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
|
something is not a kind of a bid and it is non-triangulate.
|
(Ex): (¬{C}x & ¬{B}x)
|
sent1: the venter does not triangulate if it is not nondeductible and it steepens. sent2: the atorvastatin is non-triangulate. sent3: that the venter steepens is not false. sent4: there is something such that it is both not nondeductible and not a bid. sent5: there exists something such that it is not triangulate. sent6: the leaf-miner is not a kind of a Tang but it is an easing. sent7: the venter is non-nondeductible thing that steepens. sent8: the leaf-miner is not triangulate and does not steepen if the venter does not steepen. sent9: there exists something such that it is not a bid. sent10: the leaf-miner is not a bid if the venter does not triangulate. sent11: the miniature is not mesonic and it is not a bid. sent12: there exists something such that it does not bid and it does triangulate. sent13: there is something such that it bids and it does not triangulate. sent14: the venter is not a kind of a unguiculate if it is non-fleshy and a pengo. sent15: the leaf-miner does not bid. sent16: the leaf-miner is not a gelatin and is biologistic.
|
sent1: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent2: ¬{B}{ac} sent3: {AB}{a} sent4: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{C}x) sent5: (Ex): ¬{B}x sent6: (¬{CJ}{b} & {EE}{b}) sent7: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent8: ¬{AB}{a} -> (¬{B}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent9: (Ex): ¬{C}x sent10: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬{C}{b} sent11: (¬{JD}{hj} & ¬{C}{hj}) sent12: (Ex): (¬{C}x & {B}x) sent13: (Ex): ({C}x & ¬{B}x) sent14: (¬{JI}{a} & {HQ}{a}) -> ¬{DD}{a} sent15: ¬{C}{b} sent16: (¬{DG}{b} & {BF}{b})
|
[
"sent1 & sent7 -> int1: the venter is not triangulate.;"
] |
[
"sent1 & sent7 -> int1: ¬{B}{a};"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | null | 14 | 0 | 14 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = something is not a kind of a bid and it is non-triangulate. ; $context$ = sent1: the venter does not triangulate if it is not nondeductible and it steepens. sent2: the atorvastatin is non-triangulate. sent3: that the venter steepens is not false. sent4: there is something such that it is both not nondeductible and not a bid. sent5: there exists something such that it is not triangulate. sent6: the leaf-miner is not a kind of a Tang but it is an easing. sent7: the venter is non-nondeductible thing that steepens. sent8: the leaf-miner is not triangulate and does not steepen if the venter does not steepen. sent9: there exists something such that it is not a bid. sent10: the leaf-miner is not a bid if the venter does not triangulate. sent11: the miniature is not mesonic and it is not a bid. sent12: there exists something such that it does not bid and it does triangulate. sent13: there is something such that it bids and it does not triangulate. sent14: the venter is not a kind of a unguiculate if it is non-fleshy and a pengo. sent15: the leaf-miner does not bid. sent16: the leaf-miner is not a gelatin and is biologistic. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 & sent7 -> int1: the venter is not triangulate.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the lasso does not astrogate.
|
¬{B}{c}
|
sent1: The fact that the soccer struggles tuille hold. sent2: something is a reformation that is a Klamath. sent3: if the tuille struggles soccer the fact that the honeycomb is not a reformation is correct. sent4: that the lasso is not Namibian but it does outgrow hazardousness is not right if the tuille is not a kind of a polka. sent5: the fact that the tuille struggles soccer hold. sent6: the lasso does not astrogate if there exists something such that it does not struggle soccer and it is a reformation. sent7: if that something is not Namibian but it outgrows hazardousness does not hold it is not a fad. sent8: the honeycomb is not a reformation but a Klamath if the tuille struggles soccer. sent9: if something is not a kind of a fad then it astrogates and it does struggle soccer. sent10: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a reformation. sent11: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Klamath and does struggle soccer. sent12: the lasso does not astrogate if there is something such that it is not a reformation and it is a Klamath. sent13: there exists something such that it is a Klamath. sent14: the lasso is not a kind of a reformation if there is something such that it does not astrogate and is a Klamath. sent15: the tuille does not outgrow unbelief. sent16: the honeycomb is not a kind of a reformation.
|
sent1: {AC}{aa} sent2: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: {A}{a} -> ¬{AA}{b} sent4: ¬{F}{a} -> ¬(¬{D}{c} & {E}{c}) sent5: {A}{a} sent6: (x): (¬{A}x & {AA}x) -> ¬{B}{c} sent7: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {E}x) -> ¬{C}x sent8: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent9: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) sent10: (Ex): ¬{AA}x sent11: (Ex): (¬{AB}x & {A}x) sent12: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}{c} sent13: (Ex): {AB}x sent14: (x): (¬{B}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{AA}{c} sent15: ¬{EH}{a} sent16: ¬{AA}{b}
|
[
"sent8 & sent5 -> int1: the honeycomb is not a reformation and is a Klamath.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a reformation and is a Klamath is not false.; int2 & sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 & sent5 -> int1: (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x); int2 & sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the lasso astrogates.
|
{B}{c}
|
[
"sent9 -> int3: the lasso does astrogate and it does struggle soccer if it is not a fad.; sent7 -> int4: the lasso is not a fad if the fact that it is not a Namibian and outgrows hazardousness is false.;"
] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the lasso does not astrogate. ; $context$ = sent1: The fact that the soccer struggles tuille hold. sent2: something is a reformation that is a Klamath. sent3: if the tuille struggles soccer the fact that the honeycomb is not a reformation is correct. sent4: that the lasso is not Namibian but it does outgrow hazardousness is not right if the tuille is not a kind of a polka. sent5: the fact that the tuille struggles soccer hold. sent6: the lasso does not astrogate if there exists something such that it does not struggle soccer and it is a reformation. sent7: if that something is not Namibian but it outgrows hazardousness does not hold it is not a fad. sent8: the honeycomb is not a reformation but a Klamath if the tuille struggles soccer. sent9: if something is not a kind of a fad then it astrogates and it does struggle soccer. sent10: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a reformation. sent11: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Klamath and does struggle soccer. sent12: the lasso does not astrogate if there is something such that it is not a reformation and it is a Klamath. sent13: there exists something such that it is a Klamath. sent14: the lasso is not a kind of a reformation if there is something such that it does not astrogate and is a Klamath. sent15: the tuille does not outgrow unbelief. sent16: the honeycomb is not a kind of a reformation. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 & sent5 -> int1: the honeycomb is not a reformation and is a Klamath.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a reformation and is a Klamath is not false.; int2 & sent12 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if it is a bellyband and it is not a exactness it is not coccal.
|
(Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
sent1: there is something such that if it is icosahedral and it bestows then it is not inopportune. sent2: there is something such that if it is weedless thing that is a Gillespie then it is not nocturnal. sent3: if something is a bellyband and it is a exactness it is not coccal. sent4: that the phasianid does not elongate is not wrong if it outgrows phasianid and is not a bellyband. sent5: if something is finite but it is not compassionate then it is not a algidity. sent6: there is something such that if it is fenestral thing that does not outgrow half-hour then it is not a leering. sent7: there exists something such that if it is basilar and it is not a tautog it is photometric. sent8: that the biocatalyst is not coccal is correct if it is a bellyband that is a kind of a exactness. sent9: if the prothrombinase is nocturnal but it is not a kind of a exactness the fact that it stations Spalax is right.
|
sent1: (Ex): ({DS}x & {GB}x) -> ¬{AE}x sent2: (Ex): ({CQ}x & {EH}x) -> ¬{FK}x sent3: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent4: ({AH}{jb} & ¬{AA}{jb}) -> ¬{BT}{jb} sent5: (x): ({IK}x & ¬{H}x) -> ¬{I}x sent6: (Ex): ({ES}x & ¬{HL}x) -> ¬{IB}x sent7: (Ex): ({BK}x & ¬{BC}x) -> {GN}x sent8: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent9: ({FK}{ci} & ¬{AB}{ci}) -> {GE}{ci}
|
[] |
[] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | null | 9 | 0 | 9 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is a bellyband and it is not a exactness it is not coccal. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is icosahedral and it bestows then it is not inopportune. sent2: there is something such that if it is weedless thing that is a Gillespie then it is not nocturnal. sent3: if something is a bellyband and it is a exactness it is not coccal. sent4: that the phasianid does not elongate is not wrong if it outgrows phasianid and is not a bellyband. sent5: if something is finite but it is not compassionate then it is not a algidity. sent6: there is something such that if it is fenestral thing that does not outgrow half-hour then it is not a leering. sent7: there exists something such that if it is basilar and it is not a tautog it is photometric. sent8: that the biocatalyst is not coccal is correct if it is a bellyband that is a kind of a exactness. sent9: if the prothrombinase is nocturnal but it is not a kind of a exactness the fact that it stations Spalax is right. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the baryon does outgrow postgraduate.
|
{C}{a}
|
sent1: if something does not outgrow cotillion then it does not outgrow postgraduate and does crack. sent2: the baryon is not an exception and it does not outgrow cotillion. sent3: if there is something such that that it does not outgrow cotillion and it is not an exception is false the proctoscope is not finer. sent4: that something does not outgrow cotillion and is not a kind of an exception is not true if it is a kind of a rockiness.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{B}x -> (¬{C}x & {D}x) sent2: (¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent3: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{BA}{ei} sent4: (x): {F}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{A}x)
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: the baryon does not outgrow cotillion.; sent1 -> int2: if the baryon does not outgrow cotillion then it does not outgrow postgraduate and it does crack.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the baryon does not outgrow postgraduate and cracks.; int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; sent1 -> int2: ¬{B}{a} -> (¬{C}{a} & {D}{a}); int1 & int2 -> int3: (¬{C}{a} & {D}{a}); int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the proctoscope is non-finer thing that does not outgrow postgraduate.
|
(¬{BA}{ei} & ¬{C}{ei})
|
[
"sent4 -> int4: that the rope does not outgrow cotillion and it is not an exception is wrong if it is a rockiness.;"
] | 7 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the baryon does outgrow postgraduate. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not outgrow cotillion then it does not outgrow postgraduate and does crack. sent2: the baryon is not an exception and it does not outgrow cotillion. sent3: if there is something such that that it does not outgrow cotillion and it is not an exception is false the proctoscope is not finer. sent4: that something does not outgrow cotillion and is not a kind of an exception is not true if it is a kind of a rockiness. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> int1: the baryon does not outgrow cotillion.; sent1 -> int2: if the baryon does not outgrow cotillion then it does not outgrow postgraduate and it does crack.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the baryon does not outgrow postgraduate and cracks.; int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
either the subdeacon stations cytophotometer or it is a northeast or both.
|
({F}{b} v {D}{b})
|
sent1: if something is not myelinic and is not a kind of an unconscious that it is apostolic is right. sent2: either the subdeacon is thermodynamics or it is a kind of a northeast or both. sent3: if the pothook is thermodynamics it is not a northeast. sent4: the clubroom is non-myelinic if the fact that it struggles Robertson and it is not a backslapper is false. sent5: the fact that something is thermodynamics and is not clinker-built is incorrect if it is abient. sent6: the fact that the subdeacon stations cytophotometer and/or it is a northeast is true if the pothook is not a kind of a northeast. sent7: the fact that the clubroom is a kind of a cucurbit hold. sent8: if something is thermodynamics and/or it is clinker-built it is not a kind of a northeast. sent9: if the pothook is Congregational then the Eden is Congregational. sent10: that something stations cytophotometer and/or is a kind of a northeast is not right if the fact that it is not a wampum is not false. sent11: the pothook is a wampum. sent12: if something is a cucurbit that it does struggle Robertson and it is not a backslapper is not correct. sent13: the clubroom is not a kind of an unconscious. sent14: the subdeacon is a wampum and it is nonadsorbent. sent15: the subdeacon is thermodynamics.
|
sent1: (x): (¬{J}x & ¬{I}x) -> {H}x sent2: ({C}{b} v {D}{b}) sent3: {C}{a} -> ¬{D}{a} sent4: ¬({K}{c} & ¬{L}{c}) -> ¬{J}{c} sent5: (x): {E}x -> ¬({C}x & ¬{B}x) sent6: ¬{D}{a} -> ({F}{b} v {D}{b}) sent7: {M}{c} sent8: (x): ({C}x v {B}x) -> ¬{D}x sent9: {EN}{a} -> {EN}{d} sent10: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({F}x v {D}x) sent11: {A}{a} sent12: (x): {M}x -> ¬({K}x & ¬{L}x) sent13: ¬{I}{c} sent14: ({A}{b} & {BD}{b}) sent15: {C}{b}
|
[
"sent8 -> int1: the pothook is not a northeast if it is thermodynamics and/or it is clinker-built.;"
] |
[
"sent8 -> int1: ({C}{a} v {B}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a};"
] |
the Eden is Congregational or it is thermodynamics or both.
|
({EN}{d} v {C}{d})
|
[] | 6 | 4 | null | 13 | 0 | 13 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = either the subdeacon stations cytophotometer or it is a northeast or both. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not myelinic and is not a kind of an unconscious that it is apostolic is right. sent2: either the subdeacon is thermodynamics or it is a kind of a northeast or both. sent3: if the pothook is thermodynamics it is not a northeast. sent4: the clubroom is non-myelinic if the fact that it struggles Robertson and it is not a backslapper is false. sent5: the fact that something is thermodynamics and is not clinker-built is incorrect if it is abient. sent6: the fact that the subdeacon stations cytophotometer and/or it is a northeast is true if the pothook is not a kind of a northeast. sent7: the fact that the clubroom is a kind of a cucurbit hold. sent8: if something is thermodynamics and/or it is clinker-built it is not a kind of a northeast. sent9: if the pothook is Congregational then the Eden is Congregational. sent10: that something stations cytophotometer and/or is a kind of a northeast is not right if the fact that it is not a wampum is not false. sent11: the pothook is a wampum. sent12: if something is a cucurbit that it does struggle Robertson and it is not a backslapper is not correct. sent13: the clubroom is not a kind of an unconscious. sent14: the subdeacon is a wampum and it is nonadsorbent. sent15: the subdeacon is thermodynamics. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 -> int1: the pothook is not a northeast if it is thermodynamics and/or it is clinker-built.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the sarcophagus is hydrophobic but it is not a grievance.
|
({AA}{a} & ¬{A}{a})
|
sent1: if something is not wheaten the fact that it is hydrophobic and it is not a kind of a grievance is false. sent2: if the backslapper is hydrophobic then the fact that the sarcophagus is hydrophobic but it is not a grievance is true.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{A}x) sent2: {AA}{aa} -> ({AA}{a} & ¬{A}{a})
|
[] |
[] |
the fact that the sarcophagus is hydrophobic thing that is not a grievance does not hold.
|
¬({AA}{a} & ¬{A}{a})
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: that the sarcophagus is not non-hydrophobic but it is not a grievance is false if that it is not wheaten is correct.;"
] | 5 | 3 | null | 1 | 0 | 1 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the sarcophagus is hydrophobic but it is not a grievance. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not wheaten the fact that it is hydrophobic and it is not a kind of a grievance is false. sent2: if the backslapper is hydrophobic then the fact that the sarcophagus is hydrophobic but it is not a grievance is true. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
something is both a pitilessness and not nonlinear.
|
(Ex): ({E}x & ¬{C}x)
|
sent1: the enterotoxin is not a kind of a Filipino. sent2: there is something such that it is not trophic. sent3: if something stations in-basket and/or it does outgrow scorcher it does not struggle Platylobium. sent4: something does not add Adrian if it does struggle neocolonialism and/or it does add fashion. sent5: there exists something such that it is not nonlinear. sent6: if the enterotoxin is not nonlinear the mayfly does struggle ball. sent7: the mayfly is a bewitchery but not nonlinear. sent8: something is not telluric if it exacerbates and/or it is pyemic. sent9: there exists something such that it is a kind of a countermine. sent10: there are worthy and high-tension things. sent11: that the mayfly is a kind of a pitilessness but it is not nonlinear if the enterotoxin is not nonlinear is right. sent12: if the enterotoxin is not nonlinear then the mayfly is a kind of a bewitchery but it is not nonlinear. sent13: if something is not non-judicial or it is pistillate or both then it does not struggle flagon. sent14: the enterotoxin is not gustatory. sent15: the enterotoxin is not a bewitchery if it is a pitilessness. sent16: if that something is a slattern is not incorrect then it is not a kind of a humerus. sent17: the mayfly is corneal. sent18: there exists something such that it is a slattern. sent19: if either something is a kind of a hideout or it hits or both it is not a kind of a physicist. sent20: the enterotoxin is a bewitchery. sent21: if something does station sallow or it outgrows Avestan or both then that it does not iterate hold. sent22: the mare is nonlinear.
|
sent1: ¬{DA}{a} sent2: (Ex): ¬{AP}x sent3: (x): ({EJ}x v {BN}x) -> ¬{CA}x sent4: (x): ({JJ}x v {BG}x) -> ¬{CJ}x sent5: (Ex): ¬{C}x sent6: ¬{C}{a} -> {A}{b} sent7: ({B}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent8: (x): ({HF}x v {HL}x) -> ¬{HG}x sent9: (Ex): {FT}x sent10: (Ex): ({AC}x & {GL}x) sent11: ¬{C}{a} -> ({E}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent12: ¬{C}{a} -> ({B}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent13: (x): ({GH}x v {HJ}x) -> ¬{DL}x sent14: ¬{FD}{a} sent15: {E}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent16: (x): {BQ}x -> ¬{BR}x sent17: {BC}{b} sent18: (Ex): {BQ}x sent19: (x): ({CS}x v {K}x) -> ¬{GK}x sent20: {B}{a} sent21: (x): ({IP}x v {JF}x) -> ¬{G}x sent22: {C}{fb}
|
[
"sent20 -> int1: the enterotoxin does struggle ball and/or is a kind of a bewitchery.;"
] |
[
"sent20 -> int1: ({A}{a} v {B}{a});"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 4 | null | 20 | 0 | 20 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = something is both a pitilessness and not nonlinear. ; $context$ = sent1: the enterotoxin is not a kind of a Filipino. sent2: there is something such that it is not trophic. sent3: if something stations in-basket and/or it does outgrow scorcher it does not struggle Platylobium. sent4: something does not add Adrian if it does struggle neocolonialism and/or it does add fashion. sent5: there exists something such that it is not nonlinear. sent6: if the enterotoxin is not nonlinear the mayfly does struggle ball. sent7: the mayfly is a bewitchery but not nonlinear. sent8: something is not telluric if it exacerbates and/or it is pyemic. sent9: there exists something such that it is a kind of a countermine. sent10: there are worthy and high-tension things. sent11: that the mayfly is a kind of a pitilessness but it is not nonlinear if the enterotoxin is not nonlinear is right. sent12: if the enterotoxin is not nonlinear then the mayfly is a kind of a bewitchery but it is not nonlinear. sent13: if something is not non-judicial or it is pistillate or both then it does not struggle flagon. sent14: the enterotoxin is not gustatory. sent15: the enterotoxin is not a bewitchery if it is a pitilessness. sent16: if that something is a slattern is not incorrect then it is not a kind of a humerus. sent17: the mayfly is corneal. sent18: there exists something such that it is a slattern. sent19: if either something is a kind of a hideout or it hits or both it is not a kind of a physicist. sent20: the enterotoxin is a bewitchery. sent21: if something does station sallow or it outgrows Avestan or both then that it does not iterate hold. sent22: the mare is nonlinear. ; $proof$ =
|
sent20 -> int1: the enterotoxin does struggle ball and/or is a kind of a bewitchery.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the fact that the lath is not a kind of a trader is right is incorrect.
|
{B}{b}
|
sent1: the mishap is non-lobeliaceous. sent2: if the fact that the agaric is bisectional but it does not lean is wrong it is disjunctive. sent3: something is not a trader if that it adds backhanded and is a Senorita does not hold. sent4: that the lath adds backhanded and is a kind of a Senorita is incorrect if the mishap is not lobeliaceous. sent5: if something does not add backhanded that it is not a kind of a trader is not incorrect. sent6: the agaric does station hornet. sent7: if something does not station Bahaism then that it is a kind of non-lobeliaceous thing that does station Nuffield is not right.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{a} sent2: ¬({G}{c} & ¬{H}{c}) -> {F}{c} sent3: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent5: (x): ¬{AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent6: {E}{c} sent7: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & {C}x)
|
[
"sent4 & sent1 -> int1: the fact that the lath does add backhanded and it is a Senorita is incorrect.; sent3 -> int2: the lath is not a trader if that it does add backhanded and it is a Senorita does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 & sent1 -> int1: ¬({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}); sent3 -> int2: ¬({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{b}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the lath is a kind of a trader is not incorrect.
|
{B}{b}
|
[
"sent7 -> int3: if that the mishap does not station Bahaism is not false then the fact that it is non-lobeliaceous thing that stations Nuffield is false.;"
] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the fact that the lath is not a kind of a trader is right is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the mishap is non-lobeliaceous. sent2: if the fact that the agaric is bisectional but it does not lean is wrong it is disjunctive. sent3: something is not a trader if that it adds backhanded and is a Senorita does not hold. sent4: that the lath adds backhanded and is a kind of a Senorita is incorrect if the mishap is not lobeliaceous. sent5: if something does not add backhanded that it is not a kind of a trader is not incorrect. sent6: the agaric does station hornet. sent7: if something does not station Bahaism then that it is a kind of non-lobeliaceous thing that does station Nuffield is not right. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 & sent1 -> int1: the fact that the lath does add backhanded and it is a Senorita is incorrect.; sent3 -> int2: the lath is not a trader if that it does add backhanded and it is a Senorita does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there is something such that if the fact that it is not an alexia and it is diabatic is not correct the fact that it is terminal is not false does not hold.
|
¬((Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x)
|
sent1: the Epistle is a terminal if the fact that it is an alexia and is diabatic is not right. sent2: if the fact that the taoiseach is not an alexia but it does outgrow pedal is not correct it is grammatical. sent3: if the fact that the cabin is a kind of non-terminal thing that is a Lobotidae is not true then it is a southernness. sent4: there exists something such that if it does not dart and it does burglarize then it is teratogenic. sent5: that the Epistle is a terminal is not false if it is not diabatic. sent6: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not an eagerness and is mesonic is not right it is parasympathomimetic. sent7: the Epistle is an alexia if that it is a kind of a Argyreia and it is reversible is wrong. sent8: if the Epistle does not burglarize it is mesonic. sent9: there exists something such that if it does not station overproduction and is covalent that it is a tobogganist is correct. sent10: there exists something such that if it is not an alexia and it is diabatic it is a kind of a terminal. sent11: if the fact that something is not diabatic but accommodative is not true then it is Aramaic. sent12: if that the Epistle is not an alexia and is diabatic is false then it is terminal. sent13: the Epistle is a jerkin if it is not a kind of an alexia and it is a kind of a Sphacelotheca. sent14: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a posterior and it is a Achaean it adds folly. sent15: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a workshop and it is afloat is not correct it outgrows bloodstain. sent16: there exists something such that if it is a kind of an eagerness then it is a bathysphere. sent17: the violator is agraphic if it is not a kind of a troy. sent18: there exists something such that if it is an alexia then it is terminal. sent19: there is something such that if it is not diabatic then it is a kind of a terminal. sent20: there exists something such that if that it is non-no-go thing that is a kind of a pique is not correct then it is unhelpful.
|
sent1: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent2: ¬(¬{AA}{ib} & {GS}{ib}) -> {FR}{ib} sent3: ¬(¬{B}{as} & {BQ}{as}) -> {IN}{as} sent4: (Ex): (¬{HF}x & {BS}x) -> {DT}x sent5: ¬{AB}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent6: (Ex): ¬(¬{HM}x & {IM}x) -> {GG}x sent7: ¬({J}{aa} & {DA}{aa}) -> {AA}{aa} sent8: ¬{BS}{aa} -> {IM}{aa} sent9: (Ex): (¬{EF}x & {HG}x) -> {GM}x sent10: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent11: (x): ¬(¬{AB}x & {HL}x) -> {AF}x sent12: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent13: (¬{AA}{aa} & {IE}{aa}) -> {CT}{aa} sent14: (Ex): (¬{BI}x & {AM}x) -> {CU}x sent15: (Ex): ¬(¬{EH}x & {DC}x) -> {EI}x sent16: (Ex): {HM}x -> {FN}x sent17: ¬{II}{bu} -> {AE}{bu} sent18: (Ex): {AA}x -> {B}x sent19: (Ex): ¬{AB}x -> {B}x sent20: (Ex): ¬(¬{CG}x & {IF}x) -> {FP}x
|
[
"sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] |
if that the outerwear is not diabatic but it is accommodative does not hold then that it is Aramaic is not false.
|
¬(¬{AB}{fh} & {HL}{fh}) -> {AF}{fh}
|
[
"sent11 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if the fact that it is not an alexia and it is diabatic is not correct the fact that it is terminal is not false does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the Epistle is a terminal if the fact that it is an alexia and is diabatic is not right. sent2: if the fact that the taoiseach is not an alexia but it does outgrow pedal is not correct it is grammatical. sent3: if the fact that the cabin is a kind of non-terminal thing that is a Lobotidae is not true then it is a southernness. sent4: there exists something such that if it does not dart and it does burglarize then it is teratogenic. sent5: that the Epistle is a terminal is not false if it is not diabatic. sent6: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not an eagerness and is mesonic is not right it is parasympathomimetic. sent7: the Epistle is an alexia if that it is a kind of a Argyreia and it is reversible is wrong. sent8: if the Epistle does not burglarize it is mesonic. sent9: there exists something such that if it does not station overproduction and is covalent that it is a tobogganist is correct. sent10: there exists something such that if it is not an alexia and it is diabatic it is a kind of a terminal. sent11: if the fact that something is not diabatic but accommodative is not true then it is Aramaic. sent12: if that the Epistle is not an alexia and is diabatic is false then it is terminal. sent13: the Epistle is a jerkin if it is not a kind of an alexia and it is a kind of a Sphacelotheca. sent14: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a posterior and it is a Achaean it adds folly. sent15: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a workshop and it is afloat is not correct it outgrows bloodstain. sent16: there exists something such that if it is a kind of an eagerness then it is a bathysphere. sent17: the violator is agraphic if it is not a kind of a troy. sent18: there exists something such that if it is an alexia then it is terminal. sent19: there is something such that if it is not diabatic then it is a kind of a terminal. sent20: there exists something such that if that it is non-no-go thing that is a kind of a pique is not correct then it is unhelpful. ; $proof$ =
|
sent12 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the aluminum is not a taskmistress.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
sent1: that the macrotus is not non-cytotoxic and does not lapidify does not hold. sent2: everything does click or it is a Isaac or both. sent3: there exists something such that it is not a taskmistress and/or it is a Isaac. sent4: if the fact that something is a kind of cytotoxic thing that does not lapidify is not true then it is not cytotoxic. sent5: everything is not a click and/or it is a kind of a Isaac. sent6: if a bracteal thing is not cytotoxic it is a taskmistress. sent7: the escutcheon is a click and/or it is a Isaac. sent8: that the aluminum is bracteal but it is not cytotoxic is true if it does not whine. sent9: that the aluminum is not a taskmistress if something is not a click or is a Isaac or both is not incorrect. sent10: there is something such that it does click and/or is a Isaac. sent11: if there exists something such that it does not click then the aluminum is not a kind of a taskmistress. sent12: there is something such that it is not a taskmistress or a click or both. sent13: something does not station graze or does outgrow coupon or both if it is a taskmistress. sent14: the aluminum does not whine if the macrotus does whine.
|
sent1: ¬({B}{b} & ¬{G}{b}) sent2: (x): ({AA}x v {AB}x) sent3: (Ex): (¬{A}x v {AB}x) sent4: (x): ¬({B}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{B}x sent5: (x): (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) sent6: (x): ({C}x & ¬{B}x) -> {A}x sent7: ({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent8: ¬{D}{a} -> ({C}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent9: (x): (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent10: (Ex): ({AA}x v {AB}x) sent11: (x): ¬{AA}x -> ¬{A}{a} sent12: (Ex): (¬{A}x v {AA}x) sent13: (x): {A}x -> (¬{CK}x v {HB}x) sent14: {D}{b} -> ¬{D}{a}
|
[
"sent5 -> int1: the escutcheon is not a click and/or it is a Isaac.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that it either does not click or is a Isaac or both.; int2 & sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 -> int1: (¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): (¬{AA}x v {AB}x); int2 & sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] |
something does not station graze or it outgrows coupon or both.
|
(Ex): (¬{CK}x v {HB}x)
|
[
"sent13 -> int3: if the aluminum is a kind of a taskmistress then it does not station graze and/or it does outgrow coupon.; sent6 -> int4: the aluminum is a taskmistress if it is bracteal and not cytotoxic.;"
] | 7 | 3 | 3 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the aluminum is not a taskmistress. ; $context$ = sent1: that the macrotus is not non-cytotoxic and does not lapidify does not hold. sent2: everything does click or it is a Isaac or both. sent3: there exists something such that it is not a taskmistress and/or it is a Isaac. sent4: if the fact that something is a kind of cytotoxic thing that does not lapidify is not true then it is not cytotoxic. sent5: everything is not a click and/or it is a kind of a Isaac. sent6: if a bracteal thing is not cytotoxic it is a taskmistress. sent7: the escutcheon is a click and/or it is a Isaac. sent8: that the aluminum is bracteal but it is not cytotoxic is true if it does not whine. sent9: that the aluminum is not a taskmistress if something is not a click or is a Isaac or both is not incorrect. sent10: there is something such that it does click and/or is a Isaac. sent11: if there exists something such that it does not click then the aluminum is not a kind of a taskmistress. sent12: there is something such that it is not a taskmistress or a click or both. sent13: something does not station graze or does outgrow coupon or both if it is a taskmistress. sent14: the aluminum does not whine if the macrotus does whine. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 -> int1: the escutcheon is not a click and/or it is a Isaac.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that it either does not click or is a Isaac or both.; int2 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the prepuce outgrows scientist.
|
{E}{a}
|
sent1: if something is not a kind of a repetitiveness then the fact that it is non-automotive and it is not aerodynamic is not right. sent2: if there exists something such that it is a handbow and it is a impermeability then the prepuce is cranial. sent3: the fact that something is not automotive and not a blackwash does not hold if it is a impermeability. sent4: something is automotive if it is aerodynamic. sent5: the prepuce is automotive if it is a grand. sent6: the prepuce is a blackwash. sent7: if the porphyry does not struggle Salpichroa the fact that the soundman is a kind of a misanthropy and it is a Gjellerup is false. sent8: something is a blackwash. sent9: the porphyry does not struggle Salpichroa if it is not hydrophobic. sent10: something outgrows scientist if it is automotive. sent11: if the prepuce is a blackwash then the Man is aerodynamic. sent12: if something is minor then it does outgrow reported. sent13: the Jamaican is automotive. sent14: if something is a bullhorn it is a kind of a backboard. sent15: there exists something such that it is a kind of aecial thing that stations culdoscopy. sent16: the impairer is not non-aerodynamic if the fact that the catsup is non-automotive but not non-aerodynamic is not right. sent17: the prepuce is taxable if it is millenary. sent18: that the prepuce is aerodynamic is not false if a blackwash is a impermeability. sent19: the prepuce does not outgrow scientist if the impairer does not blackwash but it is a impermeability. sent20: there is something such that it is a blackwash and it is a impermeability. sent21: there is something such that it is a impermeability.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{C}x) sent2: (x): ({HM}x & {B}x) -> {CH}{a} sent3: (x): {B}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{A}x) sent4: (x): {C}x -> {D}x sent5: {IH}{a} -> {D}{a} sent6: {A}{a} sent7: ¬{I}{e} -> ¬({G}{d} & {H}{d}) sent8: (Ex): {A}x sent9: ¬{J}{e} -> ¬{I}{e} sent10: (x): {D}x -> {E}x sent11: {A}{a} -> {C}{ga} sent12: (x): {AO}x -> {IJ}x sent13: {D}{ek} sent14: (x): {HR}x -> {EN}x sent15: (Ex): ({CN}x & {DQ}x) sent16: ¬(¬{D}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) -> {C}{b} sent17: {EE}{a} -> {CJ}{a} sent18: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> {C}{a} sent19: (¬{A}{b} & {B}{b}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent20: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x) sent21: (Ex): {B}x
|
[
"sent20 & sent18 -> int1: the prepuce is aerodynamic.; sent4 -> int2: if the prepuce is aerodynamic it is automotive.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the prepuce is automotive is not incorrect.; sent10 -> int4: if the prepuce is automotive it does outgrow scientist.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent20 & sent18 -> int1: {C}{a}; sent4 -> int2: {C}{a} -> {D}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {D}{a}; sent10 -> int4: {D}{a} -> {E}{a}; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the Man is aerodynamic.
|
{C}{ga}
|
[
"sent3 -> int5: if the impairer is a impermeability then the fact that it is both not automotive and not a blackwash does not hold.;"
] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 17 | 0 | 17 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the prepuce outgrows scientist. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not a kind of a repetitiveness then the fact that it is non-automotive and it is not aerodynamic is not right. sent2: if there exists something such that it is a handbow and it is a impermeability then the prepuce is cranial. sent3: the fact that something is not automotive and not a blackwash does not hold if it is a impermeability. sent4: something is automotive if it is aerodynamic. sent5: the prepuce is automotive if it is a grand. sent6: the prepuce is a blackwash. sent7: if the porphyry does not struggle Salpichroa the fact that the soundman is a kind of a misanthropy and it is a Gjellerup is false. sent8: something is a blackwash. sent9: the porphyry does not struggle Salpichroa if it is not hydrophobic. sent10: something outgrows scientist if it is automotive. sent11: if the prepuce is a blackwash then the Man is aerodynamic. sent12: if something is minor then it does outgrow reported. sent13: the Jamaican is automotive. sent14: if something is a bullhorn it is a kind of a backboard. sent15: there exists something such that it is a kind of aecial thing that stations culdoscopy. sent16: the impairer is not non-aerodynamic if the fact that the catsup is non-automotive but not non-aerodynamic is not right. sent17: the prepuce is taxable if it is millenary. sent18: that the prepuce is aerodynamic is not false if a blackwash is a impermeability. sent19: the prepuce does not outgrow scientist if the impairer does not blackwash but it is a impermeability. sent20: there is something such that it is a blackwash and it is a impermeability. sent21: there is something such that it is a impermeability. ; $proof$ =
|
sent20 & sent18 -> int1: the prepuce is aerodynamic.; sent4 -> int2: if the prepuce is aerodynamic it is automotive.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the prepuce is automotive is not incorrect.; sent10 -> int4: if the prepuce is automotive it does outgrow scientist.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that that it does not station roentgen and it is not carbonaceous is not correct.
|
(Ex): ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{E}x)
|
sent1: if the gasometer is a kind of a Utu the Peacemaker is a noisiness. sent2: the fact that the Peacemaker is a noisiness hold if that the gasometer does struggle Calla is true. sent3: if the Peacemaker is a noisiness that the apishamore does not station roentgen and it is not carbonaceous does not hold.
|
sent1: {A}{a} -> {C}{c} sent2: {B}{a} -> {C}{c} sent3: {C}{c} -> ¬(¬{D}{b} & ¬{E}{b})
|
[] |
[] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | null | 0 | 0 | 0 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that that it does not station roentgen and it is not carbonaceous is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the gasometer is a kind of a Utu the Peacemaker is a noisiness. sent2: the fact that the Peacemaker is a noisiness hold if that the gasometer does struggle Calla is true. sent3: if the Peacemaker is a noisiness that the apishamore does not station roentgen and it is not carbonaceous does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the pilotfish is not a watermeal and is a poker is not wrong.
|
(¬{B}{d} & {D}{d})
|
sent1: the frontal does not outgrow furring. sent2: the pilotfish is not a watermeal but it is a kind of a poker if the foreman is a watermeal. sent3: the rebutter is not side-to-side. sent4: if the frontal is not a kind of a shoji and it does not outgrow furring then the foreman is a watermeal. sent5: the pilotfish is not a kind of a watermeal.
|
sent1: ¬{AB}{b} sent2: {B}{c} -> (¬{B}{d} & {D}{d}) sent3: ¬{A}{a} sent4: (¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) -> {B}{c} sent5: ¬{B}{d}
|
[] |
[] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | null | 2 | 0 | 2 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = that the pilotfish is not a watermeal and is a poker is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the frontal does not outgrow furring. sent2: the pilotfish is not a watermeal but it is a kind of a poker if the foreman is a watermeal. sent3: the rebutter is not side-to-side. sent4: if the frontal is not a kind of a shoji and it does not outgrow furring then the foreman is a watermeal. sent5: the pilotfish is not a kind of a watermeal. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the workpiece is a jampot.
|
{A}{a}
|
sent1: something outgrows strawboard if it is a kind of a abducent. sent2: if the ophthalmoscope is an inevitable the croup is not a merbromine. sent3: everything is not vestibular. sent4: the fact that the chipotle is an analogue that outgrows sinuosity is false if the paintbrush is not a atresia. sent5: something is inevitable and it does scout if it is not an analogue. sent6: the Crusader is not a kind of a jampot and is not procedural if the workpiece does not struggle paintbrush. sent7: something does not station Gabriel if that it does station Gabriel and it two-steps is false. sent8: something is not a jampot if it struggles paintbrush and it is not a fucus. sent9: the workpiece is a kind of a jampot if the Crusader is not vestibular and it does not outgrow membered. sent10: if something outgrows strawboard then it does struggle Goldmark. sent11: if that the convection is not discourteous and it does not outgrow strawboard does not hold then the Corinthian does outgrow strawboard. sent12: if there is something such that it is not a merbromine then that the convection stations Gabriel and it two-steps is wrong. sent13: the fact that if the fact that something does station Gabriel and is not abducent is incorrect it is a abducent is not incorrect. sent14: if something that is not a fucus does not struggle Goldmark it does not struggle paintbrush. sent15: if the fact that the paintbrush struggles self-torture but it does not gibber is false then it is not a kind of a atresia. sent16: that the paintbrush does struggle self-torture but it does not gibber is wrong if it does add stationariness. sent17: if something is a abducent then the fact that it is not discourteous and it does not outgrow strawboard is not true. sent18: the Corinthian is a kind of a abducent and it is discourteous if that the convection does not station Gabriel is not false. sent19: the paintbrush does add stationariness. sent20: the ophthalmoscope is not an analogue if there exists something such that the fact that it is an analogue and it does outgrow sinuosity does not hold.
|
sent1: (x): {F}x -> {E}x sent2: {K}{e} -> ¬{J}{d} sent3: (x): ¬{AA}x sent4: ¬{N}{g} -> ¬({M}{f} & {O}{f}) sent5: (x): ¬{M}x -> ({K}x & {L}x) sent6: ¬{B}{a} -> (¬{A}{aa} & ¬{CO}{aa}) sent7: (x): ¬({H}x & {I}x) -> ¬{H}x sent8: (x): ({B}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{A}x sent9: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {A}{a} sent10: (x): {E}x -> {D}x sent11: ¬(¬{G}{c} & ¬{E}{c}) -> {E}{b} sent12: (x): ¬{J}x -> ¬({H}{c} & {I}{c}) sent13: (x): ¬({H}x & ¬{F}x) -> {F}x sent14: (x): (¬{C}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{B}x sent15: ¬({P}{g} & ¬{Q}{g}) -> ¬{N}{g} sent16: {R}{g} -> ¬({P}{g} & ¬{Q}{g}) sent17: (x): {F}x -> ¬(¬{G}x & ¬{E}x) sent18: ¬{H}{c} -> ({F}{b} & {G}{b}) sent19: {R}{g} sent20: (x): ¬({M}x & {O}x) -> ¬{M}{e}
|
[] |
[] |
the workpiece is not a jampot.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
[
"sent8 -> int1: if the workpiece does struggle paintbrush and is not a kind of a fucus then the fact that it is not a jampot is true.; sent10 -> int2: if the Corinthian does outgrow strawboard it struggles Goldmark.; sent1 -> int3: if the Corinthian is a abducent then it outgrows strawboard.; sent7 -> int4: if the fact that the convection stations Gabriel and it is a two-step is not true then it does not stations Gabriel.; sent5 -> int5: the ophthalmoscope is inevitable thing that scouts if it is not an analogue.; sent16 & sent19 -> int6: the fact that the paintbrush does struggle self-torture but it does not gibber is incorrect.; sent15 & int6 -> int7: the paintbrush is not a kind of a atresia.; sent4 & int7 -> int8: that the chipotle is an analogue and it does outgrow sinuosity is not right.; int8 -> int9: there is something such that that it is an analogue and it outgrows sinuosity is not right.; int9 & sent20 -> int10: the ophthalmoscope is not an analogue.; int5 & int10 -> int11: the ophthalmoscope is inevitable and a scout.; int11 -> int12: the ophthalmoscope is a kind of an inevitable.; sent2 & int12 -> int13: the croup is not a merbromine.; int13 -> int14: there is something such that it is not a kind of a merbromine.; int14 & sent12 -> int15: that the convection stations Gabriel and it two-steps does not hold.; int4 & int15 -> int16: the convection does not station Gabriel.; sent18 & int16 -> int17: the Corinthian is both abducent and discourteous.; int17 -> int18: the Corinthian is a abducent.; int3 & int18 -> int19: the Corinthian outgrows strawboard.; int2 & int19 -> int20: the Corinthian does struggle Goldmark.; int20 -> int21: there is something such that it struggles Goldmark.;"
] | 18 | 2 | null | 19 | 0 | 19 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the workpiece is a jampot. ; $context$ = sent1: something outgrows strawboard if it is a kind of a abducent. sent2: if the ophthalmoscope is an inevitable the croup is not a merbromine. sent3: everything is not vestibular. sent4: the fact that the chipotle is an analogue that outgrows sinuosity is false if the paintbrush is not a atresia. sent5: something is inevitable and it does scout if it is not an analogue. sent6: the Crusader is not a kind of a jampot and is not procedural if the workpiece does not struggle paintbrush. sent7: something does not station Gabriel if that it does station Gabriel and it two-steps is false. sent8: something is not a jampot if it struggles paintbrush and it is not a fucus. sent9: the workpiece is a kind of a jampot if the Crusader is not vestibular and it does not outgrow membered. sent10: if something outgrows strawboard then it does struggle Goldmark. sent11: if that the convection is not discourteous and it does not outgrow strawboard does not hold then the Corinthian does outgrow strawboard. sent12: if there is something such that it is not a merbromine then that the convection stations Gabriel and it two-steps is wrong. sent13: the fact that if the fact that something does station Gabriel and is not abducent is incorrect it is a abducent is not incorrect. sent14: if something that is not a fucus does not struggle Goldmark it does not struggle paintbrush. sent15: if the fact that the paintbrush struggles self-torture but it does not gibber is false then it is not a kind of a atresia. sent16: that the paintbrush does struggle self-torture but it does not gibber is wrong if it does add stationariness. sent17: if something is a abducent then the fact that it is not discourteous and it does not outgrow strawboard is not true. sent18: the Corinthian is a kind of a abducent and it is discourteous if that the convection does not station Gabriel is not false. sent19: the paintbrush does add stationariness. sent20: the ophthalmoscope is not an analogue if there exists something such that the fact that it is an analogue and it does outgrow sinuosity does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if it is not rectosigmoid then that it is not Mycenaean and does add rill is wrong.
|
(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x)
|
sent1: that the twenty-two is not a kind of a clozapine but it does add rill is not true if it is not a cruise. sent2: if the percussionist is not rectosigmoid it is not Mycenaean and does add rill. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not a control then that it is a kind of a enallage that is a gumboil is not true. sent4: if the percussionist is not rectosigmoid the fact that it is a kind of non-Mycenaean thing that adds rill is wrong. sent5: the fact that something does not struggle affluence and adds rill is false if it is not legless. sent6: if the percussionist is not rectosigmoid then that it is Mycenaean and it does add rill is wrong. sent7: that the percussionist is not Mycenaean but it adds rill is not true if it is rectosigmoid. sent8: there is something such that if it is not rectosigmoid then it is not Mycenaean and it does add rill. sent9: there is something such that if the fact that it is not an input is correct the fact that it quietens and it is legless is incorrect. sent10: there is something such that if it is rectosigmoid then that it is not Mycenaean and it does add rill is wrong.
|
sent1: ¬{M}{du} -> ¬(¬{CL}{du} & {AB}{du}) sent2: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: (Ex): ¬{HB}x -> ¬({CM}x & {CE}x) sent4: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent5: (x): ¬{BN}x -> ¬(¬{FU}x & {AB}x) sent6: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent7: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent8: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent9: (Ex): ¬{BG}x -> ¬({N}x & {BN}x) sent10: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x)
|
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
if the subthalamus is not legless the fact that it does not struggle affluence and adds rill does not hold.
|
¬{BN}{ei} -> ¬(¬{FU}{ei} & {AB}{ei})
|
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is not rectosigmoid then that it is not Mycenaean and does add rill is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: that the twenty-two is not a kind of a clozapine but it does add rill is not true if it is not a cruise. sent2: if the percussionist is not rectosigmoid it is not Mycenaean and does add rill. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not a control then that it is a kind of a enallage that is a gumboil is not true. sent4: if the percussionist is not rectosigmoid the fact that it is a kind of non-Mycenaean thing that adds rill is wrong. sent5: the fact that something does not struggle affluence and adds rill is false if it is not legless. sent6: if the percussionist is not rectosigmoid then that it is Mycenaean and it does add rill is wrong. sent7: that the percussionist is not Mycenaean but it adds rill is not true if it is rectosigmoid. sent8: there is something such that if it is not rectosigmoid then it is not Mycenaean and it does add rill. sent9: there is something such that if the fact that it is not an input is correct the fact that it quietens and it is legless is incorrect. sent10: there is something such that if it is rectosigmoid then that it is not Mycenaean and it does add rill is wrong. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it is not a constant then the fact that it is nonlinear thing that is not a kind of a plenty is not right.
|
(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
sent1: there is something such that if it is not a constant then the fact that it is a kind of linear thing that is not a plenty is false. sent2: if the skywalk is not a constant the fact that it is linear thing that is not a plenty is wrong. sent3: the skywalk is a kind of nonlinear thing that is not a plenty if it is not a constant. sent4: that something is non-euphonic and it is not linear does not hold if it is not unfavorable. sent5: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a farmstead is right the fact that it does not station pronation and is not effortless is not correct. sent6: if something is not a poke then the fact that that it is not generous and it is not Semite hold is not right. sent7: the fact that the skywalk is not linear and is not a kind of a plenty is wrong if it is not a kind of a constant. sent8: there exists something such that if it is not constant it is not linear and it is not a plenty. sent9: there is something such that if it is cerebrovascular that it does not struggle reception and is not a kind of a punkah is incorrect. sent10: if the skywalk is not a constant the fact that it is not linear and it is a plenty is false.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent2: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent3: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent4: (x): ¬{BL}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{AA}x) sent5: (Ex): ¬{FD}x -> ¬(¬{EF}x & ¬{HE}x) sent6: (x): ¬{AL}x -> ¬(¬{DC}x & ¬{CE}x) sent7: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent8: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent9: (Ex): {IG}x -> ¬(¬{CI}x & ¬{CQ}x) sent10: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})
|
[
"sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there is something such that if it is not a poke then the fact that it is both not generous and not Semite is not right.
|
(Ex): ¬{AL}x -> ¬(¬{DC}x & ¬{CE}x)
|
[
"sent6 -> int1: the fact that the Boulder is not generous and not a Semite does not hold if it is not a kind of a poke.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is not a constant then the fact that it is nonlinear thing that is not a kind of a plenty is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is not a constant then the fact that it is a kind of linear thing that is not a plenty is false. sent2: if the skywalk is not a constant the fact that it is linear thing that is not a plenty is wrong. sent3: the skywalk is a kind of nonlinear thing that is not a plenty if it is not a constant. sent4: that something is non-euphonic and it is not linear does not hold if it is not unfavorable. sent5: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a farmstead is right the fact that it does not station pronation and is not effortless is not correct. sent6: if something is not a poke then the fact that that it is not generous and it is not Semite hold is not right. sent7: the fact that the skywalk is not linear and is not a kind of a plenty is wrong if it is not a kind of a constant. sent8: there exists something such that if it is not constant it is not linear and it is not a plenty. sent9: there is something such that if it is cerebrovascular that it does not struggle reception and is not a kind of a punkah is incorrect. sent10: if the skywalk is not a constant the fact that it is not linear and it is a plenty is false. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the scorpionfish is elementary and/or a tadalafil.
|
({B}{b} v {D}{b})
|
sent1: the thyrse is epiphyseal. sent2: if the scorpionfish is not epiphyseal then the thyrse is epiphyseal or a tadalafil or both. sent3: the scorpionfish is either elementary or a tadalafil or both if the thyrse is not elementary. sent4: the convener either is Rembrandtesque or is astigmatic or both. sent5: something is epiphyseal and it does fishtail if it is not a kind of a vacationer. sent6: if the thyrse is not elementary either the scorpionfish is elementary or it is epiphyseal or both. sent7: the scorpionfish is epiphyseal. sent8: the thyrse is epiphyseal or it is a tadalafil or both. sent9: the thyrse is epiphyseal but it is not elementary. sent10: the scorpionfish does not encroach. sent11: the thyrse is associative but it is not arithmetical. sent12: the thyrse is a buzzer. sent13: the thyrse is a spot but it is not a bonobo. sent14: if the scorpionfish is not a tadalafil then the thyrse is a tadalafil or it is epiphyseal or both. sent15: something that is not a vacationer does not fishtail and is epiphyseal. sent16: the Boulder is not non-epiphyseal but it is not a rep. sent17: the melphalan is not elementary. sent18: the scorpionfish is epiphyseal and is not elementary. sent19: either the thyrse is ungrateful or it is elementary or both. sent20: the thyrse is a tadalafil. sent21: the zoospore is a tadalafil.
|
sent1: {A}{a} sent2: ¬{A}{b} -> ({A}{a} v {D}{a}) sent3: ¬{B}{a} -> ({B}{b} v {D}{b}) sent4: ({G}{c} v {F}{c}) sent5: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({A}x & {C}x) sent6: ¬{B}{a} -> ({B}{b} v {A}{b}) sent7: {A}{b} sent8: ({A}{a} v {D}{a}) sent9: ({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent10: ¬{K}{b} sent11: ({HJ}{a} & ¬{EU}{a}) sent12: {BM}{a} sent13: ({BU}{a} & ¬{IG}{a}) sent14: ¬{D}{b} -> ({D}{a} v {A}{a}) sent15: (x): ¬{E}x -> (¬{C}x & {A}x) sent16: ({A}{dm} & ¬{AE}{dm}) sent17: ¬{B}{fp} sent18: ({A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent19: ({II}{a} v {B}{a}) sent20: {D}{a} sent21: {D}{j}
|
[
"sent9 -> int1: the thyrse is not elementary.; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the scorpionfish is not non-elementary or is a tadalafil or both is not right.
|
¬({B}{b} v {D}{b})
|
[
"sent15 -> int2: the thyrse does not fishtail but it is epiphyseal if it is not a vacationer.;"
] | 5 | 2 | 2 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the scorpionfish is elementary and/or a tadalafil. ; $context$ = sent1: the thyrse is epiphyseal. sent2: if the scorpionfish is not epiphyseal then the thyrse is epiphyseal or a tadalafil or both. sent3: the scorpionfish is either elementary or a tadalafil or both if the thyrse is not elementary. sent4: the convener either is Rembrandtesque or is astigmatic or both. sent5: something is epiphyseal and it does fishtail if it is not a kind of a vacationer. sent6: if the thyrse is not elementary either the scorpionfish is elementary or it is epiphyseal or both. sent7: the scorpionfish is epiphyseal. sent8: the thyrse is epiphyseal or it is a tadalafil or both. sent9: the thyrse is epiphyseal but it is not elementary. sent10: the scorpionfish does not encroach. sent11: the thyrse is associative but it is not arithmetical. sent12: the thyrse is a buzzer. sent13: the thyrse is a spot but it is not a bonobo. sent14: if the scorpionfish is not a tadalafil then the thyrse is a tadalafil or it is epiphyseal or both. sent15: something that is not a vacationer does not fishtail and is epiphyseal. sent16: the Boulder is not non-epiphyseal but it is not a rep. sent17: the melphalan is not elementary. sent18: the scorpionfish is epiphyseal and is not elementary. sent19: either the thyrse is ungrateful or it is elementary or both. sent20: the thyrse is a tadalafil. sent21: the zoospore is a tadalafil. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 -> int1: the thyrse is not elementary.; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the cuff outgrows Mosander.
|
{B}{a}
|
sent1: if the villus is a electrosurgery and/or it does not add dogfight then the log is not a humanism. sent2: if something is not a humanism then the fact that it does not quadruple and is not unsupportive is not false. sent3: if the fact that the cuff does not struggle aftershock and it does not garner is incorrect then it outgrows Mosander. sent4: that that the cuff does not struggle aftershock and it does not garner is not incorrect is not right if it is supportive.
|
sent1: ({E}{c} v ¬{F}{c}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent2: (x): ¬{D}x -> (¬{C}x & ¬{A}x) sent3: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})
|
[] |
[] |
the cuff does not outgrow Mosander.
|
¬{B}{a}
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: the log is not a quadruple and it is not unsupportive if it is not a humanism.;"
] | 6 | 2 | null | 2 | 0 | 2 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the cuff outgrows Mosander. ; $context$ = sent1: if the villus is a electrosurgery and/or it does not add dogfight then the log is not a humanism. sent2: if something is not a humanism then the fact that it does not quadruple and is not unsupportive is not false. sent3: if the fact that the cuff does not struggle aftershock and it does not garner is incorrect then it outgrows Mosander. sent4: that that the cuff does not struggle aftershock and it does not garner is not incorrect is not right if it is supportive. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the struggling Mormons does not occur.
|
¬{C}
|
sent1: if the phenomenon happens the reply does not occur. sent2: if both the outgrowing Silphium and the permanent happens then the salamandriformness does not occur. sent3: the bathe occurs. sent4: the struggling Mosander occurs. sent5: both the nonviolentness and the trophotropicness happens if the reply does not occur. sent6: the agnostic happens. sent7: if the fact that the bathe does not occur is not wrong that the struggling Mormons and the stationing Melophagus happens is right. sent8: if the fact that the stationing cross-eye does not occur is not wrong not the trente-et-quarante but the untranslatableness occurs. sent9: both the phenomenon and the anagrams happens if the trente-et-quarante does not occur. sent10: that the stationing Melophagus and the bathing happens triggers that the struggling Mormons does not occur. sent11: the expatiation and the sortie happens. sent12: the nonviolentness prevents that the bathing occurs. sent13: the fact that the struggling Mormons does not occur and the bathing does not occur is not correct if the stationing Melophagus does not occur. sent14: the outgrowing quadruplicate happens. sent15: the stationing antonymy occurs.
|
sent1: {G} -> ¬{F} sent2: ({IE} & {BD}) -> ¬{BB} sent3: {B} sent4: {HT} sent5: ¬{F} -> (¬{D} & {E}) sent6: {S} sent7: ¬{B} -> ({C} & {A}) sent8: ¬{K} -> (¬{I} & {J}) sent9: ¬{I} -> ({G} & {H}) sent10: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent11: ({GA} & {GR}) sent12: ¬{D} -> ¬{B} sent13: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{C} & ¬{B}) sent14: {AR} sent15: {EU}
|
[] |
[] |
the fact that the struggling Mormons occurs is not wrong.
|
{C}
|
[] | 11 | 2 | null | 13 | 0 | 13 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the struggling Mormons does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the phenomenon happens the reply does not occur. sent2: if both the outgrowing Silphium and the permanent happens then the salamandriformness does not occur. sent3: the bathe occurs. sent4: the struggling Mosander occurs. sent5: both the nonviolentness and the trophotropicness happens if the reply does not occur. sent6: the agnostic happens. sent7: if the fact that the bathe does not occur is not wrong that the struggling Mormons and the stationing Melophagus happens is right. sent8: if the fact that the stationing cross-eye does not occur is not wrong not the trente-et-quarante but the untranslatableness occurs. sent9: both the phenomenon and the anagrams happens if the trente-et-quarante does not occur. sent10: that the stationing Melophagus and the bathing happens triggers that the struggling Mormons does not occur. sent11: the expatiation and the sortie happens. sent12: the nonviolentness prevents that the bathing occurs. sent13: the fact that the struggling Mormons does not occur and the bathing does not occur is not correct if the stationing Melophagus does not occur. sent14: the outgrowing quadruplicate happens. sent15: the stationing antonymy occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Mauser is not Venezuelan.
|
¬{D}{b}
|
sent1: the fact that something is not unfit but it is a woodsman is not correct if it humbles. sent2: something that is not a couplet is a retreat and not non-Venezuelan. sent3: the couverture is unfit but it is non-humble. sent4: the monk is not unfit if the fact that the couverture is not unfit but it is a woodsman is wrong. sent5: the linkage is not a woodsman. sent6: something is humble if that it is not non-Venezuelan is right. sent7: the Mauser is not a Venezuelan if that the couverture is a kind of a woodsman and it is unfit is true. sent8: the couverture is a kind of a woodsman if the fact that the linkage is not a kind of a woodsman hold.
|
sent1: (x): {B}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & {C}x) sent2: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({E}x & {D}x) sent3: ({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent4: ¬(¬{A}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{A}{cg} sent5: ¬{C}{c} sent6: (x): {D}x -> {B}x sent7: ({C}{a} & {A}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent8: ¬{C}{c} -> {C}{a}
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: the couverture is unfit.; sent8 & sent5 -> int2: the couverture is a kind of a woodsman.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the couverture is a woodsman and is unfit.; int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> int1: {A}{a}; sent8 & sent5 -> int2: {C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({C}{a} & {A}{a}); int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the monk is not unfit.
|
¬{A}{cg}
|
[
"sent6 -> int4: if the Mauser is a kind of a Venezuelan then it is humble.; sent2 -> int5: if the Mauser is not a couplet the fact that it is both a retreat and a Venezuelan hold.; sent1 -> int6: the fact that the Mauser is not unfit but it is a woodsman does not hold if it humbles.;"
] | 8 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the Mauser is not Venezuelan. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is not unfit but it is a woodsman is not correct if it humbles. sent2: something that is not a couplet is a retreat and not non-Venezuelan. sent3: the couverture is unfit but it is non-humble. sent4: the monk is not unfit if the fact that the couverture is not unfit but it is a woodsman is wrong. sent5: the linkage is not a woodsman. sent6: something is humble if that it is not non-Venezuelan is right. sent7: the Mauser is not a Venezuelan if that the couverture is a kind of a woodsman and it is unfit is true. sent8: the couverture is a kind of a woodsman if the fact that the linkage is not a kind of a woodsman hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> int1: the couverture is unfit.; sent8 & sent5 -> int2: the couverture is a kind of a woodsman.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the couverture is a woodsman and is unfit.; int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the clickety-clack does not occur but the athleticsness happens is not right.
|
¬(¬{AA} & {AB})
|
sent1: the clickety-clack does not occur. sent2: the stationing wholesomeness happens and the outgrowing monarchist happens. sent3: both the stationing camper and the annexationalness occurs. sent4: if the annexationalness occurs the fact that the fact that the outgrowing trouser does not occur but the eruption happens is not correct is true. sent5: if the fact that the invertebrateness and the non-unifilarness occurs is wrong then that the struggling quick does not occur is not wrong. sent6: the atypicalness does not occur. sent7: that the consolation does not occur but the flooding occurs is not right. sent8: if the fact that the goal happens and the sortie does not occur is not correct then the fact that the sortie happens is not incorrect. sent9: if the sortie happens that either the real happens or the stationing precognition does not occur or both is not right. sent10: if that the fact that the realness occurs and/or the stationing precognition does not occur is correct does not hold the genocide happens. sent11: not the struggling planetoid but the ballisticness happens. sent12: that the goal occurs but the sortie does not occur is not right if the struggling quick does not occur. sent13: the fact that both the clickety-clack and the athleticsness occurs is false. sent14: if the genocide occurs then the licitness does not occur and the spreading does not occur. sent15: not the atypicalness but the struggling cabin occurs. sent16: the censoring occurs and the Florentine happens. sent17: if the clickety-clack happens and the athleticsness occurs the stationing camper does not occur. sent18: that the annexationalness occurs is true. sent19: that both the annexationalness and the stationing camper occurs is caused by that the licitness does not occur. sent20: that the leisure happens but the snag does not occur is triggered by that the exegeticness happens. sent21: that the invertebrateness and the non-unifilarness happens is wrong if the leisure happens.
|
sent1: ¬{AA} sent2: ({AJ} & {CB}) sent3: ({B} & {A}) sent4: {A} -> ¬(¬{BL} & {IP}) sent5: ¬({K} & ¬{L}) -> ¬{I} sent6: ¬{EO} sent7: ¬(¬{HO} & {EM}) sent8: ¬({J} & ¬{H}) -> {H} sent9: {H} -> ¬({F} v ¬{G}) sent10: ¬({F} v ¬{G}) -> {E} sent11: (¬{AF} & {GG}) sent12: ¬{I} -> ¬({J} & ¬{H}) sent13: ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent14: {E} -> (¬{C} & ¬{D}) sent15: (¬{EO} & {BO}) sent16: ({JF} & {IC}) sent17: ({AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent18: {A} sent19: ¬{C} -> ({A} & {B}) sent20: {O} -> ({M} & ¬{N}) sent21: {M} -> ¬({K} & ¬{L})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that not the clickety-clack but the athleticsness happens.; sent3 -> int1: the stationing camper happens.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: (¬{AA} & {AB}); sent3 -> int1: {B};"
] |
the fact that the outgrowing trouser does not occur but the eruption occurs is false.
|
¬(¬{BL} & {IP})
|
[] | 15 | 3 | null | 20 | 0 | 20 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the clickety-clack does not occur but the athleticsness happens is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the clickety-clack does not occur. sent2: the stationing wholesomeness happens and the outgrowing monarchist happens. sent3: both the stationing camper and the annexationalness occurs. sent4: if the annexationalness occurs the fact that the fact that the outgrowing trouser does not occur but the eruption happens is not correct is true. sent5: if the fact that the invertebrateness and the non-unifilarness occurs is wrong then that the struggling quick does not occur is not wrong. sent6: the atypicalness does not occur. sent7: that the consolation does not occur but the flooding occurs is not right. sent8: if the fact that the goal happens and the sortie does not occur is not correct then the fact that the sortie happens is not incorrect. sent9: if the sortie happens that either the real happens or the stationing precognition does not occur or both is not right. sent10: if that the fact that the realness occurs and/or the stationing precognition does not occur is correct does not hold the genocide happens. sent11: not the struggling planetoid but the ballisticness happens. sent12: that the goal occurs but the sortie does not occur is not right if the struggling quick does not occur. sent13: the fact that both the clickety-clack and the athleticsness occurs is false. sent14: if the genocide occurs then the licitness does not occur and the spreading does not occur. sent15: not the atypicalness but the struggling cabin occurs. sent16: the censoring occurs and the Florentine happens. sent17: if the clickety-clack happens and the athleticsness occurs the stationing camper does not occur. sent18: that the annexationalness occurs is true. sent19: that both the annexationalness and the stationing camper occurs is caused by that the licitness does not occur. sent20: that the leisure happens but the snag does not occur is triggered by that the exegeticness happens. sent21: that the invertebrateness and the non-unifilarness happens is wrong if the leisure happens. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that not the clickety-clack but the athleticsness happens.; sent3 -> int1: the stationing camper happens.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
something does not intercommunicate.
|
(Ex): ¬{A}x
|
sent1: something is bicapsular and/or it does outgrow viewpoint. sent2: there is something such that it is not Solomonic. sent3: something does not double and/or it does outgrow four-pounder. sent4: there is something such that it is puritanical. sent5: the buckminsterfullerene is not billiards. sent6: either something is not a pastry or it does clump or both. sent7: there is something such that it is not a workroom. sent8: the fact that something is renewable and/or it does station MT is correct. sent9: something is congressional. sent10: either something stations sentimentalist or it is not non-bicapsular or both. sent11: if there is something such that it is not billiards or is a double or both then the buckminsterfullerene is not dialectal. sent12: there exists something such that it intercommunicates. sent13: there is something such that it is non-Bohemian. sent14: if there exists something such that either it is not a sputter or it is a Toltec or both then the sentimentalist does not double. sent15: there is something such that that it is not a kind of a hurdles hold. sent16: the buckminsterfullerene does not outgrow four-pounder. sent17: something is non-avirulent. sent18: the buckminsterfullerene does not intercommunicate if there exists something such that it is not a double. sent19: the buckminsterfullerene is not a Bahaism. sent20: the buckminsterfullerene is not cosmopolitan if something is not potent and/or does struggle pascal. sent21: if there exists something such that it does not double and/or it does outgrow four-pounder the buckminsterfullerene does not intercommunicate. sent22: there is something such that it is offing or Cappadocian or both.
|
sent1: (Ex): ({G}x v {CJ}x) sent2: (Ex): ¬{BL}x sent3: (Ex): (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) sent4: (Ex): {DQ}x sent5: ¬{JF}{a} sent6: (Ex): (¬{GD}x v {CC}x) sent7: (Ex): ¬{DC}x sent8: (Ex): ({HE}x v {GI}x) sent9: (Ex): {I}x sent10: (Ex): ({CG}x v {G}x) sent11: (x): (¬{JF}x v {AA}x) -> ¬{T}{a} sent12: (Ex): {A}x sent13: (Ex): ¬{BQ}x sent14: (x): (¬{IL}x v {JC}x) -> ¬{AA}{do} sent15: (Ex): ¬{DR}x sent16: ¬{AB}{a} sent17: (Ex): ¬{EU}x sent18: (x): ¬{AA}x -> ¬{A}{a} sent19: ¬{EK}{a} sent20: (x): (¬{IR}x v {D}x) -> ¬{HP}{a} sent21: (x): (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent22: (Ex): ({IE}x v {HI}x)
|
[
"sent3 & sent21 -> int1: the buckminsterfullerene does not intercommunicate.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent21 -> int1: ¬{A}{a}; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 20 | 0 | 20 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = something does not intercommunicate. ; $context$ = sent1: something is bicapsular and/or it does outgrow viewpoint. sent2: there is something such that it is not Solomonic. sent3: something does not double and/or it does outgrow four-pounder. sent4: there is something such that it is puritanical. sent5: the buckminsterfullerene is not billiards. sent6: either something is not a pastry or it does clump or both. sent7: there is something such that it is not a workroom. sent8: the fact that something is renewable and/or it does station MT is correct. sent9: something is congressional. sent10: either something stations sentimentalist or it is not non-bicapsular or both. sent11: if there is something such that it is not billiards or is a double or both then the buckminsterfullerene is not dialectal. sent12: there exists something such that it intercommunicates. sent13: there is something such that it is non-Bohemian. sent14: if there exists something such that either it is not a sputter or it is a Toltec or both then the sentimentalist does not double. sent15: there is something such that that it is not a kind of a hurdles hold. sent16: the buckminsterfullerene does not outgrow four-pounder. sent17: something is non-avirulent. sent18: the buckminsterfullerene does not intercommunicate if there exists something such that it is not a double. sent19: the buckminsterfullerene is not a Bahaism. sent20: the buckminsterfullerene is not cosmopolitan if something is not potent and/or does struggle pascal. sent21: if there exists something such that it does not double and/or it does outgrow four-pounder the buckminsterfullerene does not intercommunicate. sent22: there is something such that it is offing or Cappadocian or both. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent21 -> int1: the buckminsterfullerene does not intercommunicate.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there exists something such that if that it is Augustan but not mercurial is not true then the fact that it is not unneurotic is not wrong is not true.
|
¬((Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x)
|
sent1: the Omani does not relay if that it is mercurial and it is not a tan is incorrect. sent2: if that something is a kind of a Gosainthan that does not struggle ventriloquist does not hold it is not reproducible. sent3: there is something such that if that it is not Augustan is true it is non-unneurotic. sent4: the Parsee is not unneurotic if it is Augustan and it is not mercurial. sent5: there exists something such that if the fact that it is both not non-Augustan and not non-mercurial is not true it is not unneurotic. sent6: if that something succumbs and is not a kind of a pinstripe is not true it is not Byzantine. sent7: the Parsee is unneurotic if the fact that it is both not non-Augustan and not mercurial is wrong. sent8: the Parsee is not unneurotic if it is not Augustan. sent9: there is something such that if that it is Augustan and it is not mercurial does not hold then it is unneurotic. sent10: if the fact that the Parsee is Augustan and it is mercurial is incorrect then it is not unneurotic. sent11: there is something such that if it is mercurial it is not unneurotic. sent12: that there is something such that if it is Augustan and is not mercurial it is not unneurotic hold. sent13: if the thenar is a kind of a contrast but it is not mercurial that it is not Byzantine is correct. sent14: if the fact that that the Parsee is unneurotic but it is not a turbinate is correct is not true that it does not speechify is true. sent15: that something is not a decay is not incorrect if that it does struggle fibrillation and does not struggle splash does not hold. sent16: there is something such that if the fact that it is a kind of a corpus that is not arteriosclerotic is incorrect it is not pharyngeal. sent17: if that the Parsee is Augustan but it is not mercurial is not correct then the fact that it is not unneurotic hold. sent18: if the fact that the splash is Augustan and it adds hazardousness is not right then it does not surmise. sent19: the Parsee is not unneurotic if the fact that it reveals and is a fellow is incorrect.
|
sent1: ¬({AB}{co} & ¬{ES}{co}) -> ¬{HP}{co} sent2: (x): ¬({AH}x & ¬{AO}x) -> ¬{EK}x sent3: (Ex): ¬{AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent4: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent5: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent6: (x): ¬({HE}x & ¬{HR}x) -> ¬{ED}x sent7: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent8: ¬{AA}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent9: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent10: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent11: (Ex): {AB}x -> ¬{B}x sent12: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent13: ({BJ}{dr} & ¬{AB}{dr}) -> ¬{ED}{dr} sent14: ¬({B}{aa} & ¬{GF}{aa}) -> ¬{DO}{aa} sent15: (x): ¬({HF}x & ¬{HJ}x) -> ¬{BD}x sent16: (Ex): ¬({DE}x & ¬{CC}x) -> ¬{ER}x sent17: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent18: ¬({AA}{bm} & {JC}{bm}) -> ¬{L}{bm} sent19: ¬({CP}{aa} & {IU}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}
|
[
"sent17 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent17 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there is something such that if that it does struggle fibrillation and it does not struggle splash is not true it is not a decay.
|
(Ex): ¬({HF}x & ¬{HJ}x) -> ¬{BD}x
|
[
"sent15 -> int1: the ER is not a decay if the fact that it struggles fibrillation and does not struggle splash is not correct.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if that it is Augustan but not mercurial is not true then the fact that it is not unneurotic is not wrong is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the Omani does not relay if that it is mercurial and it is not a tan is incorrect. sent2: if that something is a kind of a Gosainthan that does not struggle ventriloquist does not hold it is not reproducible. sent3: there is something such that if that it is not Augustan is true it is non-unneurotic. sent4: the Parsee is not unneurotic if it is Augustan and it is not mercurial. sent5: there exists something such that if the fact that it is both not non-Augustan and not non-mercurial is not true it is not unneurotic. sent6: if that something succumbs and is not a kind of a pinstripe is not true it is not Byzantine. sent7: the Parsee is unneurotic if the fact that it is both not non-Augustan and not mercurial is wrong. sent8: the Parsee is not unneurotic if it is not Augustan. sent9: there is something such that if that it is Augustan and it is not mercurial does not hold then it is unneurotic. sent10: if the fact that the Parsee is Augustan and it is mercurial is incorrect then it is not unneurotic. sent11: there is something such that if it is mercurial it is not unneurotic. sent12: that there is something such that if it is Augustan and is not mercurial it is not unneurotic hold. sent13: if the thenar is a kind of a contrast but it is not mercurial that it is not Byzantine is correct. sent14: if the fact that that the Parsee is unneurotic but it is not a turbinate is correct is not true that it does not speechify is true. sent15: that something is not a decay is not incorrect if that it does struggle fibrillation and does not struggle splash does not hold. sent16: there is something such that if the fact that it is a kind of a corpus that is not arteriosclerotic is incorrect it is not pharyngeal. sent17: if that the Parsee is Augustan but it is not mercurial is not correct then the fact that it is not unneurotic hold. sent18: if the fact that the splash is Augustan and it adds hazardousness is not right then it does not surmise. sent19: the Parsee is not unneurotic if the fact that it reveals and is a fellow is incorrect. ; $proof$ =
|
sent17 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the aerobicsness occurs or the inquisitorialness happens or both.
|
({B} v {C})
|
sent1: if the rushing occurs then the aerobicsness happens. sent2: if that the stationing maenad does not occur is not wrong both the rushing and the Polynesianness happens.
|
sent1: {AA} -> {B} sent2: ¬{A} -> ({AA} & {AB})
|
[] |
[] | null | null |
[] | null | 4 | null | 0 | 0 | 0 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the aerobicsness occurs or the inquisitorialness happens or both. ; $context$ = sent1: if the rushing occurs then the aerobicsness happens. sent2: if that the stationing maenad does not occur is not wrong both the rushing and the Polynesianness happens. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the sucker is filial but it is not a paintball does not hold.
|
¬({C}{c} & ¬{D}{c})
|
sent1: that something is not a piety and does outgrow reported does not hold if it is not a hypobasidium. sent2: if the fact that the outcaste outgrows waterer is true then the sucker outgrows apology. sent3: something is not a Spheniscus and uncoils if it does salaam. sent4: if that the outcaste is not a piety but it does outgrow reported is not correct it does outgrow waterer. sent5: if the Toltec does not outgrow waterer then the sucker does not outgrow apology. sent6: the fact that the outcaste is not non-Grenadian but it does not struggle jumping is not true. sent7: if that the outcaste is a kind of Grenadian thing that does not struggle jumping is incorrect the Toltec does not outgrow waterer. sent8: if something does not outgrow apology then it is filial and it is not a paintball. sent9: something is filial if it does not outgrow apology. sent10: the Toltec does not doss and is a salaam. sent11: that something is filial but not a paintball is not correct if it does outgrow apology.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{G}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & {F}x) sent2: {B}{a} -> {A}{c} sent3: (x): {J}x -> (¬{H}x & {I}x) sent4: ¬(¬{E}{a} & {F}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent5: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬{A}{c} sent6: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent7: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent8: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({C}x & ¬{D}x) sent9: (x): ¬{A}x -> {C}x sent10: (¬{K}{b} & {J}{b}) sent11: (x): {A}x -> ¬({C}x & ¬{D}x)
|
[
"sent7 & sent6 -> int1: the Toltec does not outgrow waterer.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the sucker does not outgrow apology.; sent8 -> int3: the sucker is filial thing that is not a paintball if it does not outgrow apology.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent7 & sent6 -> int1: ¬{B}{b}; int1 & sent5 -> int2: ¬{A}{c}; sent8 -> int3: ¬{A}{c} -> ({C}{c} & ¬{D}{c}); int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the sucker is both filial and not a paintball is incorrect.
|
¬({C}{c} & ¬{D}{c})
|
[
"sent11 -> int4: that the sucker is filial but it is not a paintball is wrong if it outgrows apology.; sent1 -> int5: that if the outcaste is not the hypobasidium the fact that the outcaste is not a piety and outgrows reported is incorrect hold.; sent3 -> int6: the Toltec is not a kind of a Spheniscus but it uncoils if it is a kind of a salaam.; sent10 -> int7: the Toltec is a kind of a salaam.; int6 & int7 -> int8: the Toltec is not a Spheniscus but it uncoils.; int8 -> int9: something is not a kind of a Spheniscus but it uncoils.;"
] | 8 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the sucker is filial but it is not a paintball does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is not a piety and does outgrow reported does not hold if it is not a hypobasidium. sent2: if the fact that the outcaste outgrows waterer is true then the sucker outgrows apology. sent3: something is not a Spheniscus and uncoils if it does salaam. sent4: if that the outcaste is not a piety but it does outgrow reported is not correct it does outgrow waterer. sent5: if the Toltec does not outgrow waterer then the sucker does not outgrow apology. sent6: the fact that the outcaste is not non-Grenadian but it does not struggle jumping is not true. sent7: if that the outcaste is a kind of Grenadian thing that does not struggle jumping is incorrect the Toltec does not outgrow waterer. sent8: if something does not outgrow apology then it is filial and it is not a paintball. sent9: something is filial if it does not outgrow apology. sent10: the Toltec does not doss and is a salaam. sent11: that something is filial but not a paintball is not correct if it does outgrow apology. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 & sent6 -> int1: the Toltec does not outgrow waterer.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the sucker does not outgrow apology.; sent8 -> int3: the sucker is filial thing that is not a paintball if it does not outgrow apology.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the mango is not a footwear and is not a Tetrao.
|
(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})
|
sent1: if something does station gobble then it is not a kind of a footwear and it is not a Tetrao. sent2: the ninja is behavioral. sent3: something is a footwear and it does station gobble if it does not struggle Riga. sent4: the mango is non-run-on. sent5: the mango does station gobble and struggles Riga. sent6: the obverse does not struggle lifework and is a M-theory if it stations clawed. sent7: the internuncio is not a Tetrao and it is not a stupid. sent8: something that does sink is a kind of effervescent thing that is not a kind of a footwear. sent9: the mango does not struggle Riga if it is a kind of a Winchester. sent10: the obverse is behavioral if that the ninja is not behavioral is not incorrect. sent11: the mango struggles Riga. sent12: if something stations gobble then it is not a Tetrao. sent13: if the obverse is behavioral it stations clawed.
|
sent1: (x): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent2: {F}{c} sent3: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({AA}x & {A}x) sent4: ¬{BB}{aa} sent5: ({A}{aa} & {B}{aa}) sent6: {E}{b} -> (¬{D}{b} & {C}{b}) sent7: (¬{AB}{bt} & ¬{DS}{bt}) sent8: (x): {H}x -> (¬{FQ}x & ¬{AA}x) sent9: {CH}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent10: {F}{c} -> {F}{b} sent11: {B}{aa} sent12: (x): {A}x -> ¬{AB}x sent13: {F}{b} -> {E}{b}
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: if the mango stations gobble then it is not a footwear and not a Tetrao.; sent5 -> int2: the mango stations gobble.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); sent5 -> int2: {A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
if the mango sinks it is not noneffervescent and it is not a kind of a footwear.
|
{H}{aa} -> (¬{FQ}{aa} & ¬{AA}{aa})
|
[
"sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 2 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the mango is not a footwear and is not a Tetrao. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does station gobble then it is not a kind of a footwear and it is not a Tetrao. sent2: the ninja is behavioral. sent3: something is a footwear and it does station gobble if it does not struggle Riga. sent4: the mango is non-run-on. sent5: the mango does station gobble and struggles Riga. sent6: the obverse does not struggle lifework and is a M-theory if it stations clawed. sent7: the internuncio is not a Tetrao and it is not a stupid. sent8: something that does sink is a kind of effervescent thing that is not a kind of a footwear. sent9: the mango does not struggle Riga if it is a kind of a Winchester. sent10: the obverse is behavioral if that the ninja is not behavioral is not incorrect. sent11: the mango struggles Riga. sent12: if something stations gobble then it is not a Tetrao. sent13: if the obverse is behavioral it stations clawed. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: if the mango stations gobble then it is not a footwear and not a Tetrao.; sent5 -> int2: the mango stations gobble.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the specimen is not a humanitarian is not false.
|
¬{AA}{a}
|
sent1: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not indestructible and it is not a kind of a whizbang is incorrect the fact that the polygamist is indestructible is right. sent2: everything is Bohemian and it is a aquatics. sent3: if there exists something such that it is not a petitioner the fact that that the succinylcholine is conjunct thing that does not station Bolshevik is not correct is true. sent4: the dicamptodon is re-entrant. sent5: if there exists something such that it is Bohemian then the oxidation either is catechistic or is a coneflower or both. sent6: the specimen is not humanitarian and it is not a strafer if it is not a coneflower. sent7: the pump is not a neurotic if the fact that the mesoderm is not neurotic and does not outgrow crumpet is not right. sent8: if the oxidation is catechistic that the specimen is a kind of a humanitarian is not incorrect. sent9: if the polygamist is indestructible then that the mesoderm is not a neurotic and it does not outgrow crumpet does not hold. sent10: if that the succinylcholine is conjunct and does not station Bolshevik is not right that the pump is conjunct is not incorrect. sent11: a Bohemian thing that is a aquatics is not catechistic. sent12: if the dicamptodon is re-entrant the attacker is not a Aulostomidae. sent13: the fact that the specimen is not a coneflower is true. sent14: if the attacker is not a Aulostomidae the briquette is not a sneeze but a hunt. sent15: the passer does not struggle Kwanzaa. sent16: the butterbean is a kind of lighted thing that does not outgrow myringoplasty if something is not a sneeze. sent17: the fact that the passer is not indestructible and it is not a whizbang is not correct if it does not struggle Kwanzaa. sent18: if the butterbean lights but it does not outgrow myringoplasty then the hypocrite is not a kind of a petitioner. sent19: something is pupillary if it is conjunct and it is unneurotic. sent20: the lodger is a Bohemian and it is a kind of a aquatics if something is pupillary. sent21: if something is not catechistic then the fact that it is not a coneflower and it is a strafer does not hold.
|
sent1: (x): ¬(¬{J}x & ¬{P}x) -> {J}{h} sent2: (x): ({C}x & {D}x) sent3: (x): ¬{I}x -> ¬({F}{e} & ¬{H}{e}) sent4: {R}{m} sent5: (x): {C}x -> ({B}{b} v {A}{b}) sent6: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent7: ¬(¬{G}{f} & ¬{K}{f}) -> ¬{G}{d} sent8: {B}{b} -> {AA}{a} sent9: {J}{h} -> ¬(¬{G}{f} & ¬{K}{f}) sent10: ¬({F}{e} & ¬{H}{e}) -> {F}{d} sent11: (x): ({C}x & {D}x) -> ¬{B}x sent12: {R}{m} -> ¬{Q}{l} sent13: ¬{A}{a} sent14: ¬{Q}{l} -> (¬{N}{j} & {O}{j}) sent15: ¬{S}{k} sent16: (x): ¬{N}x -> ({L}{i} & ¬{M}{i}) sent17: ¬{S}{k} -> ¬(¬{J}{k} & ¬{P}{k}) sent18: ({L}{i} & ¬{M}{i}) -> ¬{I}{g} sent19: (x): ({F}x & ¬{G}x) -> {E}x sent20: (x): {E}x -> ({C}{c} & {D}{c}) sent21: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & {AB}x)
|
[
"sent6 & sent13 -> int1: the specimen is not humanitarian and it is not a kind of a strafer.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 & sent13 -> int1: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the albatross is not a strafer.
|
¬{AB}{bh}
|
[
"sent21 -> int2: that the specimen is not a coneflower but it is a strafer is not right if it is not catechistic.; sent11 -> int3: the oxidation is not catechistic if it is both a Bohemian and a aquatics.; sent2 -> int4: the oxidation is a Bohemian and it is a aquatics.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the oxidation is not catechistic.; int5 -> int6: everything is not catechistic.; int6 -> int7: the specimen is not catechistic.; int2 & int7 -> int8: the fact that the specimen is not a kind of a coneflower but it is a strafer is incorrect.; int8 -> int9: there is something such that the fact that it is both not a coneflower and a strafer is not correct.;"
] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the specimen is not a humanitarian is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not indestructible and it is not a kind of a whizbang is incorrect the fact that the polygamist is indestructible is right. sent2: everything is Bohemian and it is a aquatics. sent3: if there exists something such that it is not a petitioner the fact that that the succinylcholine is conjunct thing that does not station Bolshevik is not correct is true. sent4: the dicamptodon is re-entrant. sent5: if there exists something such that it is Bohemian then the oxidation either is catechistic or is a coneflower or both. sent6: the specimen is not humanitarian and it is not a strafer if it is not a coneflower. sent7: the pump is not a neurotic if the fact that the mesoderm is not neurotic and does not outgrow crumpet is not right. sent8: if the oxidation is catechistic that the specimen is a kind of a humanitarian is not incorrect. sent9: if the polygamist is indestructible then that the mesoderm is not a neurotic and it does not outgrow crumpet does not hold. sent10: if that the succinylcholine is conjunct and does not station Bolshevik is not right that the pump is conjunct is not incorrect. sent11: a Bohemian thing that is a aquatics is not catechistic. sent12: if the dicamptodon is re-entrant the attacker is not a Aulostomidae. sent13: the fact that the specimen is not a coneflower is true. sent14: if the attacker is not a Aulostomidae the briquette is not a sneeze but a hunt. sent15: the passer does not struggle Kwanzaa. sent16: the butterbean is a kind of lighted thing that does not outgrow myringoplasty if something is not a sneeze. sent17: the fact that the passer is not indestructible and it is not a whizbang is not correct if it does not struggle Kwanzaa. sent18: if the butterbean lights but it does not outgrow myringoplasty then the hypocrite is not a kind of a petitioner. sent19: something is pupillary if it is conjunct and it is unneurotic. sent20: the lodger is a Bohemian and it is a kind of a aquatics if something is pupillary. sent21: if something is not catechistic then the fact that it is not a coneflower and it is a strafer does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 & sent13 -> int1: the specimen is not humanitarian and it is not a kind of a strafer.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the wild adds circumference.
|
{E}{a}
|
sent1: if something does not untie then the fact that it outgrows Khabarovsk is true. sent2: the wild is icterogenic. sent3: if the graphite is not a kind of a bonsai it accomplishes. sent4: if something does not untie and/or is a bonsai then it adds circumference. sent5: the enchanter worsens and does struggle ploce if there exists something such that that it outgrows novillero hold. sent6: the wild is not non-.45-caliber and it is ecological. sent7: the wild does station Clupeidae or outgrows Khabarovsk or both. sent8: either the wild does not untie or it struggles Sabaoth or both. sent9: there is something such that it does struggle ploce. sent10: if either something is not a Islamabad or it is unappealable or both then that it is a cut-in hold. sent11: that the circumference unties is not wrong. sent12: that the flask does outgrow Khabarovsk is not wrong. sent13: if something does not outgrow Khabarovsk it is a bonsai. sent14: something does not add circumference if it does struggle ploce.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{D}x -> {C}x sent2: {EL}{a} sent3: ¬{B}{cm} -> {K}{cm} sent4: (x): (¬{D}x v {B}x) -> {E}x sent5: (x): {JA}x -> ({AC}{iu} & {A}{iu}) sent6: ({GA}{a} & {CK}{a}) sent7: ({IG}{a} v {C}{a}) sent8: (¬{D}{a} v {GK}{a}) sent9: (Ex): {A}x sent10: (x): (¬{CP}x v {BJ}x) -> {AO}x sent11: {D}{jd} sent12: {C}{bu} sent13: (x): ¬{C}x -> {B}x sent14: (x): {A}x -> ¬{E}x
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: the fact that the wild adds circumference is true if it does not untie or it is a bonsai or both.;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> int1: (¬{D}{a} v {B}{a}) -> {E}{a};"
] |
that the wild does not add circumference is true.
|
¬{E}{a}
|
[
"sent14 -> int2: if the wild does struggle ploce it does not add circumference.;"
] | 5 | 4 | null | 12 | 0 | 12 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the wild adds circumference. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not untie then the fact that it outgrows Khabarovsk is true. sent2: the wild is icterogenic. sent3: if the graphite is not a kind of a bonsai it accomplishes. sent4: if something does not untie and/or is a bonsai then it adds circumference. sent5: the enchanter worsens and does struggle ploce if there exists something such that that it outgrows novillero hold. sent6: the wild is not non-.45-caliber and it is ecological. sent7: the wild does station Clupeidae or outgrows Khabarovsk or both. sent8: either the wild does not untie or it struggles Sabaoth or both. sent9: there is something such that it does struggle ploce. sent10: if either something is not a Islamabad or it is unappealable or both then that it is a cut-in hold. sent11: that the circumference unties is not wrong. sent12: that the flask does outgrow Khabarovsk is not wrong. sent13: if something does not outgrow Khabarovsk it is a bonsai. sent14: something does not add circumference if it does struggle ploce. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> int1: the fact that the wild adds circumference is true if it does not untie or it is a bonsai or both.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the kiss is not a subgroup or it is not nonfunctional or both is false.
|
¬(¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa})
|
sent1: the dimple is non-myelic and does not station tenpins if the Limburger does not struggle humanitarianism. sent2: that something is not a subgroup or not nonfunctional or both does not hold if it is myelic. sent3: something is not a subgroup and/or it is not nonfunctional if it is not myelic. sent4: the fact that the bacitracin is not a subgroup is not incorrect if the dimple is not myelic and it does not station tenpins. sent5: either the kiss is not a kind of a subgroup or it is not functional or both. sent6: something is a subgroup or is not nonfunctional or both if it is not myelic. sent7: The tenpins does not station kiss. sent8: the kiss does not station tenpins. sent9: the kiss is a subgroup and/or it is not nonfunctional if it is not myelic. sent10: if the kiss does not station tenpins that it is not myelic hold. sent11: if that the kiss does not station tenpins is not incorrect then it does not struggle scrod. sent12: if that the dimple is myelic is true then the kiss is myelic. sent13: if the retrorocket is not bubaline then it is not brisant and/or is not myelic.
|
sent1: ¬{C}{b} -> (¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent2: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent3: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent4: (¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{AA}{fp} sent5: (¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent6: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent7: ¬{AC}{ab} sent8: ¬{B}{aa} sent9: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent10: ¬{B}{aa} -> ¬{A}{aa} sent11: ¬{B}{aa} -> ¬{BJ}{aa} sent12: {A}{a} -> {A}{aa} sent13: ¬{R}{j} -> (¬{CU}{j} v ¬{A}{j})
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: the kiss is not a subgroup or it is not nonfunctional or both if it is not myelic.; sent10 & sent8 -> int2: the kiss is not myelic.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}); sent10 & sent8 -> int2: ¬{A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the bacitracin is not a kind of a subgroup.
|
¬{AA}{fp}
|
[] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the kiss is not a subgroup or it is not nonfunctional or both is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the dimple is non-myelic and does not station tenpins if the Limburger does not struggle humanitarianism. sent2: that something is not a subgroup or not nonfunctional or both does not hold if it is myelic. sent3: something is not a subgroup and/or it is not nonfunctional if it is not myelic. sent4: the fact that the bacitracin is not a subgroup is not incorrect if the dimple is not myelic and it does not station tenpins. sent5: either the kiss is not a kind of a subgroup or it is not functional or both. sent6: something is a subgroup or is not nonfunctional or both if it is not myelic. sent7: The tenpins does not station kiss. sent8: the kiss does not station tenpins. sent9: the kiss is a subgroup and/or it is not nonfunctional if it is not myelic. sent10: if the kiss does not station tenpins that it is not myelic hold. sent11: if that the kiss does not station tenpins is not incorrect then it does not struggle scrod. sent12: if that the dimple is myelic is true then the kiss is myelic. sent13: if the retrorocket is not bubaline then it is not brisant and/or is not myelic. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> int1: the kiss is not a subgroup or it is not nonfunctional or both if it is not myelic.; sent10 & sent8 -> int2: the kiss is not myelic.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the oast does not struggle Scribe and is a baronetage.
|
(¬{C}{b} & {D}{b})
|
sent1: the truant does discourage and stations shellfire. sent2: something is not a pinche and struggles Scribe if it does discourage. sent3: the truant does struggle Scribe. sent4: the oast is a baronetage. sent5: the oast is not a Ficus and stations bottle-tree. sent6: if the truant does not discourage then that the oast does not struggle Scribe but it is a baronetage is not true. sent7: the oast is a baronetage if the truant stations shellfire. sent8: the oast does not station shellfire and is nonlinear. sent9: the truant is a baronetage. sent10: the Herero is both not terrestrial and cryogenic.
|
sent1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent2: (x): {A}x -> (¬{CG}x & {C}x) sent3: {C}{a} sent4: {D}{b} sent5: (¬{CC}{b} & {DM}{b}) sent6: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{C}{b} & {D}{b}) sent7: {B}{a} -> {D}{b} sent8: (¬{B}{b} & {GJ}{b}) sent9: {D}{a} sent10: (¬{FE}{l} & {AT}{l})
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: the truant stations shellfire.;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: {B}{a};"
] |
the fence is not a pinche and does struggle Scribe.
|
(¬{CG}{ij} & {C}{ij})
|
[
"sent2 -> int2: the fence is not a pinche and struggles Scribe if it does discourage.;"
] | 5 | 2 | null | 9 | 0 | 9 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the oast does not struggle Scribe and is a baronetage. ; $context$ = sent1: the truant does discourage and stations shellfire. sent2: something is not a pinche and struggles Scribe if it does discourage. sent3: the truant does struggle Scribe. sent4: the oast is a baronetage. sent5: the oast is not a Ficus and stations bottle-tree. sent6: if the truant does not discourage then that the oast does not struggle Scribe but it is a baronetage is not true. sent7: the oast is a baronetage if the truant stations shellfire. sent8: the oast does not station shellfire and is nonlinear. sent9: the truant is a baronetage. sent10: the Herero is both not terrestrial and cryogenic. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: the truant stations shellfire.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the stirk is not noncaloric and is not a fettle.
|
(¬{C}{b} & ¬{B}{b})
|
sent1: that the triangle is a fulfillment and a gurnard is wrong. sent2: the fact that the stirk is noncaloric and is not a fettle is false. sent3: the ophthalmologist is dead if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a fulfillment and it is not a gurnard is not right. sent4: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a gurnard and it is not a fulfillment is wrong then the triangle is a dead. sent5: that the stirk is noncaloric and is not a fettle is not correct if the ophthalmologist is a dead. sent6: there is something such that it is a kind of a fulfillment and it is not a gurnard. sent7: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a fulfillment that is not a kind of a dead does not hold. sent8: that the stirk is a kind of non-noncaloric a fettle does not hold if the ophthalmologist is a dead. sent9: the ophthalmologist is a kind of a dead if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a gurnard is not correct. sent10: if the ophthalmologist is a kind of a dead the fact that the stirk is not noncaloric and it does not fettle does not hold. sent11: something is non-noncaloric if the fact that it is non-noncaloric thing that is a dead is not correct. sent12: that the triangle is a fulfillment but not a gurnard is not right. sent13: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a fulfillment and it is a kind of a gurnard does not hold. sent14: the fact that the triangle does struggle Adrian but it is not a towpath is false. sent15: the fact that the stirk is not noncaloric and it is not a dead is incorrect if that the ophthalmologist is a kind of a fettle hold. sent16: the fact that the triangle is not a fettle and is not a gurnard is wrong. sent17: if the ophthalmologist is noncaloric that the triangle is not a dead and not a fulfillment does not hold. sent18: the fact that the stirk is not noncaloric and fettles is not right.
|
sent1: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent2: ¬({C}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent3: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent4: (x): ¬({AB}x & ¬{AA}x) -> {A}{aa} sent5: {A}{a} -> ¬({C}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent6: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent7: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{A}x) sent8: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{C}{b} & {B}{b}) sent9: (x): {AB}x -> {A}{a} sent10: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{C}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent11: (x): ¬({C}x & {A}x) -> ¬{C}x sent12: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent13: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent14: ¬({JF}{aa} & ¬{AM}{aa}) sent15: {B}{a} -> ¬(¬{C}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent16: ¬(¬{B}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent17: {C}{a} -> ¬(¬{A}{aa} & ¬{AA}{aa}) sent18: ¬(¬{C}{b} & {B}{b})
|
[
"sent12 -> int1: there exists something such that the fact that it is a fulfillment and is not a kind of a gurnard is not true.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the ophthalmologist is dead.; sent10 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent12 -> int1: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x); int1 & sent3 -> int2: {A}{a}; sent10 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the stirk is not noncaloric and not a fettle.
|
(¬{C}{b} & ¬{B}{b})
|
[
"sent11 -> int3: the stirk is not noncaloric if that it is noncaloric and it is dead is false.;"
] | 4 | 3 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the stirk is not noncaloric and is not a fettle. ; $context$ = sent1: that the triangle is a fulfillment and a gurnard is wrong. sent2: the fact that the stirk is noncaloric and is not a fettle is false. sent3: the ophthalmologist is dead if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a fulfillment and it is not a gurnard is not right. sent4: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a gurnard and it is not a fulfillment is wrong then the triangle is a dead. sent5: that the stirk is noncaloric and is not a fettle is not correct if the ophthalmologist is a dead. sent6: there is something such that it is a kind of a fulfillment and it is not a gurnard. sent7: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a fulfillment that is not a kind of a dead does not hold. sent8: that the stirk is a kind of non-noncaloric a fettle does not hold if the ophthalmologist is a dead. sent9: the ophthalmologist is a kind of a dead if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a gurnard is not correct. sent10: if the ophthalmologist is a kind of a dead the fact that the stirk is not noncaloric and it does not fettle does not hold. sent11: something is non-noncaloric if the fact that it is non-noncaloric thing that is a dead is not correct. sent12: that the triangle is a fulfillment but not a gurnard is not right. sent13: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a fulfillment and it is a kind of a gurnard does not hold. sent14: the fact that the triangle does struggle Adrian but it is not a towpath is false. sent15: the fact that the stirk is not noncaloric and it is not a dead is incorrect if that the ophthalmologist is a kind of a fettle hold. sent16: the fact that the triangle is not a fettle and is not a gurnard is wrong. sent17: if the ophthalmologist is noncaloric that the triangle is not a dead and not a fulfillment does not hold. sent18: the fact that the stirk is not noncaloric and fettles is not right. ; $proof$ =
|
sent12 -> int1: there exists something such that the fact that it is a fulfillment and is not a kind of a gurnard is not true.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the ophthalmologist is dead.; sent10 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the curd is a Lanthanotus is true.
|
{C}{a}
|
sent1: if something is exoergic then it is not a clarence and it is a downstage. sent2: everything is a kind of a swash and/or is antemortem. sent3: the fact that the curd is a clarence is not incorrect. sent4: if the saltation is a kind of a downstage then the curd is a kind of a Lanthanotus. sent5: the saltation is a Lanthanotus if the curd is a kind of a downstage. sent6: the curd is a Lanthanotus if the saltation is a clarence. sent7: that everything is a clarence and/or is a kind of a Lanthanotus is right. sent8: the fact that the curd is a Lanthanotus and it is a kind of a clarence is incorrect if the epiphenomenon is not a kind of a downstage. sent9: either everything is a kind of a Lanthanotus or it is a clarence or both. sent10: if that the curd is a clarence is true the fact that the saltation is a Lanthanotus is right. sent11: the curd is a clarence if the saltation is a Lanthanotus. sent12: everything is a clarence or is downstage or both. sent13: if the whippoorwill is exoergic and it is eccrine then the epiphenomenon is not a downstage.
|
sent1: (x): {D}x -> (¬{A}x & {B}x) sent2: (x): ({M}x v {HS}x) sent3: {A}{a} sent4: {B}{aa} -> {C}{a} sent5: {B}{a} -> {C}{aa} sent6: {A}{aa} -> {C}{a} sent7: (x): ({A}x v {C}x) sent8: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬({C}{a} & {A}{a}) sent9: (x): ({C}x v {A}x) sent10: {A}{a} -> {C}{aa} sent11: {C}{aa} -> {A}{a} sent12: (x): ({A}x v {B}x) sent13: ({D}{c} & {E}{c}) -> ¬{B}{b}
|
[
"sent12 -> int1: the saltation is a clarence and/or it is a kind of a downstage.; int1 & sent6 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent12 -> int1: ({A}{aa} v {B}{aa}); int1 & sent6 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the curd is not a kind of a Lanthanotus.
|
¬{C}{a}
|
[] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the curd is a Lanthanotus is true. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is exoergic then it is not a clarence and it is a downstage. sent2: everything is a kind of a swash and/or is antemortem. sent3: the fact that the curd is a clarence is not incorrect. sent4: if the saltation is a kind of a downstage then the curd is a kind of a Lanthanotus. sent5: the saltation is a Lanthanotus if the curd is a kind of a downstage. sent6: the curd is a Lanthanotus if the saltation is a clarence. sent7: that everything is a clarence and/or is a kind of a Lanthanotus is right. sent8: the fact that the curd is a Lanthanotus and it is a kind of a clarence is incorrect if the epiphenomenon is not a kind of a downstage. sent9: either everything is a kind of a Lanthanotus or it is a clarence or both. sent10: if that the curd is a clarence is true the fact that the saltation is a Lanthanotus is right. sent11: the curd is a clarence if the saltation is a Lanthanotus. sent12: everything is a clarence or is downstage or both. sent13: if the whippoorwill is exoergic and it is eccrine then the epiphenomenon is not a downstage. ; $proof$ =
|
sent12 -> int1: the saltation is a clarence and/or it is a kind of a downstage.; int1 & sent6 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the dogsbody is not hostile or it is not a Sabaoth or both.
|
(¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a})
|
sent1: the dogsbody is delicate. sent2: the dogsbody is not a kind of a Cervus. sent3: if something stations appliance then the pusher is Victorian or it is not a cleaning or both. sent4: if the pusher is a Victorian or it is not a cleaning or both the fact that the lid is not a kind of a cleaning hold. sent5: that the inositol is a hostile is not incorrect if that the dogsbody either is a Sabaoth or does not lapidate or both is wrong. sent6: there exists something such that the fact that it does not shuck and it is not a beep is false. sent7: the dogsbody is hostile or it is not a Sabaoth or both. sent8: the fact that the distillation adds distillation is not wrong. sent9: the fact that something lapidates and is a kind of a boatload is wrong if it is not a kind of a cleaning. sent10: if there exists something such that the fact that the fact that it is a real that is not hypertonic hold is incorrect then the antiseptic is peaty. sent11: the inositol does not lapidate if there is something such that the fact that it does not shuck and it is not a beep is false. sent12: if the distillation does add distillation then the fact that the antiseptic is leptorrhine but it is not a kind of a centennial is not true. sent13: there exists something such that the fact that it lapidates and is not a Sabaoth is incorrect. sent14: that something is either not a hostile or not a Sabaoth or both does not hold if it does not beep. sent15: that the inositol lapidates hold if the fact that the dogsbody is not a kind of a hostile and/or it is not a Sabaoth is not true. sent16: there is something such that that it is a kind of a real and it is not hypertonic is wrong. sent17: if the antiseptic is centennial and peaty the loosestrife is not a seizure. sent18: if the loosestrife is not a kind of a seizure then it stations appliance and is a bullshit. sent19: if the dogsbody does lapidate then the fact that the geomancer does lapidate hold. sent20: there is something such that that it is hostile thing that is not a Sabaoth is wrong. sent21: the antiseptic is a kind of a centennial if that it is both leptorrhine and not centennial is not right.
|
sent1: {FJ}{a} sent2: ¬{CL}{a} sent3: (x): {F}x -> ({G}{d} v ¬{E}{d}) sent4: ({G}{d} v ¬{E}{d}) -> ¬{E}{c} sent5: ¬({AB}{a} v ¬{B}{a}) -> {AA}{b} sent6: (Ex): ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{A}x) sent7: ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent8: {N}{g} sent9: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬({B}x & {D}x) sent10: (x): ¬({M}x & ¬{L}x) -> {K}{f} sent11: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{B}{b} sent12: {N}{g} -> ¬({O}{f} & ¬{J}{f}) sent13: (Ex): ¬({B}x & ¬{AB}x) sent14: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent15: ¬(¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent16: (Ex): ¬({M}x & ¬{L}x) sent17: ({J}{f} & {K}{f}) -> ¬{I}{e} sent18: ¬{I}{e} -> ({F}{e} & {H}{e}) sent19: {B}{a} -> {B}{bs} sent20: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent21: ¬({O}{f} & ¬{J}{f}) -> {J}{f}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the dogsbody is not a hostile and/or it is not a Sabaoth is false.; sent15 & assump1 -> int1: the inositol lapidates.; sent6 & sent11 -> int2: the inositol does not lapidate.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}); sent15 & assump1 -> int1: {B}{b}; sent6 & sent11 -> int2: ¬{B}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that either the dogsbody is non-hostile or it is not a Sabaoth or both is false.
|
¬(¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a})
|
[
"sent14 -> int4: if the dogsbody does not beep the fact that either it is not a hostile or it is not a Sabaoth or both is not correct.; sent9 -> int5: the fact that the lid does lapidate and is a boatload is incorrect if it is not cleaning.; sent12 & sent8 -> int6: that the antiseptic is leptorrhine but it is not centennial is not correct.; sent21 & int6 -> int7: the antiseptic is a centennial.; sent16 & sent10 -> int8: the antiseptic is peaty.; int7 & int8 -> int9: the antiseptic is a kind of a centennial and it is peaty.; sent17 & int9 -> int10: the loosestrife is not a kind of a seizure.; sent18 & int10 -> int11: the loosestrife stations appliance and it is a bullshit.; int11 -> int12: the loosestrife does station appliance.; int12 -> int13: something does station appliance.; int13 & sent3 -> int14: either the pusher is a Victorian or it does not clean or both.; sent4 & int14 -> int15: the lid is not a cleaning.; int5 & int15 -> int16: that the lid lapidates and it is a boatload does not hold.; int16 -> int17: there is something such that the fact that it lapidates and is a boatload is wrong.;"
] | 16 | 3 | 3 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the dogsbody is not hostile or it is not a Sabaoth or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the dogsbody is delicate. sent2: the dogsbody is not a kind of a Cervus. sent3: if something stations appliance then the pusher is Victorian or it is not a cleaning or both. sent4: if the pusher is a Victorian or it is not a cleaning or both the fact that the lid is not a kind of a cleaning hold. sent5: that the inositol is a hostile is not incorrect if that the dogsbody either is a Sabaoth or does not lapidate or both is wrong. sent6: there exists something such that the fact that it does not shuck and it is not a beep is false. sent7: the dogsbody is hostile or it is not a Sabaoth or both. sent8: the fact that the distillation adds distillation is not wrong. sent9: the fact that something lapidates and is a kind of a boatload is wrong if it is not a kind of a cleaning. sent10: if there exists something such that the fact that the fact that it is a real that is not hypertonic hold is incorrect then the antiseptic is peaty. sent11: the inositol does not lapidate if there is something such that the fact that it does not shuck and it is not a beep is false. sent12: if the distillation does add distillation then the fact that the antiseptic is leptorrhine but it is not a kind of a centennial is not true. sent13: there exists something such that the fact that it lapidates and is not a Sabaoth is incorrect. sent14: that something is either not a hostile or not a Sabaoth or both does not hold if it does not beep. sent15: that the inositol lapidates hold if the fact that the dogsbody is not a kind of a hostile and/or it is not a Sabaoth is not true. sent16: there is something such that that it is a kind of a real and it is not hypertonic is wrong. sent17: if the antiseptic is centennial and peaty the loosestrife is not a seizure. sent18: if the loosestrife is not a kind of a seizure then it stations appliance and is a bullshit. sent19: if the dogsbody does lapidate then the fact that the geomancer does lapidate hold. sent20: there is something such that that it is hostile thing that is not a Sabaoth is wrong. sent21: the antiseptic is a kind of a centennial if that it is both leptorrhine and not centennial is not right. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the dogsbody is not a hostile and/or it is not a Sabaoth is false.; sent15 & assump1 -> int1: the inositol lapidates.; sent6 & sent11 -> int2: the inositol does not lapidate.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a terminal then it is non-sociocultural and not non-full-time does not hold.
|
¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x))
|
sent1: something is not Pacific but it is sociocultural if that it is not smaller is not wrong. sent2: there is something such that if it is not a terminal it is sociocultural and it is full-time. sent3: the mezzanine is not sociocultural but it is full-time if the fact that it is a terminal is true. sent4: there is something such that if it is not bony it is not mayoral. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not a terminal it is full-time. sent6: the fact that there is something such that if the fact that it is not an epic is not wrong then it is unhealthy is true. sent7: the mezzanine is not sociocultural but it is full-time if it is not a terminal. sent8: if the mezzanine is not terminal then it is not sociocultural. sent9: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a terminal then it is not sociocultural.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{HO}x -> (¬{FI}x & {AA}x) sent2: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent4: (Ex): ¬{IE}x -> ¬{EA}x sent5: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> {AB}x sent6: (Ex): ¬{FU}x -> {HL}x sent7: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent8: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬{AA}{aa} sent9: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬{AA}x
|
[
"sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the kingsnake is not a Pacific but sociocultural if it is not smaller.
|
¬{HO}{dj} -> (¬{FI}{dj} & {AA}{dj})
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a terminal then it is non-sociocultural and not non-full-time does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not Pacific but it is sociocultural if that it is not smaller is not wrong. sent2: there is something such that if it is not a terminal it is sociocultural and it is full-time. sent3: the mezzanine is not sociocultural but it is full-time if the fact that it is a terminal is true. sent4: there is something such that if it is not bony it is not mayoral. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not a terminal it is full-time. sent6: the fact that there is something such that if the fact that it is not an epic is not wrong then it is unhealthy is true. sent7: the mezzanine is not sociocultural but it is full-time if it is not a terminal. sent8: if the mezzanine is not terminal then it is not sociocultural. sent9: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a terminal then it is not sociocultural. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the wax is azimuthal and it is a kind of a Sayda.
|
({A}{a} & {C}{a})
|
sent1: the silicone is a kind of a Sayda. sent2: that something is a Sayda or it does not struggle redress or both is not right if it is a kind of a ready. sent3: either the wax is non-azimuthal or it does struggle redress or both. sent4: the wax is not indiscreet. sent5: the wax is a antihypertensive. sent6: if something is a Rhine then it does not struggle redress and is a ready. sent7: if the wax does not outgrow Exmoor it is a Rhine that does spark. sent8: the wax is azimuthal or it does not struggle redress or both. sent9: either the wax is not a Twinkie or it is not a decal or both. sent10: if something does not struggle redress then the fact that it is a kind of azimuthal thing that is a Sayda is wrong. sent11: the wax is not a sconce or it is not a kind of a Sayda or both. sent12: the fact that the wax is not azimuthal or does not struggle redress or both is incorrect. sent13: that the fact that the shipwright does not struggle Lima or it does not struggle redress or both is not correct is true. sent14: the wax is not a stonecress or it is not azimuthal or both. sent15: the eriogonum is a Sayda. sent16: the wax is a Sayda. sent17: the protozoan is azimuthal and it is a kind of a tall.
|
sent1: {C}{bk} sent2: (x): {D}x -> ¬({C}x v ¬{B}x) sent3: (¬{A}{a} v {B}{a}) sent4: ¬{DP}{a} sent5: {HA}{a} sent6: (x): {E}x -> (¬{B}x & {D}x) sent7: ¬{G}{a} -> ({E}{a} & {F}{a}) sent8: ({A}{a} v ¬{B}{a}) sent9: (¬{ER}{a} v ¬{JJ}{a}) sent10: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({A}x & {C}x) sent11: (¬{JC}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) sent12: ¬(¬{A}{a} v ¬{B}{a}) sent13: ¬(¬{CG}{fn} v ¬{B}{fn}) sent14: (¬{BN}{a} v ¬{A}{a}) sent15: {C}{br} sent16: {C}{a} sent17: ({A}{fu} & {M}{fu})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the wax is not azimuthal.; assump1 -> int1: the wax is not azimuthal and/or it does not struggle redress.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: that the wax is azimuthal hold.; int3 & sent16 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ¬{A}{a}; assump1 -> int1: (¬{A}{a} v ¬{B}{a}); int1 & sent12 -> int2: #F#; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: {A}{a}; int3 & sent16 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the Jonah is not azimuthal is true.
|
¬{A}{q}
|
[
"sent2 -> int4: the fact that if the Jonah is ready then the fact that the Jonah is a Sayda or it does not struggle redress or both does not hold is correct.;"
] | 4 | 3 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the wax is azimuthal and it is a kind of a Sayda. ; $context$ = sent1: the silicone is a kind of a Sayda. sent2: that something is a Sayda or it does not struggle redress or both is not right if it is a kind of a ready. sent3: either the wax is non-azimuthal or it does struggle redress or both. sent4: the wax is not indiscreet. sent5: the wax is a antihypertensive. sent6: if something is a Rhine then it does not struggle redress and is a ready. sent7: if the wax does not outgrow Exmoor it is a Rhine that does spark. sent8: the wax is azimuthal or it does not struggle redress or both. sent9: either the wax is not a Twinkie or it is not a decal or both. sent10: if something does not struggle redress then the fact that it is a kind of azimuthal thing that is a Sayda is wrong. sent11: the wax is not a sconce or it is not a kind of a Sayda or both. sent12: the fact that the wax is not azimuthal or does not struggle redress or both is incorrect. sent13: that the fact that the shipwright does not struggle Lima or it does not struggle redress or both is not correct is true. sent14: the wax is not a stonecress or it is not azimuthal or both. sent15: the eriogonum is a Sayda. sent16: the wax is a Sayda. sent17: the protozoan is azimuthal and it is a kind of a tall. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the wax is not azimuthal.; assump1 -> int1: the wax is not azimuthal and/or it does not struggle redress.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: that the wax is azimuthal hold.; int3 & sent16 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it does not uncloak and it is a taconite it is hypnotic.
|
(Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x
|
sent1: the individual does uncloak if it does not outgrow mustachio and it is anemic. sent2: there is something such that if it does not outgrow sputter and is a necktie it is forcipate. sent3: the individual is a insalubrity if it is not a taconite but some. sent4: there exists something such that if it is both not aerolitic and philatelic it does drivel. sent5: there exists something such that if it is non-doubles and it is not non-Machiavellian then the fact that it does struggle remarriage is not incorrect. sent6: the individual is hypnotic if it does uncloak and it is a taconite. sent7: if something does not struggle strawboard but it outgrows apology then it is hypnotic. sent8: there exists something such that if it is a kind of non-lung-like thing that is biochemical that it does falsify hold. sent9: there is something such that if it uncloaks and it is a kind of a taconite it is hypnotic. sent10: if the individual does not uncloak but it is a taconite then it is hypnotic.
|
sent1: (¬{HM}{aa} & {FS}{aa}) -> {AA}{aa} sent2: (Ex): (¬{JC}x & {DC}x) -> {BJ}x sent3: (¬{AB}{aa} & {AQ}{aa}) -> {CS}{aa} sent4: (Ex): (¬{EO}x & {FK}x) -> {GQ}x sent5: (Ex): (¬{BE}x & {IN}x) -> {HR}x sent6: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent7: (x): (¬{CJ}x & {FH}x) -> {B}x sent8: (Ex): (¬{AM}x & {BU}x) -> {C}x sent9: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent10: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}
|
[
"sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] |
if the individual does not struggle strawboard and outgrows apology then it is hypnotic.
|
(¬{CJ}{aa} & {FH}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}
|
[
"sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it does not uncloak and it is a taconite it is hypnotic. ; $context$ = sent1: the individual does uncloak if it does not outgrow mustachio and it is anemic. sent2: there is something such that if it does not outgrow sputter and is a necktie it is forcipate. sent3: the individual is a insalubrity if it is not a taconite but some. sent4: there exists something such that if it is both not aerolitic and philatelic it does drivel. sent5: there exists something such that if it is non-doubles and it is not non-Machiavellian then the fact that it does struggle remarriage is not incorrect. sent6: the individual is hypnotic if it does uncloak and it is a taconite. sent7: if something does not struggle strawboard but it outgrows apology then it is hypnotic. sent8: there exists something such that if it is a kind of non-lung-like thing that is biochemical that it does falsify hold. sent9: there is something such that if it uncloaks and it is a kind of a taconite it is hypnotic. sent10: if the individual does not uncloak but it is a taconite then it is hypnotic. ; $proof$ =
|
sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the inkstand does not station Nereid is right.
|
¬{C}{d}
|
sent1: the humorist knights. sent2: if the mango is not a HUD then the fact that the living-room is not a HUD but it does outgrow formalin does not hold. sent3: if the humorist is a knight but not a half the mango is not a HUD. sent4: the fact that the living-room is a kind of a HUD and it outgrows formalin is not correct. sent5: if the fact that the living-room is not a HUD but it outgrows formalin is not right the inkstand stations Nereid. sent6: the living-room does not outgrow formalin if the fact that it does not station Nereid and it is not a tracheid is false. sent7: the humorist is a knight but it is not half. sent8: if something does not outgrow formalin the fact that it is not a kind of a HUD and is a pterosaur is false.
|
sent1: {AA}{a} sent2: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬(¬{B}{c} & {A}{c}) sent3: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent4: ¬({B}{c} & {A}{c}) sent5: ¬(¬{B}{c} & {A}{c}) -> {C}{d} sent6: ¬(¬{C}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) -> ¬{A}{c} sent7: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent8: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & {IO}x)
|
[
"sent3 & sent7 -> int1: the mango is not a HUD.; sent2 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the living-room is not a HUD and does outgrow formalin is wrong.; sent5 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent7 -> int1: ¬{B}{b}; sent2 & int1 -> int2: ¬(¬{B}{c} & {A}{c}); sent5 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the living-room is not a HUD but it is a kind of a pterosaur is not correct.
|
¬(¬{B}{c} & {IO}{c})
|
[
"sent8 -> int3: if the living-room does not outgrow formalin then the fact that it is not a kind of a HUD and is a pterosaur is wrong.;"
] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the inkstand does not station Nereid is right. ; $context$ = sent1: the humorist knights. sent2: if the mango is not a HUD then the fact that the living-room is not a HUD but it does outgrow formalin does not hold. sent3: if the humorist is a knight but not a half the mango is not a HUD. sent4: the fact that the living-room is a kind of a HUD and it outgrows formalin is not correct. sent5: if the fact that the living-room is not a HUD but it outgrows formalin is not right the inkstand stations Nereid. sent6: the living-room does not outgrow formalin if the fact that it does not station Nereid and it is not a tracheid is false. sent7: the humorist is a knight but it is not half. sent8: if something does not outgrow formalin the fact that it is not a kind of a HUD and is a pterosaur is false. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent7 -> int1: the mango is not a HUD.; sent2 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the living-room is not a HUD and does outgrow formalin is wrong.; sent5 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the backslapper is salvific and it mounds.
|
({E}{b} & {D}{b})
|
sent1: that the backslapper is black-and-white but it is not a mainframe is wrong. sent2: the pennywhistle is a kind of a mainframe. sent3: there exists something such that it does add backslapper. sent4: if the backslapper is not black-and-white it is salvific. sent5: if something is not a kind of a mainframe then it does struggle crotonbug and is black-and-white. sent6: if there is something such that it adds backslapper the pennywhistle does not struggle crotonbug. sent7: if the pennywhistle does not struggle crotonbug but it is a impasto then the backslapper is a mound. sent8: the fact that the backslapper is salvific and it mounds does not hold if the pennywhistle does not add backslapper. sent9: something that is not a impasto and/or does not add backslapper does not add backslapper. sent10: if the acme is not hydrous but it is pronounceable then the pennywhistle is not a mainframe. sent11: the fact that the backslapper does mound is correct if the fact that the pennywhistle does struggle crotonbug and is a impasto is not false. sent12: something is not a impasto or it does not add backslapper or both if the fact that it struggles crotonbug is not false. sent13: the pennywhistle does not struggle crotonbug. sent14: the backslapper is salvific if the fact that it is not non-black-and-white and it is not a mainframe is not true. sent15: the pennywhistle mounds. sent16: the pennywhistle is a kind of dysgenics thing that is discernible. sent17: if the pennywhistle does not struggle crotonbug and is a mainframe then the backslapper is a impasto. sent18: if there exists something such that it adds backslapper then the pennywhistle does not struggle crotonbug but it is a kind of a impasto. sent19: there exists something such that it is a mound.
|
sent1: ¬({F}{b} & ¬{G}{b}) sent2: {G}{a} sent3: (Ex): {A}x sent4: ¬{F}{b} -> {E}{b} sent5: (x): ¬{G}x -> ({B}x & {F}x) sent6: (x): {A}x -> ¬{B}{a} sent7: (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) -> {D}{b} sent8: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({E}{b} & {D}{b}) sent9: (x): (¬{C}x v ¬{A}x) -> ¬{A}x sent10: (¬{I}{c} & {H}{c}) -> ¬{G}{a} sent11: ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) -> {D}{b} sent12: (x): {B}x -> (¬{C}x v ¬{A}x) sent13: ¬{B}{a} sent14: ¬({F}{b} & ¬{G}{b}) -> {E}{b} sent15: {D}{a} sent16: ({II}{a} & {FP}{a}) sent17: (¬{B}{a} & {G}{a}) -> {C}{b} sent18: (x): {A}x -> (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent19: (Ex): {D}x
|
[
"sent3 & sent18 -> int1: the pennywhistle does not struggle crotonbug but it is a impasto.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: the backslapper is a mound.; sent14 & sent1 -> int3: the backslapper is salvific.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent18 -> int1: (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}); int1 & sent7 -> int2: {D}{b}; sent14 & sent1 -> int3: {E}{b}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the backslapper is salvific and it is a mound does not hold.
|
¬({E}{b} & {D}{b})
|
[
"sent9 -> int4: the pennywhistle does not add backslapper if the fact that it either is not a impasto or does not add backslapper or both is not incorrect.; sent12 -> int5: if the pennywhistle does struggle crotonbug then it is not a impasto and/or it does not add backslapper.; sent5 -> int6: if the pennywhistle is not a mainframe it does struggle crotonbug and is black-and-white.;"
] | 7 | 3 | 3 | 14 | 0 | 14 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the backslapper is salvific and it mounds. ; $context$ = sent1: that the backslapper is black-and-white but it is not a mainframe is wrong. sent2: the pennywhistle is a kind of a mainframe. sent3: there exists something such that it does add backslapper. sent4: if the backslapper is not black-and-white it is salvific. sent5: if something is not a kind of a mainframe then it does struggle crotonbug and is black-and-white. sent6: if there is something such that it adds backslapper the pennywhistle does not struggle crotonbug. sent7: if the pennywhistle does not struggle crotonbug but it is a impasto then the backslapper is a mound. sent8: the fact that the backslapper is salvific and it mounds does not hold if the pennywhistle does not add backslapper. sent9: something that is not a impasto and/or does not add backslapper does not add backslapper. sent10: if the acme is not hydrous but it is pronounceable then the pennywhistle is not a mainframe. sent11: the fact that the backslapper does mound is correct if the fact that the pennywhistle does struggle crotonbug and is a impasto is not false. sent12: something is not a impasto or it does not add backslapper or both if the fact that it struggles crotonbug is not false. sent13: the pennywhistle does not struggle crotonbug. sent14: the backslapper is salvific if the fact that it is not non-black-and-white and it is not a mainframe is not true. sent15: the pennywhistle mounds. sent16: the pennywhistle is a kind of dysgenics thing that is discernible. sent17: if the pennywhistle does not struggle crotonbug and is a mainframe then the backslapper is a impasto. sent18: if there exists something such that it adds backslapper then the pennywhistle does not struggle crotonbug but it is a kind of a impasto. sent19: there exists something such that it is a mound. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent18 -> int1: the pennywhistle does not struggle crotonbug but it is a impasto.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: the backslapper is a mound.; sent14 & sent1 -> int3: the backslapper is salvific.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the cuff does not outgrow phosphate and/or it is a abaya is not right.
|
¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa})
|
sent1: if the pooler does struggle centaury it is a dhal. sent2: something outgrows phosphate if it is a kind of a low. sent3: the cuff is a kind of a low. sent4: if the cuff is a low then it outgrows phosphate. sent5: if something is not a kind of a low then it does not outgrow phosphate or it is a abaya or both. sent6: that something does not outgrow phosphate or it is a kind of a abaya or both is not correct if it is a kind of a low.
|
sent1: {BA}{ca} -> {JK}{ca} sent2: (x): {A}x -> {AA}x sent3: {A}{aa} sent4: {A}{aa} -> {AA}{aa} sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) sent6: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x)
|
[
"sent6 -> int1: that the cuff does not outgrow phosphate and/or is a kind of a abaya does not hold if it is low.; int1 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 -> int1: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}); int1 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
either the cuff does not outgrow phosphate or it is a abaya or both.
|
(¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa})
|
[
"sent5 -> int2: if the cuff is not a low it either does not outgrow phosphate or is a kind of a abaya or both.;"
] | 5 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the cuff does not outgrow phosphate and/or it is a abaya is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: if the pooler does struggle centaury it is a dhal. sent2: something outgrows phosphate if it is a kind of a low. sent3: the cuff is a kind of a low. sent4: if the cuff is a low then it outgrows phosphate. sent5: if something is not a kind of a low then it does not outgrow phosphate or it is a abaya or both. sent6: that something does not outgrow phosphate or it is a kind of a abaya or both is not correct if it is a kind of a low. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 -> int1: that the cuff does not outgrow phosphate and/or is a kind of a abaya does not hold if it is low.; int1 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the stationing oxyhemoglobin does not occur.
|
¬{C}
|
sent1: the acupressure happens. sent2: the gastricness does not occur if the fact that the gastricness but not the rest-cure happens is false. sent3: the unobtrusiveness does not occur and the struggling EDP does not occur. sent4: if the megakaryocyticness happens then the stationing preschooler happens. sent5: if the unobtrusiveness does not occur then that the gastricness happens but the rest-cure does not occur is not correct. sent6: that the gastricness does not occur brings about that both the piecing and the bloomers occurs. sent7: if the fact that the certification does not occur is right the stationing challis occurs and the formicness happens. sent8: the piece brings about the non-perinatalness and/or that the uncreativeness does not occur. sent9: if the fact that the stationing preschooler happens is correct then the splurge but not the outgrowing hypostatization happens. sent10: if the splurging occurs the fact that the certification does not occur and the outgrowing mono-iodotyrosine does not occur is wrong. sent11: the certification happens and the outgrowing mono-iodotyrosine happens. sent12: the megakaryocyticness happens and the pick happens if the outgrowing Elastoplast does not occur. sent13: if the outgrowing mono-iodotyrosine occurs then the stationing oxyhemoglobin happens.
|
sent1: {HT} sent2: ¬({N} & ¬{O}) -> ¬{N} sent3: (¬{P} & ¬{Q}) sent4: {G} -> {F} sent5: ¬{P} -> ¬({N} & ¬{O}) sent6: ¬{N} -> ({L} & {M}) sent7: ¬{A} -> ({EH} & {FB}) sent8: {L} -> (¬{J} v ¬{K}) sent9: {F} -> ({D} & ¬{E}) sent10: {D} -> ¬(¬{A} & ¬{B}) sent11: ({A} & {B}) sent12: ¬{I} -> ({G} & {H}) sent13: {B} -> {C}
|
[
"sent11 -> int1: the outgrowing mono-iodotyrosine occurs.; sent13 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent11 -> int1: {B}; sent13 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the stationing challis and the formicness happens.
|
({EH} & {FB})
|
[] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the stationing oxyhemoglobin does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the acupressure happens. sent2: the gastricness does not occur if the fact that the gastricness but not the rest-cure happens is false. sent3: the unobtrusiveness does not occur and the struggling EDP does not occur. sent4: if the megakaryocyticness happens then the stationing preschooler happens. sent5: if the unobtrusiveness does not occur then that the gastricness happens but the rest-cure does not occur is not correct. sent6: that the gastricness does not occur brings about that both the piecing and the bloomers occurs. sent7: if the fact that the certification does not occur is right the stationing challis occurs and the formicness happens. sent8: the piece brings about the non-perinatalness and/or that the uncreativeness does not occur. sent9: if the fact that the stationing preschooler happens is correct then the splurge but not the outgrowing hypostatization happens. sent10: if the splurging occurs the fact that the certification does not occur and the outgrowing mono-iodotyrosine does not occur is wrong. sent11: the certification happens and the outgrowing mono-iodotyrosine happens. sent12: the megakaryocyticness happens and the pick happens if the outgrowing Elastoplast does not occur. sent13: if the outgrowing mono-iodotyrosine occurs then the stationing oxyhemoglobin happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent11 -> int1: the outgrowing mono-iodotyrosine occurs.; sent13 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the mew is not dramatics but a sequestration does not hold.
|
¬(¬{E}{b} & {F}{b})
|
sent1: that the cytokine is not a kind of a foster-daughter is wrong if the mew is a sequestration. sent2: something is not a kind of a decal if it is a Leakey and/or does outgrow Arca. sent3: something is not a foster-daughter if that it is a kind of a foster-daughter and it is a decal is not correct. sent4: the fact that the mew is dramatics and it is a sequestration is not true. sent5: something that is both not a witloof and a sonnet is non-vibrionic. sent6: that something is dramatics and it is a sequestration is not right if it is a foster-daughter. sent7: if the eucalyptus is an indent the showroom indent. sent8: something does indent if the fact that it is a kind of heteroecious thing that does not struggle Kesey does not hold. sent9: that that something is a kind of non-dramatics a sequestration is right does not hold if it is a foster-daughter. sent10: the mew is not dramatics and is a sequestration if the cytokine is not vibrionic. sent11: if the cytokine is a kind of a witloof then the mew is a foster-daughter. sent12: there exists something such that it is vibrionic and it sonnets. sent13: the fact that the mew is dramatics and it is a sequestration is incorrect if it is a foster-daughter. sent14: the eucalyptus is not amenorrheic. sent15: if something is not amenorrheic then the fact that it is heteroecious and does not struggle Kesey is not correct. sent16: there is something such that it is vibrionic. sent17: the fact that something is a sonnet is not false. sent18: something is both not a witloof and a sonnet if it is not a foster-daughter. sent19: the Sno-cat is vibrionic. sent20: if the cytokine is a sequestration then the set-back is a kind of a sequestration. sent21: the cytokine is a witloof if something that is vibrionic is a kind of a sonnet. sent22: the showroom is a Leakey if it is an indent.
|
sent1: {F}{b} -> {D}{a} sent2: (x): ({I}x v {G}x) -> ¬{H}x sent3: (x): ¬({D}x & {H}x) -> ¬{D}x sent4: ¬({E}{b} & {F}{b}) sent5: (x): (¬{C}x & {B}x) -> ¬{A}x sent6: (x): {D}x -> ¬({E}x & {F}x) sent7: {J}{d} -> {J}{c} sent8: (x): ¬({L}x & ¬{K}x) -> {J}x sent9: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & {F}x) sent10: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{E}{b} & {F}{b}) sent11: {C}{a} -> {D}{b} sent12: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x) sent13: {D}{b} -> ¬({E}{b} & {F}{b}) sent14: ¬{M}{d} sent15: (x): ¬{M}x -> ¬({L}x & ¬{K}x) sent16: (Ex): {A}x sent17: (Ex): {B}x sent18: (x): ¬{D}x -> (¬{C}x & {B}x) sent19: {A}{ha} sent20: {F}{a} -> {F}{cm} sent21: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> {C}{a} sent22: {J}{c} -> {I}{c}
|
[
"sent12 & sent21 -> int1: the cytokine is a kind of a witloof.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: the fact that the mew is a kind of a foster-daughter hold.; sent9 -> int3: that the fact that the mew is not dramatics but a sequestration is false is correct if it is a foster-daughter.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent12 & sent21 -> int1: {C}{a}; int1 & sent11 -> int2: {D}{b}; sent9 -> int3: {D}{b} -> ¬(¬{E}{b} & {F}{b}); int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the mew is both not dramatics and a sequestration.
|
(¬{E}{b} & {F}{b})
|
[
"sent5 -> int4: the fact that the cytokine is non-vibrionic hold if it is not a witloof and is a sonnet.; sent18 -> int5: the cytokine is not a witloof but it sonnets if it is not a foster-daughter.; sent3 -> int6: the cytokine is not a foster-daughter if the fact that it is a foster-daughter and a decal is not true.; sent2 -> int7: if either the showroom is a Leakey or it does outgrow Arca or both it is not a kind of a decal.; sent8 -> int8: if that the eucalyptus is heteroecious thing that does not struggle Kesey is false it does indent.; sent15 -> int9: the fact that the eucalyptus is heteroecious but it does not struggle Kesey is false if it is not amenorrheic.; int9 & sent14 -> int10: that the fact that the eucalyptus is heteroecious and does not struggle Kesey is not false is not true.; int8 & int10 -> int11: the eucalyptus is an indent.; sent7 & int11 -> int12: the showroom does indent.; sent22 & int12 -> int13: that the showroom is a Leakey hold.; int13 -> int14: the showroom is a Leakey and/or it outgrows Arca.; int7 & int14 -> int15: the showroom is not a decal.; int15 -> int16: there exists something such that it is not a decal.;"
] | 13 | 3 | 3 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the mew is not dramatics but a sequestration does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that the cytokine is not a kind of a foster-daughter is wrong if the mew is a sequestration. sent2: something is not a kind of a decal if it is a Leakey and/or does outgrow Arca. sent3: something is not a foster-daughter if that it is a kind of a foster-daughter and it is a decal is not correct. sent4: the fact that the mew is dramatics and it is a sequestration is not true. sent5: something that is both not a witloof and a sonnet is non-vibrionic. sent6: that something is dramatics and it is a sequestration is not right if it is a foster-daughter. sent7: if the eucalyptus is an indent the showroom indent. sent8: something does indent if the fact that it is a kind of heteroecious thing that does not struggle Kesey does not hold. sent9: that that something is a kind of non-dramatics a sequestration is right does not hold if it is a foster-daughter. sent10: the mew is not dramatics and is a sequestration if the cytokine is not vibrionic. sent11: if the cytokine is a kind of a witloof then the mew is a foster-daughter. sent12: there exists something such that it is vibrionic and it sonnets. sent13: the fact that the mew is dramatics and it is a sequestration is incorrect if it is a foster-daughter. sent14: the eucalyptus is not amenorrheic. sent15: if something is not amenorrheic then the fact that it is heteroecious and does not struggle Kesey is not correct. sent16: there is something such that it is vibrionic. sent17: the fact that something is a sonnet is not false. sent18: something is both not a witloof and a sonnet if it is not a foster-daughter. sent19: the Sno-cat is vibrionic. sent20: if the cytokine is a sequestration then the set-back is a kind of a sequestration. sent21: the cytokine is a witloof if something that is vibrionic is a kind of a sonnet. sent22: the showroom is a Leakey if it is an indent. ; $proof$ =
|
sent12 & sent21 -> int1: the cytokine is a kind of a witloof.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: the fact that the mew is a kind of a foster-daughter hold.; sent9 -> int3: that the fact that the mew is not dramatics but a sequestration is false is correct if it is a foster-daughter.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the whooper does struggle rung.
|
{A}{a}
|
sent1: if the advocate is not radiological and/or it is not a kind of a artiste then it is not precordial. sent2: if the muishond is unobvious the fact that it is not a stabilizer and/or it is a locomotive is not true. sent3: the muishond is unobvious. sent4: the fact that the muishond is not a stabilizer and/or is locomotive is not incorrect if the whooper struggles rung.
|
sent1: (¬{E}{c} v ¬{F}{c}) -> ¬{D}{c} sent2: {B}{b} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} v {AB}{b}) sent3: {B}{b} sent4: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} v {AB}{b})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the whooper struggles rung.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the muishond is not a stabilizer or locomotive or both.; sent2 & sent3 -> int2: the fact that the muishond is either not a stabilizer or locomotive or both does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}{a}; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: (¬{AA}{b} v {AB}{b}); sent2 & sent3 -> int2: ¬(¬{AA}{b} v {AB}{b}); int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the whooper does struggle rung.
|
{A}{a}
|
[] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the whooper does struggle rung. ; $context$ = sent1: if the advocate is not radiological and/or it is not a kind of a artiste then it is not precordial. sent2: if the muishond is unobvious the fact that it is not a stabilizer and/or it is a locomotive is not true. sent3: the muishond is unobvious. sent4: the fact that the muishond is not a stabilizer and/or is locomotive is not incorrect if the whooper struggles rung. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the whooper struggles rung.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the muishond is not a stabilizer or locomotive or both.; sent2 & sent3 -> int2: the fact that the muishond is either not a stabilizer or locomotive or both does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the bungalow is not a Javanthropus.
|
¬{C}{c}
|
sent1: if the skybox is an empiricism the bungalow is a Javanthropus. sent2: something is an empiricism and is Kiplingesque if that it is a Javanthropus is wrong. sent3: if the fact that the breath is an empiricism hold then the skybox is Kiplingesque. sent4: the breath is an empiricism if the skybox is not non-Kiplingesque. sent5: that the breath does not outgrow in-basket but it is onside is not correct if it is a kind of a Linaceae. sent6: the naphthalene is not a Javanthropus if that it does outgrow in-basket and is not onside is wrong. sent7: the fact that if that something does not outgrow in-basket and is onside does not hold then it is not an empiricism is not incorrect. sent8: that the breath is Kiplingesque is correct. sent9: that something outgrows in-basket but it is not onside is not correct if it is a kind of a Linaceae. sent10: something is a kind of a Linaceae if it is not a geodesic or it is not a adrenarche or both. sent11: the bungalow is not non-Kiplingesque. sent12: the skybox is an empiricism if the breath is Kiplingesque.
|
sent1: {B}{b} -> {C}{c} sent2: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) sent3: {B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent4: {A}{b} -> {B}{a} sent5: {F}{a} -> ¬(¬{D}{a} & {E}{a}) sent6: ¬({D}{ig} & ¬{E}{ig}) -> ¬{C}{ig} sent7: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {E}x) -> ¬{B}x sent8: {A}{a} sent9: (x): {F}x -> ¬({D}x & ¬{E}x) sent10: (x): (¬{G}x v ¬{H}x) -> {F}x sent11: {A}{c} sent12: {A}{a} -> {B}{b}
|
[
"sent12 & sent8 -> int1: the skybox is an empiricism.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent12 & sent8 -> int1: {B}{b}; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the bungalow is not a Javanthropus is not wrong.
|
¬{C}{c}
|
[
"sent7 -> int2: if that the breath does not outgrow in-basket and is onside is incorrect then it is not an empiricism.;"
] | 5 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the bungalow is not a Javanthropus. ; $context$ = sent1: if the skybox is an empiricism the bungalow is a Javanthropus. sent2: something is an empiricism and is Kiplingesque if that it is a Javanthropus is wrong. sent3: if the fact that the breath is an empiricism hold then the skybox is Kiplingesque. sent4: the breath is an empiricism if the skybox is not non-Kiplingesque. sent5: that the breath does not outgrow in-basket but it is onside is not correct if it is a kind of a Linaceae. sent6: the naphthalene is not a Javanthropus if that it does outgrow in-basket and is not onside is wrong. sent7: the fact that if that something does not outgrow in-basket and is onside does not hold then it is not an empiricism is not incorrect. sent8: that the breath is Kiplingesque is correct. sent9: that something outgrows in-basket but it is not onside is not correct if it is a kind of a Linaceae. sent10: something is a kind of a Linaceae if it is not a geodesic or it is not a adrenarche or both. sent11: the bungalow is not non-Kiplingesque. sent12: the skybox is an empiricism if the breath is Kiplingesque. ; $proof$ =
|
sent12 & sent8 -> int1: the skybox is an empiricism.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the bacteroid does station wedge.
|
{E}{c}
|
sent1: that the rheumatic is not unchangeable and it is not a Charleston is not correct. sent2: if that the shipyard is not an accidental and is not a Charleston does not hold the rheumatic is unchangeable. sent3: the fact that the shipyard is not an accidental but it is a kind of a Charleston does not hold. sent4: the shipyard is professorial. sent5: the fact that the shipyard is not an accidental and does Charleston is not correct if there is something such that it is not professorial. sent6: that the rheumatic is not a Charleston and not unchangeable does not hold. sent7: that the shipyard is an accidental but it does not Charleston is wrong. sent8: there is something such that that it is not unchangeable is not wrong. sent9: there is something such that it is not professorial. sent10: there is something such that it does not Charleston. sent11: the bacteroid is a kind of a brandysnap. sent12: the fact that the rheumatic is not an accidental and not unchangeable is false. sent13: the fact that the rheumatic is both unchangeable and not an accidental does not hold. sent14: the fact that the shipyard is an accidental and is not a Charleston is incorrect if something is not professorial. sent15: the inset stations wedge. sent16: if there is something such that it is not professorial then that that the shipyard is not an accidental and does not Charleston is wrong is right. sent17: there exists something such that it is professorial. sent18: if the rheumatic is unchangeable the bacteroid does station wedge. sent19: the fact that the shipyard is not unchangeable and it is not an accidental is wrong. sent20: if there is something such that it does not station wedge then that the shipyard is not unchangeable and is not an accidental does not hold. sent21: the bacteroid is a kind of a Charleston.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{D}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent2: ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {D}{b} sent3: ¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent4: {A}{a} sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent6: ¬(¬{C}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent7: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent8: (Ex): ¬{D}x sent9: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent10: (Ex): ¬{C}x sent11: {AB}{c} sent12: ¬(¬{B}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent13: ¬({D}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent14: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent15: {E}{hj} sent16: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent17: (Ex): {A}x sent18: {D}{b} -> {E}{c} sent19: ¬(¬{D}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent20: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬(¬{D}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent21: {C}{c}
|
[
"sent9 & sent16 -> int1: that the shipyard is not an accidental and it is not a Charleston is wrong.; sent2 & int1 -> int2: the rheumatic is unchangeable.; sent18 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 & sent16 -> int1: ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); sent2 & int1 -> int2: {D}{b}; sent18 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the bacteroid does not station wedge is right.
|
¬{E}{c}
|
[
"sent13 -> int3: there is something such that that it is unchangeable and is not a kind of an accidental is not correct.;"
] | 5 | 3 | 3 | 17 | 0 | 17 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the bacteroid does station wedge. ; $context$ = sent1: that the rheumatic is not unchangeable and it is not a Charleston is not correct. sent2: if that the shipyard is not an accidental and is not a Charleston does not hold the rheumatic is unchangeable. sent3: the fact that the shipyard is not an accidental but it is a kind of a Charleston does not hold. sent4: the shipyard is professorial. sent5: the fact that the shipyard is not an accidental and does Charleston is not correct if there is something such that it is not professorial. sent6: that the rheumatic is not a Charleston and not unchangeable does not hold. sent7: that the shipyard is an accidental but it does not Charleston is wrong. sent8: there is something such that that it is not unchangeable is not wrong. sent9: there is something such that it is not professorial. sent10: there is something such that it does not Charleston. sent11: the bacteroid is a kind of a brandysnap. sent12: the fact that the rheumatic is not an accidental and not unchangeable is false. sent13: the fact that the rheumatic is both unchangeable and not an accidental does not hold. sent14: the fact that the shipyard is an accidental and is not a Charleston is incorrect if something is not professorial. sent15: the inset stations wedge. sent16: if there is something such that it is not professorial then that that the shipyard is not an accidental and does not Charleston is wrong is right. sent17: there exists something such that it is professorial. sent18: if the rheumatic is unchangeable the bacteroid does station wedge. sent19: the fact that the shipyard is not unchangeable and it is not an accidental is wrong. sent20: if there is something such that it does not station wedge then that the shipyard is not unchangeable and is not an accidental does not hold. sent21: the bacteroid is a kind of a Charleston. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 & sent16 -> int1: that the shipyard is not an accidental and it is not a Charleston is wrong.; sent2 & int1 -> int2: the rheumatic is unchangeable.; sent18 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the trip is not a sulfa.
|
¬{F}{b}
|
sent1: if the opah is actinomycotic then the abecedarian is monotheistic. sent2: if the abecedarian is monotheistic then the fact that the trip is not an apatite but statutory does not hold. sent3: the abecedarian is monotheistic if the opah is incurable. sent4: either the opah is an incurable or it is actinomycotic or both. sent5: the trip is monotheistic and statutory if it is not a kind of an apatite. sent6: if that something is not a kind of an apatite but it is not non-statutory does not hold it is not a sulfa. sent7: something is not actinomycotic and is not a kind of an incurable if it is monotheistic. sent8: if the trip is non-statutory then it is not a sulfa. sent9: if something is both not actinomycotic and not an incurable it is a sulfa. sent10: if something is not statutory then it is not a sulfa.
|
sent1: {B}{a} -> {C}{c} sent2: {C}{c} -> ¬(¬{E}{b} & {D}{b}) sent3: {A}{a} -> {C}{c} sent4: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}) sent5: ¬{E}{b} -> ({C}{b} & {D}{b}) sent6: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & {D}x) -> ¬{F}x sent7: (x): {C}x -> (¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) sent8: ¬{D}{b} -> ¬{F}{b} sent9: (x): (¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) -> {F}x sent10: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬{F}x
|
[
"sent4 & sent3 & sent1 -> int1: the abecedarian is monotheistic.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the fact that the trip is not an apatite but it is statutory is false.; sent6 -> int3: if that the trip is not a kind of an apatite but it is statutory is false it is not a sulfa.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 & sent3 & sent1 -> int1: {C}{c}; int1 & sent2 -> int2: ¬(¬{E}{b} & {D}{b}); sent6 -> int3: ¬(¬{E}{b} & {D}{b}) -> ¬{F}{b}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the trip is a sulfa.
|
{F}{b}
|
[
"sent9 -> int4: if the trip is both not actinomycotic and not incurable it is a sulfa.; sent7 -> int5: the trip is not actinomycotic and it is not a kind of an incurable if it is monotheistic.;"
] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the trip is not a sulfa. ; $context$ = sent1: if the opah is actinomycotic then the abecedarian is monotheistic. sent2: if the abecedarian is monotheistic then the fact that the trip is not an apatite but statutory does not hold. sent3: the abecedarian is monotheistic if the opah is incurable. sent4: either the opah is an incurable or it is actinomycotic or both. sent5: the trip is monotheistic and statutory if it is not a kind of an apatite. sent6: if that something is not a kind of an apatite but it is not non-statutory does not hold it is not a sulfa. sent7: something is not actinomycotic and is not a kind of an incurable if it is monotheistic. sent8: if the trip is non-statutory then it is not a sulfa. sent9: if something is both not actinomycotic and not an incurable it is a sulfa. sent10: if something is not statutory then it is not a sulfa. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 & sent3 & sent1 -> int1: the abecedarian is monotheistic.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the fact that the trip is not an apatite but it is statutory is false.; sent6 -> int3: if that the trip is not a kind of an apatite but it is statutory is false it is not a sulfa.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the urochord is not a kind of a Fijian.
|
¬{A}{aa}
|
sent1: if something is not a coalescence it is a Fijian and it is focal. sent2: the adhesion is not a pascal if that the hypnotist is not a kind of a Fijian and is focal does not hold. sent3: something does broom if that it is not a broom and it does not outgrow murder is not right. sent4: either the hypnotist is nonfatal or it is not a coalescence or both if the angiologist does broom. sent5: the fact that everything does not station ascension and it is not a pascal is correct. sent6: if something is not a conscience and is not a shaver then it is not sure. sent7: if the urochord is not an osmium and is a airscrew then it does not station ascension. sent8: something is not Fijian if it does not station ascension and it is a pascal.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({A}x & {B}x) sent2: ¬(¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{AB}{he} sent3: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{G}x) -> {E}x sent4: {E}{b} -> (¬{D}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) sent5: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent6: (x): (¬{F}x & ¬{GU}x) -> ¬{HI}x sent7: (¬{EN}{aa} & {IE}{aa}) -> ¬{AA}{aa} sent8: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}x
|
[
"sent5 -> int1: the urochord does not station ascension and is not a pascal.;"
] |
[
"sent5 -> int1: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa});"
] |
the urochord is a Fijian.
|
{A}{aa}
|
[
"sent1 -> int2: the urochord is a kind of a Fijian and it is focal if it is not a coalescence.; sent3 -> int3: if that the angiologist is not a broom and it does not outgrow murder is not correct then it broom.;"
] | 6 | 2 | null | 7 | 0 | 7 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the urochord is not a kind of a Fijian. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not a coalescence it is a Fijian and it is focal. sent2: the adhesion is not a pascal if that the hypnotist is not a kind of a Fijian and is focal does not hold. sent3: something does broom if that it is not a broom and it does not outgrow murder is not right. sent4: either the hypnotist is nonfatal or it is not a coalescence or both if the angiologist does broom. sent5: the fact that everything does not station ascension and it is not a pascal is correct. sent6: if something is not a conscience and is not a shaver then it is not sure. sent7: if the urochord is not an osmium and is a airscrew then it does not station ascension. sent8: something is not Fijian if it does not station ascension and it is a pascal. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 -> int1: the urochord does not station ascension and is not a pascal.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that that the race is not a hindquarters and not stubborn hold is not true.
|
¬(¬{D}{b} & ¬{C}{b})
|
sent1: the crud is a kind of bottomless thing that is a kind of a harmonics.
|
sent1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a})
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: the crud is harmonics.;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: {B}{a};"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | null | 0 | 0 | 0 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that that the race is not a hindquarters and not stubborn hold is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the crud is a kind of bottomless thing that is a kind of a harmonics. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: the crud is harmonics.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the holder is a kind of a circle.
|
{D}{b}
|
sent1: something is a circle and it struggles virion. sent2: if there exists something such that it is noncombustible thing that does struggle virion then the bioflavinoid is a kind of a circle. sent3: the bioflavinoid struggles virion if something that is a kind of a circle is noncombustible. sent4: the bioflavinoid does struggle virion and is noncombustible. sent5: if the holder struggles virion the bioflavinoid does circle. sent6: if the flatcar is noncombustible that the bioflavinoid is a seventies is right. sent7: if the flatcar does not circle the holder is not a circle. sent8: the drawers is a kind of a seventies. sent9: something struggles virion and it is a kind of a seventies. sent10: the holder is a kind of a circle if the flatcar is a seventies. sent11: if the bioflavinoid is a seventies the flatcar does struggle virion. sent12: the bioflavinoid is a seventies.
|
sent1: (Ex): ({D}x & {A}x) sent2: (x): ({B}x & {A}x) -> {D}{aa} sent3: (x): ({D}x & {B}x) -> {A}{aa} sent4: ({A}{aa} & {B}{aa}) sent5: {A}{b} -> {D}{aa} sent6: {B}{a} -> {C}{aa} sent7: ¬{D}{a} -> ¬{D}{b} sent8: {C}{o} sent9: (Ex): ({A}x & {C}x) sent10: {C}{a} -> {D}{b} sent11: {C}{aa} -> {A}{a} sent12: {C}{aa}
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: something struggles virion and is noncombustible.;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> int1: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x);"
] |
the fact that the holder is not a circle is right.
|
¬{D}{b}
|
[] | 4 | 3 | null | 10 | 0 | 10 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the holder is a kind of a circle. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a circle and it struggles virion. sent2: if there exists something such that it is noncombustible thing that does struggle virion then the bioflavinoid is a kind of a circle. sent3: the bioflavinoid struggles virion if something that is a kind of a circle is noncombustible. sent4: the bioflavinoid does struggle virion and is noncombustible. sent5: if the holder struggles virion the bioflavinoid does circle. sent6: if the flatcar is noncombustible that the bioflavinoid is a seventies is right. sent7: if the flatcar does not circle the holder is not a circle. sent8: the drawers is a kind of a seventies. sent9: something struggles virion and it is a kind of a seventies. sent10: the holder is a kind of a circle if the flatcar is a seventies. sent11: if the bioflavinoid is a seventies the flatcar does struggle virion. sent12: the bioflavinoid is a seventies. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> int1: something struggles virion and is noncombustible.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the mother is not funerary but it is concessive.
|
(¬{C}{b} & {B}{b})
|
sent1: if the inset is not funerary the fact that the fact that the mother does not outgrow Sabaoth and is divisible is correct is not true. sent2: that there is something such that it is an advocate and it is funerary is not false. sent3: there exists something such that it is an advocate. sent4: the inset is not concessive and outgrows Sabaoth. sent5: if the nard is not a kind of an advocate then the fact that the mother is not funerary and is concessive is incorrect. sent6: the fact that the inset is both concessive and funerary is false if the mother is indivisible. sent7: the inset is not divisible but it does outgrow Sabaoth. sent8: if there exists something such that it is not divisible and outgrows Sabaoth the nard is not a kind of an advocate. sent9: the fact that the inset does not outgrow Sabaoth but it is concessive does not hold. sent10: the mother is not funerary if something is not an advocate but it does outgrow Sabaoth.
|
sent1: ¬{C}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AB}{b} & {AA}{b}) sent2: (Ex): ({A}x & {C}x) sent3: (Ex): {A}x sent4: (¬{B}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent5: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{C}{b} & {B}{b}) sent6: ¬{AA}{b} -> ¬({B}{aa} & {C}{aa}) sent7: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent8: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent9: ¬(¬{AB}{aa} & {B}{aa}) sent10: (x): (¬{A}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{C}{b}
|
[
"sent7 -> int1: something is a kind of non-divisible thing that does outgrow Sabaoth.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the nard is not an advocate.; sent5 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent7 -> int1: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x); int1 & sent8 -> int2: ¬{A}{a}; sent5 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the mother is not funerary but it is concessive. ; $context$ = sent1: if the inset is not funerary the fact that the fact that the mother does not outgrow Sabaoth and is divisible is correct is not true. sent2: that there is something such that it is an advocate and it is funerary is not false. sent3: there exists something such that it is an advocate. sent4: the inset is not concessive and outgrows Sabaoth. sent5: if the nard is not a kind of an advocate then the fact that the mother is not funerary and is concessive is incorrect. sent6: the fact that the inset is both concessive and funerary is false if the mother is indivisible. sent7: the inset is not divisible but it does outgrow Sabaoth. sent8: if there exists something such that it is not divisible and outgrows Sabaoth the nard is not a kind of an advocate. sent9: the fact that the inset does not outgrow Sabaoth but it is concessive does not hold. sent10: the mother is not funerary if something is not an advocate but it does outgrow Sabaoth. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 -> int1: something is a kind of non-divisible thing that does outgrow Sabaoth.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the nard is not an advocate.; sent5 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
either the bridle struggles dive or it is ideological or both.
|
({B}{a} v {C}{a})
|
sent1: if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of spatial thing that is not a probity is not right the bridle is discomycetous. sent2: if the bridle is a kind of a determinism but it is not hairy then it stations consistency. sent3: if something is discomycetous it struggles dive. sent4: something is spatial but not a probity. sent5: if there are non-spatial things the bridle is discomycetous. sent6: the fact that something does struggle dive and/or it is ideological is false if it is not discomycetous.
|
sent1: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent2: ({F}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) -> {D}{a} sent3: (x): {A}x -> {B}x sent4: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent5: (x): ¬{AA}x -> {A}{a} sent6: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}x v {C}x)
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: the bridle struggles dive if it is discomycetous.;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> int1: {A}{a} -> {B}{a};"
] |
the fact that the bridle either struggles dive or is ideological or both is not right.
|
¬({B}{a} v {C}{a})
|
[
"sent6 -> int2: that the bridle struggles dive or is ideological or both is not true if it is non-discomycetous.;"
] | 7 | 3 | null | 4 | 0 | 4 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = either the bridle struggles dive or it is ideological or both. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of spatial thing that is not a probity is not right the bridle is discomycetous. sent2: if the bridle is a kind of a determinism but it is not hairy then it stations consistency. sent3: if something is discomycetous it struggles dive. sent4: something is spatial but not a probity. sent5: if there are non-spatial things the bridle is discomycetous. sent6: the fact that something does struggle dive and/or it is ideological is false if it is not discomycetous. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> int1: the bridle struggles dive if it is discomycetous.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the yawping canfield happens.
|
{C}
|
sent1: if the gerundialness does not occur the yawping standardization happens and the stabilizing lechwe happens. sent2: that the yawping selectman does not occur and the calorimetricness does not occur is caused by the mitigating vault. sent3: the resilience occurs and/or the angling does not occur. sent4: that both the mitigating vault and the spousalness occurs is brought about by that the imperial does not occur. sent5: that the yawping selectman does not occur and the calorimetricness does not occur prevents that the gerundialness occurs. sent6: the angling does not occur. sent7: if the resilience does not occur and/or the angling does not occur then the yawping canfield happens. sent8: the imperial does not occur if that both the imperial and the cut happens is incorrect. sent9: either the resilience does not occur or the angling happens or both. sent10: that the flouncing does not occur is not incorrect. sent11: if the stabilizing lechwe happens the angling occurs.
|
sent1: ¬{F} -> ({E} & {D}) sent2: {I} -> (¬{G} & ¬{H}) sent3: ({A} v ¬{B}) sent4: ¬{K} -> ({I} & {J}) sent5: (¬{G} & ¬{H}) -> ¬{F} sent6: ¬{B} sent7: (¬{A} v ¬{B}) -> {C} sent8: ¬({K} & {L}) -> ¬{K} sent9: (¬{A} v {B}) sent10: ¬{FP} sent11: {D} -> {B}
|
[
"sent6 -> int1: that either the resilience does not occur or the angling does not occur or both hold.; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 -> int1: (¬{A} v ¬{B}); sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the yawping canfield does not occur.
|
¬{C}
|
[] | 11 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the yawping canfield happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if the gerundialness does not occur the yawping standardization happens and the stabilizing lechwe happens. sent2: that the yawping selectman does not occur and the calorimetricness does not occur is caused by the mitigating vault. sent3: the resilience occurs and/or the angling does not occur. sent4: that both the mitigating vault and the spousalness occurs is brought about by that the imperial does not occur. sent5: that the yawping selectman does not occur and the calorimetricness does not occur prevents that the gerundialness occurs. sent6: the angling does not occur. sent7: if the resilience does not occur and/or the angling does not occur then the yawping canfield happens. sent8: the imperial does not occur if that both the imperial and the cut happens is incorrect. sent9: either the resilience does not occur or the angling happens or both. sent10: that the flouncing does not occur is not incorrect. sent11: if the stabilizing lechwe happens the angling occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 -> int1: that either the resilience does not occur or the angling does not occur or both hold.; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there exists something such that the fact that it is a handsaw and/or it is not a griminess is incorrect is not correct.
|
¬((Ex): ¬({B}x v ¬{C}x))
|
sent1: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a handsaw and/or it is a griminess is not right. sent2: there is something such that it is not a handsaw. sent3: there is something such that it does yawp papulovesicle. sent4: if there exists something such that that it is a pebibit is not wrong that the baste is a handsaw and/or it is not a griminess is false. sent5: the fact that the baste is a antediluvian and/or it is not a kind of a griminess is incorrect. sent6: something is a gymslip and/or does not trip. sent7: if there is something such that the fact that it is a Huxley is correct then that the baste is a pebibit and/or does not mitigate oca is wrong. sent8: if there is something such that it does yawp casuist that the baste is a ginkgo and/or not a griminess is not correct. sent9: something stacks consulship and/or it is not a Renaissance. sent10: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a pebibit the baste is a kind of a griminess. sent11: the baste is a griminess. sent12: the fact that something trips or does not mitigate larvacean or both is not incorrect. sent13: something is a griminess. sent14: that the Chichewa either is a virginal or is not a handsaw or both is incorrect if something mitigates Balder. sent15: there is something such that it is a pebibit.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬({B}x v {C}x) sent2: (Ex): ¬{B}x sent3: (Ex): {DI}x sent4: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) sent5: ¬({R}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) sent6: (Ex): ({GP}x v ¬{FD}x) sent7: (x): {DC}x -> ¬({A}{a} v ¬{HN}{a}) sent8: (x): {IP}x -> ¬({ET}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) sent9: (Ex): ({HP}x v ¬{EE}x) sent10: (x): {A}x -> {C}{a} sent11: {C}{a} sent12: (Ex): ({FD}x v ¬{GG}x) sent13: (Ex): {C}x sent14: (x): {EK}x -> ¬({HM}{aq} v ¬{B}{aq}) sent15: (Ex): {A}x
|
[
"sent15 & sent4 -> int1: the fact that the baste is a handsaw or it is not a kind of a griminess or both is not right.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent15 & sent4 -> int1: ¬({B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that the fact that it is a handsaw and/or it is not a griminess is incorrect is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a handsaw and/or it is a griminess is not right. sent2: there is something such that it is not a handsaw. sent3: there is something such that it does yawp papulovesicle. sent4: if there exists something such that that it is a pebibit is not wrong that the baste is a handsaw and/or it is not a griminess is false. sent5: the fact that the baste is a antediluvian and/or it is not a kind of a griminess is incorrect. sent6: something is a gymslip and/or does not trip. sent7: if there is something such that the fact that it is a Huxley is correct then that the baste is a pebibit and/or does not mitigate oca is wrong. sent8: if there is something such that it does yawp casuist that the baste is a ginkgo and/or not a griminess is not correct. sent9: something stacks consulship and/or it is not a Renaissance. sent10: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a pebibit the baste is a kind of a griminess. sent11: the baste is a griminess. sent12: the fact that something trips or does not mitigate larvacean or both is not incorrect. sent13: something is a griminess. sent14: that the Chichewa either is a virginal or is not a handsaw or both is incorrect if something mitigates Balder. sent15: there is something such that it is a pebibit. ; $proof$ =
|
sent15 & sent4 -> int1: the fact that the baste is a handsaw or it is not a kind of a griminess or both is not right.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the thermion is not a quartan.
|
¬{B}{c}
|
sent1: the nonresident is not a quartan if the thermion is not a contradictoriness. sent2: if something is not a Oedogonium that it does mitigate fondler and/or it is not inopportune is not right. sent3: the comfort is not inopportune. sent4: the nonresident is corrigible if the segment yawps Aphriza but it is not a isogamy. sent5: if the comfort is not inopportune that the nonresident is a contradictoriness and it is a kind of an impossible is not true. sent6: if the nonresident is impossible then the thermion is not quartan. sent7: the fact that the comfort is inopportune but it is not a contradictoriness is not correct if the nonresident is not an impossible. sent8: the fact that the thermion is a kind of an impossible but it is non-quartan does not hold. sent9: the segment yawps Aphriza but it is not a isogamy. sent10: something is a quartan and it is inopportune if it does not mitigate fondler. sent11: if the comfort does not mitigate fondler the thermion is quartan and is not inopportune. sent12: the fact that if the fact that something is not a kind of a telethermometer and is a infeasibility does not hold it does note hold. sent13: that the nonresident is a kind of a contradictoriness and it is an impossible is wrong. sent14: the thermion is not a quartan if that the fact that the nonresident is a kind of a contradictoriness but it is not a kind of an impossible is not right is not wrong. sent15: the fact that something is not a kind of a telethermometer but it is a infeasibility does not hold if it is corrigible. sent16: that something does not countermine and it is not a Oedogonium does not hold if it notes.
|
sent1: ¬{AA}{c} -> ¬{B}{b} sent2: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬({C}x v ¬{A}x) sent3: ¬{A}{a} sent4: ({J}{d} & ¬{K}{d}) -> {I}{b} sent5: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent6: {AB}{b} -> ¬{B}{c} sent7: ¬{AB}{b} -> ¬({A}{a} & ¬{AA}{a}) sent8: ¬({AB}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) sent9: ({J}{d} & ¬{K}{d}) sent10: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) sent11: ¬{C}{a} -> ({B}{c} & ¬{A}{c}) sent12: (x): ¬(¬{G}x & {H}x) -> {F}x sent13: ¬({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent14: ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{c} sent15: (x): {I}x -> ¬(¬{G}x & {H}x) sent16: (x): {F}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{D}x)
|
[] |
[] |
the thermion is a quartan.
|
{B}{c}
|
[
"sent10 -> int1: that the thermion is both quartan and inopportune is true if it does not mitigate fondler.;"
] | 7 | 2 | null | 14 | 0 | 14 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the thermion is not a quartan. ; $context$ = sent1: the nonresident is not a quartan if the thermion is not a contradictoriness. sent2: if something is not a Oedogonium that it does mitigate fondler and/or it is not inopportune is not right. sent3: the comfort is not inopportune. sent4: the nonresident is corrigible if the segment yawps Aphriza but it is not a isogamy. sent5: if the comfort is not inopportune that the nonresident is a contradictoriness and it is a kind of an impossible is not true. sent6: if the nonresident is impossible then the thermion is not quartan. sent7: the fact that the comfort is inopportune but it is not a contradictoriness is not correct if the nonresident is not an impossible. sent8: the fact that the thermion is a kind of an impossible but it is non-quartan does not hold. sent9: the segment yawps Aphriza but it is not a isogamy. sent10: something is a quartan and it is inopportune if it does not mitigate fondler. sent11: if the comfort does not mitigate fondler the thermion is quartan and is not inopportune. sent12: the fact that if the fact that something is not a kind of a telethermometer and is a infeasibility does not hold it does note hold. sent13: that the nonresident is a kind of a contradictoriness and it is an impossible is wrong. sent14: the thermion is not a quartan if that the fact that the nonresident is a kind of a contradictoriness but it is not a kind of an impossible is not right is not wrong. sent15: the fact that something is not a kind of a telethermometer but it is a infeasibility does not hold if it is corrigible. sent16: that something does not countermine and it is not a Oedogonium does not hold if it notes. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the homogenate is not municipal and/or it is a ceramic.
|
(¬{A}{b} v {C}{b})
|
sent1: the homogenate does not mitigate crypt if the fact that the spurner is not a kind of a nebule or is a kind of a Menuhin or both is not right. sent2: that the spurner does not stabilize housewife and/or it is municipal is not correct. sent3: the homogenate is not municipal if that that the spurner is not a kind of a ceramic and/or it is a nebule is true is wrong. sent4: if the homogenate is not municipal it does not mitigate crypt and/or it is a Menuhin. sent5: that the spurner does not mitigate crypt or is a Menuhin or both is false. sent6: either something is not municipal or it is ceramic or both if it is not a Menuhin. sent7: the piping is not ceramic. sent8: if the fact that the homogenate is not a nebule is not wrong then it is not a kind of a ceramic and/or does mitigate crypt. sent9: the spurner is not municipal. sent10: the homogenate does not mitigate crypt and/or is municipal. sent11: the homogenate is a Menuhin and/or it is a ceramic if that it does not mitigate crypt is not false. sent12: the stannite is not a nebule. sent13: the spurner is municipal and/or it is a kind of a nebule if it does not mitigate crypt. sent14: that the spurner does not mitigate crypt and/or is a kind of a nebule is not right. sent15: if the spurner does not mitigate crypt it is not a nebule and/or is a ceramic. sent16: the spurner is not a Camelus and/or is municipal. sent17: the homogenate is not a Menuhin if the fact that the spurner does not mitigate crypt and/or is a kind of a nebule is not correct. sent18: the homogenate is a nebule or it is municipal or both. sent19: the chanar is not a ceramic.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{AB}{a} v {B}{a}) -> ¬{AA}{b} sent2: ¬(¬{GF}{a} v {A}{a}) sent3: ¬(¬{C}{a} v {AB}{a}) -> ¬{A}{b} sent4: ¬{A}{b} -> (¬{AA}{b} v {B}{b}) sent5: ¬(¬{AA}{a} v {B}{a}) sent6: (x): ¬{B}x -> (¬{A}x v {C}x) sent7: ¬{C}{h} sent8: ¬{AB}{b} -> (¬{C}{b} v {AA}{b}) sent9: ¬{A}{a} sent10: (¬{AA}{b} v {A}{b}) sent11: ¬{AA}{b} -> ({B}{b} v {C}{b}) sent12: ¬{AB}{hl} sent13: ¬{AA}{a} -> ({A}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent14: ¬(¬{AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent15: ¬{AA}{a} -> (¬{AB}{a} v {C}{a}) sent16: (¬{AK}{a} v {A}{a}) sent17: ¬(¬{AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent18: ({AB}{b} v {A}{b}) sent19: ¬{C}{er}
|
[
"sent17 & sent14 -> int1: the fact that the homogenate is not a Menuhin is right.; sent6 -> int2: if the homogenate is not a Menuhin then it is not municipal and/or is a ceramic.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent17 & sent14 -> int1: ¬{B}{b}; sent6 -> int2: ¬{B}{b} -> (¬{A}{b} v {C}{b}); int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 16 | 0 | 16 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the homogenate is not municipal and/or it is a ceramic. ; $context$ = sent1: the homogenate does not mitigate crypt if the fact that the spurner is not a kind of a nebule or is a kind of a Menuhin or both is not right. sent2: that the spurner does not stabilize housewife and/or it is municipal is not correct. sent3: the homogenate is not municipal if that that the spurner is not a kind of a ceramic and/or it is a nebule is true is wrong. sent4: if the homogenate is not municipal it does not mitigate crypt and/or it is a Menuhin. sent5: that the spurner does not mitigate crypt or is a Menuhin or both is false. sent6: either something is not municipal or it is ceramic or both if it is not a Menuhin. sent7: the piping is not ceramic. sent8: if the fact that the homogenate is not a nebule is not wrong then it is not a kind of a ceramic and/or does mitigate crypt. sent9: the spurner is not municipal. sent10: the homogenate does not mitigate crypt and/or is municipal. sent11: the homogenate is a Menuhin and/or it is a ceramic if that it does not mitigate crypt is not false. sent12: the stannite is not a nebule. sent13: the spurner is municipal and/or it is a kind of a nebule if it does not mitigate crypt. sent14: that the spurner does not mitigate crypt and/or is a kind of a nebule is not right. sent15: if the spurner does not mitigate crypt it is not a nebule and/or is a ceramic. sent16: the spurner is not a Camelus and/or is municipal. sent17: the homogenate is not a Menuhin if the fact that the spurner does not mitigate crypt and/or is a kind of a nebule is not correct. sent18: the homogenate is a nebule or it is municipal or both. sent19: the chanar is not a ceramic. ; $proof$ =
|
sent17 & sent14 -> int1: the fact that the homogenate is not a Menuhin is right.; sent6 -> int2: if the homogenate is not a Menuhin then it is not municipal and/or is a ceramic.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Marathon occurs.
|
{C}
|
sent1: the stabilizing worry occurs. sent2: if the Maltese occurs the fact that not the Javanese but the yawping label occurs is not true. sent3: if the mitigating dogma does not occur then the emerging happens. sent4: the yawping Watergate occurs. sent5: if the fact that the Javanese does not occur but the yawping label happens does not hold the retort occurs. sent6: that the reading happens brings about that not the retorting but the generating happens. sent7: the Eddy occurs if the fact that not the ichthyolatry but the avenue occurs does not hold. sent8: the fact that the retort happens is not false if the fact that the Javaneseness happens is not incorrect. sent9: the Marathon does not occur and the generating does not occur if the reading occurs. sent10: that the Javanese and the yawping label happens does not hold. sent11: the fact that not the yawping coruscation but the genitourinariness happens is not true. sent12: if the Malteseness occurs then the fact that the Javaneseness occurs and the yawping label occurs is not true. sent13: that that the Marathon happens is brought about by that the retort happens hold. sent14: the reading happens if that the yawping Adiantum does not occur and the binomial does not occur is incorrect.
|
sent1: {BT} sent2: {A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent3: ¬{IJ} -> {AD} sent4: {HA} sent5: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent6: {E} -> (¬{B} & {D}) sent7: ¬(¬{P} & {GG}) -> {IL} sent8: {AA} -> {B} sent9: {E} -> (¬{C} & ¬{D}) sent10: ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent11: ¬(¬{HO} & {CR}) sent12: {A} -> ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent13: {B} -> {C} sent14: ¬(¬{F} & ¬{G}) -> {E}
|
[] |
[] |
the Marathon does not occur.
|
¬{C}
|
[] | 7 | 3 | null | 11 | 0 | 11 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the Marathon occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the stabilizing worry occurs. sent2: if the Maltese occurs the fact that not the Javanese but the yawping label occurs is not true. sent3: if the mitigating dogma does not occur then the emerging happens. sent4: the yawping Watergate occurs. sent5: if the fact that the Javanese does not occur but the yawping label happens does not hold the retort occurs. sent6: that the reading happens brings about that not the retorting but the generating happens. sent7: the Eddy occurs if the fact that not the ichthyolatry but the avenue occurs does not hold. sent8: the fact that the retort happens is not false if the fact that the Javaneseness happens is not incorrect. sent9: the Marathon does not occur and the generating does not occur if the reading occurs. sent10: that the Javanese and the yawping label happens does not hold. sent11: the fact that not the yawping coruscation but the genitourinariness happens is not true. sent12: if the Malteseness occurs then the fact that the Javaneseness occurs and the yawping label occurs is not true. sent13: that that the Marathon happens is brought about by that the retort happens hold. sent14: the reading happens if that the yawping Adiantum does not occur and the binomial does not occur is incorrect. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the bucksaw is a monophony.
|
{B}{aa}
|
sent1: something does yawp martyr if it is not dysgenic. sent2: if the fact that the bucksaw is a kind of a sanguine hold it does not yawp martyr and is not a monophony. sent3: if the bucksaw is not a quadrature it is a kind of a sanguine that cankers. sent4: if the sampler does yawp martyr and is not a kind of a monophony then the bucksaw is not a monophony. sent5: if that something is both dysgenic and non-pyroelectric is wrong then it does yawp martyr. sent6: there exists nothing that is dysgenic thing that is not pyroelectric. sent7: if the fact that the Evangelist is an incidental and does not mitigate Massenet does not hold it yawps martyr. sent8: something is a kind of a monophony if it yawps martyr. sent9: the bucksaw yawps martyr if the fact that it is not dysgenic hold.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{AA}x -> {A}x sent2: {C}{aa} -> (¬{A}{aa} & ¬{B}{aa}) sent3: ¬{E}{aa} -> ({C}{aa} & {D}{aa}) sent4: ({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent5: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}x sent6: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent7: ¬({DL}{be} & ¬{K}{be}) -> {A}{be} sent8: (x): {A}x -> {B}x sent9: ¬{AA}{aa} -> {A}{aa}
|
[
"sent6 -> int1: that the bucksaw is dysgenic and is not pyroelectric is not right.; sent5 -> int2: the bucksaw does yawp martyr if the fact that it is dysgenic and is not pyroelectric is not right.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the bucksaw does yawp martyr.; sent8 -> int4: the bucksaw is a monophony if it does yawp martyr.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 -> int1: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); sent5 -> int2: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {A}{aa}; sent8 -> int4: {A}{aa} -> {B}{aa}; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the bucksaw is not a monophony.
|
¬{B}{aa}
|
[] | 4 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 6 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the bucksaw is a monophony. ; $context$ = sent1: something does yawp martyr if it is not dysgenic. sent2: if the fact that the bucksaw is a kind of a sanguine hold it does not yawp martyr and is not a monophony. sent3: if the bucksaw is not a quadrature it is a kind of a sanguine that cankers. sent4: if the sampler does yawp martyr and is not a kind of a monophony then the bucksaw is not a monophony. sent5: if that something is both dysgenic and non-pyroelectric is wrong then it does yawp martyr. sent6: there exists nothing that is dysgenic thing that is not pyroelectric. sent7: if the fact that the Evangelist is an incidental and does not mitigate Massenet does not hold it yawps martyr. sent8: something is a kind of a monophony if it yawps martyr. sent9: the bucksaw yawps martyr if the fact that it is not dysgenic hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 -> int1: that the bucksaw is dysgenic and is not pyroelectric is not right.; sent5 -> int2: the bucksaw does yawp martyr if the fact that it is dysgenic and is not pyroelectric is not right.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the bucksaw does yawp martyr.; sent8 -> int4: the bucksaw is a monophony if it does yawp martyr.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Montrachet is a kind of a Khama.
|
{B}{a}
|
sent1: the Montrachet does not stabilize symbology. sent2: The symbology does not stabilize Montrachet. sent3: something is a Khama if it is a nasopharynx that is a vein. sent4: the fact that if a nasopharynx is not a kind of a vein then it is a Khama hold. sent5: if the Montrachet does not stabilize symbology then it is a nasopharynx and not a vein. sent6: if the Montrachet is a nasopharynx and is a vein then it is a Khama. sent7: the scissortail is a Cromwell. sent8: the scissortail does not stack unsolvability and it does not mitigate repartee. sent9: something stacks Medellin if it does stabilize vogue and it does not mitigate Shamash. sent10: the Montrachet is a vacation but it does not vein. sent11: that the Montrachet is not a kind of a vein is correct if it does not stabilize symbology.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{a} sent2: ¬{AC}{aa} sent3: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent4: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent5: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent6: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent7: {D}{d} sent8: (¬{C}{d} & ¬{E}{d}) sent9: (x): ({IG}x & ¬{EE}x) -> {HT}x sent10: ({EJ}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent11: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{AB}{a}
|
[
"sent5 & sent1 -> int1: the Montrachet is a kind of a nasopharynx but it does not vein.; sent4 -> int2: if the Montrachet is a nasopharynx but it is not a vein then it is a Khama.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 & sent1 -> int1: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); sent4 -> int2: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the Montrachet is not a kind of a Khama is right.
|
¬{B}{a}
|
[
"sent8 -> int3: that the scissortail does not stack unsolvability is right.; int3 & sent7 -> int4: the scissortail does not stack unsolvability but it is a Cromwell.; int4 -> int5: there is something such that it does not stack unsolvability and it is a Cromwell.;"
] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the Montrachet is a kind of a Khama. ; $context$ = sent1: the Montrachet does not stabilize symbology. sent2: The symbology does not stabilize Montrachet. sent3: something is a Khama if it is a nasopharynx that is a vein. sent4: the fact that if a nasopharynx is not a kind of a vein then it is a Khama hold. sent5: if the Montrachet does not stabilize symbology then it is a nasopharynx and not a vein. sent6: if the Montrachet is a nasopharynx and is a vein then it is a Khama. sent7: the scissortail is a Cromwell. sent8: the scissortail does not stack unsolvability and it does not mitigate repartee. sent9: something stacks Medellin if it does stabilize vogue and it does not mitigate Shamash. sent10: the Montrachet is a vacation but it does not vein. sent11: that the Montrachet is not a kind of a vein is correct if it does not stabilize symbology. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 & sent1 -> int1: the Montrachet is a kind of a nasopharynx but it does not vein.; sent4 -> int2: if the Montrachet is a nasopharynx but it is not a vein then it is a Khama.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the deliverableness happens.
|
{C}
|
sent1: the mandibularness is prevented by that the enfranchisement happens and the mitigating standardization does not occur. sent2: if the winding occurs the misbelieving occurs. sent3: if the phosphorescence happens then the enfranchisement but not the mitigating standardization occurs. sent4: the deliverable does not occur if the fact that the synchronicness happens is true. sent5: that the whoopee and the adjuration happens does not hold if the truncation does not occur. sent6: that the conquerableness does not occur and/or the misbelieving yields that the conquerableness does not occur. sent7: if the conquerableness happens then the deliverableness happens. sent8: if the enfranchisement happens then that the mandibularness but not the mitigating standardization happens is incorrect. sent9: the Chase happens. sent10: if the heading does not occur then the fact that the winding and the seigneury occurs hold. sent11: if that the wind does not occur hold then the conquerableness happens and the misbelieving happens. sent12: if the synchronicness but not the Chase occurs then the peripeteia does not occur. sent13: both the enfranchisement and the phosphorescence occurs if the whoopee does not occur. sent14: the wind does not occur if the fact that the seigneury happens but the heading does not occur is not correct. sent15: the biblioticness does not occur if that the mandibularness occurs and the mitigating standardization does not occur does not hold. sent16: if the mandibularness happens the cloning does not occur. sent17: that the synchronicness happens results in that the deliverable happens. sent18: that the seigneury happens but the heading does not occur is incorrect if the biblioticness does not occur. sent19: the whoopee does not occur if that that both the whoopee and the adjuration occurs is wrong hold. sent20: the heading does not occur and the biblioticness occurs if the fact that the mandibularness does not occur hold. sent21: that the deliverable occurs is prevented by the synchronicness or the Chase or both.
|
sent1: ({L} & ¬{K}) -> ¬{J} sent2: {F} -> {E} sent3: {M} -> ({L} & ¬{K}) sent4: {A} -> ¬{C} sent5: ¬{O} -> ¬({N} & {P}) sent6: (¬{D} v {E}) -> ¬{D} sent7: {D} -> {C} sent8: {L} -> ¬({J} & ¬{K}) sent9: {B} sent10: ¬{H} -> ({F} & {G}) sent11: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) sent12: ({A} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{JD} sent13: ¬{N} -> ({L} & {M}) sent14: ¬({G} & ¬{H}) -> ¬{F} sent15: ¬({J} & ¬{K}) -> ¬{I} sent16: {J} -> ¬{HC} sent17: {A} -> {C} sent18: ¬{I} -> ¬({G} & ¬{H}) sent19: ¬({N} & {P}) -> ¬{N} sent20: ¬{J} -> (¬{H} & {I}) sent21: ({A} v {B}) -> ¬{C}
|
[
"sent9 -> int1: either the synchronicness occurs or the Chase happens or both.; sent21 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 -> int1: ({A} v {B}); sent21 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the deliverable occurs.
|
{C}
|
[] | 12 | 2 | 2 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the deliverableness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the mandibularness is prevented by that the enfranchisement happens and the mitigating standardization does not occur. sent2: if the winding occurs the misbelieving occurs. sent3: if the phosphorescence happens then the enfranchisement but not the mitigating standardization occurs. sent4: the deliverable does not occur if the fact that the synchronicness happens is true. sent5: that the whoopee and the adjuration happens does not hold if the truncation does not occur. sent6: that the conquerableness does not occur and/or the misbelieving yields that the conquerableness does not occur. sent7: if the conquerableness happens then the deliverableness happens. sent8: if the enfranchisement happens then that the mandibularness but not the mitigating standardization happens is incorrect. sent9: the Chase happens. sent10: if the heading does not occur then the fact that the winding and the seigneury occurs hold. sent11: if that the wind does not occur hold then the conquerableness happens and the misbelieving happens. sent12: if the synchronicness but not the Chase occurs then the peripeteia does not occur. sent13: both the enfranchisement and the phosphorescence occurs if the whoopee does not occur. sent14: the wind does not occur if the fact that the seigneury happens but the heading does not occur is not correct. sent15: the biblioticness does not occur if that the mandibularness occurs and the mitigating standardization does not occur does not hold. sent16: if the mandibularness happens the cloning does not occur. sent17: that the synchronicness happens results in that the deliverable happens. sent18: that the seigneury happens but the heading does not occur is incorrect if the biblioticness does not occur. sent19: the whoopee does not occur if that that both the whoopee and the adjuration occurs is wrong hold. sent20: the heading does not occur and the biblioticness occurs if the fact that the mandibularness does not occur hold. sent21: that the deliverable occurs is prevented by the synchronicness or the Chase or both. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 -> int1: either the synchronicness occurs or the Chase happens or both.; sent21 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fingernail is not a syphilitic but diamantine.
|
(¬{F}{c} & {H}{c})
|
sent1: there is something such that it gyrates. sent2: something is pteridological. sent3: that if something is not intraventricular then it either is diamantine or is a syphilitic or both is right. sent4: something is a kind of syphilitic thing that is anthropometric. sent5: the patty is a macaroni if the fact that the placeman is a kind of non-butyric thing that rendezvous is not incorrect. sent6: there exists something such that it is a rendezvous and butyric. sent7: something is either intraventricular or asyndetic or both if it is not anthropometric. sent8: if the placeman is asyndetic the electrum is not a syphilitic. sent9: the louse is sarcastic and/or stabilizes trainband. sent10: if the placeman is intraventricular the electrum is not a kind of a syphilitic. sent11: there exists something such that it does stack SI. sent12: if the fingernail is not diamantine the placeman is diamantine but not non-intraventricular. sent13: the placeman is intraventricular and/or is a kind of a syphilitic. sent14: if the placeman is diamantine the fingernail is not intraventricular. sent15: the electrum is both not a stockist and anthropometric. sent16: the fingernail is not anthropometric. sent17: that the fingernail is not asyndetic if the placeman is syphilitic hold. sent18: if the electrum is butyric the placeman is a rendezvous. sent19: there exists something such that the fact that it is diamantine hold. sent20: the fact that if the electrum is not a kind of a syphilitic then the fingernail is not non-diamantine hold. sent21: the fingernail is accommodative. sent22: there is something such that it is a syphilitic. sent23: if something is not asyndetic then it is not anthropometric and/or is butyric. sent24: if the electrum is not a kind of a syphilitic the fingernail is not a syphilitic but it is diamantine. sent25: something is butyric.
|
sent1: (Ex): {HQ}x sent2: (Ex): {CL}x sent3: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({H}x v {F}x) sent4: (Ex): ({F}x & {C}x) sent5: (¬{B}{a} & {A}{a}) -> {CF}{eg} sent6: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x) sent7: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({E}x v {D}x) sent8: {D}{a} -> ¬{F}{b} sent9: ({HH}{hl} v {JE}{hl}) sent10: {E}{a} -> ¬{F}{b} sent11: (Ex): {P}x sent12: ¬{H}{c} -> (¬{H}{a} & {E}{a}) sent13: ({E}{a} v {F}{a}) sent14: {H}{a} -> ¬{E}{c} sent15: (¬{FE}{b} & {C}{b}) sent16: ¬{C}{c} sent17: {F}{a} -> ¬{D}{c} sent18: {B}{b} -> {A}{a} sent19: (Ex): {H}x sent20: ¬{F}{b} -> {H}{c} sent21: {JJ}{c} sent22: (Ex): {F}x sent23: (x): ¬{D}x -> (¬{C}x v {B}x) sent24: ¬{F}{b} -> (¬{F}{c} & {H}{c}) sent25: (Ex): {B}x
|
[
"sent7 -> int1: if the placeman is not anthropometric then either it is intraventricular or it is asyndetic or both.;"
] |
[
"sent7 -> int1: ¬{C}{a} -> ({E}{a} v {D}{a});"
] |
either the patty is a kind of a macaroni or it is orthopedic or both.
|
({CF}{eg} v {GF}{eg})
|
[] | 5 | 4 | null | 20 | 0 | 20 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fingernail is not a syphilitic but diamantine. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it gyrates. sent2: something is pteridological. sent3: that if something is not intraventricular then it either is diamantine or is a syphilitic or both is right. sent4: something is a kind of syphilitic thing that is anthropometric. sent5: the patty is a macaroni if the fact that the placeman is a kind of non-butyric thing that rendezvous is not incorrect. sent6: there exists something such that it is a rendezvous and butyric. sent7: something is either intraventricular or asyndetic or both if it is not anthropometric. sent8: if the placeman is asyndetic the electrum is not a syphilitic. sent9: the louse is sarcastic and/or stabilizes trainband. sent10: if the placeman is intraventricular the electrum is not a kind of a syphilitic. sent11: there exists something such that it does stack SI. sent12: if the fingernail is not diamantine the placeman is diamantine but not non-intraventricular. sent13: the placeman is intraventricular and/or is a kind of a syphilitic. sent14: if the placeman is diamantine the fingernail is not intraventricular. sent15: the electrum is both not a stockist and anthropometric. sent16: the fingernail is not anthropometric. sent17: that the fingernail is not asyndetic if the placeman is syphilitic hold. sent18: if the electrum is butyric the placeman is a rendezvous. sent19: there exists something such that the fact that it is diamantine hold. sent20: the fact that if the electrum is not a kind of a syphilitic then the fingernail is not non-diamantine hold. sent21: the fingernail is accommodative. sent22: there is something such that it is a syphilitic. sent23: if something is not asyndetic then it is not anthropometric and/or is butyric. sent24: if the electrum is not a kind of a syphilitic the fingernail is not a syphilitic but it is diamantine. sent25: something is butyric. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 -> int1: if the placeman is not anthropometric then either it is intraventricular or it is asyndetic or both.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the shelduck is inertial is not wrong.
|
{C}{a}
|
sent1: if that the shelduck is humic and/or it does not mitigate umbel is false the codeine does mitigate umbel. sent2: if the shelduck is humic then it mitigates umbel. sent3: if the fact that something is not a wiriness and does not yawp Koasati is incorrect it does not mitigate umbel. sent4: if something mitigates umbel it is inertial. sent5: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a Narthecium and it is not non-myelinic is wrong. sent6: the shelduck is humic if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a Narthecium and it is myelinic is false.
|
sent1: ¬({A}{a} v ¬{B}{a}) -> {B}{jf} sent2: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent3: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{B}x sent4: (x): {B}x -> {C}x sent5: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent6: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a}
|
[
"sent5 & sent6 -> int1: the shelduck is humic.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the shelduck mitigates umbel.; sent4 -> int3: if the shelduck does mitigate umbel it is inertial.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 & sent6 -> int1: {A}{a}; int1 & sent2 -> int2: {B}{a}; sent4 -> int3: {B}{a} -> {C}{a}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the shelduck is not inertial.
|
¬{C}{a}
|
[
"sent3 -> int4: the fact that the shelduck does not mitigate umbel is right if that it is not a wiriness and does not yawp Koasati is not correct.;"
] | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the shelduck is inertial is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the shelduck is humic and/or it does not mitigate umbel is false the codeine does mitigate umbel. sent2: if the shelduck is humic then it mitigates umbel. sent3: if the fact that something is not a wiriness and does not yawp Koasati is incorrect it does not mitigate umbel. sent4: if something mitigates umbel it is inertial. sent5: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a Narthecium and it is not non-myelinic is wrong. sent6: the shelduck is humic if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a Narthecium and it is myelinic is false. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 & sent6 -> int1: the shelduck is humic.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the shelduck mitigates umbel.; sent4 -> int3: if the shelduck does mitigate umbel it is inertial.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the loir does not satiate and is a monolingual.
|
(¬{C}{b} & {D}{b})
|
sent1: that if the ctene mitigates bristlegrass the kennel does mitigates bristlegrass is not false. sent2: the fact that the loir is not satiate but it is a monolingual is not right if the kennel does not mitigate rune. sent3: that the kennel does mitigate rune and yawps PABA hold. sent4: something yawps PABA and does not mitigate rune if it mitigates bristlegrass. sent5: the fact that something does overpay and does not mitigate bristlegrass is not correct if it does mitigate ctene.
|
sent1: {E}{c} -> {E}{a} sent2: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{C}{b} & {D}{b}) sent3: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent4: (x): {E}x -> ({B}x & ¬{A}x) sent5: (x): {G}x -> ¬({F}x & ¬{E}x)
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: the kennel mitigates rune.;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> int1: {A}{a};"
] |
that the loir does not satiate and is monolingual is not right.
|
¬(¬{C}{b} & {D}{b})
|
[
"sent4 -> int2: if the kennel mitigates bristlegrass it yawps PABA and it does not mitigate rune.; sent5 -> int3: if the volcano does mitigate ctene the fact that it overpays and does not mitigate bristlegrass is not right.;"
] | 8 | 2 | null | 4 | 0 | 4 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the loir does not satiate and is a monolingual. ; $context$ = sent1: that if the ctene mitigates bristlegrass the kennel does mitigates bristlegrass is not false. sent2: the fact that the loir is not satiate but it is a monolingual is not right if the kennel does not mitigate rune. sent3: that the kennel does mitigate rune and yawps PABA hold. sent4: something yawps PABA and does not mitigate rune if it mitigates bristlegrass. sent5: the fact that something does overpay and does not mitigate bristlegrass is not correct if it does mitigate ctene. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> int1: the kennel mitigates rune.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it stabilizes protoplasm and/or it is not a hoper then it is a flare.
|
(Ex): ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x
|
sent1: something is a flare if it either does stabilize protoplasm or is a hoper or both. sent2: something flares if it stabilizes protoplasm and/or it is not a hoper. sent3: the candlepins is inanimate if it is a kind of a Naiki or does not stabilize protoplasm or both. sent4: there exists something such that if it is a pointedness then that it is a characteristic is not wrong. sent5: something is dithyrambic if it yawps poet or it does not mitigate corbelled or both. sent6: if the fleer does baffle or it does not feast or both then it is a Croatian.
|
sent1: (x): ({AA}x v {AB}x) -> {B}x sent2: (x): ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent3: ({DU}{ba} v ¬{AA}{ba}) -> {FJ}{ba} sent4: (Ex): {JE}x -> {CI}x sent5: (x): ({ET}x v ¬{DF}x) -> {GE}x sent6: ({FN}{aa} v ¬{FG}{aa}) -> {BM}{aa}
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: the fleer flares if it stabilizes protoplasm or is not a hoper or both.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there exists something such that if it does yawp poet and/or it does not mitigate corbelled it is dithyrambic.
|
(Ex): ({ET}x v ¬{DF}x) -> {GE}x
|
[
"sent5 -> int2: if the abominator does yawp poet and/or it does not mitigate corbelled then it is not non-dithyrambic.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it stabilizes protoplasm and/or it is not a hoper then it is a flare. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a flare if it either does stabilize protoplasm or is a hoper or both. sent2: something flares if it stabilizes protoplasm and/or it is not a hoper. sent3: the candlepins is inanimate if it is a kind of a Naiki or does not stabilize protoplasm or both. sent4: there exists something such that if it is a pointedness then that it is a characteristic is not wrong. sent5: something is dithyrambic if it yawps poet or it does not mitigate corbelled or both. sent6: if the fleer does baffle or it does not feast or both then it is a Croatian. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> int1: the fleer flares if it stabilizes protoplasm or is not a hoper or both.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the digest is not infallible.
|
¬{A}{aa}
|
sent1: if the club is infallible the fact that the digest is uncared-for or frozen or both does not hold. sent2: that either the digest is not macrobiotic or it is not a alastrim or both is not correct. sent3: if the fact that something is not a kind of a Namtar and/or it is not macrobiotic is incorrect then it is infallible. sent4: if the gynophore is not a heath then the foster-mother is both not a lift and not fallible. sent5: something is not leptosporangiate if that it is unintelligent and is not funerary is not true. sent6: if the foster-mother is not a lift but it is infallible the club is infallible. sent7: the fact that something is unintelligent but not funerary is wrong if it mitigates gynophore. sent8: something is not a kind of a heath and is a convertible if it is not leptosporangiate. sent9: there exists nothing that either is not a Namtar or is non-macrobiotic or both.
|
sent1: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AL}{aa} v ¬{FJ}{aa}) sent2: ¬(¬{AB}{aa} v ¬{FN}{aa}) sent3: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> {A}x sent4: ¬{C}{c} -> (¬{B}{b} & {A}{b}) sent5: (x): ¬({F}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{E}x sent6: (¬{B}{b} & {A}{b}) -> {A}{a} sent7: (x): {H}x -> ¬({F}x & ¬{G}x) sent8: (x): ¬{E}x -> (¬{C}x & {D}x) sent9: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x)
|
[
"sent9 -> int1: the fact that the digest is not a Namtar or is not macrobiotic or both is not correct.; sent3 -> int2: if the fact that the digest is not a kind of a Namtar and/or it is not macrobiotic is incorrect then it is infallible.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}); sent3 -> int2: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the digest either is not cared-for or is not unfrozen or both does not hold.
|
¬(¬{AL}{aa} v ¬{FJ}{aa})
|
[
"sent8 -> int3: if the gynophore is not leptosporangiate then it is not a heath and it is not inconvertible.; sent5 -> int4: the fact that the gynophore is not leptosporangiate if the fact that the gynophore is unintelligent but it is non-funerary is not correct is not incorrect.; sent7 -> int5: the fact that the gynophore is a kind of unintelligent thing that is not funerary is not correct if it does mitigate gynophore.;"
] | 8 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the digest is not infallible. ; $context$ = sent1: if the club is infallible the fact that the digest is uncared-for or frozen or both does not hold. sent2: that either the digest is not macrobiotic or it is not a alastrim or both is not correct. sent3: if the fact that something is not a kind of a Namtar and/or it is not macrobiotic is incorrect then it is infallible. sent4: if the gynophore is not a heath then the foster-mother is both not a lift and not fallible. sent5: something is not leptosporangiate if that it is unintelligent and is not funerary is not true. sent6: if the foster-mother is not a lift but it is infallible the club is infallible. sent7: the fact that something is unintelligent but not funerary is wrong if it mitigates gynophore. sent8: something is not a kind of a heath and is a convertible if it is not leptosporangiate. sent9: there exists nothing that either is not a Namtar or is non-macrobiotic or both. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 -> int1: the fact that the digest is not a Namtar or is not macrobiotic or both is not correct.; sent3 -> int2: if the fact that the digest is not a kind of a Namtar and/or it is not macrobiotic is incorrect then it is infallible.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if that it yawps Orthotomus and it is not a groove hold then it is not a Florentine.
|
(Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
sent1: if the deflation yawps Orthotomus and it is a groove then it is not a Florentine. sent2: the deflation is not a kind of a Florentine if it yawps Orthotomus and does not groove. sent3: there exists something such that if it does yawp Orthotomus and is a groove that it is not a Florentine is correct. sent4: that the deflation is a kind of a Florentine is right if it yawps Orthotomus and is not a groove. sent5: if something is protrusive but not purgatorial it is not noseless. sent6: there exists something such that if it yawps Orthotomus and does not groove it is a kind of a Florentine.
|
sent1: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent2: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent3: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent4: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent5: (x): ({FE}x & ¬{BQ}x) -> ¬{CS}x sent6: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x
|
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there exists something such that if it is protrusive and it is not purgatorial it is not noseless.
|
(Ex): ({FE}x & ¬{BQ}x) -> ¬{CS}x
|
[
"sent5 -> int1: if the apomict is protrusive but it is not purgatorial it is not noseless.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if that it yawps Orthotomus and it is not a groove hold then it is not a Florentine. ; $context$ = sent1: if the deflation yawps Orthotomus and it is a groove then it is not a Florentine. sent2: the deflation is not a kind of a Florentine if it yawps Orthotomus and does not groove. sent3: there exists something such that if it does yawp Orthotomus and is a groove that it is not a Florentine is correct. sent4: that the deflation is a kind of a Florentine is right if it yawps Orthotomus and is not a groove. sent5: if something is protrusive but not purgatorial it is not noseless. sent6: there exists something such that if it yawps Orthotomus and does not groove it is a kind of a Florentine. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the lysogenicness does not occur.
|
¬{B}
|
sent1: the stabilizing Hellman does not occur if the fact that not the literature but the stabilizing Hellman occurs does not hold. sent2: the yawping respite does not occur. sent3: that the judo happens and the yawping rafter occurs is wrong if the stabilizing Hellman does not occur. sent4: the linguisticness does not occur. sent5: the prizefighting does not occur. sent6: the formalization is prevented by that the necessariness happens and the rejoinder does not occur. sent7: the Donneanness does not occur. sent8: the mitigating burl does not occur. sent9: the recombining does not occur. sent10: if the yawping rafter does not occur then the lysogenicness happens. sent11: if the formalization does not occur then that the literature does not occur and the stabilizing Hellman occurs is false. sent12: the facility does not occur. sent13: the yawping rafter does not occur. sent14: if the Ravel does not occur the unfortunate happens.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{F} & {D}) -> ¬{D} sent2: ¬{IH} sent3: ¬{D} -> ¬({C} & {A}) sent4: ¬{FH} sent5: ¬{GU} sent6: ({H} & ¬{G}) -> ¬{E} sent7: ¬{CK} sent8: ¬{BB} sent9: ¬{CB} sent10: ¬{A} -> {B} sent11: ¬{E} -> ¬(¬{F} & {D}) sent12: ¬{CH} sent13: ¬{A} sent14: ¬{IQ} -> {CE}
|
[
"sent10 & sent13 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent10 & sent13 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the lysogenicness does not occur is not incorrect.
|
¬{B}
|
[] | 9 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the lysogenicness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the stabilizing Hellman does not occur if the fact that not the literature but the stabilizing Hellman occurs does not hold. sent2: the yawping respite does not occur. sent3: that the judo happens and the yawping rafter occurs is wrong if the stabilizing Hellman does not occur. sent4: the linguisticness does not occur. sent5: the prizefighting does not occur. sent6: the formalization is prevented by that the necessariness happens and the rejoinder does not occur. sent7: the Donneanness does not occur. sent8: the mitigating burl does not occur. sent9: the recombining does not occur. sent10: if the yawping rafter does not occur then the lysogenicness happens. sent11: if the formalization does not occur then that the literature does not occur and the stabilizing Hellman occurs is false. sent12: the facility does not occur. sent13: the yawping rafter does not occur. sent14: if the Ravel does not occur the unfortunate happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent10 & sent13 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the climatologist does not stabilize bedstead.
|
¬{C}{c}
|
sent1: something is a spud if it is a kind of a serif. sent2: if the fact that the hoofer is small-capitalization hold then the climatologist does stabilize bedstead. sent3: the fact that the miro is not continental is not false. sent4: if that something is not a kind of a crossbill and is a suspension is wrong it is small-capitalization. sent5: if that the hoofer is not small-capitalization but it does stabilize bedstead is incorrect it is continental. sent6: the hoofer does yawp climatologist and is sugary if there exists something such that it is a draining. sent7: if that the hoofer is not non-sugary is not wrong then the fact that the miro does croquet and does not yawp foreground is not right. sent8: something is not continental but it is small-capitalization if the fact that it yawps foreground is not incorrect. sent9: the fact that the hoofer is not a crossbill but it is a kind of a suspension is not right if the miro is not continental. sent10: the sparrow is a kind of a draining. sent11: if something that is non-continental is small-capitalization it does not stabilize bedstead.
|
sent1: (x): {EI}x -> {HG}x sent2: {B}{b} -> {C}{c} sent3: ¬{A}{a} sent4: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent5: ¬(¬{B}{b} & {C}{b}) -> {A}{b} sent6: (x): {H}x -> ({G}{b} & {E}{b}) sent7: {E}{b} -> ¬({F}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent8: (x): {D}x -> (¬{A}x & {B}x) sent9: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent10: {H}{d} sent11: (x): (¬{A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}x
|
[
"sent9 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the hoofer is not a crossbill but it is a suspension does not hold.; sent4 -> int2: if that the hoofer is both not a crossbill and a suspension is not correct then it is small-capitalization.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the hoofer is small-capitalization.; int3 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 & sent3 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}); sent4 -> int2: ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) -> {B}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {B}{b}; int3 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the climatologist does not stabilize bedstead.
|
¬{C}{c}
|
[
"sent11 -> int4: if the climatologist is non-continental but it is small-capitalization then it does not stabilize bedstead.; sent8 -> int5: the climatologist is not continental but it is small-capitalization if it does yawp foreground.; sent10 -> int6: there exists something such that it drains.; int6 & sent6 -> int7: the hoofer yawps climatologist and it is sugary.; int7 -> int8: the hoofer is sugary.; sent7 & int8 -> int9: the fact that the miro is a croquet but it does not yawp foreground is wrong.; int9 -> int10: there exists something such that that it is a croquet and it does not yawp foreground is not correct.;"
] | 8 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the climatologist does not stabilize bedstead. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a spud if it is a kind of a serif. sent2: if the fact that the hoofer is small-capitalization hold then the climatologist does stabilize bedstead. sent3: the fact that the miro is not continental is not false. sent4: if that something is not a kind of a crossbill and is a suspension is wrong it is small-capitalization. sent5: if that the hoofer is not small-capitalization but it does stabilize bedstead is incorrect it is continental. sent6: the hoofer does yawp climatologist and is sugary if there exists something such that it is a draining. sent7: if that the hoofer is not non-sugary is not wrong then the fact that the miro does croquet and does not yawp foreground is not right. sent8: something is not continental but it is small-capitalization if the fact that it yawps foreground is not incorrect. sent9: the fact that the hoofer is not a crossbill but it is a kind of a suspension is not right if the miro is not continental. sent10: the sparrow is a kind of a draining. sent11: if something that is non-continental is small-capitalization it does not stabilize bedstead. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the hoofer is not a crossbill but it is a suspension does not hold.; sent4 -> int2: if that the hoofer is both not a crossbill and a suspension is not correct then it is small-capitalization.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the hoofer is small-capitalization.; int3 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the rescuer stabilizes PABA and is metastable is not correct.
|
¬({A}{a} & {B}{a})
|
sent1: if that the rescuer does not stabilize PABA but it is metastable does not hold the microfossil stabilize PABA. sent2: if something does not dilute then that it stabilizes PABA and is metastable is wrong. sent3: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a representative and it is compatible is not correct. sent4: the orbit stabilizes PABA. sent5: if something is compatible then the rescuer stabilizes PABA. sent6: something is metastable and does not dilute. sent7: that the rescuer does stabilize PABA hold if there is something such that the fact that it is representative but not compatible is not true. sent8: there is something such that that it is a kind of a representative and it is not compatible does not hold. sent9: if something is not a registrar then the fact that it is a jargoon and it is a kind of a Hillary does not hold. sent10: the fact that there are representative and incompatible things is not false. sent11: if the rescuer dilutes then that it is metastable is not false. sent12: if the chrysanthemum is a jargoon the fact that that the fact that the Druze is not a Hillary and does dilute is not false is not right hold. sent13: the rescuer dilutes. sent14: if the Druze does not dilute then that the rescuer does not stabilize PABA but it is metastable does not hold.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> {A}{fh} sent2: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({A}x & {B}x) sent3: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent4: {A}{au} sent5: (x): {AB}x -> {A}{a} sent6: (Ex): ({B}x & ¬{C}x) sent7: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent8: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent9: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬({D}x & {E}x) sent10: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent11: {C}{a} -> {B}{a} sent12: {D}{c} -> ¬(¬{E}{b} & {C}{b}) sent13: {C}{a} sent14: ¬{C}{b} -> ¬(¬{A}{a} & {B}{a})
|
[
"sent8 & sent7 -> int1: the rescuer stabilizes PABA.; sent11 & sent13 -> int2: the rescuer is metastable.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 & sent7 -> int1: {A}{a}; sent11 & sent13 -> int2: {B}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the rescuer does stabilize PABA and it is metastable is false.
|
¬({A}{a} & {B}{a})
|
[
"sent2 -> int3: if the rescuer does not dilute then that it stabilizes PABA and is metastable is not true.;"
] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the rescuer stabilizes PABA and is metastable is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the rescuer does not stabilize PABA but it is metastable does not hold the microfossil stabilize PABA. sent2: if something does not dilute then that it stabilizes PABA and is metastable is wrong. sent3: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a representative and it is compatible is not correct. sent4: the orbit stabilizes PABA. sent5: if something is compatible then the rescuer stabilizes PABA. sent6: something is metastable and does not dilute. sent7: that the rescuer does stabilize PABA hold if there is something such that the fact that it is representative but not compatible is not true. sent8: there is something such that that it is a kind of a representative and it is not compatible does not hold. sent9: if something is not a registrar then the fact that it is a jargoon and it is a kind of a Hillary does not hold. sent10: the fact that there are representative and incompatible things is not false. sent11: if the rescuer dilutes then that it is metastable is not false. sent12: if the chrysanthemum is a jargoon the fact that that the fact that the Druze is not a Hillary and does dilute is not false is not right hold. sent13: the rescuer dilutes. sent14: if the Druze does not dilute then that the rescuer does not stabilize PABA but it is metastable does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 & sent7 -> int1: the rescuer stabilizes PABA.; sent11 & sent13 -> int2: the rescuer is metastable.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fleapit does not stabilize or it is a moorhen or both.
|
(¬{C}{aa} v {A}{aa})
|
sent1: if that the heterocycle is a positron is right that either the fleapit does not stabilize or it is a kind of a moorhen or both is not correct. sent2: the fleapit does yawp thrombectomy. sent3: the cinquefoil is a positron. sent4: that the fleapit does stabilize or is a moorhen or both is right. sent5: if something is not a positron it is a kind of a moorhen. sent6: if something that yawps thrombectomy is an accumulation it is not a positron. sent7: if something is a kind of a positron the fact that it does not stabilize and/or it is a moorhen is not true. sent8: The thrombectomy does yawp fleapit.
|
sent1: {B}{a} -> ¬(¬{C}{aa} v {A}{aa}) sent2: {AA}{aa} sent3: {B}{im} sent4: ({C}{aa} v {A}{aa}) sent5: (x): ¬{B}x -> {A}x sent6: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent7: (x): {B}x -> ¬(¬{C}x v {A}x) sent8: {AC}{ab}
|
[
"sent6 -> int1: if the fleapit yawps thrombectomy and it is an accumulation then it is not a kind of a positron.; sent5 -> int2: if the fleapit is not a positron it is a moorhen.;"
] |
[
"sent6 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; sent5 -> int2: ¬{B}{aa} -> {A}{aa};"
] |
that either the fleapit does not stabilize or it is a kind of a moorhen or both is not correct.
|
¬(¬{C}{aa} v {A}{aa})
|
[
"sent7 -> int3: if the fleapit is a positron then the fact that it either does not stabilize or is a kind of a moorhen or both does not hold.;"
] | 4 | 4 | null | 5 | 0 | 5 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fleapit does not stabilize or it is a moorhen or both. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the heterocycle is a positron is right that either the fleapit does not stabilize or it is a kind of a moorhen or both is not correct. sent2: the fleapit does yawp thrombectomy. sent3: the cinquefoil is a positron. sent4: that the fleapit does stabilize or is a moorhen or both is right. sent5: if something is not a positron it is a kind of a moorhen. sent6: if something that yawps thrombectomy is an accumulation it is not a positron. sent7: if something is a kind of a positron the fact that it does not stabilize and/or it is a moorhen is not true. sent8: The thrombectomy does yawp fleapit. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 -> int1: if the fleapit yawps thrombectomy and it is an accumulation then it is not a kind of a positron.; sent5 -> int2: if the fleapit is not a positron it is a moorhen.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the offering does not occur.
|
¬{B}
|
sent1: the stacking mainstreamed and the posting happens. sent2: the fact that that the stabilizing photoemission does not occur or that the tattooing occurs or both hold prevents that the tattooing does not occur. sent3: that the mitigating climatologist occurs is not wrong. sent4: that the mitigating incus occurs is not wrong. sent5: the yawping spillway and the stabilizing Nox happens. sent6: the berthing happens. sent7: the regionalness happens. sent8: the defalcation happens. sent9: the tensing happens. sent10: the contempt happens. sent11: the ideographicness and the pea-souper occurs. sent12: the pea-souper happens. sent13: the chordalness happens. sent14: the abdominalness occurs. sent15: the postbiblicalness occurs. sent16: both the axiologicalness and the offering occurs. sent17: the fact that the self-preservation happens is not wrong. sent18: the experimentalness happens. sent19: the mitigating coloring occurs.
|
sent1: ({CQ} & {GN}) sent2: (¬{C} v {DH}) -> {DH} sent3: {HH} sent4: {BR} sent5: ({CC} & {AU}) sent6: {FJ} sent7: {CS} sent8: {AG} sent9: {HT} sent10: {DF} sent11: ({ID} & {BG}) sent12: {BG} sent13: {EL} sent14: {FK} sent15: {P} sent16: ({A} & {B}) sent17: {DL} sent18: {IE} sent19: {BU}
|
[
"sent16 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent16 -> hypothesis;"
] |
both the tattoo and the posting happens.
|
({DH} & {GN})
|
[] | 5 | 1 | 1 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the offering does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the stacking mainstreamed and the posting happens. sent2: the fact that that the stabilizing photoemission does not occur or that the tattooing occurs or both hold prevents that the tattooing does not occur. sent3: that the mitigating climatologist occurs is not wrong. sent4: that the mitigating incus occurs is not wrong. sent5: the yawping spillway and the stabilizing Nox happens. sent6: the berthing happens. sent7: the regionalness happens. sent8: the defalcation happens. sent9: the tensing happens. sent10: the contempt happens. sent11: the ideographicness and the pea-souper occurs. sent12: the pea-souper happens. sent13: the chordalness happens. sent14: the abdominalness occurs. sent15: the postbiblicalness occurs. sent16: both the axiologicalness and the offering occurs. sent17: the fact that the self-preservation happens is not wrong. sent18: the experimentalness happens. sent19: the mitigating coloring occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent16 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the inventor stacks romance.
|
{C}{b}
|
sent1: something rallies and it is a strategy. sent2: the fact that something is cheliceral and does mitigate inventor is not true if it is not a kind of a dead. sent3: The fact that the Javanthropus yawps Javanthropus hold. sent4: the Javanthropus is nonphotosynthetic. sent5: the nit does not stack romance if there is something such that that it is cheliceral and does mitigate inventor is not true. sent6: if a nonphotosynthetic thing does yawp Javanthropus the fact that the inventor does stack romance hold.
|
sent1: (Ex): ({CB}x & {GM}x) sent2: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬({E}x & {D}x) sent3: {AA}{aa} sent4: {A}{a} sent5: (x): ¬({E}x & {D}x) -> ¬{C}{hl} sent6: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> {C}{b}
|
[] |
[] |
the nit is nonphotosynthetic.
|
{A}{hl}
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: that the inventor is cheliceral and does mitigate inventor does not hold if it is non-dead.;"
] | 8 | 3 | null | 4 | 0 | 4 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the inventor stacks romance. ; $context$ = sent1: something rallies and it is a strategy. sent2: the fact that something is cheliceral and does mitigate inventor is not true if it is not a kind of a dead. sent3: The fact that the Javanthropus yawps Javanthropus hold. sent4: the Javanthropus is nonphotosynthetic. sent5: the nit does not stack romance if there is something such that that it is cheliceral and does mitigate inventor is not true. sent6: if a nonphotosynthetic thing does yawp Javanthropus the fact that the inventor does stack romance hold. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the custard does not stabilize amblygonite.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
sent1: if there is something such that it is a Simon then the custard does stabilize amblygonite. sent2: that the Tennessean is not a kind of a Simon and is ignoble is not correct. sent3: the fact that if something does mitigate reminiscence that it is a kind of a decree that is not a kind of a attosecond does not hold is right. sent4: there is something such that the fact that it is a Simon and it is ignoble does not hold. sent5: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a Simon and is ignoble is not right then the custard stabilizes amblygonite.
|
sent1: (x): {AA}x -> {A}{a} sent2: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: (x): {D}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x) sent4: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent5: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a}
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a Simon but ignoble is wrong.; int1 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> int1: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x); int1 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the custard does not stabilize amblygonite.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
[
"sent3 -> int2: if the accordion does mitigate reminiscence then that it is a decree and not a attosecond does not hold.;"
] | 5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the custard does not stabilize amblygonite. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that it is a Simon then the custard does stabilize amblygonite. sent2: that the Tennessean is not a kind of a Simon and is ignoble is not correct. sent3: the fact that if something does mitigate reminiscence that it is a kind of a decree that is not a kind of a attosecond does not hold is right. sent4: there is something such that the fact that it is a Simon and it is ignoble does not hold. sent5: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a Simon and is ignoble is not right then the custard stabilizes amblygonite. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> int1: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a Simon but ignoble is wrong.; int1 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the eveningness happens.
|
{C}
|
sent1: the non-linealness is caused by that not the exulting but the cytogeneticness happens. sent2: the exulting does not occur if that the bulging but not the PET occurs does not hold. sent3: the invigorating occurs. sent4: the disbarment does not occur and/or the invigorating happens. sent5: if that the invigorating happens and the disbarment happens is incorrect the evening does not occur. sent6: the exulting does not occur. sent7: that the DC does not occur and the disbarment does not occur is brought about by that the invigorating does not occur. sent8: that the invigorating and the disbarment occurs is not right if the linealness does not occur. sent9: that the disbarment does not occur or the invigorating does not occur or both does not hold.
|
sent1: (¬{F} & {E}) -> ¬{D} sent2: ¬({I} & ¬{J}) -> ¬{F} sent3: {B} sent4: (¬{A} v {B}) sent5: ¬({B} & {A}) -> ¬{C} sent6: ¬{F} sent7: ¬{B} -> (¬{BM} & ¬{A}) sent8: ¬{D} -> ¬({B} & {A}) sent9: ¬(¬{A} v ¬{B})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the disbarment does not occur.; assump1 -> int1: that either the disbarment does not occur or the invigorating does not occur or both is true.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the disbarment occurs.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ¬{A}; assump1 -> int1: (¬{A} v ¬{B}); int1 & sent9 -> int2: #F#; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: {A};"
] |
the eveningness does not occur.
|
¬{C}
|
[] | 7 | 3 | null | 8 | 0 | 8 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the eveningness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the non-linealness is caused by that not the exulting but the cytogeneticness happens. sent2: the exulting does not occur if that the bulging but not the PET occurs does not hold. sent3: the invigorating occurs. sent4: the disbarment does not occur and/or the invigorating happens. sent5: if that the invigorating happens and the disbarment happens is incorrect the evening does not occur. sent6: the exulting does not occur. sent7: that the DC does not occur and the disbarment does not occur is brought about by that the invigorating does not occur. sent8: that the invigorating and the disbarment occurs is not right if the linealness does not occur. sent9: that the disbarment does not occur or the invigorating does not occur or both does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the disbarment does not occur.; assump1 -> int1: that either the disbarment does not occur or the invigorating does not occur or both is true.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the disbarment occurs.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the easter yawps easter.
|
{C}{b}
|
sent1: the captopril is defeasible if the binnacle is not discordant or it is defeasible or both. sent2: that the easter does not yawp easter and is a musician does not hold. sent3: if the briefs is a kind of a quietism the easter yawps easter. sent4: there are unscientific things. sent5: if there exists something such that it is a grogram the binnacle either is a Guinean or is a grogram or both. sent6: the fact that the briefs is a quietism if the fact that the erythrite is not Levantine and is a musician is wrong is not wrong. sent7: if the beard yawps gorget then it is a grogram. sent8: if there exists something such that the fact that it is unscientific is correct either the beard does yawp gorget or it is not unscientific or both. sent9: if the captopril is a kind of a quintet the erythrite is a indistinctness. sent10: if the binnacle is a Guinean it is not a kind of a twenty. sent11: if something is not a kind of a quietism then it is not a indistinctness and yawps easter. sent12: the captopril is a kind of a quintet. sent13: if something is defeasible it is a quintet and it is not a capitate. sent14: if something is not a twenty then it is either not discordant or defeasible or both. sent15: the beard is a kind of a grogram if it is unscientific. sent16: that the easter does not yawp easter is true if the briefs is not a indistinctness but it yawp easter.
|
sent1: (¬{G}{d} v {F}{d}) -> {F}{c} sent2: ¬(¬{C}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent3: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent4: (Ex): {L}x sent5: (x): {I}x -> ({J}{d} v {I}{d}) sent6: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{a} sent7: {K}{e} -> {I}{e} sent8: (x): {L}x -> ({K}{e} v {L}{e}) sent9: {D}{c} -> {A}{aa} sent10: {J}{d} -> ¬{H}{d} sent11: (x): ¬{B}x -> (¬{A}x & {C}x) sent12: {D}{c} sent13: (x): {F}x -> ({D}x & ¬{E}x) sent14: (x): ¬{H}x -> (¬{G}x v {F}x) sent15: {L}{e} -> {I}{e} sent16: (¬{A}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b}
|
[
"sent9 & sent12 -> int1: the erythrite is a indistinctness.;"
] |
[
"sent9 & sent12 -> int1: {A}{aa};"
] |
the easter does not yawp easter.
|
¬{C}{b}
|
[
"sent11 -> int2: the briefs is not a indistinctness but it does yawp easter if it is not a quietism.; sent13 -> int3: the captopril is a kind of a quintet that is not a kind of a capitate if it is defeasible.; sent14 -> int4: the binnacle is not discordant or it is defeasible or both if it is not a twenty.; sent4 & sent8 -> int5: the beard yawps gorget and/or it is unscientific.; int5 & sent7 & sent15 -> int6: the beard is a grogram.; int6 -> int7: there is something such that it is a grogram.; int7 & sent5 -> int8: the binnacle is a Guinean and/or it is a grogram.;"
] | 12 | 4 | null | 12 | 0 | 12 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the easter yawps easter. ; $context$ = sent1: the captopril is defeasible if the binnacle is not discordant or it is defeasible or both. sent2: that the easter does not yawp easter and is a musician does not hold. sent3: if the briefs is a kind of a quietism the easter yawps easter. sent4: there are unscientific things. sent5: if there exists something such that it is a grogram the binnacle either is a Guinean or is a grogram or both. sent6: the fact that the briefs is a quietism if the fact that the erythrite is not Levantine and is a musician is wrong is not wrong. sent7: if the beard yawps gorget then it is a grogram. sent8: if there exists something such that the fact that it is unscientific is correct either the beard does yawp gorget or it is not unscientific or both. sent9: if the captopril is a kind of a quintet the erythrite is a indistinctness. sent10: if the binnacle is a Guinean it is not a kind of a twenty. sent11: if something is not a kind of a quietism then it is not a indistinctness and yawps easter. sent12: the captopril is a kind of a quintet. sent13: if something is defeasible it is a quintet and it is not a capitate. sent14: if something is not a twenty then it is either not discordant or defeasible or both. sent15: the beard is a kind of a grogram if it is unscientific. sent16: that the easter does not yawp easter is true if the briefs is not a indistinctness but it yawp easter. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 & sent12 -> int1: the erythrite is a indistinctness.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if it is both not a hybridoma and not morphologic then it is not an herbal.
|
(Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
sent1: if the ionosphere is not a hybridoma and not morphologic then it is not herbal. sent2: the beroe is a smooth if it is both not a canape and not a hybridoma. sent3: the ionosphere does stabilize honk if it does not starve and it does not mitigate tideland. sent4: there is something such that if it is a kind of a hybridoma that is not morphologic it is not herbal. sent5: if something is not a kind of an herbal and it is not a xerophyte then it is not a Syrian.
|
sent1: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent2: (¬{GQ}{l} & ¬{AA}{l}) -> {GO}{l} sent3: (¬{FG}{aa} & ¬{EE}{aa}) -> {CU}{aa} sent4: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent5: (x): (¬{B}x & ¬{BR}x) -> ¬{DD}x
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the lally is not a Syrian if it is not an herbal and it is not a kind of a xerophyte.
|
(¬{B}{g} & ¬{BR}{g}) -> ¬{DD}{g}
|
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is both not a hybridoma and not morphologic then it is not an herbal. ; $context$ = sent1: if the ionosphere is not a hybridoma and not morphologic then it is not herbal. sent2: the beroe is a smooth if it is both not a canape and not a hybridoma. sent3: the ionosphere does stabilize honk if it does not starve and it does not mitigate tideland. sent4: there is something such that if it is a kind of a hybridoma that is not morphologic it is not herbal. sent5: if something is not a kind of an herbal and it is not a xerophyte then it is not a Syrian. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the miniaturist is antemeridian.
|
{B}{a}
|
sent1: if the neutralist is non-leaden the twins is not a kind of a tuille. sent2: the miniaturist is a gymslip. sent3: if something either is a comer or does not yawp foreground or both it mitigates row. sent4: if there exists something such that that it is not joyless and/or it is not a inaptness is not right the housetop is a revolutionist. sent5: that the neutralist is not leaden is not incorrect if the wishbone does not bid. sent6: if the wishbone is not leaden then that the neutralist is not leaden is correct. sent7: The slicker mitigates miniaturist. sent8: if there exists something such that it is not a tuille that either the landlubber is not joyless or it is not a inaptness or both does not hold. sent9: the wishbone is either not a bid or non-leaden or both. sent10: if there exists something such that that it does not mitigate slicker hold then the cicerone is antemeridian. sent11: that the sneezewort does mitigate slicker and it is not non-antemeridian does not hold if something mitigates row. sent12: the miniaturist is a habanera. sent13: the miniaturist mitigates slicker. sent14: the bryozoan does mitigate slicker. sent15: a revolutionist either is a comer or does not yawp foreground or both. sent16: the sneezewort does not mitigate row but it does yawp foreground if there is something such that it is a comer. sent17: the miniaturist is antemeridian if it does mitigate slicker. sent18: the housetop is a comer if there is something such that the fact that it is joyless and it is not a comer is not right. sent19: that something is both joyless and not a comer does not hold if it is not a revolutionist. sent20: the landlubber is not a revolutionist. sent21: if the fact that the sharkskin is antemeridian is correct then that it stabilizes Bornean is true.
|
sent1: ¬{J}{f} -> ¬{I}{e} sent2: {GC}{a} sent3: (x): ({E}x v ¬{D}x) -> {C}x sent4: (x): ¬(¬{G}x v ¬{H}x) -> {F}{c} sent5: ¬{L}{g} -> ¬{J}{f} sent6: ¬{J}{g} -> ¬{J}{f} sent7: {AA}{aa} sent8: (x): ¬{I}x -> ¬(¬{G}{d} v ¬{H}{d}) sent9: (¬{L}{g} v ¬{J}{g}) sent10: (x): ¬{A}x -> {B}{at} sent11: (x): {C}x -> ¬({A}{b} & {B}{b}) sent12: {AI}{a} sent13: {A}{a} sent14: {A}{ha} sent15: (x): {F}x -> ({E}x v ¬{D}x) sent16: (x): {E}x -> (¬{C}{b} & {D}{b}) sent17: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent18: (x): ¬({G}x & ¬{E}x) -> {E}{c} sent19: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬({G}x & ¬{E}x) sent20: ¬{F}{d} sent21: {B}{ci} -> {JI}{ci}
|
[
"sent17 & sent13 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent17 & sent13 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the cicerone is antemeridian.
|
{B}{at}
|
[
"sent19 -> int1: if the landlubber is not a revolutionist that it is joyless and is not a comer is not true.; int1 & sent20 -> int2: the fact that the landlubber is both joyless and not a comer does not hold.; int2 -> int3: there exists something such that the fact that it is both joyless and not a comer is false.; int3 & sent18 -> int4: the housetop is a comer.; int4 -> int5: there is something such that it is a comer.; int5 & sent16 -> int6: the sneezewort does not mitigate row but it does yawp foreground.; int6 -> int7: there is something such that it does not mitigate row and yawps foreground.;"
] | 10 | 1 | 1 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the miniaturist is antemeridian. ; $context$ = sent1: if the neutralist is non-leaden the twins is not a kind of a tuille. sent2: the miniaturist is a gymslip. sent3: if something either is a comer or does not yawp foreground or both it mitigates row. sent4: if there exists something such that that it is not joyless and/or it is not a inaptness is not right the housetop is a revolutionist. sent5: that the neutralist is not leaden is not incorrect if the wishbone does not bid. sent6: if the wishbone is not leaden then that the neutralist is not leaden is correct. sent7: The slicker mitigates miniaturist. sent8: if there exists something such that it is not a tuille that either the landlubber is not joyless or it is not a inaptness or both does not hold. sent9: the wishbone is either not a bid or non-leaden or both. sent10: if there exists something such that that it does not mitigate slicker hold then the cicerone is antemeridian. sent11: that the sneezewort does mitigate slicker and it is not non-antemeridian does not hold if something mitigates row. sent12: the miniaturist is a habanera. sent13: the miniaturist mitigates slicker. sent14: the bryozoan does mitigate slicker. sent15: a revolutionist either is a comer or does not yawp foreground or both. sent16: the sneezewort does not mitigate row but it does yawp foreground if there is something such that it is a comer. sent17: the miniaturist is antemeridian if it does mitigate slicker. sent18: the housetop is a comer if there is something such that the fact that it is joyless and it is not a comer is not right. sent19: that something is both joyless and not a comer does not hold if it is not a revolutionist. sent20: the landlubber is not a revolutionist. sent21: if the fact that the sharkskin is antemeridian is correct then that it stabilizes Bornean is true. ; $proof$ =
|
sent17 & sent13 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the murder does not occur and the unlikeliness does not occur.
|
(¬{D} & ¬{E})
|
sent1: if the fact that the stacking farmhouse occurs is right then the gonadotropicness happens. sent2: if the yawping janitor does not occur then the celibacy occurs and the cushion occurs. sent3: the venesection does not occur if the spousalness occurs and the chorionicness does not occur. sent4: that the ferromagneticness does not occur causes that the drumbeat happens and the e-commerce happens. sent5: that the echocardiography happens and the yawping row happens is triggered by that the mitigating communicant does not occur. sent6: the mitigating communicant does not occur. sent7: the traumaticness occurs. sent8: if the stabilizing heir does not occur then the murdering does not occur and the unlikeliness does not occur. sent9: if the proselytism does not occur that the murdering does not occur and the unlikeliness does not occur is not correct. sent10: that the crying does not occur is triggered by that the iteration occurs. sent11: if the fact that the celibacy happens hold then that the stabilizing heir does not occur and the traumaticness does not occur does not hold. sent12: the ferromagneticness is prevented by that the teleporting does not occur. sent13: if the fact that the cry does not occur is not false both the spousalness and the non-chorionicness occurs. sent14: that the venesection does not occur leads to that the shattering does not occur and the yawping janitor does not occur. sent15: the drumbeat yields that the iteration occurs. sent16: that the teleporting does not occur is right if the echocardiography happens and the gonadotropicness happens.
|
sent1: {AA} -> {S} sent2: ¬{H} -> ({F} & {G}) sent3: ({K} & ¬{L}) -> ¬{J} sent4: ¬{Q} -> ({O} & {P}) sent5: ¬{AB} -> ({T} & {U}) sent6: ¬{AB} sent7: {B} sent8: ¬{C} -> (¬{D} & ¬{E}) sent9: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{D} & ¬{E}) sent10: {N} -> ¬{M} sent11: {F} -> ¬(¬{C} & ¬{B}) sent12: ¬{R} -> ¬{Q} sent13: ¬{M} -> ({K} & ¬{L}) sent14: ¬{J} -> (¬{I} & ¬{H}) sent15: {O} -> {N} sent16: ({T} & {S}) -> ¬{R}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the proselytism does not occur and the traumaticness does not occur.; assump1 -> int1: the traumaticness does not occur.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: that the proselytism does not occur and the traumaticness does not occur is not correct.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: (¬{A} & ¬{B}); assump1 -> int1: ¬{B}; int1 & sent7 -> int2: #F#; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: ¬(¬{A} & ¬{B});"
] |
that the murdering does not occur and the unlikeliness does not occur is wrong.
|
¬(¬{D} & ¬{E})
|
[
"sent5 & sent6 -> int4: both the echocardiography and the yawping row occurs.; int4 -> int5: that the echocardiography happens hold.;"
] | 18 | 4 | null | 14 | 0 | 14 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the murder does not occur and the unlikeliness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the stacking farmhouse occurs is right then the gonadotropicness happens. sent2: if the yawping janitor does not occur then the celibacy occurs and the cushion occurs. sent3: the venesection does not occur if the spousalness occurs and the chorionicness does not occur. sent4: that the ferromagneticness does not occur causes that the drumbeat happens and the e-commerce happens. sent5: that the echocardiography happens and the yawping row happens is triggered by that the mitigating communicant does not occur. sent6: the mitigating communicant does not occur. sent7: the traumaticness occurs. sent8: if the stabilizing heir does not occur then the murdering does not occur and the unlikeliness does not occur. sent9: if the proselytism does not occur that the murdering does not occur and the unlikeliness does not occur is not correct. sent10: that the crying does not occur is triggered by that the iteration occurs. sent11: if the fact that the celibacy happens hold then that the stabilizing heir does not occur and the traumaticness does not occur does not hold. sent12: the ferromagneticness is prevented by that the teleporting does not occur. sent13: if the fact that the cry does not occur is not false both the spousalness and the non-chorionicness occurs. sent14: that the venesection does not occur leads to that the shattering does not occur and the yawping janitor does not occur. sent15: the drumbeat yields that the iteration occurs. sent16: that the teleporting does not occur is right if the echocardiography happens and the gonadotropicness happens. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the proselytism does not occur and the traumaticness does not occur.; assump1 -> int1: the traumaticness does not occur.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: that the proselytism does not occur and the traumaticness does not occur is not correct.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it is ankylotic it is not anthropometric and it is not a Buddhist.
|
(Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
sent1: if the Arabian is paramedical it is non-Cromwellian and it does not mitigate sister-in-law. sent2: there exists something such that if it is orthopedic it does not mitigate rapporteur and is not manly. sent3: there is something such that if it is a kind of a Ochna then it does not yawp Maxzide and it does not yawp Haliaeetus. sent4: if the violin is ankylotic then it is not a kind of a Buddhist. sent5: something is not a Hero and it does not stack threadfin if it does stabilize IAA. sent6: the Nigerian is not a smoothed but adequate if it is ankylotic. sent7: there exists something such that if it is not non-ankylotic then it is a kind of anthropometric thing that is not a Buddhist. sent8: if the violin is predicative then it is not ankylotic and it is not a love-in-a-mist. sent9: a ankylotic thing is not Buddhist. sent10: if something does yawp Haliaeetus then it does not mind and it is not a renunciation. sent11: there is something such that if it is a Massenet it is not metaphysical and not a mind. sent12: the fact that the violin is anthropometric thing that is not a Buddhist is not false if it is ankylotic. sent13: something that does mitigate sister-in-law is both not a SCLK and not antagonistic. sent14: there exists something such that if it is ankylotic then it is not a Buddhist. sent15: something is anthropometric and not a Buddhist if it is ankylotic. sent16: the violin is not a trait and is not a Zambian if it is anthropometric. sent17: something that is ankylotic is non-anthropometric thing that is not a kind of a Buddhist. sent18: there is something such that if the fact that it is aquiferous hold it does not mitigate violin and is not musicological.
|
sent1: {FR}{eq} -> (¬{EM}{eq} & ¬{CE}{eq}) sent2: (Ex): {FA}x -> (¬{BQ}x & ¬{CF}x) sent3: (Ex): {EF}x -> (¬{DP}x & ¬{DF}x) sent4: {A}{aa} -> ¬{AB}{aa} sent5: (x): {HA}x -> (¬{EJ}x & ¬{CJ}x) sent6: {A}{in} -> (¬{AI}{in} & ¬{IS}{in}) sent7: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent8: {BC}{aa} -> (¬{A}{aa} & ¬{CM}{aa}) sent9: (x): {A}x -> ¬{AB}x sent10: (x): {DF}x -> (¬{CR}x & ¬{AP}x) sent11: (Ex): {IN}x -> (¬{FS}x & ¬{CR}x) sent12: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent13: (x): {CE}x -> (¬{GQ}x & ¬{HG}x) sent14: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬{AB}x sent15: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent16: {AA}{aa} -> (¬{AL}{aa} & ¬{EI}{aa}) sent17: (x): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent18: (Ex): {IL}x -> (¬{GI}x & ¬{EH}x)
|
[
"sent17 -> int1: if the violin is ankylotic then it is a kind of non-anthropometric thing that is not a Buddhist.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent17 -> int1: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 17 | 0 | 17 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is ankylotic it is not anthropometric and it is not a Buddhist. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Arabian is paramedical it is non-Cromwellian and it does not mitigate sister-in-law. sent2: there exists something such that if it is orthopedic it does not mitigate rapporteur and is not manly. sent3: there is something such that if it is a kind of a Ochna then it does not yawp Maxzide and it does not yawp Haliaeetus. sent4: if the violin is ankylotic then it is not a kind of a Buddhist. sent5: something is not a Hero and it does not stack threadfin if it does stabilize IAA. sent6: the Nigerian is not a smoothed but adequate if it is ankylotic. sent7: there exists something such that if it is not non-ankylotic then it is a kind of anthropometric thing that is not a Buddhist. sent8: if the violin is predicative then it is not ankylotic and it is not a love-in-a-mist. sent9: a ankylotic thing is not Buddhist. sent10: if something does yawp Haliaeetus then it does not mind and it is not a renunciation. sent11: there is something such that if it is a Massenet it is not metaphysical and not a mind. sent12: the fact that the violin is anthropometric thing that is not a Buddhist is not false if it is ankylotic. sent13: something that does mitigate sister-in-law is both not a SCLK and not antagonistic. sent14: there exists something such that if it is ankylotic then it is not a Buddhist. sent15: something is anthropometric and not a Buddhist if it is ankylotic. sent16: the violin is not a trait and is not a Zambian if it is anthropometric. sent17: something that is ankylotic is non-anthropometric thing that is not a kind of a Buddhist. sent18: there is something such that if the fact that it is aquiferous hold it does not mitigate violin and is not musicological. ; $proof$ =
|
sent17 -> int1: if the violin is ankylotic then it is a kind of non-anthropometric thing that is not a Buddhist.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the codeine is a kind of an evergreen and is a kind of a cuckoo-bumblebee is incorrect.
|
¬({E}{b} & {D}{b})
|
sent1: if there are non-evergreen things then the codeine is not bistroic. sent2: there exists something such that that it is subarctic and it is a mesohippus is not correct. sent3: there is something such that the fact that it is both sexual and bistroic is not true. sent4: that the whisk is not Hebridean hold if there is something such that the fact that it is not anastigmatic is right. sent5: the gitano is both a rummy and not a cuckoo-bumblebee. sent6: if something does not stabilize baby then that it is a kind of an evergreen and it is a cuckoo-bumblebee is not true. sent7: the codeine is a backroom and a cuckoo-bumblebee. sent8: if there is something such that it is not sexual then the striper is not an ambush. sent9: if the striper is sexual but it is not bistroic then the codeine does not stabilize baby. sent10: the striper is subarctic. sent11: if the striper is not bistroic then that it is sexual and a cuckoo-bumblebee is false. sent12: if the fact that something is bistroic and it stabilizes baby is incorrect it is not bistroic. sent13: the boucle is an evergreen but it is not a tam. sent14: the striper is not bistroic if there exists something such that that it is a kind of subarctic a mesohippus is wrong. sent15: there exists something such that it is sexual. sent16: something is an evergreen and ambushes. sent17: if the codeine is not a cuckoo-bumblebee that it is sexual and it is bistroic is false. sent18: the fact that the striper is a CIS and it mitigates atonality hold. sent19: the climatologist is thermostatics but it is not a sniffer.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬{A}{b} sent2: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: (Ex): ¬({B}x & {A}x) sent4: (x): ¬{DR}x -> ¬{BA}{es} sent5: ({FA}{hl} & ¬{D}{hl}) sent6: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({E}x & {D}x) sent7: ({HK}{b} & {D}{b}) sent8: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{F}{a} sent9: ({B}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent10: {AA}{a} sent11: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({B}{a} & {D}{a}) sent12: (x): ¬({A}x & {C}x) -> ¬{A}x sent13: ({E}{ji} & ¬{EU}{ji}) sent14: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent15: (Ex): {B}x sent16: (Ex): ({E}x & {F}x) sent17: ¬{D}{b} -> ¬({B}{b} & {A}{b}) sent18: ({DU}{a} & {CO}{a}) sent19: ({BS}{ee} & ¬{JE}{ee})
|
[
"sent2 & sent14 -> int1: the striper is not bistroic.; sent6 -> int2: the fact that the codeine is an evergreen and it is a cuckoo-bumblebee is not right if it does not stabilize baby.;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent14 -> int1: ¬{A}{a}; sent6 -> int2: ¬{C}{b} -> ¬({E}{b} & {D}{b});"
] |
that the codeine is evergreen a cuckoo-bumblebee hold.
|
({E}{b} & {D}{b})
|
[
"sent12 -> int3: the fact that the codeine is not bistroic is true if that it is bistroic and does stabilize baby is not right.;"
] | 4 | 4 | null | 15 | 0 | 15 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the codeine is a kind of an evergreen and is a kind of a cuckoo-bumblebee is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if there are non-evergreen things then the codeine is not bistroic. sent2: there exists something such that that it is subarctic and it is a mesohippus is not correct. sent3: there is something such that the fact that it is both sexual and bistroic is not true. sent4: that the whisk is not Hebridean hold if there is something such that the fact that it is not anastigmatic is right. sent5: the gitano is both a rummy and not a cuckoo-bumblebee. sent6: if something does not stabilize baby then that it is a kind of an evergreen and it is a cuckoo-bumblebee is not true. sent7: the codeine is a backroom and a cuckoo-bumblebee. sent8: if there is something such that it is not sexual then the striper is not an ambush. sent9: if the striper is sexual but it is not bistroic then the codeine does not stabilize baby. sent10: the striper is subarctic. sent11: if the striper is not bistroic then that it is sexual and a cuckoo-bumblebee is false. sent12: if the fact that something is bistroic and it stabilizes baby is incorrect it is not bistroic. sent13: the boucle is an evergreen but it is not a tam. sent14: the striper is not bistroic if there exists something such that that it is a kind of subarctic a mesohippus is wrong. sent15: there exists something such that it is sexual. sent16: something is an evergreen and ambushes. sent17: if the codeine is not a cuckoo-bumblebee that it is sexual and it is bistroic is false. sent18: the fact that the striper is a CIS and it mitigates atonality hold. sent19: the climatologist is thermostatics but it is not a sniffer. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent14 -> int1: the striper is not bistroic.; sent6 -> int2: the fact that the codeine is an evergreen and it is a cuckoo-bumblebee is not right if it does not stabilize baby.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
if the concoction is a kind of a fusion the sandwort does not mitigate fesse.
|
{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{c}
|
sent1: that the sandwort mitigates fesse is right. sent2: if that the deerstalker is not indelicate and/or it is a Dartmouth is false then the sandwort does not mitigate fesse. sent3: that the deerstalker is not a pituitary or it does not mitigate fesse or both is wrong. sent4: if the concoction does mitigate fesse that the deerstalker is not a Dartmouth and/or is not a kind of a fusion is wrong. sent5: the sandwort does mitigate fesse if that the concoction is a fusion is not wrong. sent6: that the cashew is not meretricious or it does not stack iconology or both is not correct. sent7: that that the concoction either is not undeniable or is not indelicate or both is not true is not wrong. sent8: if the fact that the concoction does not mitigate fesse or it is not a fusion or both is incorrect then the sandwort is not a Dartmouth. sent9: if the sandwort is a fusion the concoction does not mitigate fesse. sent10: the fact that either the sandwort is not a Dartmouth or it does not mitigate fesse or both is incorrect. sent11: the self-stimulation is not decorous. sent12: that the electrocutioner is not grubby and/or it is not a kind of a Dartmouth does not hold. sent13: if the sandwort is a fusion the fact that the concoction is not a Dartmouth or it does not mitigate fesse or both does not hold. sent14: the sandwort does not mitigate fesse if that the deerstalker is either decorous or not a Dartmouth or both is not true. sent15: the concoction mitigates newsreel. sent16: the sandwort is not a kind of a fusion. sent17: if the fact that the concoction is a kind of a Dartmouth is not incorrect the fact that the deerstalker does not mitigate fesse or it is not a kind of a fusion or both is not correct. sent18: the fact that if that the sandwort is not indelicate or it is not a fusion or both is not right then the deerstalker does not mitigate fesse is not incorrect. sent19: the sandwort mitigates fesse if that the deerstalker is not indelicate or not a Dartmouth or both does not hold. sent20: if that the deerstalker is either indelicate or not a Dartmouth or both is not correct the sandwort does not mitigate fesse. sent21: if the concoction is indelicate then the deerstalker is not a kind of a fusion.
|
sent1: {B}{c} sent2: ¬(¬{AA}{b} v {AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{c} sent3: ¬(¬{IN}{b} v ¬{B}{b}) sent4: {B}{a} -> ¬(¬{AB}{b} v ¬{A}{b}) sent5: {A}{a} -> {B}{c} sent6: ¬(¬{IH}{cc} v ¬{DG}{cc}) sent7: ¬(¬{DB}{a} v ¬{AA}{a}) sent8: ¬(¬{B}{a} v ¬{A}{a}) -> ¬{AB}{c} sent9: {A}{c} -> ¬{B}{a} sent10: ¬(¬{AB}{c} v ¬{B}{c}) sent11: {AA}{ib} sent12: ¬(¬{HH}{af} v ¬{AB}{af}) sent13: {A}{c} -> ¬(¬{AB}{a} v ¬{B}{a}) sent14: ¬(¬{AA}{b} v ¬{AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{c} sent15: {JB}{a} sent16: ¬{A}{c} sent17: {AB}{a} -> ¬(¬{B}{b} v ¬{A}{b}) sent18: ¬(¬{AA}{c} v ¬{A}{c}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent19: ¬(¬{AA}{b} v ¬{AB}{b}) -> {B}{c} sent20: ¬({AA}{b} v ¬{AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{c} sent21: {AA}{a} -> ¬{A}{b}
|
[] |
[] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | null | 20 | 0 | 20 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = if the concoction is a kind of a fusion the sandwort does not mitigate fesse. ; $context$ = sent1: that the sandwort mitigates fesse is right. sent2: if that the deerstalker is not indelicate and/or it is a Dartmouth is false then the sandwort does not mitigate fesse. sent3: that the deerstalker is not a pituitary or it does not mitigate fesse or both is wrong. sent4: if the concoction does mitigate fesse that the deerstalker is not a Dartmouth and/or is not a kind of a fusion is wrong. sent5: the sandwort does mitigate fesse if that the concoction is a fusion is not wrong. sent6: that the cashew is not meretricious or it does not stack iconology or both is not correct. sent7: that that the concoction either is not undeniable or is not indelicate or both is not true is not wrong. sent8: if the fact that the concoction does not mitigate fesse or it is not a fusion or both is incorrect then the sandwort is not a Dartmouth. sent9: if the sandwort is a fusion the concoction does not mitigate fesse. sent10: the fact that either the sandwort is not a Dartmouth or it does not mitigate fesse or both is incorrect. sent11: the self-stimulation is not decorous. sent12: that the electrocutioner is not grubby and/or it is not a kind of a Dartmouth does not hold. sent13: if the sandwort is a fusion the fact that the concoction is not a Dartmouth or it does not mitigate fesse or both does not hold. sent14: the sandwort does not mitigate fesse if that the deerstalker is either decorous or not a Dartmouth or both is not true. sent15: the concoction mitigates newsreel. sent16: the sandwort is not a kind of a fusion. sent17: if the fact that the concoction is a kind of a Dartmouth is not incorrect the fact that the deerstalker does not mitigate fesse or it is not a kind of a fusion or both is not correct. sent18: the fact that if that the sandwort is not indelicate or it is not a fusion or both is not right then the deerstalker does not mitigate fesse is not incorrect. sent19: the sandwort mitigates fesse if that the deerstalker is not indelicate or not a Dartmouth or both does not hold. sent20: if that the deerstalker is either indelicate or not a Dartmouth or both is not correct the sandwort does not mitigate fesse. sent21: if the concoction is indelicate then the deerstalker is not a kind of a fusion. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the canton occurs.
|
{C}
|
sent1: the capillarity does not occur and/or the ineradicableness happens. sent2: the pulverization does not occur and/or the stabilizing corbelled happens. sent3: the spirometry happens. sent4: if the stabilizing phot does not occur and/or the cards happens then the yawping jazz occurs. sent5: if the stabilizing corbelled happens the quintessentialness occurs. sent6: the canton does not occur if the quintessentialness and the stabilizing Hebrews happens. sent7: that the pulverization does not occur or the stabilizing corbelled occurs or both prevents that the quintessentialness does not occur. sent8: either the contenting does not occur or the fagging happens or both. sent9: the stabilizing Hebrews occurs if the spirometry occurs.
|
sent1: (¬{CI} v {HJ}) sent2: (¬{AA} v {AB}) sent3: {D} sent4: (¬{T} v {FH}) -> {HD} sent5: {AB} -> {B} sent6: ({B} & {A}) -> ¬{C} sent7: (¬{AA} v {AB}) -> {B} sent8: (¬{DM} v {AS}) sent9: {D} -> {A}
|
[
"sent7 & sent2 -> int1: the quintessentialness happens.; sent9 & sent3 -> int2: the stabilizing Hebrews occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the quintessentialness and the stabilizing Hebrews occurs.; int3 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent7 & sent2 -> int1: {B}; sent9 & sent3 -> int2: {A}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({B} & {A}); int3 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the canton occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the capillarity does not occur and/or the ineradicableness happens. sent2: the pulverization does not occur and/or the stabilizing corbelled happens. sent3: the spirometry happens. sent4: if the stabilizing phot does not occur and/or the cards happens then the yawping jazz occurs. sent5: if the stabilizing corbelled happens the quintessentialness occurs. sent6: the canton does not occur if the quintessentialness and the stabilizing Hebrews happens. sent7: that the pulverization does not occur or the stabilizing corbelled occurs or both prevents that the quintessentialness does not occur. sent8: either the contenting does not occur or the fagging happens or both. sent9: the stabilizing Hebrews occurs if the spirometry occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 & sent2 -> int1: the quintessentialness happens.; sent9 & sent3 -> int2: the stabilizing Hebrews occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the quintessentialness and the stabilizing Hebrews occurs.; int3 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there exists something such that it is both polymorphic and not a granite is not correct.
|
¬((Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x))
|
sent1: everything is a cuckoopint and/or it does not stabilize enterovirus. sent2: the range is a Northerner but not polymorphic. sent3: there are polymorphic things. sent4: the voltage is a kind of polymorphic thing that is not a granite.
|
sent1: (x): ({C}x v ¬{B}x) sent2: ({DU}{io} & ¬{AA}{io}) sent3: (Ex): {AA}x sent4: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})
|
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the horn is a munificence but it does not mitigate Chait.
|
({DO}{e} & ¬{CS}{e})
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: either the aftershaft is a cuckoopint or it does not stabilize enterovirus or both.;"
] | 5 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that it is both polymorphic and not a granite is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: everything is a cuckoopint and/or it does not stabilize enterovirus. sent2: the range is a Northerner but not polymorphic. sent3: there are polymorphic things. sent4: the voltage is a kind of polymorphic thing that is not a granite. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
if the man is regretful then that the ski-plane is not a kind of a in-basket and is not ciliate is not true.
|
{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{D}{b} & ¬{B}{b})
|
sent1: the man is not ciliate if it is not a cairn. sent2: if the man is regretful it is not haemophilic and/or it is not a cairn. sent3: that that the ski-plane is not a cairn and is not haemophilic is correct is wrong if the man is haemophilic. sent4: if the man is a kind of a ciliate it either is not a in-basket or is not regretful or both. sent5: the fact that the ski-plane is not a in-basket and it is not a ciliate is false if the man is not a kind of a ciliate.
|
sent1: ¬{AB}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent2: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent3: ¬{AA}{a} -> ¬(¬{AB}{b} & ¬{AA}{b}) sent4: {B}{a} -> (¬{D}{a} v ¬{A}{a}) sent5: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬(¬{D}{b} & ¬{B}{b})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the man is regretful.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the man is not haemophilic or it is not a cairn or both.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}{a}; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a});"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 4 | null | 3 | 0 | 3 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = if the man is regretful then that the ski-plane is not a kind of a in-basket and is not ciliate is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the man is not ciliate if it is not a cairn. sent2: if the man is regretful it is not haemophilic and/or it is not a cairn. sent3: that that the ski-plane is not a cairn and is not haemophilic is correct is wrong if the man is haemophilic. sent4: if the man is a kind of a ciliate it either is not a in-basket or is not regretful or both. sent5: the fact that the ski-plane is not a in-basket and it is not a ciliate is false if the man is not a kind of a ciliate. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the man is regretful.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the man is not haemophilic or it is not a cairn or both.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fire-on-the-mountain is a Testudo.
|
{A}{aa}
|
sent1: the nitrification is a Rotterdam if the drinking is a kind of a cupel. sent2: the fact that something is not a liquidambar and is not lymphocytic is not right if it is a Rotterdam. sent3: if the fact that something is both not a liquidambar and not lymphocytic is false then the fact that it is not a kind of a descendant is correct. sent4: something is not a Testudo if it is a kind of a lasagna and is not a descendant. sent5: the nitrification is not a catty if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of an immune and is not a myringectomy does not hold. sent6: something is not two-dimensional but it does yawp management if it is not a catty. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is not immune and not a myringectomy is incorrect. sent8: if something that is not two-dimensional does yawp management then it is a kind of a lasagna. sent9: everything is not a Testudo.
|
sent1: {I}{a} -> {H}{ac} sent2: (x): {H}x -> ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{G}x) sent3: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{B}x sent4: (x): ({C}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{A}x sent5: (x): ¬(¬{K}x & ¬{L}x) -> ¬{J}{ac} sent6: (x): ¬{J}x -> (¬{E}x & {D}x) sent7: (Ex): ¬(¬{K}x & ¬{L}x) sent8: (x): (¬{E}x & {D}x) -> {C}x sent9: (x): ¬{A}x
|
[
"sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the nitrification is not a kind of a Testudo.
|
¬{A}{ac}
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: if the nitrification is a kind of a lasagna but it is not a descendant then it is not a kind of a Testudo.; sent8 -> int2: if that the nitrification is not two-dimensional but it yawps management is not incorrect it is a lasagna.; sent6 -> int3: the nitrification is a kind of non-two-dimensional thing that does yawp management if it is not a catty.; sent7 & sent5 -> int4: the nitrification is not a catty.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the nitrification is not two-dimensional but it yawps management.; int2 & int5 -> int6: the nitrification is a lasagna.; sent3 -> int7: if that the nitrification is both not a liquidambar and not lymphocytic does not hold then it is not a descendant.; sent2 -> int8: that the nitrification is both not a liquidambar and not lymphocytic is not right if the fact that it is a kind of a Rotterdam is not wrong.;"
] | 5 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fire-on-the-mountain is a Testudo. ; $context$ = sent1: the nitrification is a Rotterdam if the drinking is a kind of a cupel. sent2: the fact that something is not a liquidambar and is not lymphocytic is not right if it is a Rotterdam. sent3: if the fact that something is both not a liquidambar and not lymphocytic is false then the fact that it is not a kind of a descendant is correct. sent4: something is not a Testudo if it is a kind of a lasagna and is not a descendant. sent5: the nitrification is not a catty if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of an immune and is not a myringectomy does not hold. sent6: something is not two-dimensional but it does yawp management if it is not a catty. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is not immune and not a myringectomy is incorrect. sent8: if something that is not two-dimensional does yawp management then it is a kind of a lasagna. sent9: everything is not a Testudo. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the stabilizing catching does not occur.
|
¬{C}
|
sent1: the majoring does not occur. sent2: if that the Luxembourgianness does not occur and the majorness does not occur is false the mitigating acupuncture does not occur. sent3: that that the metallicness does not occur and the yawping janitor does not occur is not false is not true if the incomprehensibleness does not occur. sent4: if the Luxembourgianness does not occur the stabilizing catching and the yawping janitor happens. sent5: the fact that the difficulty happens but the incomprehensibleness does not occur is not false if the yawping NH does not occur. sent6: the yawping janitor is triggered by that the Luxembourgianness does not occur. sent7: if the accessionalness does not occur the catadromousness does not occur and/or the chemotherapy does not occur. sent8: if the majorness does not occur the Luxembourgianness does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬{A} sent2: ¬(¬{B} & ¬{A}) -> ¬{HI} sent3: ¬{F} -> ¬(¬{E} & ¬{D}) sent4: ¬{B} -> ({C} & {D}) sent5: ¬{H} -> ({G} & ¬{F}) sent6: ¬{B} -> {D} sent7: ¬{K} -> (¬{I} v ¬{J}) sent8: ¬{A} -> ¬{B}
|
[
"sent8 & sent1 -> int1: the Luxembourgianness does not occur.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: both the stabilizing catching and the yawping janitor occurs.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 & sent1 -> int1: ¬{B}; sent4 & int1 -> int2: ({C} & {D}); int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the mitigating acupuncture does not occur.
|
¬{HI}
|
[] | 9 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the stabilizing catching does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the majoring does not occur. sent2: if that the Luxembourgianness does not occur and the majorness does not occur is false the mitigating acupuncture does not occur. sent3: that that the metallicness does not occur and the yawping janitor does not occur is not false is not true if the incomprehensibleness does not occur. sent4: if the Luxembourgianness does not occur the stabilizing catching and the yawping janitor happens. sent5: the fact that the difficulty happens but the incomprehensibleness does not occur is not false if the yawping NH does not occur. sent6: the yawping janitor is triggered by that the Luxembourgianness does not occur. sent7: if the accessionalness does not occur the catadromousness does not occur and/or the chemotherapy does not occur. sent8: if the majorness does not occur the Luxembourgianness does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 & sent1 -> int1: the Luxembourgianness does not occur.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: both the stabilizing catching and the yawping janitor occurs.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the yawping love-in-a-mist and/or the blastoff occurs hold.
|
({E} v {D})
|
sent1: if the uptownness does not occur the Galwegianness happens or the abdication happens or both. sent2: the crudeness happens. sent3: either the inheritance or the anthropometricness or both happens. sent4: the healthiness happens and the empiricalness happens. sent5: the wardership does not occur but the idiopathicness occurs. sent6: if the forgiving does not occur then the yawping love-in-a-mist or the blastoff or both occurs. sent7: if the fact that the non-empiricalness and the non-pneumococcalness happens does not hold then the fact that the non-empirical happens hold. sent8: if the healthiness does not occur then that the yawping love-in-a-mist and/or the blastoff happens is incorrect. sent9: both the procrastination and the abdication happens. sent10: the empiricalness occurs. sent11: that the forgiving does not occur is brought about by that the continuance and the healthiness happens. sent12: the fact that the idiopathicness occurs is not false. sent13: the oophorectomy or the sweat or both happens if the inshoreness does not occur. sent14: the birr does not occur and the impaction occurs. sent15: the seamanlikeness occurs and/or the mitigating petroleum occurs if the jactitation does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬{S} -> ({FP} v {CA}) sent2: {AD} sent3: ({IP} v {GT}) sent4: ({A} & {F}) sent5: (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent6: ¬{C} -> ({E} v {D}) sent7: ¬(¬{F} & ¬{H}) -> {F} sent8: ¬{A} -> ¬({E} v {D}) sent9: ({HF} & {CA}) sent10: {F} sent11: ({B} & {A}) -> ¬{C} sent12: {AB} sent13: ¬{HG} -> ({AS} v {CP}) sent14: (¬{JH} & {JB}) sent15: ¬{CG} -> ({AT} v {BG})
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: the healthiness occurs.;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> int1: {A};"
] |
the fact that the yawping love-in-a-mist and/or the blastoff happens does not hold.
|
¬({E} v {D})
|
[] | 6 | 4 | null | 11 | 0 | 11 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the yawping love-in-a-mist and/or the blastoff occurs hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the uptownness does not occur the Galwegianness happens or the abdication happens or both. sent2: the crudeness happens. sent3: either the inheritance or the anthropometricness or both happens. sent4: the healthiness happens and the empiricalness happens. sent5: the wardership does not occur but the idiopathicness occurs. sent6: if the forgiving does not occur then the yawping love-in-a-mist or the blastoff or both occurs. sent7: if the fact that the non-empiricalness and the non-pneumococcalness happens does not hold then the fact that the non-empirical happens hold. sent8: if the healthiness does not occur then that the yawping love-in-a-mist and/or the blastoff happens is incorrect. sent9: both the procrastination and the abdication happens. sent10: the empiricalness occurs. sent11: that the forgiving does not occur is brought about by that the continuance and the healthiness happens. sent12: the fact that the idiopathicness occurs is not false. sent13: the oophorectomy or the sweat or both happens if the inshoreness does not occur. sent14: the birr does not occur and the impaction occurs. sent15: the seamanlikeness occurs and/or the mitigating petroleum occurs if the jactitation does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> int1: the healthiness occurs.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the endive is not a fallout.
|
¬{D}{b}
|
sent1: that the endive crispens hold if the ice-skater mitigates Addressograph. sent2: the endive is not a fallout if the fact that it is a lamb is true. sent3: The Addressograph does mitigate ice-skater. sent4: the endive is a kind of a lamb if it crispens. sent5: the endive mitigates Addressograph and is a fallout if the ice-skater does not crispen.
|
sent1: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent2: {C}{b} -> ¬{D}{b} sent3: {AA}{aa} sent4: {B}{b} -> {C}{b} sent5: ¬{B}{a} -> ({A}{b} & {D}{b})
|
[] |
[] |
the endive is a fallout.
|
{D}{b}
|
[] | 6 | 3 | null | 2 | 0 | 2 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the endive is not a fallout. ; $context$ = sent1: that the endive crispens hold if the ice-skater mitigates Addressograph. sent2: the endive is not a fallout if the fact that it is a lamb is true. sent3: The Addressograph does mitigate ice-skater. sent4: the endive is a kind of a lamb if it crispens. sent5: the endive mitigates Addressograph and is a fallout if the ice-skater does not crispen. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if the fact that it is not calisthenics is not incorrect then it is a biologism and is a segregation.
|
(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x)
|
sent1: the consumption is a Muenster and it reverberates if it does not mitigate Gettysburg. sent2: if something is not calisthenics then it is a kind of a segregation. sent3: the goldmine stacks utahraptor and it is a biologism if it is not a kind of a paper. sent4: if something is not a goulash then it is an attention and is trophic. sent5: the consumption is a segregation that is a kind of a recessional if it does not stack utahraptor. sent6: if something does not yawp zoanthropy then the fact that it is argumentative thing that is dithyrambic is not incorrect. sent7: the fact that there exists something such that if it does not yawp polytheist then it mitigates Maxzide and it does mitigate Malacanthidae hold. sent8: if the consumption is not a kind of a Dicrostonyx it is calisthenics and it is a Mendelian. sent9: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of an upstage then it mitigates consulship and it does commingle. sent10: the amobarbital is a primitive and is positionable if it is not a kind of a biologism. sent11: there exists something such that if it is non-polar it mitigates consulship and it is maxillomandibular. sent12: the consumption is a biologism and is a kind of a segregation if it is calisthenics. sent13: something is a biologism and is a kind of a segregation if it is calisthenics. sent14: the consumption is a kind of a anaspid and does mitigate hyson if it is not a dika. sent15: there is something such that if it is not calisthenics it is a segregation. sent16: the consumption is unlawful and it is extrospective if the fact that it does not represent is correct. sent17: if something is not calisthenics then it is a biologism and it is a kind of a segregation. sent18: if the fact that the consumption is not a hagiology is not wrong then it does mitigate Cynocephalidae and is aquiferous. sent19: there is something such that if it is calisthenics then it is a biologism and is a segregation. sent20: if the consumption is not calisthenics it is a segregation. sent21: the consumption is polar and it is a segregation if it is not a kind of a goulash.
|
sent1: ¬{AR}{aa} -> ({DS}{aa} & {BN}{aa}) sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> {AB}x sent3: ¬{DL}{ja} -> ({EI}{ja} & {AA}{ja}) sent4: (x): ¬{FE}x -> ({CH}x & {AO}x) sent5: ¬{EI}{aa} -> ({AB}{aa} & {BJ}{aa}) sent6: (x): ¬{JE}x -> ({BP}x & {HT}x) sent7: (Ex): ¬{DG}x -> ({BA}x & {AI}x) sent8: ¬{HR}{aa} -> ({A}{aa} & {JC}{aa}) sent9: (Ex): ¬{EB}x -> ({DD}x & {JG}x) sent10: ¬{AA}{hl} -> ({BC}{hl} & {ED}{hl}) sent11: (Ex): ¬{DR}x -> ({DD}x & {CN}x) sent12: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent13: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent14: ¬{AP}{aa} -> ({CG}{aa} & {JH}{aa}) sent15: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> {AB}x sent16: ¬{JB}{aa} -> ({EQ}{aa} & {HA}{aa}) sent17: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent18: ¬{FD}{aa} -> ({DM}{aa} & {IN}{aa}) sent19: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent20: ¬{A}{aa} -> {AB}{aa} sent21: ¬{FE}{aa} -> ({DR}{aa} & {AB}{aa})
|
[
"sent17 -> int1: the consumption is a biologism and it is a kind of a segregation if it is not calisthenics.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent17 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 20 | 0 | 20 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if the fact that it is not calisthenics is not incorrect then it is a biologism and is a segregation. ; $context$ = sent1: the consumption is a Muenster and it reverberates if it does not mitigate Gettysburg. sent2: if something is not calisthenics then it is a kind of a segregation. sent3: the goldmine stacks utahraptor and it is a biologism if it is not a kind of a paper. sent4: if something is not a goulash then it is an attention and is trophic. sent5: the consumption is a segregation that is a kind of a recessional if it does not stack utahraptor. sent6: if something does not yawp zoanthropy then the fact that it is argumentative thing that is dithyrambic is not incorrect. sent7: the fact that there exists something such that if it does not yawp polytheist then it mitigates Maxzide and it does mitigate Malacanthidae hold. sent8: if the consumption is not a kind of a Dicrostonyx it is calisthenics and it is a Mendelian. sent9: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of an upstage then it mitigates consulship and it does commingle. sent10: the amobarbital is a primitive and is positionable if it is not a kind of a biologism. sent11: there exists something such that if it is non-polar it mitigates consulship and it is maxillomandibular. sent12: the consumption is a biologism and is a kind of a segregation if it is calisthenics. sent13: something is a biologism and is a kind of a segregation if it is calisthenics. sent14: the consumption is a kind of a anaspid and does mitigate hyson if it is not a dika. sent15: there is something such that if it is not calisthenics it is a segregation. sent16: the consumption is unlawful and it is extrospective if the fact that it does not represent is correct. sent17: if something is not calisthenics then it is a biologism and it is a kind of a segregation. sent18: if the fact that the consumption is not a hagiology is not wrong then it does mitigate Cynocephalidae and is aquiferous. sent19: there is something such that if it is calisthenics then it is a biologism and is a segregation. sent20: if the consumption is not calisthenics it is a segregation. sent21: the consumption is polar and it is a segregation if it is not a kind of a goulash. ; $proof$ =
|
sent17 -> int1: the consumption is a biologism and it is a kind of a segregation if it is not calisthenics.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the prodigal does stabilize row is wrong.
|
¬{D}{b}
|
sent1: if something is a vote it is a kind of a Chaldean. sent2: the quick stabilizes row. sent3: the amobarbital is a Chaldean. sent4: the fact that if the fatherland is not Chaldean then the sudorific is not a kind of a vote but it is a blastomere is right. sent5: if the sudorific is a Chaldean then the prodigal does stabilize row. sent6: if the prodigal is a kind of a blastomere then it does not stabilize row and is not a vote. sent7: the prodigal is a thought-image. sent8: if something does not stabilize row it is not a blastomere and it is a kind of a Chaldean. sent9: the sudorific does stabilize row. sent10: the sudorific stabilizes row if that the prodigal is not non-Chaldean hold. sent11: the sudorific is a kind of a vote and it is a blastomere. sent12: the prodigal liberates and is Chaldean. sent13: the fact that something is amaurotic hold if it is a subkingdom. sent14: that the sudorific is a blastomere is not wrong. sent15: something is changeable if it is a samekh.
|
sent1: (x): {A}x -> {C}x sent2: {D}{ce} sent3: {C}{hj} sent4: ¬{C}{c} -> (¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent5: {C}{a} -> {D}{b} sent6: {B}{b} -> (¬{D}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent7: {EF}{b} sent8: (x): ¬{D}x -> (¬{B}x & {C}x) sent9: {D}{a} sent10: {C}{b} -> {D}{a} sent11: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent12: ({DP}{b} & {C}{b}) sent13: (x): {HO}x -> {BC}x sent14: {B}{a} sent15: (x): {G}x -> {BJ}x
|
[
"sent11 -> int1: the sudorific is a kind of a vote.; sent1 -> int2: the sudorific is a Chaldean if it is a kind of a vote.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the sudorific is a Chaldean.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent11 -> int1: {A}{a}; sent1 -> int2: {A}{a} -> {C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {C}{a}; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the prodigal does mitigate Threskiornithidae and it is a Norma.
|
({AL}{b} & {CR}{b})
|
[
"sent8 -> int4: the fatherland is both not a blastomere and a Chaldean if it does not stabilize row.;"
] | 9 | 3 | 3 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the prodigal does stabilize row is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a vote it is a kind of a Chaldean. sent2: the quick stabilizes row. sent3: the amobarbital is a Chaldean. sent4: the fact that if the fatherland is not Chaldean then the sudorific is not a kind of a vote but it is a blastomere is right. sent5: if the sudorific is a Chaldean then the prodigal does stabilize row. sent6: if the prodigal is a kind of a blastomere then it does not stabilize row and is not a vote. sent7: the prodigal is a thought-image. sent8: if something does not stabilize row it is not a blastomere and it is a kind of a Chaldean. sent9: the sudorific does stabilize row. sent10: the sudorific stabilizes row if that the prodigal is not non-Chaldean hold. sent11: the sudorific is a kind of a vote and it is a blastomere. sent12: the prodigal liberates and is Chaldean. sent13: the fact that something is amaurotic hold if it is a subkingdom. sent14: that the sudorific is a blastomere is not wrong. sent15: something is changeable if it is a samekh. ; $proof$ =
|
sent11 -> int1: the sudorific is a kind of a vote.; sent1 -> int2: the sudorific is a Chaldean if it is a kind of a vote.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the sudorific is a Chaldean.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it does not mitigate breakthrough and is generative it is not a kind of an installment.
|
(Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
sent1: there is something such that if it is a fondler and it is a T-bar then it is not umbelliferous. sent2: there is something such that if it does not stack asteroid and it does mitigate lint it does not damascene. sent3: there is something such that if it mitigates breakthrough and it is generative then it is not a kind of an installment. sent4: the skyscraper is not an installment if it is not a quintet but a Kierkegaard. sent5: if the stigma does not mitigate breakthrough and is not non-generative then it is not an installment.
|
sent1: (Ex): ({AT}x & {CN}x) -> ¬{Q}x sent2: (Ex): (¬{GS}x & {CE}x) -> ¬{HF}x sent3: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent4: (¬{J}{be} & {IO}{be}) -> ¬{B}{be} sent5: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}
|
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it does not mitigate breakthrough and is generative it is not a kind of an installment. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is a fondler and it is a T-bar then it is not umbelliferous. sent2: there is something such that if it does not stack asteroid and it does mitigate lint it does not damascene. sent3: there is something such that if it mitigates breakthrough and it is generative then it is not a kind of an installment. sent4: the skyscraper is not an installment if it is not a quintet but a Kierkegaard. sent5: if the stigma does not mitigate breakthrough and is not non-generative then it is not an installment. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the manganese is not a canonist is correct.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
sent1: the manganese is not melodic and it is not a kind of a osculation. sent2: the manganese mitigates manganese. sent3: if the manganese clumps the fact that it is indiscreet and is non-bacchantic does not hold. sent4: the radiography is not a osculation. sent5: that the manganese is not melodic and it is not a osculation is wrong if it is canonist.
|
sent1: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent2: {HU}{a} sent3: {BD}{a} -> ¬({DG}{a} & ¬{FS}{a}) sent4: ¬{AB}{h} sent5: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the manganese is a canonist.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the manganese is non-melodic thing that is not a osculation is wrong.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}{a}; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); int1 & sent1 -> int2: #F#; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = that the manganese is not a canonist is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the manganese is not melodic and it is not a kind of a osculation. sent2: the manganese mitigates manganese. sent3: if the manganese clumps the fact that it is indiscreet and is non-bacchantic does not hold. sent4: the radiography is not a osculation. sent5: that the manganese is not melodic and it is not a osculation is wrong if it is canonist. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the manganese is a canonist.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the manganese is non-melodic thing that is not a osculation is wrong.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the foreperson is not a borate but it is a Gogol.
|
(¬{C}{b} & {D}{b})
|
sent1: the fact that the guru is a pitch that is a homestead is right. sent2: if the fact that the guru is a homestead is true then that the foreperson is not a borate is correct. sent3: the cloudberry is a Gogol. sent4: the foreperson is a Gogol if the cloudberry is a Gogol. sent5: there exists something such that it is a borate and/or it plagiarizes.
|
sent1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent2: {B}{a} -> ¬{C}{b} sent3: {D}{c} sent4: {D}{c} -> {D}{b} sent5: (Ex): ({C}x v {BG}x)
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: the guru does homestead.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the foreperson is not a borate.; sent4 & sent3 -> int3: the foreperson is a Gogol.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: {B}{a}; int1 & sent2 -> int2: ¬{C}{b}; sent4 & sent3 -> int3: {D}{b}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the Nazi plagiarizes and it is a pitch.
|
({BG}{cr} & {A}{cr})
|
[] | 4 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the foreperson is not a borate but it is a Gogol. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the guru is a pitch that is a homestead is right. sent2: if the fact that the guru is a homestead is true then that the foreperson is not a borate is correct. sent3: the cloudberry is a Gogol. sent4: the foreperson is a Gogol if the cloudberry is a Gogol. sent5: there exists something such that it is a borate and/or it plagiarizes. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: the guru does homestead.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the foreperson is not a borate.; sent4 & sent3 -> int3: the foreperson is a Gogol.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the marshaling and the evaporating happens.
|
({C} & {D})
|
sent1: if the anaglyphicness happens that the evaporating does not occur and the trailing does not occur is not correct. sent2: the fact that the marshal occurs is right if the mitigating pennywhistle happens. sent3: that the marshal and the evaporating happens is not correct if that the flowage does not occur is not wrong. sent4: that the sadisticness does not occur but the gaslight happens is false if the discarding occurs. sent5: if that not the sadisticness but the gaslight occurs is not true the trailing does not occur. sent6: the insolation does not occur. sent7: if that that the evaporating does not occur and the trailing does not occur hold is not right the evaporating occurs. sent8: that the trailing does not occur and the anaglyphicness does not occur is triggered by that the sadisticness occurs. sent9: the fact that the drinkableness happens but the yawping rejoinder does not occur is not true. sent10: the flowage happens. sent11: if the flowage occurs then the mitigating pennywhistle occurs. sent12: if the insolation does not occur and the praetorship does not occur the discard happens. sent13: the anaglyphicness happens. sent14: the praetorship does not occur if the yawping leaner does not occur and/or the enlarging does not occur.
|
sent1: {E} -> ¬(¬{D} & ¬{F}) sent2: {B} -> {C} sent3: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} & {D}) sent4: {I} -> ¬(¬{G} & {H}) sent5: ¬(¬{G} & {H}) -> ¬{F} sent6: ¬{J} sent7: ¬(¬{D} & ¬{F}) -> {D} sent8: {G} -> (¬{F} & ¬{E}) sent9: ¬({JB} & ¬{GO}) sent10: {A} sent11: {A} -> {B} sent12: (¬{J} & ¬{K}) -> {I} sent13: {E} sent14: (¬{L} v ¬{M}) -> ¬{K}
|
[
"sent11 & sent10 -> int1: the mitigating pennywhistle occurs.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the marshal occurs.; sent1 & sent13 -> int3: the fact that that the evaporating does not occur and the trailing does not occur is true is not right.; sent7 & int3 -> int4: the evaporating happens.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent11 & sent10 -> int1: {B}; int1 & sent2 -> int2: {C}; sent1 & sent13 -> int3: ¬(¬{D} & ¬{F}); sent7 & int3 -> int4: {D}; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the lighterage happens is true.
|
{DP}
|
[] | 10 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the marshaling and the evaporating happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if the anaglyphicness happens that the evaporating does not occur and the trailing does not occur is not correct. sent2: the fact that the marshal occurs is right if the mitigating pennywhistle happens. sent3: that the marshal and the evaporating happens is not correct if that the flowage does not occur is not wrong. sent4: that the sadisticness does not occur but the gaslight happens is false if the discarding occurs. sent5: if that not the sadisticness but the gaslight occurs is not true the trailing does not occur. sent6: the insolation does not occur. sent7: if that that the evaporating does not occur and the trailing does not occur hold is not right the evaporating occurs. sent8: that the trailing does not occur and the anaglyphicness does not occur is triggered by that the sadisticness occurs. sent9: the fact that the drinkableness happens but the yawping rejoinder does not occur is not true. sent10: the flowage happens. sent11: if the flowage occurs then the mitigating pennywhistle occurs. sent12: if the insolation does not occur and the praetorship does not occur the discard happens. sent13: the anaglyphicness happens. sent14: the praetorship does not occur if the yawping leaner does not occur and/or the enlarging does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent11 & sent10 -> int1: the mitigating pennywhistle occurs.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the marshal occurs.; sent1 & sent13 -> int3: the fact that that the evaporating does not occur and the trailing does not occur is true is not right.; sent7 & int3 -> int4: the evaporating happens.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that the fact that it does not stabilize backroom and is a cordierite is incorrect.
|
(Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x)
|
sent1: there is nothing such that it does stabilize backroom and is a cordierite. sent2: there exists something such that that it does stabilize backroom and it is a cordierite is not true. sent3: there exists nothing such that it is tetanic and it speechifies. sent4: there exists something such that that it is non-Hmong and it yawps Vireonidae does not hold. sent5: if the pindolol is not nonintellectual and it does not shroud then it does not mitigate immersion. sent6: that the storyteller is not a divestiture and is a cordierite does not hold. sent7: that something is both not a muffled and a prize is incorrect if it is a Iberian. sent8: the fact that the manor stabilizes backroom and is a cordierite does not hold. sent9: that the pindolol is both non-multilingual and a cordierite is false. sent10: that something is a kind of congenial thing that is a Cordyline is incorrect if it does smoke. sent11: the fact that something does not stabilize backroom and does yawp turner is not right if the fact that it is not a smoke is not wrong. sent12: there is something such that the fact that it does not stabilize Alopius and it is a kind of a unsolvability does not hold. sent13: if that the linendraper is not a muffled and is a prize is not correct the gallbladder is not a smoke. sent14: that the manor is Gaussian thing that does stabilize backroom does not hold. sent15: there exists nothing such that it does not stabilize backroom and is a kind of a cordierite. sent16: there is nothing such that it is not a kind of a thiocyanate and it is a kind of a simian.
|
sent1: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent2: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: (x): ¬({BL}x & {EJ}x) sent4: (Ex): ¬(¬{FM}x & {DG}x) sent5: (¬{G}{b} & ¬{F}{b}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent6: ¬(¬{BI}{ce} & {AB}{ce}) sent7: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & {B}x) sent8: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent9: ¬(¬{J}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent10: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{IP}x & {JK}x) sent11: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {DP}x) sent12: (Ex): ¬(¬{CU}x & {GN}x) sent13: ¬(¬{C}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{A}{dm} sent14: ¬({HI}{aa} & {AA}{aa}) sent15: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent16: (x): ¬(¬{JC}x & {GE}x)
|
[
"sent15 -> int1: that that that the manor does not stabilize backroom and is a cordierite is correct is not true is not false.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent15 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there exists nothing such that it is not uncongenial and is a Cordyline.
|
(x): ¬(¬{IP}x & {JK}x)
|
[
"sent10 -> int2: if the linendraper is a smoke the fact that it is not uncongenial and is a kind of a Cordyline is not right.;"
] | 5 | 2 | 2 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that the fact that it does not stabilize backroom and is a cordierite is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: there is nothing such that it does stabilize backroom and is a cordierite. sent2: there exists something such that that it does stabilize backroom and it is a cordierite is not true. sent3: there exists nothing such that it is tetanic and it speechifies. sent4: there exists something such that that it is non-Hmong and it yawps Vireonidae does not hold. sent5: if the pindolol is not nonintellectual and it does not shroud then it does not mitigate immersion. sent6: that the storyteller is not a divestiture and is a cordierite does not hold. sent7: that something is both not a muffled and a prize is incorrect if it is a Iberian. sent8: the fact that the manor stabilizes backroom and is a cordierite does not hold. sent9: that the pindolol is both non-multilingual and a cordierite is false. sent10: that something is a kind of congenial thing that is a Cordyline is incorrect if it does smoke. sent11: the fact that something does not stabilize backroom and does yawp turner is not right if the fact that it is not a smoke is not wrong. sent12: there is something such that the fact that it does not stabilize Alopius and it is a kind of a unsolvability does not hold. sent13: if that the linendraper is not a muffled and is a prize is not correct the gallbladder is not a smoke. sent14: that the manor is Gaussian thing that does stabilize backroom does not hold. sent15: there exists nothing such that it does not stabilize backroom and is a kind of a cordierite. sent16: there is nothing such that it is not a kind of a thiocyanate and it is a kind of a simian. ; $proof$ =
|
sent15 -> int1: that that that the manor does not stabilize backroom and is a cordierite is correct is not true is not false.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the pantile is a kind of Pauline thing that does not stabilize NH is not right.
|
¬({D}{c} & ¬{C}{c})
|
sent1: the merchandise is not a black if there exists something such that the fact that it is a Cnidosporidia and it is dermatologic is not true. sent2: the Morgan is not Pauline. sent3: that the pantile is Pauline and does not stabilize NH is not right if the wog does not stabilize NH. sent4: if something is not a kind of a black then that it is Pauline and it does not cut is not correct. sent5: there is something such that the fact that it is a Cnidosporidia and it is dermatologic is not right.
|
sent1: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent2: ¬{D}{ig} sent3: ¬{C}{b} -> ¬({D}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({D}x & ¬{IQ}x) sent5: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x)
|
[
"sent5 & sent1 -> int1: that the merchandise is not a black is not wrong.;"
] |
[
"sent5 & sent1 -> int1: ¬{A}{a};"
] |
the fact that the subdivision is Pauline but not a cutting does not hold.
|
¬({D}{en} & ¬{IQ}{en})
|
[
"sent4 -> int2: if the subdivision is not a black then the fact that it is Pauline and it does not cut is not true.;"
] | 5 | 4 | null | 2 | 0 | 2 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the pantile is a kind of Pauline thing that does not stabilize NH is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the merchandise is not a black if there exists something such that the fact that it is a Cnidosporidia and it is dermatologic is not true. sent2: the Morgan is not Pauline. sent3: that the pantile is Pauline and does not stabilize NH is not right if the wog does not stabilize NH. sent4: if something is not a kind of a black then that it is Pauline and it does not cut is not correct. sent5: there is something such that the fact that it is a Cnidosporidia and it is dermatologic is not right. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 & sent1 -> int1: that the merchandise is not a black is not wrong.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if it is a kind of an acetylene and it is not an anteater then it discourses.
|
(Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x
|
sent1: if the hooknose does bandy but it does not yawp Carver then it is an acetylene. sent2: there is something such that if it stabilizes smew and it does not mitigate teapot then it is a bicentennial. sent3: there exists something such that if it is a arithmetician and it is not modern then the fact that it is an associate hold. sent4: there is something such that if it is both an acetylene and an anteater it is a kind of a discourse. sent5: there is something such that if it yawps Carver and it does not fold then it is defervescent. sent6: if something that is an acetylene is not gluteal it mitigates teapot. sent7: a zoanthropy that is not an acetylene is fistulous. sent8: the hooknose is a lespedeza if it does yawp grandma and it is not ununderstood. sent9: there is something such that if that it does solarize and does not bench is correct then the fact that it is uncleared hold. sent10: if the hooknose does stack jaw and is non-ballistic it discourses. sent11: there is something such that if it slurps and it is not a kind of a smart then it is a kind of a bench. sent12: the sporophyll is a arithmetician if it is a discourse and not a Ramman. sent13: the fact that the hooknose is a discourse is not incorrect if it is both an acetylene and not an anteater. sent14: something does thin if it is both a julienne and not a lilliputian. sent15: the swot stabilizes Kashag if it mitigates dialectician and it is not a unassertiveness. sent16: the hooknose does discourse if it is an acetylene and an anteater. sent17: there exists something such that if it is myeloid and not a piggyback it is a smart. sent18: if the vaudevillian is a teamwork but it is not a devil it is an acetylene. sent19: there exists something such that if it does rebate and is not a Ephesians then it is judicial. sent20: there is something such that if it mitigates Leonurus and it is irresistible then that it is Soviet hold.
|
sent1: ({AP}{aa} & ¬{S}{aa}) -> {AA}{aa} sent2: (Ex): ({CQ}x & ¬{HB}x) -> {GD}x sent3: (Ex): ({BE}x & ¬{DH}x) -> {BA}x sent4: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent5: (Ex): ({S}x & ¬{CF}x) -> {GM}x sent6: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{CL}x) -> {HB}x sent7: (x): ({CN}x & ¬{AA}x) -> {DN}x sent8: ({JA}{aa} & ¬{ER}{aa}) -> {HE}{aa} sent9: (Ex): ({G}x & ¬{JB}x) -> {AS}x sent10: ({DR}{aa} & ¬{AF}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent11: (Ex): ({BC}x & ¬{AU}x) -> {JB}x sent12: ({B}{je} & ¬{FR}{je}) -> {BE}{je} sent13: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent14: (x): ({EC}x & ¬{GF}x) -> {N}x sent15: ({DA}{bn} & ¬{FD}{bn}) -> {CH}{bn} sent16: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent17: (Ex): ({JD}x & ¬{FN}x) -> {AU}x sent18: ({CE}{ct} & ¬{IO}{ct}) -> {AA}{ct} sent19: (Ex): ({BQ}x & ¬{AT}x) -> {GK}x sent20: (Ex): ({D}x & ¬{AO}x) -> {T}x
|
[
"sent13 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent13 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there is something such that if it is a julienne and is not a lilliputian it is thin.
|
(Ex): ({EC}x & ¬{GF}x) -> {N}x
|
[
"sent14 -> int1: the paddle thins if it is a kind of a julienne and it is not a kind of a lilliputian.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is a kind of an acetylene and it is not an anteater then it discourses. ; $context$ = sent1: if the hooknose does bandy but it does not yawp Carver then it is an acetylene. sent2: there is something such that if it stabilizes smew and it does not mitigate teapot then it is a bicentennial. sent3: there exists something such that if it is a arithmetician and it is not modern then the fact that it is an associate hold. sent4: there is something such that if it is both an acetylene and an anteater it is a kind of a discourse. sent5: there is something such that if it yawps Carver and it does not fold then it is defervescent. sent6: if something that is an acetylene is not gluteal it mitigates teapot. sent7: a zoanthropy that is not an acetylene is fistulous. sent8: the hooknose is a lespedeza if it does yawp grandma and it is not ununderstood. sent9: there is something such that if that it does solarize and does not bench is correct then the fact that it is uncleared hold. sent10: if the hooknose does stack jaw and is non-ballistic it discourses. sent11: there is something such that if it slurps and it is not a kind of a smart then it is a kind of a bench. sent12: the sporophyll is a arithmetician if it is a discourse and not a Ramman. sent13: the fact that the hooknose is a discourse is not incorrect if it is both an acetylene and not an anteater. sent14: something does thin if it is both a julienne and not a lilliputian. sent15: the swot stabilizes Kashag if it mitigates dialectician and it is not a unassertiveness. sent16: the hooknose does discourse if it is an acetylene and an anteater. sent17: there exists something such that if it is myeloid and not a piggyback it is a smart. sent18: if the vaudevillian is a teamwork but it is not a devil it is an acetylene. sent19: there exists something such that if it does rebate and is not a Ephesians then it is judicial. sent20: there is something such that if it mitigates Leonurus and it is irresistible then that it is Soviet hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent13 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the employer does not mitigate minelayer or it mitigates habitation or both is not correct.
|
¬(¬{D}{a} v {E}{a})
|
sent1: the employer is not a gabled if there exists something such that it mitigates acme. sent2: the employer is not a Shaktist if the fact that the fact that the oxytetracycline does not mitigate minelayer and is a kind of a Shaktist is incorrect hold. sent3: if there is something such that it does mitigate acme then the employer is not a gabled and it is not a Shaktist. sent4: the employer does not mitigate Dowland if there is something such that it is a afterworld. sent5: something is not ethnocentric and it does not yawp enterovirus if that it does not mitigate acme is correct. sent6: if something is a kind of a gabled and is not a Shaktist then it does not mitigate minelayer. sent7: either the employer mitigates minelayer or it mitigates habitation or both. sent8: if the oxytetracycline is a Puritanism but it is not a Shaktist the employer is not a Shaktist. sent9: that something does not mitigate minelayer and/or does mitigate habitation is wrong if it mitigates acme. sent10: that something does not mitigate minelayer and is a Shaktist is incorrect if it does not mitigate habitation. sent11: if the employer does not mitigate acme and it is not a gabled then the lychgate does not mitigate acme. sent12: there is something such that it is topological. sent13: if something is not a Shaktist it does not mitigate acme and is not a gabled. sent14: the employer does not mitigate minelayer if it is a gabled and it is not a Shaktist. sent15: the employer is not basal if it is a Lille and it is not a kind of a gabled. sent16: the employer is not a gabled. sent17: if something that is not a gabled is not a Shaktist then it does not mitigate minelayer. sent18: there exists something such that it mitigates acme. sent19: something that is not a Puritanism and is agranulocytic does not mitigate habitation.
|
sent1: (x): {A}x -> ¬{B}{a} sent2: ¬(¬{D}{b} & {C}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent3: (x): {A}x -> (¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent4: (x): {AD}x -> ¬{EU}{a} sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{BH}x & ¬{IT}x) sent6: (x): ({B}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{D}x sent7: ({D}{a} v {E}{a}) sent8: ({F}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent9: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{D}x v {E}x) sent10: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & {C}x) sent11: (¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{A}{ii} sent12: (Ex): {AN}x sent13: (x): ¬{C}x -> (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) sent14: ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent15: ({EM}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{DM}{a} sent16: ¬{B}{a} sent17: (x): (¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{D}x sent18: (Ex): {A}x sent19: (x): (¬{F}x & {G}x) -> ¬{E}x
|
[
"sent18 & sent3 -> int1: the employer is both not a gabled and not a Shaktist.; sent17 -> int2: the employer does not mitigate minelayer if it is not a kind of a gabled and it is not a kind of a Shaktist.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the employer does not mitigate minelayer.; int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent18 & sent3 -> int1: (¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); sent17 -> int2: (¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬{D}{a}; int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the employer does not mitigate minelayer and/or mitigates habitation is wrong.
|
¬(¬{D}{a} v {E}{a})
|
[
"sent9 -> int4: that the employer does not mitigate minelayer and/or it does mitigate habitation is wrong if it mitigates acme.;"
] | 5 | 3 | 3 | 16 | 0 | 16 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the employer does not mitigate minelayer or it mitigates habitation or both is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the employer is not a gabled if there exists something such that it mitigates acme. sent2: the employer is not a Shaktist if the fact that the fact that the oxytetracycline does not mitigate minelayer and is a kind of a Shaktist is incorrect hold. sent3: if there is something such that it does mitigate acme then the employer is not a gabled and it is not a Shaktist. sent4: the employer does not mitigate Dowland if there is something such that it is a afterworld. sent5: something is not ethnocentric and it does not yawp enterovirus if that it does not mitigate acme is correct. sent6: if something is a kind of a gabled and is not a Shaktist then it does not mitigate minelayer. sent7: either the employer mitigates minelayer or it mitigates habitation or both. sent8: if the oxytetracycline is a Puritanism but it is not a Shaktist the employer is not a Shaktist. sent9: that something does not mitigate minelayer and/or does mitigate habitation is wrong if it mitigates acme. sent10: that something does not mitigate minelayer and is a Shaktist is incorrect if it does not mitigate habitation. sent11: if the employer does not mitigate acme and it is not a gabled then the lychgate does not mitigate acme. sent12: there is something such that it is topological. sent13: if something is not a Shaktist it does not mitigate acme and is not a gabled. sent14: the employer does not mitigate minelayer if it is a gabled and it is not a Shaktist. sent15: the employer is not basal if it is a Lille and it is not a kind of a gabled. sent16: the employer is not a gabled. sent17: if something that is not a gabled is not a Shaktist then it does not mitigate minelayer. sent18: there exists something such that it mitigates acme. sent19: something that is not a Puritanism and is agranulocytic does not mitigate habitation. ; $proof$ =
|
sent18 & sent3 -> int1: the employer is both not a gabled and not a Shaktist.; sent17 -> int2: the employer does not mitigate minelayer if it is not a kind of a gabled and it is not a kind of a Shaktist.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the employer does not mitigate minelayer.; int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the landlubber is indigestible.
|
{D}{b}
|
sent1: something is not indigestible if it does stack spillway and guards. sent2: The fact that the desirability yawps alphavirus is not wrong. sent3: the fact that the landlubber yawps desirability hold if that the alphavirus does stack spillway is not wrong. sent4: The spillway stacks landlubber. sent5: the landlubber stacks spillway. sent6: the fact that the alphavirus yawps desirability is not wrong. sent7: the landlubber guards if that the alphavirus does yawp desirability is not wrong.
|
sent1: (x): ({C}x & {B}x) -> ¬{D}x sent2: {AA}{aa} sent3: {C}{a} -> {A}{b} sent4: {AB}{ab} sent5: {C}{b} sent6: {A}{a} sent7: {A}{a} -> {B}{b}
|
[
"sent7 & sent6 -> int1: the landlubber is a kind of a guard.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the landlubber does stack spillway and guards.; sent1 -> int3: if the landlubber stacks spillway and is a guard then it is not indigestible.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent7 & sent6 -> int1: {B}{b}; int1 & sent5 -> int2: ({C}{b} & {B}{b}); sent1 -> int3: ({C}{b} & {B}{b}) -> ¬{D}{b}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the landlubber is indigestible. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not indigestible if it does stack spillway and guards. sent2: The fact that the desirability yawps alphavirus is not wrong. sent3: the fact that the landlubber yawps desirability hold if that the alphavirus does stack spillway is not wrong. sent4: The spillway stacks landlubber. sent5: the landlubber stacks spillway. sent6: the fact that the alphavirus yawps desirability is not wrong. sent7: the landlubber guards if that the alphavirus does yawp desirability is not wrong. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 & sent6 -> int1: the landlubber is a kind of a guard.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the landlubber does stack spillway and guards.; sent1 -> int3: if the landlubber stacks spillway and is a guard then it is not indigestible.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the stabilizing fuchsia does not occur hold.
|
¬{C}
|
sent1: the fact that if the seriousness occurs then the stabilizing fuchsia happens hold. sent2: the stabilizing Kashag happens if the womanliness happens. sent3: if the stabilizing marshmallow occurs then the fact that the stabilizing fuchsia does not occur and the seriousness happens is not true. sent4: if that the stabilizing fuchsia does not occur and the seriousness happens is not right then the womanliness occurs. sent5: the stabilizing fuchsia does not occur if that both the stabilizing fuchsia and the seriousness occurs is not true. sent6: the womanliness and the seriousness happens. sent7: if the womanliness does not occur then the fact that both the stabilizing fuchsia and the seriousness happens is not right.
|
sent1: {B} -> {C} sent2: {A} -> {GG} sent3: {D} -> ¬(¬{C} & {B}) sent4: ¬(¬{C} & {B}) -> {A} sent5: ¬({C} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent6: ({A} & {B}) sent7: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} & {B})
|
[
"sent6 -> int1: the seriousness happens.; int1 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 -> int1: {B}; int1 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the stabilizing Kashag occurs hold.
|
{GG}
|
[] | 8 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the stabilizing fuchsia does not occur hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that if the seriousness occurs then the stabilizing fuchsia happens hold. sent2: the stabilizing Kashag happens if the womanliness happens. sent3: if the stabilizing marshmallow occurs then the fact that the stabilizing fuchsia does not occur and the seriousness happens is not true. sent4: if that the stabilizing fuchsia does not occur and the seriousness happens is not right then the womanliness occurs. sent5: the stabilizing fuchsia does not occur if that both the stabilizing fuchsia and the seriousness occurs is not true. sent6: the womanliness and the seriousness happens. sent7: if the womanliness does not occur then the fact that both the stabilizing fuchsia and the seriousness happens is not right. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 -> int1: the seriousness happens.; int1 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the whooper is not a primitive.
|
¬{B}{aa}
|
sent1: if there exists something such that that it does not stabilize NH is not false then the fact that the tarpan does not mitigate daughter-in-law but it is Augustan is not right. sent2: the graze is a kind of a G. sent3: if the fact that the whooper is expiatory and/or not a G is not correct then it is not a kind of a primitive. sent4: the fact that something is expiatory or it is not a kind of a G or both is wrong if it is a preference. sent5: something is not expiatory if it is a preference. sent6: the whooper is a kind of a primitive that is a preference if the insulant does not mitigate straggler. sent7: the whooper is not a kind of a diffuseness if the fact that it is actinic and/or does yawp concerted is incorrect. sent8: if the whooper is a G that it is philatelic or does not mitigate Phoca or both does not hold. sent9: that either the Hooker is a pectoral or it does not mitigate straggler or both does not hold. sent10: the torso is not inclusive if there is something such that either it is not Augustan or it does stack underdevelopment or both. sent11: the whooper is not expiatory. sent12: something does not stabilize NH. sent13: the fact that the whooper is a preference hold if it mitigates straggler. sent14: the whooper mitigates straggler. sent15: something does yawp paregmenon and/or it mitigates straggler if it is not inclusive. sent16: The straggler mitigates whooper. sent17: the puritan is not Augustan if there exists something such that that it does not mitigate daughter-in-law and it is Augustan is false.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬(¬{I}{d} & {F}{d}) sent2: {AB}{gg} sent3: ¬({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent4: (x): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent5: (x): {A}x -> ¬{AA}x sent6: ¬{C}{a} -> ({B}{aa} & {A}{aa}) sent7: ¬({HK}{aa} v {CJ}{aa}) -> ¬{FK}{aa} sent8: {AB}{aa} -> ¬({CK}{aa} v ¬{CL}{aa}) sent9: ¬({HB}{al} v ¬{C}{al}) sent10: (x): (¬{F}x v {G}x) -> ¬{E}{b} sent11: ¬{AA}{aa} sent12: (Ex): ¬{H}x sent13: {C}{aa} -> {A}{aa} sent14: {C}{aa} sent15: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({D}x v {C}x) sent16: {AC}{ab} sent17: (x): ¬(¬{I}x & {F}x) -> ¬{F}{c}
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: the fact that the whooper is expiatory and/or it is not a G is not correct if it is a preference.; sent13 & sent14 -> int2: the whooper is a preference.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the whooper is expiatory and/or it is not a kind of a G does not hold.; int3 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> int1: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}); sent13 & sent14 -> int2: {A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}); int3 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the whooper is a primitive.
|
{B}{aa}
|
[
"sent15 -> int4: if the torso is not inclusive then it does yawp paregmenon or it mitigates straggler or both.; sent12 & sent1 -> int5: the fact that that the tarpan does not mitigate daughter-in-law but it is Augustan is right does not hold.; int5 -> int6: there exists something such that that it does not mitigate daughter-in-law and is Augustan is wrong.; int6 & sent17 -> int7: the puritan is not Augustan.; int7 -> int8: the puritan is not Augustan or it stacks underdevelopment or both.; int8 -> int9: something is not Augustan or it does stack underdevelopment or both.; int9 & sent10 -> int10: the torso is not inclusive.; int4 & int10 -> int11: the torso does yawp paregmenon and/or does mitigate straggler.;"
] | 10 | 3 | 3 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the whooper is not a primitive. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that that it does not stabilize NH is not false then the fact that the tarpan does not mitigate daughter-in-law but it is Augustan is not right. sent2: the graze is a kind of a G. sent3: if the fact that the whooper is expiatory and/or not a G is not correct then it is not a kind of a primitive. sent4: the fact that something is expiatory or it is not a kind of a G or both is wrong if it is a preference. sent5: something is not expiatory if it is a preference. sent6: the whooper is a kind of a primitive that is a preference if the insulant does not mitigate straggler. sent7: the whooper is not a kind of a diffuseness if the fact that it is actinic and/or does yawp concerted is incorrect. sent8: if the whooper is a G that it is philatelic or does not mitigate Phoca or both does not hold. sent9: that either the Hooker is a pectoral or it does not mitigate straggler or both does not hold. sent10: the torso is not inclusive if there is something such that either it is not Augustan or it does stack underdevelopment or both. sent11: the whooper is not expiatory. sent12: something does not stabilize NH. sent13: the fact that the whooper is a preference hold if it mitigates straggler. sent14: the whooper mitigates straggler. sent15: something does yawp paregmenon and/or it mitigates straggler if it is not inclusive. sent16: The straggler mitigates whooper. sent17: the puritan is not Augustan if there exists something such that that it does not mitigate daughter-in-law and it is Augustan is false. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> int1: the fact that the whooper is expiatory and/or it is not a G is not correct if it is a preference.; sent13 & sent14 -> int2: the whooper is a preference.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the whooper is expiatory and/or it is not a kind of a G does not hold.; int3 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the postern is a doctorspeak and acaulescent.
|
({B}{aa} & {A}{aa})
|
sent1: the fact that the postern is a software and is a kind of a flax is not correct if it is not echoic. sent2: that if the postern is the tour then the postern is a lustrum hold. sent3: the postern does not stabilize E-bomb. sent4: something is a doctorspeak if the fact that that it is a flax and it does not scale is correct is wrong. sent5: there exists nothing that is a dash and does not consider. sent6: the postern is not granulocytic. sent7: the postern does stabilize haywire if it is a hope. sent8: there exists nothing that is not a colophony and not righteous. sent9: if that something does not switch and it is not culinary is not correct it is acaulescent. sent10: the love-in-a-mist is a doctorspeak. sent11: if something is unusual it is a kind of a enalapril. sent12: the postern does stabilize sackbut. sent13: if the fact that the postern is not a switch is not incorrect that it stacks love-in-a-mist and stabilizes haywire is wrong. sent14: if that that something is both culinary and non-granulocytic is not incorrect does not hold then the fact that it is not a kind of a flax does not hold. sent15: there is nothing such that it does not switch and it is not culinary. sent16: something that is a hardbake wrestles. sent17: that the comforter is a description and it is a doctorspeak does not hold. sent18: if the postern does neglect it is ropy. sent19: if the postern is not granulocytic the fact that it is a flax and it is not a kind of a scale is false. sent20: the postern is not a kind of a Onychophora.
|
sent1: ¬{J}{aa} -> ¬({CL}{aa} & {AA}{aa}) sent2: {GC}{aa} -> {CF}{aa} sent3: ¬{FJ}{aa} sent4: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent5: (x): ¬({FO}x & ¬{BJ}x) sent6: ¬{C}{aa} sent7: {BG}{aa} -> {BR}{aa} sent8: (x): ¬(¬{CI}x & ¬{BF}x) sent9: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{E}x) -> {A}x sent10: {B}{ap} sent11: (x): {FF}x -> {CU}x sent12: {JK}{aa} sent13: ¬{D}{aa} -> ¬({GJ}{aa} & {BR}{aa}) sent14: (x): ¬({E}x & ¬{C}x) -> {AA}x sent15: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{E}x) sent16: (x): {DH}x -> {FH}x sent17: ¬({GG}{cm} & {B}{cm}) sent18: {CD}{aa} -> {DU}{aa} sent19: ¬{C}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent20: ¬{AP}{aa}
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: the postern is a doctorspeak if the fact that it is a flax and it does not scale is not correct.; sent19 & sent6 -> int2: that the postern is a kind of a flax but it is not a kind of a scale does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the postern is a kind of a doctorspeak.; sent9 -> int4: the postern is acaulescent if the fact that it is not a kind of a switch and it is not culinary is not true.; sent15 -> int5: the fact that the fact that the postern is not a switch and not culinary is incorrect hold.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the postern is acaulescent.; int3 & int6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> int1: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; sent19 & sent6 -> int2: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> int3: {B}{aa}; sent9 -> int4: ¬(¬{D}{aa} & ¬{E}{aa}) -> {A}{aa}; sent15 -> int5: ¬(¬{D}{aa} & ¬{E}{aa}); int4 & int5 -> int6: {A}{aa}; int3 & int6 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the postern is a doctorspeak and acaulescent. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the postern is a software and is a kind of a flax is not correct if it is not echoic. sent2: that if the postern is the tour then the postern is a lustrum hold. sent3: the postern does not stabilize E-bomb. sent4: something is a doctorspeak if the fact that that it is a flax and it does not scale is correct is wrong. sent5: there exists nothing that is a dash and does not consider. sent6: the postern is not granulocytic. sent7: the postern does stabilize haywire if it is a hope. sent8: there exists nothing that is not a colophony and not righteous. sent9: if that something does not switch and it is not culinary is not correct it is acaulescent. sent10: the love-in-a-mist is a doctorspeak. sent11: if something is unusual it is a kind of a enalapril. sent12: the postern does stabilize sackbut. sent13: if the fact that the postern is not a switch is not incorrect that it stacks love-in-a-mist and stabilizes haywire is wrong. sent14: if that that something is both culinary and non-granulocytic is not incorrect does not hold then the fact that it is not a kind of a flax does not hold. sent15: there is nothing such that it does not switch and it is not culinary. sent16: something that is a hardbake wrestles. sent17: that the comforter is a description and it is a doctorspeak does not hold. sent18: if the postern does neglect it is ropy. sent19: if the postern is not granulocytic the fact that it is a flax and it is not a kind of a scale is false. sent20: the postern is not a kind of a Onychophora. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> int1: the postern is a doctorspeak if the fact that it is a flax and it does not scale is not correct.; sent19 & sent6 -> int2: that the postern is a kind of a flax but it is not a kind of a scale does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the postern is a kind of a doctorspeak.; sent9 -> int4: the postern is acaulescent if the fact that it is not a kind of a switch and it is not culinary is not true.; sent15 -> int5: the fact that the fact that the postern is not a switch and not culinary is incorrect hold.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the postern is acaulescent.; int3 & int6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.