cerebrum is not a astrolatry and/or it is a kind of a Deneb is not correct it allows. sent2: that either something is not an equipment or it is not a UNICEF or both is not true if that it does not allow is right. sent3: something is a XX if the fact that it is not immunochemical and/or it is not agonal does not hold. sent4: the great-uncle does piffle. sent5: that something does outgrow Falcatifolium hold if the fact that it either is not a popularity or does allow or both is not true. sent6: if the kinin does allow then that it is not a kind of a Mozambican and/or it is not a popularity does not hold. sent7: the kinin does outgrow Falcatifolium if that it is not Mozambican or is a popularity or both is not right. sent8: the accentor is a kind of a popularity. sent9: if the fact that the kinin is not imperialistic and/or is not atonal does not hold it does outgrow Falcatifolium. sent10: if that something does not allow or it is a Mozambican or both is incorrect then it is a popularity. sent11: the kinin is a XX if it is a litter. sent12: the kinin allows. sent13: the alpenstock is a Mozambican. sent14: if the fact that something does not outgrow Falcatifolium and/or it allows is wrong it is a kind of a Mozambican. sent15: the kinin is a kind of a popularity if it allows. sent16: if that either something is not Mozambican or it is not a popularity or both is not correct it does outgrow Falcatifolium. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 & sent12 -> int1: the fact that the kinin is not a Mozambican or not a popularity or both does not hold.; sent16 -> int2: the kinin outgrows Falcatifolium if the fact that either it is not Mozambican or it is not a popularity or both is false.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the kinin does outgrow Falcatifolium.; int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.