version
stringclasses 1
value | hypothesis
stringlengths 11
215
| hypothesis_formula
stringlengths 3
39
| context
stringlengths 0
2.9k
| context_formula
stringlengths 0
905
| proofs
list | proofs_formula
list | negative_hypothesis
stringlengths 15
193
⌀ | negative_hypothesis_formula
stringlengths 3
37
⌀ | negative_proofs
list | negative_original_tree_depth
int64 0
25
⌀ | original_tree_depth
int64 1
4
| depth
int64 0
3
⌀ | num_formula_distractors
int64 0
22
| num_translation_distractors
int64 0
0
| num_all_distractors
int64 0
22
| proof_label
stringclasses 3
values | negative_proof_label
stringclasses 2
values | world_assump_label
stringclasses 3
values | negative_world_assump_label
stringclasses 2
values | prompt_serial
stringlengths 89
3.09k
| proof_serial
stringlengths 11
654
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DeductionInstance
|
the demijohn is not papilliform.
|
¬{B}{a}
|
sent1: the Cartwright is Viennese. sent2: the hydroelectricity is either Viennese or an airhead or both. sent3: if the hydroelectricity is a kind of an airhead the Cartwright is seraphic. sent4: if something is seraphic it is not expedient and it does not mitigate drydock. sent5: if the Cartwright is seraphic then it does not mitigate drydock. sent6: that the demijohn is papilliform is not incorrect if the Cartwright is inexpedient but it does not mitigate drydock. sent7: if the hydroelectricity is an airhead it does not mitigate drydock. sent8: the hydroelectricity is papilliform if the demijohn is an airhead but it is not inexpedient. sent9: the Cartwright is seraphic if the hydroelectricity is Viennese. sent10: the hydroelectricity is inexpedient if the Cartwright is a kind of an airhead. sent11: if that the demijohn is papilliform is not false it does not mitigate drydock. sent12: something that does mitigate drydock is both seraphic and not Viennese. sent13: the protectionist is not seraphic.
|
sent1: {C}{aa} sent2: ({C}{b} v {D}{b}) sent3: {D}{b} -> {A}{aa} sent4: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent5: {A}{aa} -> ¬{AB}{aa} sent6: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{a} sent7: {D}{b} -> ¬{AB}{b} sent8: ({D}{a} & ¬{AA}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent9: {C}{b} -> {A}{aa} sent10: {D}{aa} -> {AA}{b} sent11: {B}{a} -> ¬{AB}{a} sent12: (x): {AB}x -> ({A}x & ¬{C}x) sent13: ¬{A}{c}
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: that the Cartwright is not expedient and does not mitigate drydock if the Cartwright is seraphic is not false.; sent2 & sent9 & sent3 -> int2: the Cartwright is seraphic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Cartwright is inexpedient but it does not mitigate drydock.; int3 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> int1: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); sent2 & sent9 & sent3 -> int2: {A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int3 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the demijohn is not papilliform. ; $context$ = sent1: the Cartwright is Viennese. sent2: the hydroelectricity is either Viennese or an airhead or both. sent3: if the hydroelectricity is a kind of an airhead the Cartwright is seraphic. sent4: if something is seraphic it is not expedient and it does not mitigate drydock. sent5: if the Cartwright is seraphic then it does not mitigate drydock. sent6: that the demijohn is papilliform is not incorrect if the Cartwright is inexpedient but it does not mitigate drydock. sent7: if the hydroelectricity is an airhead it does not mitigate drydock. sent8: the hydroelectricity is papilliform if the demijohn is an airhead but it is not inexpedient. sent9: the Cartwright is seraphic if the hydroelectricity is Viennese. sent10: the hydroelectricity is inexpedient if the Cartwright is a kind of an airhead. sent11: if that the demijohn is papilliform is not false it does not mitigate drydock. sent12: something that does mitigate drydock is both seraphic and not Viennese. sent13: the protectionist is not seraphic. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> int1: that the Cartwright is not expedient and does not mitigate drydock if the Cartwright is seraphic is not false.; sent2 & sent9 & sent3 -> int2: the Cartwright is seraphic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Cartwright is inexpedient but it does not mitigate drydock.; int3 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if that it stabilizes Cambridge and is not a ruminant is wrong then it is not a kind of a siege.
|
(Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
sent1: there exists something such that if that it stabilizes Cambridge and it is a ruminant is false then it is not a siege. sent2: the captopril does not stabilize Cambridge if that it is a Pseudowintera and not a Oakley does not hold. sent3: if the fact that that the bang stabilizes Cambridge and is ruminant is wrong is right it is not a siege. sent4: there exists something such that if the fact that it does stabilize Cambridge and it is not a ruminant is incorrect then it is a siege. sent5: there exists something such that if the fact that it is both a carpetbag and non-smaller is false then it is not a Confucian. sent6: there is something such that if it does not stabilize Cambridge then that it is not a siege is right. sent7: the fact that there exists something such that if it is a ruminant it is not a kind of a siege is not false. sent8: there is something such that if that it is Merovingian and not a count is not correct then it does not stabilize cupboard. sent9: the bang is not a siege if the fact that it does stabilize Cambridge and is not a ruminant does not hold. sent10: there exists something such that if it does stabilize Cambridge and is not a ruminant then it is not a kind of a siege. sent11: if the bang does not stabilize Cambridge it is not a kind of a siege. sent12: the bang is a kind of a siege if that it stabilizes Cambridge and it is not a ruminant does not hold. sent13: the bang is not a siege if it stabilizes Cambridge and it is not ruminant. sent14: there exists something such that if the fact that it does accomplish and it is not a cygnet is not true then it is not a Komi. sent15: something does not stabilize Belmont if the fact that it does stabilize Cambridge and it is not a kind of a Oakley is false.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent2: ¬({AC}{do} & ¬{GM}{do}) -> ¬{AA}{do} sent3: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent4: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent5: (Ex): ¬({FA}x & ¬{HP}x) -> ¬{FN}x sent6: (Ex): ¬{AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent7: (Ex): {AB}x -> ¬{B}x sent8: (Ex): ¬({JC}x & ¬{CN}x) -> ¬{L}x sent9: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent10: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent11: ¬{AA}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent12: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent13: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent14: (Ex): ¬({FG}x & ¬{AR}x) -> ¬{AO}x sent15: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{GM}x) -> ¬{DB}x
|
[
"sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the dj does not stabilize Belmont is not wrong if that it stabilizes Cambridge and it is not a Oakley does not hold.
|
¬({AA}{cu} & ¬{GM}{cu}) -> ¬{DB}{cu}
|
[
"sent15 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 14 | 0 | 14 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if that it stabilizes Cambridge and is not a ruminant is wrong then it is not a kind of a siege. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if that it stabilizes Cambridge and it is a ruminant is false then it is not a siege. sent2: the captopril does not stabilize Cambridge if that it is a Pseudowintera and not a Oakley does not hold. sent3: if the fact that that the bang stabilizes Cambridge and is ruminant is wrong is right it is not a siege. sent4: there exists something such that if the fact that it does stabilize Cambridge and it is not a ruminant is incorrect then it is a siege. sent5: there exists something such that if the fact that it is both a carpetbag and non-smaller is false then it is not a Confucian. sent6: there is something such that if it does not stabilize Cambridge then that it is not a siege is right. sent7: the fact that there exists something such that if it is a ruminant it is not a kind of a siege is not false. sent8: there is something such that if that it is Merovingian and not a count is not correct then it does not stabilize cupboard. sent9: the bang is not a siege if the fact that it does stabilize Cambridge and is not a ruminant does not hold. sent10: there exists something such that if it does stabilize Cambridge and is not a ruminant then it is not a kind of a siege. sent11: if the bang does not stabilize Cambridge it is not a kind of a siege. sent12: the bang is a kind of a siege if that it stabilizes Cambridge and it is not a ruminant does not hold. sent13: the bang is not a siege if it stabilizes Cambridge and it is not ruminant. sent14: there exists something such that if the fact that it does accomplish and it is not a cygnet is not true then it is not a Komi. sent15: something does not stabilize Belmont if the fact that it does stabilize Cambridge and it is not a kind of a Oakley is false. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the adjectivalness and the yawping frond occurs.
|
({B} & {C})
|
sent1: the locomotive occurs. sent2: that the adjectivalness occurs is triggered by that the locomotiveness happens. sent3: the yawping frond occurs. sent4: the dangerousness happens. sent5: the Cubanness occurs if that the locomotive occurs and the adjectivalness does not occur is not correct. sent6: the countercurrent occurs. sent7: the geneticness occurs.
|
sent1: {A} sent2: {A} -> {B} sent3: {C} sent4: {JE} sent5: ¬({A} & ¬{B}) -> {HQ} sent6: {CK} sent7: {BM}
|
[
"sent2 & sent1 -> int1: the adjectivalness happens.; int1 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent1 -> int1: {B}; int1 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the Cuban occurs is not wrong.
|
{HQ}
|
[] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the adjectivalness and the yawping frond occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the locomotive occurs. sent2: that the adjectivalness occurs is triggered by that the locomotiveness happens. sent3: the yawping frond occurs. sent4: the dangerousness happens. sent5: the Cubanness occurs if that the locomotive occurs and the adjectivalness does not occur is not correct. sent6: the countercurrent occurs. sent7: the geneticness occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent1 -> int1: the adjectivalness happens.; int1 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the fact that there exists something such that if that it is a Ordovician and it is not a Essen is not correct it does not stabilize penthouse is correct is incorrect.
|
¬((Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x)
|
sent1: that the murine does not stabilize penthouse is right if that it is a Ordovician and is not a Essen is wrong.
|
sent1: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the fact that there exists something such that if that it is a Ordovician and it is not a Essen is not correct it does not stabilize penthouse is correct is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: that the murine does not stabilize penthouse is right if that it is a Ordovician and is not a Essen is wrong. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the flannel mitigates achromia.
|
{B}{aa}
|
sent1: something is loopy if that either it is a marriageability or it does not stabilize tact or both is not true. sent2: if something is loopy then it mitigates achromia.
|
sent1: (x): ¬({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> {A}x sent2: (x): {A}x -> {B}x
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: the flannel is loopy if that it is a kind of a marriageability and/or it does not stabilize tact is incorrect.; sent2 -> int2: if the flannel is loopy it does mitigate achromia.;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: ¬({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {A}{aa}; sent2 -> int2: {A}{aa} -> {B}{aa};"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | null | 0 | 0 | 0 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the flannel mitigates achromia. ; $context$ = sent1: something is loopy if that either it is a marriageability or it does not stabilize tact or both is not true. sent2: if something is loopy then it mitigates achromia. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: the flannel is loopy if that it is a kind of a marriageability and/or it does not stabilize tact is incorrect.; sent2 -> int2: if the flannel is loopy it does mitigate achromia.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the deposing occurs.
|
{A}
|
sent1: if the immunosuppressiveness does not occur that the one-upmanship but not the infinitivalness occurs is false. sent2: that both the photomechanicalness and the yawping Corydalus happens is wrong if the one-upmanship does not occur. sent3: the agraphicness does not occur and/or the stabilizing gorget does not occur if the mitigating ballyhoo does not occur. sent4: if the fact that the part does not occur and the Nestorianness does not occur does not hold then the mitigating ballyhoo does not occur. sent5: the mitigating Chain does not occur if that that not the yawping Corydalus but the mitigating Chain happens is correct is not true. sent6: that the mitigating Chain occurs is correct if the deposing happens. sent7: that the honey happens is triggered by the congregating. sent8: the fact that not the yawping Corydalus but the mitigating Chain happens is wrong. sent9: if that the photomechanicalness does not occur hold the deposing and the mitigating Chain happens. sent10: the fact that the photomechanicalness does not occur if the fact that both the photomechanicalness and the yawping Corydalus happens is wrong hold. sent11: that the one-upmanship does not occur is right if the fact that the one-upmanship but not the infinitivalness occurs is not true. sent12: the fact that the part does not occur and the Nestorianness does not occur is not right if the honeying happens.
|
sent1: ¬{G} -> ¬({E} & ¬{F}) sent2: ¬{E} -> ¬({C} & {D}) sent3: ¬{J} -> (¬{H} v ¬{I}) sent4: ¬(¬{L} & ¬{K}) -> ¬{J} sent5: ¬(¬{D} & {B}) -> ¬{B} sent6: {A} -> {B} sent7: {N} -> {M} sent8: ¬(¬{D} & {B}) sent9: ¬{C} -> ({A} & {B}) sent10: ¬({C} & {D}) -> ¬{C} sent11: ¬({E} & ¬{F}) -> ¬{E} sent12: {M} -> ¬(¬{L} & ¬{K})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the deposing occurs.; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: the mitigating Chain occurs.; sent5 & sent8 -> int2: the mitigating Chain does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: {B}; sent5 & sent8 -> int2: ¬{B}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the deposing happens is not incorrect.
|
{A}
|
[] | 14 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the deposing occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the immunosuppressiveness does not occur that the one-upmanship but not the infinitivalness occurs is false. sent2: that both the photomechanicalness and the yawping Corydalus happens is wrong if the one-upmanship does not occur. sent3: the agraphicness does not occur and/or the stabilizing gorget does not occur if the mitigating ballyhoo does not occur. sent4: if the fact that the part does not occur and the Nestorianness does not occur does not hold then the mitigating ballyhoo does not occur. sent5: the mitigating Chain does not occur if that that not the yawping Corydalus but the mitigating Chain happens is correct is not true. sent6: that the mitigating Chain occurs is correct if the deposing happens. sent7: that the honey happens is triggered by the congregating. sent8: the fact that not the yawping Corydalus but the mitigating Chain happens is wrong. sent9: if that the photomechanicalness does not occur hold the deposing and the mitigating Chain happens. sent10: the fact that the photomechanicalness does not occur if the fact that both the photomechanicalness and the yawping Corydalus happens is wrong hold. sent11: that the one-upmanship does not occur is right if the fact that the one-upmanship but not the infinitivalness occurs is not true. sent12: the fact that the part does not occur and the Nestorianness does not occur is not right if the honeying happens. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the deposing occurs.; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: the mitigating Chain occurs.; sent5 & sent8 -> int2: the mitigating Chain does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
not the observation but the Babel occurs.
|
(¬{A} & {C})
|
sent1: the yawping iconoclast occurs if the relegation occurs. sent2: the grumble causes that the observation does not occur and the Babel happens. sent3: that the tryst does not occur is not false if not the mitigating Sherwood but the orchidectomy happens. sent4: if the nonreturnableness does not occur the grumble and the bimorphemicness occurs. sent5: the postprandialness does not occur but the euphemisticness occurs. sent6: that the ferromagneticness happens is prevented by that both the grumble and the Babel occurs. sent7: the postprandialness does not occur. sent8: if the nonreturnableness does not occur the grumble and the Babel occurs. sent9: that the observation happens and the Babel happens is incorrect if the grumble does not occur. sent10: if the grumble does not occur that the observation does not occur and the Babel occurs is wrong. sent11: the non-nonreturnableness is brought about by the yawping iconoclast. sent12: the fact that both the observation and the Babel occurs is not right. sent13: the grumble does not occur if not the postprandialness but the euphemisticness occurs. sent14: that both the postprandialness and the euphemisticness happens prevents the grumble. sent15: if the stabilizing consumption occurs then the nonreturnableness does not occur. sent16: the fact that the condescension does not occur and the stacking mince occurs hold. sent17: the bimorphemicness does not occur if the fact that that the relegation does not occur but the bimorphemicness occurs is not true is true. sent18: the stabilizing monition happens and the observation happens if the bimorphemicness does not occur.
|
sent1: {G} -> {F} sent2: {B} -> (¬{A} & {C}) sent3: (¬{HL} & {IR}) -> ¬{DF} sent4: ¬{E} -> ({B} & {D}) sent5: (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent6: ({B} & {C}) -> ¬{GO} sent7: ¬{AA} sent8: ¬{E} -> ({B} & {C}) sent9: ¬{B} -> ¬({A} & {C}) sent10: ¬{B} -> ¬(¬{A} & {C}) sent11: {F} -> ¬{E} sent12: ¬({A} & {C}) sent13: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent14: ({AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent15: {H} -> ¬{E} sent16: (¬{IO} & {BQ}) sent17: ¬(¬{G} & {D}) -> ¬{D} sent18: ¬{D} -> ({EK} & {A})
|
[
"sent13 & sent5 -> int1: the grumbling does not occur.; sent10 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent13 & sent5 -> int1: ¬{B}; sent10 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
both the non-ferromagneticness and the stabilizing monition occurs.
|
(¬{GO} & {EK})
|
[] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = not the observation but the Babel occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the yawping iconoclast occurs if the relegation occurs. sent2: the grumble causes that the observation does not occur and the Babel happens. sent3: that the tryst does not occur is not false if not the mitigating Sherwood but the orchidectomy happens. sent4: if the nonreturnableness does not occur the grumble and the bimorphemicness occurs. sent5: the postprandialness does not occur but the euphemisticness occurs. sent6: that the ferromagneticness happens is prevented by that both the grumble and the Babel occurs. sent7: the postprandialness does not occur. sent8: if the nonreturnableness does not occur the grumble and the Babel occurs. sent9: that the observation happens and the Babel happens is incorrect if the grumble does not occur. sent10: if the grumble does not occur that the observation does not occur and the Babel occurs is wrong. sent11: the non-nonreturnableness is brought about by the yawping iconoclast. sent12: the fact that both the observation and the Babel occurs is not right. sent13: the grumble does not occur if not the postprandialness but the euphemisticness occurs. sent14: that both the postprandialness and the euphemisticness happens prevents the grumble. sent15: if the stabilizing consumption occurs then the nonreturnableness does not occur. sent16: the fact that the condescension does not occur and the stacking mince occurs hold. sent17: the bimorphemicness does not occur if the fact that that the relegation does not occur but the bimorphemicness occurs is not true is true. sent18: the stabilizing monition happens and the observation happens if the bimorphemicness does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent13 & sent5 -> int1: the grumbling does not occur.; sent10 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the orphenadrine does not unpack and stacks Sharpie.
|
(¬{E}{c} & {D}{c})
|
sent1: if that the jugular is not a Concord hold then that the madrigalist is not epicyclic or dialectic or both does not hold. sent2: if that the madrigalist is epicyclic is not incorrect then the orphenadrine is dialectic. sent3: something is not a literate if that it does not mitigate Prunus is correct. sent4: the floccule stacks Sharpie. sent5: something is not macrobiotic and is a ship if it is not a literate. sent6: if that the cupola does not perambulate and is not a varicosity does not hold then it perambulate. sent7: the press yawps prepuce. sent8: the clianthus is not a kind of a Concord and it does not stack Sharpie. sent9: if the press yawps prepuce the madrigalist is a kind of a dialectic. sent10: if the madrigalist is not non-dialectic then the orphenadrine is epicyclic. sent11: if the fact that the madrigalist is both non-macrobiotic and not a Concord is false then the press is not a kind of a dialectic. sent12: the orphenadrine does not yawp prepuce if the press is epicyclic but it does not yawp prepuce. sent13: the fact that the orphenadrine unpacks but it is not a Concord is false. sent14: The prepuce yawps press. sent15: if the cupola is not nonruminant and it is not a dekko the RBC is a dekko. sent16: if the press does not yawp prepuce that the orphenadrine does not unpack and stacks Sharpie is wrong. sent17: something that perambulates is not nonruminant and is not a dekko. sent18: the fact that something does not unpack but it does stack Sharpie is not right if it does not yawp prepuce. sent19: if there exists something such that it perambulates that the cupola does not perambulates and is not a varicosity does not hold. sent20: if something is not a kind of a dialectic then it yawps prepuce and does unpack. sent21: the madrigalist does stack Sharpie if the orphenadrine is a dialectic. sent22: if something is a kind of a dekko it does not mitigate Prunus and is not a kind of a Kahoolawe. sent23: if that something unpacks but it is not a kind of a Concord does not hold it does not unpacks. sent24: there exists something such that it does perambulate.
|
sent1: ¬{F}{d} -> ¬(¬{C}{b} v {B}{b}) sent2: {C}{b} -> {B}{c} sent3: (x): ¬{J}x -> ¬{I}x sent4: {D}{en} sent5: (x): ¬{I}x -> (¬{G}x & {H}x) sent6: ¬(¬{N}{f} & ¬{O}{f}) -> {N}{f} sent7: {A}{a} sent8: (¬{F}{jd} & ¬{D}{jd}) sent9: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent10: {B}{b} -> {C}{c} sent11: ¬(¬{G}{b} & ¬{F}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent12: ({C}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> ¬{A}{c} sent13: ¬({E}{c} & ¬{F}{c}) sent14: {AA}{aa} sent15: (¬{M}{f} & ¬{L}{f}) -> {L}{e} sent16: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{E}{c} & {D}{c}) sent17: (x): {N}x -> (¬{M}x & ¬{L}x) sent18: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & {D}x) sent19: (x): {N}x -> ¬(¬{N}{f} & ¬{O}{f}) sent20: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({A}x & {E}x) sent21: {B}{c} -> {D}{b} sent22: (x): {L}x -> (¬{J}x & ¬{K}x) sent23: (x): ¬({E}x & ¬{F}x) -> ¬{E}x sent24: (Ex): {N}x
|
[
"sent9 & sent7 -> int1: the madrigalist is a dialectic.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: the orphenadrine is epicyclic.; sent23 -> int3: the orphenadrine does not unpack if that it unpack and it is not a kind of a Concord does not hold.; int3 & sent13 -> int4: the orphenadrine does not unpack.;"
] |
[
"sent9 & sent7 -> int1: {B}{b}; int1 & sent10 -> int2: {C}{c}; sent23 -> int3: ¬({E}{c} & ¬{F}{c}) -> ¬{E}{c}; int3 & sent13 -> int4: ¬{E}{c};"
] |
that the orphenadrine does not unpack and stacks Sharpie does not hold.
|
¬(¬{E}{c} & {D}{c})
|
[
"sent18 -> int5: the fact that the orphenadrine does not unpack and does stack Sharpie is not right if it does not yawp prepuce.;"
] | 6 | 4 | null | 19 | 0 | 19 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the orphenadrine does not unpack and stacks Sharpie. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the jugular is not a Concord hold then that the madrigalist is not epicyclic or dialectic or both does not hold. sent2: if that the madrigalist is epicyclic is not incorrect then the orphenadrine is dialectic. sent3: something is not a literate if that it does not mitigate Prunus is correct. sent4: the floccule stacks Sharpie. sent5: something is not macrobiotic and is a ship if it is not a literate. sent6: if that the cupola does not perambulate and is not a varicosity does not hold then it perambulate. sent7: the press yawps prepuce. sent8: the clianthus is not a kind of a Concord and it does not stack Sharpie. sent9: if the press yawps prepuce the madrigalist is a kind of a dialectic. sent10: if the madrigalist is not non-dialectic then the orphenadrine is epicyclic. sent11: if the fact that the madrigalist is both non-macrobiotic and not a Concord is false then the press is not a kind of a dialectic. sent12: the orphenadrine does not yawp prepuce if the press is epicyclic but it does not yawp prepuce. sent13: the fact that the orphenadrine unpacks but it is not a Concord is false. sent14: The prepuce yawps press. sent15: if the cupola is not nonruminant and it is not a dekko the RBC is a dekko. sent16: if the press does not yawp prepuce that the orphenadrine does not unpack and stacks Sharpie is wrong. sent17: something that perambulates is not nonruminant and is not a dekko. sent18: the fact that something does not unpack but it does stack Sharpie is not right if it does not yawp prepuce. sent19: if there exists something such that it perambulates that the cupola does not perambulates and is not a varicosity does not hold. sent20: if something is not a kind of a dialectic then it yawps prepuce and does unpack. sent21: the madrigalist does stack Sharpie if the orphenadrine is a dialectic. sent22: if something is a kind of a dekko it does not mitigate Prunus and is not a kind of a Kahoolawe. sent23: if that something unpacks but it is not a kind of a Concord does not hold it does not unpacks. sent24: there exists something such that it does perambulate. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 & sent7 -> int1: the madrigalist is a dialectic.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: the orphenadrine is epicyclic.; sent23 -> int3: the orphenadrine does not unpack if that it unpack and it is not a kind of a Concord does not hold.; int3 & sent13 -> int4: the orphenadrine does not unpack.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there exists something such that if it is dependent that it is not a kind of a cockroach and it yawps violin does not hold is false.
|
¬((Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x))
|
sent1: there is something such that if it is dependent the fact that it is a cockroach and it yawps violin is not right. sent2: there is something such that if it does yawp gunnery that it is not penetrable and it is czarist is not right. sent3: the fact that the violin is a cockroach and does yawp violin is not right if it is dependent. sent4: if the fact that the violin is a overtolerance is not wrong then the fact that it is not a kind of a cockroach and is heedless does not hold. sent5: the fact that something is both not hydrodynamics and sensory does not hold if it is not non-Yemeni. sent6: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a Yamamoto then that it is a kind of non-malodorous thing that endeavors is not correct. sent7: the violin is not a cockroach but it yawps violin if it is dependent. sent8: there is something such that if it is dependent then it is not a cockroach and does yawp violin. sent9: the fact that the fact that the violin is not a cockroach and yawps violin is incorrect is not incorrect if that it is dependent is not false.
|
sent1: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent2: (Ex): {JK}x -> ¬(¬{EB}x & {AN}x) sent3: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent4: {JF}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {CS}{aa}) sent5: (x): {AR}x -> ¬(¬{CK}x & {BC}x) sent6: (Ex): {AE}x -> ¬(¬{BU}x & {GE}x) sent7: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent8: (Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent9: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})
|
[
"sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there is something such that if it is a kind of a Yemeni then the fact that it is not hydrodynamics and it is not non-sensory is not true.
|
(Ex): {AR}x -> ¬(¬{CK}x & {BC}x)
|
[
"sent5 -> int1: that the consuetudinary is non-hydrodynamics but it is sensory is not right if it is a Yemeni.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it is dependent that it is not a kind of a cockroach and it yawps violin does not hold is false. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is dependent the fact that it is a cockroach and it yawps violin is not right. sent2: there is something such that if it does yawp gunnery that it is not penetrable and it is czarist is not right. sent3: the fact that the violin is a cockroach and does yawp violin is not right if it is dependent. sent4: if the fact that the violin is a overtolerance is not wrong then the fact that it is not a kind of a cockroach and is heedless does not hold. sent5: the fact that something is both not hydrodynamics and sensory does not hold if it is not non-Yemeni. sent6: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a Yamamoto then that it is a kind of non-malodorous thing that endeavors is not correct. sent7: the violin is not a cockroach but it yawps violin if it is dependent. sent8: there is something such that if it is dependent then it is not a cockroach and does yawp violin. sent9: the fact that the fact that the violin is not a cockroach and yawps violin is incorrect is not incorrect if that it is dependent is not false. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the Trinidadian is non-hermeneutic and/or does converse is not right.
|
¬(¬{E}{a} v {D}{a})
|
sent1: if something is not corporeal then the fact that either it is not hermeneutic or it is a converse or both is not true. sent2: if the gland is not a Mandelbrot and it is not corporeal then the Trinidadian is not a Naemorhedus. sent3: the Trinidadian is not corporeal if it is a Mandelbrot. sent4: the Oxbridge does yawp decipherer and/or it is a slouch. sent5: the Trinidadian is hermeneutic if it is not corporeal. sent6: the Trinidadian is a kind of a Naemorhedus. sent7: that the Trinidadian is not corporeal if the Trinidadian is a kind of a Naemorhedus or it is a Mandelbrot or both is true. sent8: if something is not corporeal it is hermeneutic. sent9: if something is not a Naemorhedus it is not hermeneutic or it converses or both. sent10: that the Trinidadian is hermeneutic is not incorrect.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{E}x v {D}x) sent2: (¬{B}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent3: {B}{a} -> ¬{C}{a} sent4: ({G}{hs} v {BB}{hs}) sent5: ¬{C}{a} -> {E}{a} sent6: {A}{a} sent7: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent8: (x): ¬{C}x -> {E}x sent9: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{E}x v {D}x) sent10: {E}{a}
|
[
"sent6 -> int1: either the Trinidadian is a kind of a Naemorhedus or it is a Mandelbrot or both.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: the Trinidadian is not corporeal.; sent1 -> int3: if the Trinidadian is not corporeal then that it is not hermeneutic or a converse or both does not hold.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 -> int1: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}); int1 & sent7 -> int2: ¬{C}{a}; sent1 -> int3: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬(¬{E}{a} v {D}{a}); int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the Trinidadian is not hermeneutic and/or it is a converse.
|
(¬{E}{a} v {D}{a})
|
[
"sent9 -> int4: the Trinidadian is not hermeneutic or converses or both if it is not a Naemorhedus.;"
] | 5 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the Trinidadian is non-hermeneutic and/or does converse is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not corporeal then the fact that either it is not hermeneutic or it is a converse or both is not true. sent2: if the gland is not a Mandelbrot and it is not corporeal then the Trinidadian is not a Naemorhedus. sent3: the Trinidadian is not corporeal if it is a Mandelbrot. sent4: the Oxbridge does yawp decipherer and/or it is a slouch. sent5: the Trinidadian is hermeneutic if it is not corporeal. sent6: the Trinidadian is a kind of a Naemorhedus. sent7: that the Trinidadian is not corporeal if the Trinidadian is a kind of a Naemorhedus or it is a Mandelbrot or both is true. sent8: if something is not corporeal it is hermeneutic. sent9: if something is not a Naemorhedus it is not hermeneutic or it converses or both. sent10: that the Trinidadian is hermeneutic is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 -> int1: either the Trinidadian is a kind of a Naemorhedus or it is a Mandelbrot or both.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: the Trinidadian is not corporeal.; sent1 -> int3: if the Trinidadian is not corporeal then that it is not hermeneutic or a converse or both does not hold.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there is something such that if it is non-architectural then it is noneffervescent or it stabilizes Watergate or both is not true.
|
¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x v {AB}x))
|
sent1: the bandicoot is a kind of a picker and/or is noneffervescent if it is not a whole. sent2: something that is not architectural either is noneffervescent or does stabilize Watergate or both. sent3: if that the neutralist is architectural hold then it is noneffervescent and/or stabilizes Watergate.
|
sent1: ¬{IH}{eb} -> ({CT}{eb} v {AA}{eb}) sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x v {AB}x) sent3: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa})
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: if the neutralist is not architectural then it is not effervescent and/or it stabilizes Watergate.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if it is non-architectural then it is noneffervescent or it stabilizes Watergate or both is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the bandicoot is a kind of a picker and/or is noneffervescent if it is not a whole. sent2: something that is not architectural either is noneffervescent or does stabilize Watergate or both. sent3: if that the neutralist is architectural hold then it is noneffervescent and/or stabilizes Watergate. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> int1: if the neutralist is not architectural then it is not effervescent and/or it stabilizes Watergate.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the bulbarness does not occur is not false.
|
¬{AB}
|
sent1: the emanation does not occur and/or the stand does not occur if the fact that the stinger happens is right. sent2: the mitigating folly does not occur and the yawping aide-memoire does not occur. sent3: that the diamantineness does not occur yields that both the bulbarness and the quoits occurs. sent4: if the session does not occur both the winnings and the zenithalness happens. sent5: the fact that that the quoits happens leads to that that the suffering does not occur and the bulbarness does not occur is not false is right. sent6: if the fact that the derogation happens and the stabilizing passport does not occur is incorrect then the session does not occur. sent7: the quoits happens. sent8: the suffering does not occur. sent9: the hurry occurs. sent10: that the suffering happens is prevented by the quoits. sent11: if the nonfinancialness does not occur both the diamantineness and the consumptive occurs. sent12: the diamantineness does not occur but the consumptive occurs if the nonfinancialness does not occur. sent13: the stinger occurs if the winnings occurs.
|
sent1: {G} -> (¬{F} v ¬{E}) sent2: (¬{GA} & ¬{BJ}) sent3: ¬{B} -> ({AB} & {A}) sent4: ¬{J} -> ({H} & {I}) sent5: {A} -> (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent6: ¬({K} & ¬{L}) -> ¬{J} sent7: {A} sent8: ¬{AA} sent9: {EQ} sent10: {A} -> ¬{AA} sent11: ¬{D} -> ({B} & {C}) sent12: ¬{D} -> (¬{B} & {C}) sent13: {H} -> {G}
|
[
"sent5 & sent7 -> int1: the suffering does not occur and the bulbarness does not occur.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 & sent7 -> int1: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the bulbarness happens.
|
{AB}
|
[] | 11 | 2 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the bulbarness does not occur is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: the emanation does not occur and/or the stand does not occur if the fact that the stinger happens is right. sent2: the mitigating folly does not occur and the yawping aide-memoire does not occur. sent3: that the diamantineness does not occur yields that both the bulbarness and the quoits occurs. sent4: if the session does not occur both the winnings and the zenithalness happens. sent5: the fact that that the quoits happens leads to that that the suffering does not occur and the bulbarness does not occur is not false is right. sent6: if the fact that the derogation happens and the stabilizing passport does not occur is incorrect then the session does not occur. sent7: the quoits happens. sent8: the suffering does not occur. sent9: the hurry occurs. sent10: that the suffering happens is prevented by the quoits. sent11: if the nonfinancialness does not occur both the diamantineness and the consumptive occurs. sent12: the diamantineness does not occur but the consumptive occurs if the nonfinancialness does not occur. sent13: the stinger occurs if the winnings occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 & sent7 -> int1: the suffering does not occur and the bulbarness does not occur.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the guyot is monoecious and it yawps zinfandel.
|
({C}{a} & {A}{a})
|
sent1: the guyot yawps zinfandel and it yawps amoxicillin. sent2: something does not yawp amoxicillin if it is azotic or it is not inspiratory or both. sent3: something is not monoecious and does not yawp amoxicillin if it is not inspiratory. sent4: something is not monoecious and it does not yawp amoxicillin. sent5: that something is a kind of monoecious thing that yawps zinfandel is incorrect if it does not yawp amoxicillin. sent6: the guyot is monoecious if there exists something such that it is not non-azotic. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is non-azotic and non-monoecious does not hold. sent8: if something does not yawp amoxicillin then it does yawp prankishness and it does not yawp zinfandel. sent9: there is something such that that it is both azotic and not monoecious does not hold.
|
sent1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent2: (x): ({E}x v ¬{D}x) -> ¬{B}x sent3: (x): ¬{D}x -> (¬{C}x & ¬{B}x) sent4: (Ex): (¬{C}x & ¬{B}x) sent5: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({C}x & {A}x) sent6: (x): {E}x -> {C}{a} sent7: (Ex): ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{C}x) sent8: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({IT}x & ¬{A}x) sent9: (Ex): ¬({E}x & ¬{C}x)
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: the fact that the guyot yawps zinfandel is correct.;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: {A}{a};"
] |
that the guyot is monoecious and it does yawp zinfandel is not correct.
|
¬({C}{a} & {A}{a})
|
[
"sent5 -> int2: if the fact that the guyot does not yawp amoxicillin is not wrong the fact that it is monoecious thing that does yawp zinfandel is not right.; sent2 -> int3: the guyot does not yawp amoxicillin if it is azotic and/or it is not inspiratory.;"
] | 5 | 2 | null | 7 | 0 | 7 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the guyot is monoecious and it yawps zinfandel. ; $context$ = sent1: the guyot yawps zinfandel and it yawps amoxicillin. sent2: something does not yawp amoxicillin if it is azotic or it is not inspiratory or both. sent3: something is not monoecious and does not yawp amoxicillin if it is not inspiratory. sent4: something is not monoecious and it does not yawp amoxicillin. sent5: that something is a kind of monoecious thing that yawps zinfandel is incorrect if it does not yawp amoxicillin. sent6: the guyot is monoecious if there exists something such that it is not non-azotic. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is non-azotic and non-monoecious does not hold. sent8: if something does not yawp amoxicillin then it does yawp prankishness and it does not yawp zinfandel. sent9: there is something such that that it is both azotic and not monoecious does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: the fact that the guyot yawps zinfandel is correct.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there exists something such that if it is not boskopoid it is not a acanthion but Sabahan does not hold.
|
¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x))
|
sent1: if the tarpan is boskopoid then it is not a kind of a acanthion and it is a Sabahan. sent2: the inpatient is a kind of a Sabahan if it does not mitigate saltire. sent3: there is something such that if it is not boskopoid then it is a acanthion and it is a Sabahan. sent4: there exists something such that if it is boskopoid it is not a acanthion and is a kind of a Sabahan. sent5: there exists something such that if it is non-boskopoid then it is not a acanthion. sent6: the tarpan is not a acanthion and is a kind of a Sabahan if it is not boskopoid. sent7: if the tarpan is not a kind of a acanthion then it does destabilize. sent8: there is something such that if the fact that it is non-boskopoid is right it is not non-Sabahan. sent9: if the tarpan is not boskopoid then it is a acanthion and a Sabahan. sent10: if the brunch is not a Sabahan it is a incurrence. sent11: something that is not a kind of a Sabahan does not mitigate Gettysburg and is Aboriginal.
|
sent1: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent2: ¬{AT}{g} -> {AB}{g} sent3: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent4: (Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent5: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬{AA}x sent6: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent7: ¬{AA}{aa} -> {JA}{aa} sent8: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> {AB}x sent9: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent10: ¬{AB}{dg} -> {JC}{dg} sent11: (x): ¬{AB}x -> (¬{BI}x & {JH}x)
|
[
"sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the resorcinol does not mitigate Gettysburg and is Aboriginal if it is not a kind of a Sabahan.
|
¬{AB}{hm} -> (¬{BI}{hm} & {JH}{hm})
|
[
"sent11 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it is not boskopoid it is not a acanthion but Sabahan does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the tarpan is boskopoid then it is not a kind of a acanthion and it is a Sabahan. sent2: the inpatient is a kind of a Sabahan if it does not mitigate saltire. sent3: there is something such that if it is not boskopoid then it is a acanthion and it is a Sabahan. sent4: there exists something such that if it is boskopoid it is not a acanthion and is a kind of a Sabahan. sent5: there exists something such that if it is non-boskopoid then it is not a acanthion. sent6: the tarpan is not a acanthion and is a kind of a Sabahan if it is not boskopoid. sent7: if the tarpan is not a kind of a acanthion then it does destabilize. sent8: there is something such that if the fact that it is non-boskopoid is right it is not non-Sabahan. sent9: if the tarpan is not boskopoid then it is a acanthion and a Sabahan. sent10: if the brunch is not a Sabahan it is a incurrence. sent11: something that is not a kind of a Sabahan does not mitigate Gettysburg and is Aboriginal. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the yawping coloring happens.
|
{D}
|
sent1: the testicularness happens if the fact that the yawping pylorus occurs is not incorrect. sent2: that the hysterics happens is true. sent3: that the holocaust occurs is triggered by the disagreement. sent4: the drowning happens. sent5: the cuticularness happens. sent6: the flipping occurs. sent7: the wetting happens if the tippling occurs. sent8: if the drowning occurs then the tippling occurs. sent9: the papering happens if the alluvialness happens. sent10: the stinglessness occurs if the yawping tact occurs.
|
sent1: {FK} -> {EN} sent2: {FB} sent3: {JE} -> {GE} sent4: {A} sent5: {J} sent6: {HI} sent7: {B} -> {C} sent8: {A} -> {B} sent9: {CL} -> {GJ} sent10: {FC} -> {IK}
|
[
"sent8 & sent4 -> int1: the tippling happens.; sent7 & int1 -> int2: the wetting occurs.;"
] |
[
"sent8 & sent4 -> int1: {B}; sent7 & int1 -> int2: {C};"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | null | 7 | 0 | 7 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the yawping coloring happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the testicularness happens if the fact that the yawping pylorus occurs is not incorrect. sent2: that the hysterics happens is true. sent3: that the holocaust occurs is triggered by the disagreement. sent4: the drowning happens. sent5: the cuticularness happens. sent6: the flipping occurs. sent7: the wetting happens if the tippling occurs. sent8: if the drowning occurs then the tippling occurs. sent9: the papering happens if the alluvialness happens. sent10: the stinglessness occurs if the yawping tact occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 & sent4 -> int1: the tippling happens.; sent7 & int1 -> int2: the wetting occurs.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that the fact that it does yawp droshky and it stabilizes humor is incorrect.
|
(Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x)
|
sent1: the humor does not checker. sent2: the PIE does not stabilize Camden. sent3: the PIE is not hypotonic if it is a checker. sent4: if something is not a excitability the fact that it is a bluebottle and does stabilize divinity does not hold. sent5: that something yawps droshky and stabilizes humor is not right if it is non-hypotonic. sent6: something yawps droshky and it stabilizes humor. sent7: if the PIE checkers then it is hypotonic. sent8: the PIE checkers and/or is not editorial.
|
sent1: ¬{C}{cr} sent2: ¬{DA}{aa} sent3: {C}{aa} -> ¬{A}{aa} sent4: (x): ¬{DI}x -> ¬({CQ}x & {DG}x) sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent6: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent7: {C}{aa} -> {A}{aa} sent8: ({C}{aa} v ¬{B}{aa})
|
[
"sent5 -> int1: the fact that the PIE does yawp droshky and it does stabilize humor is false if the fact that it is non-hypotonic is true.;"
] |
[
"sent5 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa});"
] |
if the fact that the droshky is not a kind of a excitability is true the fact that it is a kind of a bluebottle that stabilizes divinity does not hold.
|
¬{DI}{ik} -> ¬({CQ}{ik} & {DG}{ik})
|
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 3 | null | 5 | 0 | 5 |
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that the fact that it does yawp droshky and it stabilizes humor is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the humor does not checker. sent2: the PIE does not stabilize Camden. sent3: the PIE is not hypotonic if it is a checker. sent4: if something is not a excitability the fact that it is a bluebottle and does stabilize divinity does not hold. sent5: that something yawps droshky and stabilizes humor is not right if it is non-hypotonic. sent6: something yawps droshky and it stabilizes humor. sent7: if the PIE checkers then it is hypotonic. sent8: the PIE checkers and/or is not editorial. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 -> int1: the fact that the PIE does yawp droshky and it does stabilize humor is false if the fact that it is non-hypotonic is true.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the assembly is nonrepetitive.
|
{A}{a}
|
sent1: there exists nothing that is a kind of a froghopper and yawps club. sent2: that the assembly is not nonrepetitive is correct if the fact that there is something such that the fact that it is a froghopper and yawps club is not right is not incorrect. sent3: if the sprayer does not yawp gorget and it is not a self the assembly is nonrepetitive.
|
sent1: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent2: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent3: (¬{B}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> {A}{a}
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: the fact that the helm is a froghopper that does yawp club is not correct.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that the fact that it is a froghopper and yawps club is incorrect.; int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x); int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the assembly is nonrepetitive.
|
{A}{a}
|
[] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the assembly is nonrepetitive. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists nothing that is a kind of a froghopper and yawps club. sent2: that the assembly is not nonrepetitive is correct if the fact that there is something such that the fact that it is a froghopper and yawps club is not right is not incorrect. sent3: if the sprayer does not yawp gorget and it is not a self the assembly is nonrepetitive. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: the fact that the helm is a froghopper that does yawp club is not correct.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that the fact that it is a froghopper and yawps club is incorrect.; int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if the fact that it does not stabilize keystone and it is not a lambda is not correct it is not a kind of a saddler.
|
(Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
sent1: the patio does not saddle if the fact that it does not stabilize keystone and is not a kind of a lambda is not right. sent2: there is something such that if the fact that it is not a numbers and not an amortization does not hold it is not altitudinal.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent2: (Ex): ¬(¬{FJ}x & ¬{GN}x) -> ¬{O}x
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if the fact that it does not stabilize keystone and it is not a lambda is not correct it is not a kind of a saddler. ; $context$ = sent1: the patio does not saddle if the fact that it does not stabilize keystone and is not a kind of a lambda is not right. sent2: there is something such that if the fact that it is not a numbers and not an amortization does not hold it is not altitudinal. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there is something such that if it is not a Protestant it is a roughage and mitigates straggler is not correct.
|
¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x))
|
sent1: if the cinquefoil is not a baby it is a sharp and it is a luging. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a Protestant it is a roughage and it does mitigate straggler. sent3: if the cinquefoil is not a kind of a Protestant it is a kind of a roughage that does mitigate straggler. sent4: something is a burqa and is thermodynamic if the fact that it is not a kind of a nepotism is not false. sent5: the cinquefoil is a kind of a roughage and it mitigates straggler if it is Protestant. sent6: there exists something such that if it is not sympatric then it is infrequent and is long-distance. sent7: there is something such that if it is not a binary then it is a kind of a jacquard and is hypodermal. sent8: there exists something such that if it is non-Protestant it is a roughage. sent9: the fact that there exists something such that if it is not Protestant it mitigates straggler is not wrong. sent10: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a revolutionist it is a hartebeest. sent11: there exists something such that if it is not congregational then it is not non-pistillate and sermonizes. sent12: if the cinquefoil is non-Protestant then it is a kind of a Daucus and does lose. sent13: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a lacrimation then it is a cobalt. sent14: if something is not a tiered then it is both an assent and a crosshead. sent15: if the cinquefoil is not unadoptable it is a roughage and is ready-made. sent16: the cinquefoil is anapestic and it is realistic if it is not tectonic. sent17: the cinquefoil does mitigate straggler if it is not a Protestant. sent18: the storyteller is a kind of a Protestant and it is a baby if it is not anapestic.
|
sent1: ¬{R}{aa} -> ({FL}{aa} & {JD}{aa}) sent2: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent4: (x): ¬{ET}x -> ({JF}x & {DI}x) sent5: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent6: (Ex): ¬{JB}x -> ({DE}x & {CR}x) sent7: (Ex): ¬{EM}x -> ({CC}x & {N}x) sent8: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> {AA}x sent9: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> {AB}x sent10: (Ex): ¬{CM}x -> {DG}x sent11: (Ex): ¬{AI}x -> ({BF}x & {K}x) sent12: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({S}{aa} & {FT}{aa}) sent13: (Ex): ¬{DJ}x -> {HE}x sent14: (x): ¬{GR}x -> ({AR}x & {DC}x) sent15: ¬{FM}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {FJ}{aa}) sent16: ¬{JJ}{aa} -> ({GG}{aa} & {CH}{aa}) sent17: ¬{A}{aa} -> {AB}{aa} sent18: ¬{GG}{ig} -> ({A}{ig} & {R}{ig})
|
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there is something such that if it is not a tiered it does assent and it is a crosshead.
|
(Ex): ¬{GR}x -> ({AR}x & {DC}x)
|
[
"sent14 -> int1: the chard is a kind of an assent that is a crosshead if it is not a tiered.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 17 | 0 | 17 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if it is not a Protestant it is a roughage and mitigates straggler is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the cinquefoil is not a baby it is a sharp and it is a luging. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a Protestant it is a roughage and it does mitigate straggler. sent3: if the cinquefoil is not a kind of a Protestant it is a kind of a roughage that does mitigate straggler. sent4: something is a burqa and is thermodynamic if the fact that it is not a kind of a nepotism is not false. sent5: the cinquefoil is a kind of a roughage and it mitigates straggler if it is Protestant. sent6: there exists something such that if it is not sympatric then it is infrequent and is long-distance. sent7: there is something such that if it is not a binary then it is a kind of a jacquard and is hypodermal. sent8: there exists something such that if it is non-Protestant it is a roughage. sent9: the fact that there exists something such that if it is not Protestant it mitigates straggler is not wrong. sent10: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a revolutionist it is a hartebeest. sent11: there exists something such that if it is not congregational then it is not non-pistillate and sermonizes. sent12: if the cinquefoil is non-Protestant then it is a kind of a Daucus and does lose. sent13: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a lacrimation then it is a cobalt. sent14: if something is not a tiered then it is both an assent and a crosshead. sent15: if the cinquefoil is not unadoptable it is a roughage and is ready-made. sent16: the cinquefoil is anapestic and it is realistic if it is not tectonic. sent17: the cinquefoil does mitigate straggler if it is not a Protestant. sent18: the storyteller is a kind of a Protestant and it is a baby if it is not anapestic. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the captopril is not antiadrenergic.
|
¬{C}{b}
|
sent1: the mixture is not non-Hellenic. sent2: there exists something such that the fact that it is an immortal and not Hebridean is wrong. sent3: the mixture yawps garbageman if that the fact that it does not yawps garbageman and is not a Potamogeton is not incorrect is not correct. sent4: if something is a kind of a Bulgarian then that it is not a thrum and is antiadrenergic does not hold. sent5: if there is something such that it is a basic the mixture is a kind of a Bulgarian that is unshrinkable. sent6: if there is something such that it is not Hellenic the fact that the mixture does not yawp garbageman and is not a Potamogeton is wrong. sent7: the mixture is a kind of a Potamogeton. sent8: if there exists something such that it is Hellenic thing that is a Potamogeton then the captopril is antiadrenergic. sent9: if that something is not a thrum and not non-antiadrenergic is not right then it is a kind of a thrum. sent10: the hardwood is not Hellenic. sent11: the fact that the captopril is a basic is not false if there is something such that the fact that it is an immortal and it is not Hebridean is false.
|
sent1: {A}{a} sent2: (Ex): ¬({G}x & ¬{H}x) sent3: ¬(¬{EN}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> {EN}{a} sent4: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{AK}x & {C}x) sent5: (x): {F}x -> ({D}{a} & {E}{a}) sent6: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{EN}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent7: {B}{a} sent8: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> {C}{b} sent9: (x): ¬(¬{AK}x & {C}x) -> {AK}x sent10: ¬{A}{c} sent11: (x): ¬({G}x & ¬{H}x) -> {F}{b}
|
[
"sent1 & sent7 -> int1: the mixture is Hellenic and it is a kind of a Potamogeton.; int1 -> int2: something is Hellenic and it is a Potamogeton.; int2 & sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 & sent7 -> int1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x); int2 & sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there exists something such that it yawps garbageman and it is a thrum.
|
(Ex): ({EN}x & {AK}x)
|
[
"sent10 -> int3: something is not Hellenic.; int3 & sent6 -> int4: the fact that the mixture does not yawp garbageman and is not a Potamogeton does not hold.; sent3 & int4 -> int5: that the mixture yawps garbageman is true.; sent9 -> int6: the mixture is a thrum if the fact that it is not a thrum but antiadrenergic does not hold.; sent4 -> int7: if the mixture is Bulgarian then that it is not a thrum but antiadrenergic is not true.; sent2 & sent11 -> int8: the captopril is basic.; int8 -> int9: something is basic.; int9 & sent5 -> int10: the mixture is a Bulgarian and it is unshrinkable.; int10 -> int11: the mixture is a kind of a Bulgarian.; int7 & int11 -> int12: that the mixture is not a thrum but it is antiadrenergic does not hold.; int6 & int12 -> int13: that the mixture is a kind of a thrum is not false.; int5 & int13 -> int14: the mixture yawps garbageman and it is a thrum.; int14 -> hypothesis;"
] | 8 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the captopril is not antiadrenergic. ; $context$ = sent1: the mixture is not non-Hellenic. sent2: there exists something such that the fact that it is an immortal and not Hebridean is wrong. sent3: the mixture yawps garbageman if that the fact that it does not yawps garbageman and is not a Potamogeton is not incorrect is not correct. sent4: if something is a kind of a Bulgarian then that it is not a thrum and is antiadrenergic does not hold. sent5: if there is something such that it is a basic the mixture is a kind of a Bulgarian that is unshrinkable. sent6: if there is something such that it is not Hellenic the fact that the mixture does not yawp garbageman and is not a Potamogeton is wrong. sent7: the mixture is a kind of a Potamogeton. sent8: if there exists something such that it is Hellenic thing that is a Potamogeton then the captopril is antiadrenergic. sent9: if that something is not a thrum and not non-antiadrenergic is not right then it is a kind of a thrum. sent10: the hardwood is not Hellenic. sent11: the fact that the captopril is a basic is not false if there is something such that the fact that it is an immortal and it is not Hebridean is false. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 & sent7 -> int1: the mixture is Hellenic and it is a kind of a Potamogeton.; int1 -> int2: something is Hellenic and it is a Potamogeton.; int2 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the wag is a cobble.
|
{A}{b}
|
sent1: if that the stickler is both not a need and not a Hoffmannsthal does not hold it is not a kind of a release. sent2: that the wag does not release and is not a conditioner does not hold. sent3: if the fact that something is not a kind of a counterweight and it is not a utahraptor is not true it is not declarative. sent4: that the stickler is a Hoffmannsthal and does not yawp label does not hold. sent5: if the stickler releases that the wag is not a releases and not a need is not right. sent6: the stickler is a kind of a release if it is not a Hoffmannsthal. sent7: if that the stickler does not cobble and it does not yawp label does not hold it is not a need. sent8: if the wag does need then it is not a kind of a cobble. sent9: if the stickler is a release then that the wag is both not a release and a need is incorrect. sent10: if that the stickler does not yawp label and it is not a release is not correct then it is not a cobble. sent11: that the stickler does not shallow and it is not Iberian is not correct. sent12: something does not release if that it does not yawp label and is not a Hoffmannsthal is false. sent13: the fact that the wag does not yawp label and it does not cobble is not true if the stickler does yawp label. sent14: that the wag is not a release but it does need is wrong. sent15: if the fact that something does not yawp label and does not cobble is not true it is not a kind of a need. sent16: if that something is not a release and it is not a need is incorrect it is not a kind of a cobble. sent17: something that needs does not cobble. sent18: the fact that if the fact that the stickler is the Hoffmannsthal but it does not yawp label is false then the fact that the stickler is a release is not wrong hold.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{C}{a} & ¬{AA}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent2: ¬(¬{B}{b} & ¬{BK}{b}) sent3: (x): ¬(¬{GD}x & ¬{P}x) -> ¬{AO}x sent4: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent5: {B}{a} -> ¬(¬{B}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent6: ¬{AA}{a} -> {B}{a} sent7: ¬(¬{A}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent8: {C}{b} -> ¬{A}{b} sent9: {B}{a} -> ¬(¬{B}{b} & {C}{b}) sent10: ¬(¬{AB}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent11: ¬(¬{HG}{a} & ¬{DI}{a}) sent12: (x): ¬(¬{AB}x & ¬{AA}x) -> ¬{B}x sent13: {AB}{a} -> ¬(¬{AB}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent14: ¬(¬{B}{b} & {C}{b}) sent15: (x): ¬(¬{AB}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{C}x sent16: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{A}x sent17: (x): {C}x -> ¬{A}x sent18: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{a}
|
[
"sent18 & sent4 -> int1: the stickler does release.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: that the wag is not a release and it is not a need is false.; sent16 -> int3: if the fact that the wag is not a release and is not a need does not hold it is not a cobble.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent18 & sent4 -> int1: {B}{a}; int1 & sent5 -> int2: ¬(¬{B}{b} & ¬{C}{b}); sent16 -> int3: ¬(¬{B}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> ¬{A}{b}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 14 | 0 | 14 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the wag is a cobble. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the stickler is both not a need and not a Hoffmannsthal does not hold it is not a kind of a release. sent2: that the wag does not release and is not a conditioner does not hold. sent3: if the fact that something is not a kind of a counterweight and it is not a utahraptor is not true it is not declarative. sent4: that the stickler is a Hoffmannsthal and does not yawp label does not hold. sent5: if the stickler releases that the wag is not a releases and not a need is not right. sent6: the stickler is a kind of a release if it is not a Hoffmannsthal. sent7: if that the stickler does not cobble and it does not yawp label does not hold it is not a need. sent8: if the wag does need then it is not a kind of a cobble. sent9: if the stickler is a release then that the wag is both not a release and a need is incorrect. sent10: if that the stickler does not yawp label and it is not a release is not correct then it is not a cobble. sent11: that the stickler does not shallow and it is not Iberian is not correct. sent12: something does not release if that it does not yawp label and is not a Hoffmannsthal is false. sent13: the fact that the wag does not yawp label and it does not cobble is not true if the stickler does yawp label. sent14: that the wag is not a release but it does need is wrong. sent15: if the fact that something does not yawp label and does not cobble is not true it is not a kind of a need. sent16: if that something is not a release and it is not a need is incorrect it is not a kind of a cobble. sent17: something that needs does not cobble. sent18: the fact that if the fact that the stickler is the Hoffmannsthal but it does not yawp label is false then the fact that the stickler is a release is not wrong hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent18 & sent4 -> int1: the stickler does release.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: that the wag is not a release and it is not a need is false.; sent16 -> int3: if the fact that the wag is not a release and is not a need does not hold it is not a cobble.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the guzzler stacks guzzler and/or it is not a kind of a Bruneian.
|
({E}{c} v ¬{F}{c})
|
sent1: that the pilaster is a whirlpool and not cytogenetic is not incorrect. sent2: the doorlock does yawp Cordyline. sent3: if the bang does dilute then the desiccant mitigates janitor but it is not a kind of a polytheist. sent4: if there is something such that it is a lugger the desiccant is discriminatory but it is not a camber. sent5: something is not discriminatory if it does mitigate janitor and is not a polytheist. sent6: that either the guzzler does stack guzzler or it is not a Bruneian or both is incorrect if the desiccant is a lugger. sent7: the bang does not yawp conceptualism if the fact that the violin does motley or does not yawp conceptualism or both is incorrect. sent8: if that the doorlock is not a cockhorse but it is a Arizona is not true it is a kind of a cockhorse. sent9: the desiccant is a Bruneian and/or is not discriminatory. sent10: if the doorlock does yawp Cordyline the fact that it is not a cockhorse and is a Arizona is incorrect. sent11: the bang does not mitigate janitor if the desiccant is discriminatory and does not camber. sent12: the guzzler either is a camber or does not stack guzzler or both. sent13: something that does not yawp conceptualism dilutes and stabilizes foe. sent14: that the desiccant is not a kind of a camber if something is a lugger hold. sent15: if something is a lugger then it is empyreal. sent16: the bang is a kind of a Bruneian but it does not stack guzzler if there exists something such that it mitigates janitor. sent17: the desiccant is not Bruneian if the guzzler does camber but it is non-discriminatory. sent18: the pilaster either is a camber or is a lugger or both. sent19: the desiccant is not a kind of a camber. sent20: the desiccant is not a Bruneian if the guzzler stacks guzzler but it is not discriminatory. sent21: the guzzler is a kind of Bruneian thing that is not a lugger if there exists something such that the fact that it does mitigate janitor hold. sent22: either the desiccant is discriminatory or it is not a lugger or both. sent23: that the pilaster is a lugger is not incorrect.
|
sent1: ({BT}{aa} & ¬{FP}{aa}) sent2: {M}{e} sent3: {H}{b} -> ({D}{a} & ¬{G}{a}) sent4: (x): {A}x -> ({C}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent5: (x): ({D}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{C}x sent6: {A}{a} -> ¬({E}{c} v ¬{F}{c}) sent7: ¬({K}{d} v ¬{J}{d}) -> ¬{J}{b} sent8: ¬(¬{L}{e} & {N}{e}) -> {L}{e} sent9: ({F}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) sent10: {M}{e} -> ¬(¬{L}{e} & {N}{e}) sent11: ({C}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent12: ({B}{c} v ¬{E}{c}) sent13: (x): ¬{J}x -> ({H}x & {I}x) sent14: (x): {A}x -> ¬{B}{a} sent15: (x): {A}x -> {GI}x sent16: (x): {D}x -> ({F}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) sent17: ({B}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) -> ¬{F}{a} sent18: ({B}{aa} v {A}{aa}) sent19: ¬{B}{a} sent20: ({E}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) -> ¬{F}{a} sent21: (x): {D}x -> ({F}{c} & ¬{A}{c}) sent22: ({C}{a} v ¬{A}{a}) sent23: {A}{aa}
|
[
"sent23 -> int1: that there exists something such that it is a kind of a lugger hold.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the desiccant is discriminatory thing that does not camber.; int2 & sent11 -> int3: the bang does not mitigate janitor.;"
] |
[
"sent23 -> int1: (Ex): {A}x; int1 & sent4 -> int2: ({C}{a} & ¬{B}{a}); int2 & sent11 -> int3: ¬{D}{b};"
] |
that the guzzler stacks guzzler and/or it is not a Bruneian is not right.
|
¬({E}{c} v ¬{F}{c})
|
[
"sent5 -> int4: the desiccant is not discriminatory if it mitigates janitor and is not a polytheist.; sent13 -> int5: the bang does dilute and stabilizes foe if it does not yawp conceptualism.; sent10 & sent2 -> int6: the fact that the doorlock is both not a cockhorse and a Arizona does not hold.; sent8 & int6 -> int7: the doorlock is a kind of a cockhorse.; int7 -> int8: there is something such that it is a kind of a cockhorse.;"
] | 12 | 4 | null | 20 | 0 | 20 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the guzzler stacks guzzler and/or it is not a kind of a Bruneian. ; $context$ = sent1: that the pilaster is a whirlpool and not cytogenetic is not incorrect. sent2: the doorlock does yawp Cordyline. sent3: if the bang does dilute then the desiccant mitigates janitor but it is not a kind of a polytheist. sent4: if there is something such that it is a lugger the desiccant is discriminatory but it is not a camber. sent5: something is not discriminatory if it does mitigate janitor and is not a polytheist. sent6: that either the guzzler does stack guzzler or it is not a Bruneian or both is incorrect if the desiccant is a lugger. sent7: the bang does not yawp conceptualism if the fact that the violin does motley or does not yawp conceptualism or both is incorrect. sent8: if that the doorlock is not a cockhorse but it is a Arizona is not true it is a kind of a cockhorse. sent9: the desiccant is a Bruneian and/or is not discriminatory. sent10: if the doorlock does yawp Cordyline the fact that it is not a cockhorse and is a Arizona is incorrect. sent11: the bang does not mitigate janitor if the desiccant is discriminatory and does not camber. sent12: the guzzler either is a camber or does not stack guzzler or both. sent13: something that does not yawp conceptualism dilutes and stabilizes foe. sent14: that the desiccant is not a kind of a camber if something is a lugger hold. sent15: if something is a lugger then it is empyreal. sent16: the bang is a kind of a Bruneian but it does not stack guzzler if there exists something such that it mitigates janitor. sent17: the desiccant is not Bruneian if the guzzler does camber but it is non-discriminatory. sent18: the pilaster either is a camber or is a lugger or both. sent19: the desiccant is not a kind of a camber. sent20: the desiccant is not a Bruneian if the guzzler stacks guzzler but it is not discriminatory. sent21: the guzzler is a kind of Bruneian thing that is not a lugger if there exists something such that the fact that it does mitigate janitor hold. sent22: either the desiccant is discriminatory or it is not a lugger or both. sent23: that the pilaster is a lugger is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =
|
sent23 -> int1: that there exists something such that it is a kind of a lugger hold.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the desiccant is discriminatory thing that does not camber.; int2 & sent11 -> int3: the bang does not mitigate janitor.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the cleaver is not plantal and is a kind of a study is false.
|
¬(¬{C}{a} & {A}{a})
|
sent1: that the fact that the cleaver is a kind of non-plantal thing that is a study is not false does not hold if that the cobalt is not absent is not wrong. sent2: if the accentor is absent then the cleaver is not plantal but it is a study. sent3: if that something is a dialectician and does stabilize overburden does not hold then it does not absent. sent4: something does not perambulate if it does not yawp cobalt. sent5: the cleaver is not absent if the accentor is a study. sent6: there is nothing that is a dialectician and stabilizes overburden. sent7: if something does not stabilize overburden then it does not absent.
|
sent1: ¬{B}{aa} -> ¬(¬{C}{a} & {A}{a}) sent2: {B}{b} -> (¬{C}{a} & {A}{a}) sent3: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent4: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬{D}x sent5: {A}{b} -> ¬{B}{a} sent6: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent7: (x): ¬{AB}x -> ¬{B}x
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: the cobalt is not absent if that it is a dialectician and it does stabilize overburden is not right.; sent6 -> int2: that the cobalt is a kind of a dialectician and stabilizes overburden does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the cobalt does not absent.; int3 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> int1: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; sent6 -> int2: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬{B}{aa}; int3 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the cleaver is not plantal but a study is not false.
|
(¬{C}{a} & {A}{a})
|
[
"sent4 -> int4: the mincer does not perambulate if it does not yawp cobalt.;"
] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the cleaver is not plantal and is a kind of a study is false. ; $context$ = sent1: that the fact that the cleaver is a kind of non-plantal thing that is a study is not false does not hold if that the cobalt is not absent is not wrong. sent2: if the accentor is absent then the cleaver is not plantal but it is a study. sent3: if that something is a dialectician and does stabilize overburden does not hold then it does not absent. sent4: something does not perambulate if it does not yawp cobalt. sent5: the cleaver is not absent if the accentor is a study. sent6: there is nothing that is a dialectician and stabilizes overburden. sent7: if something does not stabilize overburden then it does not absent. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> int1: the cobalt is not absent if that it is a dialectician and it does stabilize overburden is not right.; sent6 -> int2: that the cobalt is a kind of a dialectician and stabilizes overburden does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the cobalt does not absent.; int3 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
not the prompting but the postpositiveness happens.
|
(¬{C} & {D})
|
sent1: the Aeolianness does not occur. sent2: if the recusancy occurs then the winglessness does not occur. sent3: that the orchestralness does not occur yields that the overpayment happens and the mitigating newsreel occurs. sent4: either the anaplasticness happens or the youngerness happens or both. sent5: the secession does not occur. sent6: the staggering occurs. sent7: if the yawping interview and/or the mitigating club happens then the mitigating carol does not occur. sent8: the unrecoverableness and the custard-likeness happens. sent9: that that the staggering occurs and/or the subsidization happens triggers that the prompting does not occur is not false. sent10: the stabilizing imperativeness happens. sent11: that the habanera does not occur triggers that the Iberianness happens and the postpositiveness occurs. sent12: the stabilizing Lome happens. sent13: the treason occurs. sent14: the bobsledding happens. sent15: the fact that the yawping cephalothin does not occur hold. sent16: the ambulation occurs and the mitigating one-half occurs if the feud does not occur. sent17: the pardonableness happens and the stabilizing monolingual occurs. sent18: the orchestralness happens. sent19: the homicide does not occur. sent20: the recusancy does not occur. sent21: the backlessness occurs. sent22: the hircineness occurs.
|
sent1: ¬{GP} sent2: {ED} -> ¬{AM} sent3: ¬{GE} -> ({EC} & {IB}) sent4: ({HM} v {EU}) sent5: ¬{IN} sent6: {A} sent7: ({FB} v {IT}) -> ¬{AN} sent8: ({FS} & {FP}) sent9: ({A} v {B}) -> ¬{C} sent10: {FE} sent11: ¬{F} -> ({E} & {D}) sent12: {S} sent13: {P} sent14: {FL} sent15: ¬{IU} sent16: ¬{CT} -> ({BC} & {BU}) sent17: ({AI} & {GO}) sent18: {GE} sent19: ¬{BR} sent20: ¬{ED} sent21: {GH} sent22: {HB}
|
[
"sent6 -> int1: the staggering occurs and/or the subsidization occurs.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the prompt does not occur.;"
] |
[
"sent6 -> int1: ({A} v {B}); int1 & sent9 -> int2: ¬{C};"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | null | 19 | 0 | 19 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = not the prompting but the postpositiveness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the Aeolianness does not occur. sent2: if the recusancy occurs then the winglessness does not occur. sent3: that the orchestralness does not occur yields that the overpayment happens and the mitigating newsreel occurs. sent4: either the anaplasticness happens or the youngerness happens or both. sent5: the secession does not occur. sent6: the staggering occurs. sent7: if the yawping interview and/or the mitigating club happens then the mitigating carol does not occur. sent8: the unrecoverableness and the custard-likeness happens. sent9: that that the staggering occurs and/or the subsidization happens triggers that the prompting does not occur is not false. sent10: the stabilizing imperativeness happens. sent11: that the habanera does not occur triggers that the Iberianness happens and the postpositiveness occurs. sent12: the stabilizing Lome happens. sent13: the treason occurs. sent14: the bobsledding happens. sent15: the fact that the yawping cephalothin does not occur hold. sent16: the ambulation occurs and the mitigating one-half occurs if the feud does not occur. sent17: the pardonableness happens and the stabilizing monolingual occurs. sent18: the orchestralness happens. sent19: the homicide does not occur. sent20: the recusancy does not occur. sent21: the backlessness occurs. sent22: the hircineness occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 -> int1: the staggering occurs and/or the subsidization occurs.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the prompt does not occur.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that it is not a Seine and not a molybdenite.
|
(Ex): (¬{C}x & ¬{A}x)
|
sent1: there exists something such that it is a kind of a Seine and it is not a molybdenite. sent2: that the jump is both a prosecutor and a baba is wrong. sent3: if the fact that the jump is a kind of a prosecutor but it is not a baba does not hold the fact that it does not blister is correct. sent4: the jump is not a blister if it is a kind of a baba. sent5: something is not a Seine. sent6: the menhir is not a molybdenite. sent7: something is not a sized and not anabatic if it is a molybdenite. sent8: the menhir is not a Seine and is not a molybdenite if the jump is not a kind of a blister.
|
sent1: (Ex): ({C}x & ¬{A}x) sent2: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent3: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent4: {AB}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent5: (Ex): ¬{C}x sent6: ¬{A}{b} sent7: (x): {A}x -> (¬{AN}x & ¬{HS}x) sent8: ¬{B}{a} -> (¬{C}{b} & ¬{A}{b})
|
[] |
[] |
the brazil is not a kind of a sized and it is not anabatic.
|
(¬{AN}{dr} & ¬{HS}{dr})
|
[
"sent7 -> int1: if the brazil is a molybdenite then it is not a kind of a sized and it is not anabatic.;"
] | 5 | 3 | null | 6 | 0 | 6 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that it is not a Seine and not a molybdenite. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is a kind of a Seine and it is not a molybdenite. sent2: that the jump is both a prosecutor and a baba is wrong. sent3: if the fact that the jump is a kind of a prosecutor but it is not a baba does not hold the fact that it does not blister is correct. sent4: the jump is not a blister if it is a kind of a baba. sent5: something is not a Seine. sent6: the menhir is not a molybdenite. sent7: something is not a sized and not anabatic if it is a molybdenite. sent8: the menhir is not a Seine and is not a molybdenite if the jump is not a kind of a blister. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the amino does not rhyme liability and/or it is not a Cephalanthera is incorrect.
|
¬(¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa})
|
sent1: if something does mouth May then it is a kind of a Cephalanthera. sent2: that the fact that something is not a kind of a Cephalanthera and/or it is not a figurine is false if that it does rhyme liability is right hold. sent3: the amino is not non-qualitative. sent4: the amino is a kind of a figurine. sent5: the amino is a figurine that does mouth May. sent6: if the amino mouths May the fact that it is a kind of a Cephalanthera hold. sent7: the amino is a kind of a Cephalanthera.
|
sent1: (x): {A}x -> {AB}x sent2: (x): {AA}x -> ¬(¬{AB}x v ¬{B}x) sent3: {FF}{aa} sent4: {B}{aa} sent5: ({B}{aa} & {A}{aa}) sent6: {A}{aa} -> {AB}{aa} sent7: {AB}{aa}
|
[
"sent5 -> int1: the amino mouths May.;"
] |
[
"sent5 -> int1: {A}{aa};"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | null | 6 | 0 | 6 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = that the amino does not rhyme liability and/or it is not a Cephalanthera is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does mouth May then it is a kind of a Cephalanthera. sent2: that the fact that something is not a kind of a Cephalanthera and/or it is not a figurine is false if that it does rhyme liability is right hold. sent3: the amino is not non-qualitative. sent4: the amino is a kind of a figurine. sent5: the amino is a figurine that does mouth May. sent6: if the amino mouths May the fact that it is a kind of a Cephalanthera hold. sent7: the amino is a kind of a Cephalanthera. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 -> int1: the amino mouths May.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the sleeper does not occur.
|
¬{C}
|
sent1: the naturopathy does not occur if the awakening does not occur and the osculating Muscari does not occur. sent2: the forgetfulness happens. sent3: the quackery does not occur and the osculating disco does not occur if the fact that the mouthing fetoscope does not occur is true. sent4: the sleeper does not occur if the forgetting occurs and the forgetfulness occurs. sent5: that either the corvee happens or the elasticness does not occur or both does not hold if the naturopathy does not occur. sent6: if the vitiation does not occur the rhyming sexist does not occur and the timework does not occur. sent7: the awakening does not occur if the fact that both the awakening and the non-planetaryness occurs is wrong. sent8: the mouthing fetoscope does not occur. sent9: if the fact that the forgetfulness does not occur is not wrong both the repudiating slur and the forgetting occurs. sent10: if that the corvee and/or the non-elasticness happens is not true that the fact that the vitiation happens is right does not hold. sent11: the forgetting happens. sent12: the forgetfulness does not occur and the sleeper does not occur if the timework does not occur. sent13: if the quackery does not occur the fact that the awakening and the non-planetaryness occurs does not hold.
|
sent1: (¬{K} & ¬{J}) -> ¬{I} sent2: {B} sent3: ¬{P} -> (¬{M} & ¬{O}) sent4: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent5: ¬{I} -> ¬({G} v ¬{H}) sent6: ¬{F} -> (¬{E} & ¬{D}) sent7: ¬({K} & ¬{N}) -> ¬{K} sent8: ¬{P} sent9: ¬{B} -> ({DT} & {A}) sent10: ¬({G} v ¬{H}) -> ¬{F} sent11: {A} sent12: ¬{D} -> (¬{B} & ¬{C}) sent13: ¬{M} -> ¬({K} & ¬{N})
|
[
"sent11 & sent2 -> int1: the forgetting happens and the forgetfulness happens.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent11 & sent2 -> int1: ({A} & {B}); sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the repudiating slur happens.
|
{DT}
|
[
"sent3 & sent8 -> int2: the quackery does not occur and the osculating disco does not occur.; int2 -> int3: the quackery does not occur.; sent13 & int3 -> int4: the fact that the awakening occurs and the planetariness does not occur does not hold.; sent7 & int4 -> int5: the awakening does not occur.;"
] | 14 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the sleeper does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the naturopathy does not occur if the awakening does not occur and the osculating Muscari does not occur. sent2: the forgetfulness happens. sent3: the quackery does not occur and the osculating disco does not occur if the fact that the mouthing fetoscope does not occur is true. sent4: the sleeper does not occur if the forgetting occurs and the forgetfulness occurs. sent5: that either the corvee happens or the elasticness does not occur or both does not hold if the naturopathy does not occur. sent6: if the vitiation does not occur the rhyming sexist does not occur and the timework does not occur. sent7: the awakening does not occur if the fact that both the awakening and the non-planetaryness occurs is wrong. sent8: the mouthing fetoscope does not occur. sent9: if the fact that the forgetfulness does not occur is not wrong both the repudiating slur and the forgetting occurs. sent10: if that the corvee and/or the non-elasticness happens is not true that the fact that the vitiation happens is right does not hold. sent11: the forgetting happens. sent12: the forgetfulness does not occur and the sleeper does not occur if the timework does not occur. sent13: if the quackery does not occur the fact that the awakening and the non-planetaryness occurs does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent11 & sent2 -> int1: the forgetting happens and the forgetfulness happens.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that that the snips is an amalgamation and/or not a precinct is not wrong is not correct.
|
¬({D}{b} v ¬{C}{b})
|
sent1: the snips is a kind of an en. sent2: that the mastodon is not a kind of a showman is not correct if something is both a counterrevolutionist and antrorse. sent3: if there is something such that that it is not a deanery is not incorrect then the missionary does not rhyme sylvanite or it repudiates Argiope or both. sent4: the missionary is an en. sent5: the missionary is catachrestic. sent6: the missionary is a precinct. sent7: that the Norinyl does not osculate Gasterosteus is not false if there is something such that the fact that it is not a sandbar and osculate Gasterosteus does not hold. sent8: the snips is an amalgamation or a precinct or both. sent9: the missionary is not non-catachrestic and/or it is not an amalgamation. sent10: if something is not pyogenic and it does not osculate pennyroyal the pennyroyal does homologize. sent11: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a sandbar and it does osculate Gasterosteus is not right. sent12: the harpsichord is not pyogenic and it does not osculate pennyroyal if the mastodon is a showman. sent13: the missionary is not Capetian if something is not an en and not catachrestic. sent14: if something either does not rhyme sylvanite or does repudiate Argiope or both it does not aim. sent15: if the swaggerer is a go-kart the ixodid is not a deanery. sent16: if there is something such that it does homologize the swaggerer either is a go-kart or does homologize or both. sent17: the snips is not a kind of a precinct if the missionary is an en and it is catachrestic. sent18: if there exists something such that it does not osculate Gasterosteus then the sylvanite is a counterrevolutionist and is antrorse. sent19: the missionary is not indefeasible. sent20: the fact that something is an amalgamation or it is not a precinct or both is false if it is not a kind of an en. sent21: the ixodid is not a kind of a deanery if the swaggerer homologizes.
|
sent1: {A}{b} sent2: (x): ({O}x & {N}x) -> {M}{g} sent3: (x): ¬{H}x -> (¬{F}{a} v {G}{a}) sent4: {A}{a} sent5: {B}{a} sent6: {C}{a} sent7: (x): ¬(¬{Q}x & {P}x) -> ¬{P}{i} sent8: ({D}{b} v {C}{b}) sent9: ({B}{a} v ¬{D}{a}) sent10: (x): (¬{K}x & ¬{L}x) -> {I}{e} sent11: (Ex): ¬(¬{Q}x & {P}x) sent12: {M}{g} -> (¬{K}{f} & ¬{L}{f}) sent13: (x): (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{U}{a} sent14: (x): (¬{F}x v {G}x) -> ¬{E}x sent15: {J}{d} -> ¬{H}{c} sent16: (x): {I}x -> ({J}{d} v {I}{d}) sent17: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent18: (x): ¬{P}x -> ({O}{h} & {N}{h}) sent19: {HA}{a} sent20: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({D}x v ¬{C}x) sent21: {I}{d} -> ¬{H}{c}
|
[
"sent4 & sent5 -> int1: the missionary is a kind of an en and it is catachrestic.; sent17 & int1 -> int2: the snips is not a precinct.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 & sent5 -> int1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}); sent17 & int1 -> int2: ¬{C}{b}; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the snips is a kind of an amalgamation and/or it is not a kind of a precinct is not right.
|
¬({D}{b} v ¬{C}{b})
|
[
"sent20 -> int3: the fact that the snips is an amalgamation and/or it is not a precinct is incorrect if it is not an en.; sent14 -> int4: if the missionary does not rhyme sylvanite and/or it does repudiate Argiope then it does not aim.; sent11 & sent7 -> int5: the Norinyl does not osculate Gasterosteus.; int5 -> int6: there is something such that it does not osculate Gasterosteus.; int6 & sent18 -> int7: the sylvanite is a counterrevolutionist and it is antrorse.; int7 -> int8: something is a counterrevolutionist and it is antrorse.; int8 & sent2 -> int9: the mastodon is a kind of a showman.; sent12 & int9 -> int10: the harpsichord is non-pyogenic thing that does not osculate pennyroyal.; int10 -> int11: something is non-pyogenic and it does not osculate pennyroyal.; int11 & sent10 -> int12: the pennyroyal does homologize.; int12 -> int13: something does homologize.; int13 & sent16 -> int14: the swaggerer is a go-kart and/or it homologizes.; int14 & sent15 & sent21 -> int15: the ixodid is not a deanery.; int15 -> int16: there is something such that it is not a deanery.; int16 & sent3 -> int17: the missionary either does not rhyme sylvanite or does repudiate Argiope or both.; int4 & int17 -> int18: the missionary does not aim.; int18 -> int19: there exists something such that the fact that it does not aim is not incorrect.;"
] | 18 | 3 | 3 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that that the snips is an amalgamation and/or not a precinct is not wrong is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the snips is a kind of an en. sent2: that the mastodon is not a kind of a showman is not correct if something is both a counterrevolutionist and antrorse. sent3: if there is something such that that it is not a deanery is not incorrect then the missionary does not rhyme sylvanite or it repudiates Argiope or both. sent4: the missionary is an en. sent5: the missionary is catachrestic. sent6: the missionary is a precinct. sent7: that the Norinyl does not osculate Gasterosteus is not false if there is something such that the fact that it is not a sandbar and osculate Gasterosteus does not hold. sent8: the snips is an amalgamation or a precinct or both. sent9: the missionary is not non-catachrestic and/or it is not an amalgamation. sent10: if something is not pyogenic and it does not osculate pennyroyal the pennyroyal does homologize. sent11: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a sandbar and it does osculate Gasterosteus is not right. sent12: the harpsichord is not pyogenic and it does not osculate pennyroyal if the mastodon is a showman. sent13: the missionary is not Capetian if something is not an en and not catachrestic. sent14: if something either does not rhyme sylvanite or does repudiate Argiope or both it does not aim. sent15: if the swaggerer is a go-kart the ixodid is not a deanery. sent16: if there is something such that it does homologize the swaggerer either is a go-kart or does homologize or both. sent17: the snips is not a kind of a precinct if the missionary is an en and it is catachrestic. sent18: if there exists something such that it does not osculate Gasterosteus then the sylvanite is a counterrevolutionist and is antrorse. sent19: the missionary is not indefeasible. sent20: the fact that something is an amalgamation or it is not a precinct or both is false if it is not a kind of an en. sent21: the ixodid is not a kind of a deanery if the swaggerer homologizes. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 & sent5 -> int1: the missionary is a kind of an en and it is catachrestic.; sent17 & int1 -> int2: the snips is not a precinct.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the viziership does not occur.
|
¬{B}
|
sent1: the viviparousness occurs and the viziership happens.
|
sent1: ({A} & {B})
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the viziership does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the viviparousness occurs and the viziership happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the politicness happens.
|
{C}
|
sent1: that the destabilization does not occur yields that the politicness does not occur and the lifework does not occur. sent2: that the politicness does not occur is prevented by that the lifework occurs. sent3: the leftfield occurs. sent4: if the osculating tartar does not occur then the destabilization does not occur and the rhyming solo does not occur. sent5: if the horse-drawnness happens then the fact that the Freudian happens but the osculating stagecraft does not occur is not true. sent6: if the connecting does not occur then the yawning does not occur or the collagenousness does not occur or both. sent7: both the lifework and the destabilization occurs. sent8: that not the menstruating but the loamlessness happens is triggered by the non-blastogeneticness. sent9: the destabilization occurs. sent10: if the yawning does not occur the vitiliginousness does not occur. sent11: that the mouthing allotropy occurs causes that the rhyming Stoker does not occur or that the intracranialness does not occur or both. sent12: if that the Freudianness but not the osculating stagecraft happens does not hold then the osculating tartar does not occur. sent13: both the mouthing allotropy and the unactableness occurs if the healthiness does not occur. sent14: if the fact that the Romance occurs and the Israeliness occurs is not right that the connecting does not occur is not wrong. sent15: that the yawn does not occur is brought about by that the yawn does not occur and/or that the collagenousness does not occur. sent16: if the destabilization does not occur then the fact that the politicness but not the lifework occurs does not hold. sent17: both the network and the yawning occurs. sent18: that the vitiliginousness does not occur triggers that the mouthing Xanthosoma occurs and the horse-drawnness happens. sent19: the blastogeneticness does not occur if that either the rhyming Stoker does not occur or the intracranialness does not occur or both is not wrong. sent20: that the Romance and the Israeliness occurs is incorrect if the fact that the menstruating does not occur is correct.
|
sent1: ¬{B} -> (¬{C} & ¬{A}) sent2: {A} -> {C} sent3: {BI} sent4: ¬{E} -> (¬{B} & ¬{D}) sent5: {H} -> ¬({F} & ¬{G}) sent6: ¬{M} -> (¬{K} v ¬{L}) sent7: ({A} & {B}) sent8: ¬{R} -> (¬{P} & {Q}) sent9: {B} sent10: ¬{K} -> ¬{J} sent11: {U} -> (¬{S} v ¬{T}) sent12: ¬({F} & ¬{G}) -> ¬{E} sent13: ¬{AB} -> ({U} & {AA}) sent14: ¬({O} & {N}) -> ¬{M} sent15: (¬{K} v ¬{L}) -> ¬{K} sent16: ¬{B} -> ¬({C} & ¬{A}) sent17: ({HM} & {K}) sent18: ¬{J} -> ({I} & {H}) sent19: (¬{S} v ¬{T}) -> ¬{R} sent20: ¬{P} -> ¬({O} & {N})
|
[
"sent7 -> int1: the lifework occurs.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent7 -> int1: {A}; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the politicness does not occur.
|
¬{C}
|
[] | 19 | 2 | 2 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the politicness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: that the destabilization does not occur yields that the politicness does not occur and the lifework does not occur. sent2: that the politicness does not occur is prevented by that the lifework occurs. sent3: the leftfield occurs. sent4: if the osculating tartar does not occur then the destabilization does not occur and the rhyming solo does not occur. sent5: if the horse-drawnness happens then the fact that the Freudian happens but the osculating stagecraft does not occur is not true. sent6: if the connecting does not occur then the yawning does not occur or the collagenousness does not occur or both. sent7: both the lifework and the destabilization occurs. sent8: that not the menstruating but the loamlessness happens is triggered by the non-blastogeneticness. sent9: the destabilization occurs. sent10: if the yawning does not occur the vitiliginousness does not occur. sent11: that the mouthing allotropy occurs causes that the rhyming Stoker does not occur or that the intracranialness does not occur or both. sent12: if that the Freudianness but not the osculating stagecraft happens does not hold then the osculating tartar does not occur. sent13: both the mouthing allotropy and the unactableness occurs if the healthiness does not occur. sent14: if the fact that the Romance occurs and the Israeliness occurs is not right that the connecting does not occur is not wrong. sent15: that the yawn does not occur is brought about by that the yawn does not occur and/or that the collagenousness does not occur. sent16: if the destabilization does not occur then the fact that the politicness but not the lifework occurs does not hold. sent17: both the network and the yawning occurs. sent18: that the vitiliginousness does not occur triggers that the mouthing Xanthosoma occurs and the horse-drawnness happens. sent19: the blastogeneticness does not occur if that either the rhyming Stoker does not occur or the intracranialness does not occur or both is not wrong. sent20: that the Romance and the Israeliness occurs is incorrect if the fact that the menstruating does not occur is correct. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 -> int1: the lifework occurs.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the barbette is not a gobbler.
|
¬{D}{b}
|
sent1: everything is untrustworthy and it does repudiate sensationalism. sent2: if something is untrustworthy then it is not a kind of a isometric and/or is grassy. sent3: there exists something such that it is grassy. sent4: the barbette is a kind of a gobbler if there exists something such that the fact that it is both not isometric and untrustworthy is incorrect. sent5: something is a gobbler. sent6: something is not a kind of a gobbler if it is grassy. sent7: the barbette does repudiate sensationalism if it mouths groomed. sent8: the fact that that something is not an orient and is grassy is right does not hold if it is isometric. sent9: the fact that the orach is not isometric and is untrustworthy is not right if something is grassy. sent10: there exists something such that that it is a isometric and it is untrustworthy is false. sent11: if there exists something such that it is trustworthy the barbette is a gobbler. sent12: the barbette is not a gobbler if it is a misapplication and it repudiates sensationalism. sent13: the alprazolam is an orient if that the orach is not an orient but grassy does not hold. sent14: something is not a isometric but untrustworthy.
|
sent1: (x): ({C}x & {E}x) sent2: (x): {C}x -> (¬{B}x v {A}x) sent3: (Ex): {A}x sent4: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & {C}x) -> {D}{b} sent5: (Ex): {D}x sent6: (x): {A}x -> ¬{D}x sent7: {G}{b} -> {E}{b} sent8: (x): {B}x -> ¬(¬{AN}x & {A}x) sent9: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent10: (Ex): ¬({B}x & {C}x) sent11: (x): ¬{C}x -> {D}{b} sent12: ({F}{b} & {E}{b}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent13: ¬(¬{AN}{a} & {A}{a}) -> {AN}{fj} sent14: (Ex): (¬{B}x & {C}x)
|
[
"sent3 & sent9 -> int1: the fact that the orach is not isometric but untrustworthy does not hold.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of non-isometric thing that is untrustworthy is wrong.; int2 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent9 -> int1: ¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): ¬(¬{B}x & {C}x); int2 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the alprazolam does orient is correct.
|
{AN}{fj}
|
[
"sent8 -> int3: if the orach is a isometric then the fact that it is not an orient and is grassy does not hold.;"
] | 8 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the barbette is not a gobbler. ; $context$ = sent1: everything is untrustworthy and it does repudiate sensationalism. sent2: if something is untrustworthy then it is not a kind of a isometric and/or is grassy. sent3: there exists something such that it is grassy. sent4: the barbette is a kind of a gobbler if there exists something such that the fact that it is both not isometric and untrustworthy is incorrect. sent5: something is a gobbler. sent6: something is not a kind of a gobbler if it is grassy. sent7: the barbette does repudiate sensationalism if it mouths groomed. sent8: the fact that that something is not an orient and is grassy is right does not hold if it is isometric. sent9: the fact that the orach is not isometric and is untrustworthy is not right if something is grassy. sent10: there exists something such that that it is a isometric and it is untrustworthy is false. sent11: if there exists something such that it is trustworthy the barbette is a gobbler. sent12: the barbette is not a gobbler if it is a misapplication and it repudiates sensationalism. sent13: the alprazolam is an orient if that the orach is not an orient but grassy does not hold. sent14: something is not a isometric but untrustworthy. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent9 -> int1: the fact that the orach is not isometric but untrustworthy does not hold.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of non-isometric thing that is untrustworthy is wrong.; int2 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the mouthing Xanthosoma happens or the clowning happens or both.
|
({C} v {D})
|
sent1: if the osculating cadence occurs then the osculating chestnut happens. sent2: that the mouthing Xanthosoma and/or the clown occurs is not right if the binding does not occur. sent3: that the percussiveness happens prevents that the ascomycetousness does not occur. sent4: the rallying happens and/or the mucinousness happens. sent5: the mouthing Xanthosoma occurs if the rhyming seasoned happens. sent6: the binding and/or the rhyming seasoned happens.
|
sent1: {EM} -> {N} sent2: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} v {D}) sent3: {FJ} -> {JE} sent4: ({EH} v {ED}) sent5: {B} -> {C} sent6: ({A} v {B})
|
[] |
[] |
that the mouthing Xanthosoma and/or the clowning occurs does not hold.
|
¬({C} v {D})
|
[] | 6 | 2 | null | 4 | 0 | 4 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the mouthing Xanthosoma happens or the clowning happens or both. ; $context$ = sent1: if the osculating cadence occurs then the osculating chestnut happens. sent2: that the mouthing Xanthosoma and/or the clown occurs is not right if the binding does not occur. sent3: that the percussiveness happens prevents that the ascomycetousness does not occur. sent4: the rallying happens and/or the mucinousness happens. sent5: the mouthing Xanthosoma occurs if the rhyming seasoned happens. sent6: the binding and/or the rhyming seasoned happens. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if that it does not repudiate wiggle and it is a kind of a Monet is wrong then the fact that it is a kind of a millivolt hold.
|
(Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x
|
sent1: That if the fact that the davit is a Moquelumnan or it is a lights-out or both does not hold then everything is not non-flinty is not incorrect.
|
sent1: That if the fact that the davit is a Moquelumnan or it is a lights-out or both does not hold then everything is not non-flinty is not incorrect.
|
[] |
[] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | null | 0 | 0 | 0 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if that it does not repudiate wiggle and it is a kind of a Monet is wrong then the fact that it is a kind of a millivolt hold. ; $context$ = sent1: That if the fact that the davit is a Moquelumnan or it is a lights-out or both does not hold then everything is not non-flinty is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the pi is a chokedamp.
|
{D}{b}
|
sent1: the fact that something is not oleophobic and/or it is not a magnification is wrong if the fact that it is not a Son is true. sent2: the fact that the sickroom is not a saddle does not hold if it is a kind of an unhappiness. sent3: if that something does osculate mascarpone and it saddles is not true it is not polychromatic. sent4: that something is both not an unhappiness and electrical is not correct if it is oleophobic. sent5: if the snob does not repudiate silage and is not a decentralization it is not Mexican. sent6: if the sickroom does osculate mascarpone that it is polychromatic is true. sent7: something does not repudiate silage and is not a decentralization if it does not repudiate half-cock. sent8: the snob does not repudiate half-cock. sent9: the sickroom is not a kind of an unhappiness if the fact that that the coltsfoot is both not an unhappiness and electrical is not right is right. sent10: if something is not an unhappiness then that it osculates mascarpone and is a saddle does not hold. sent11: The mascarpone osculates sickroom. sent12: the pi is a chokedamp if the sickroom is not a chokedamp and/or it is not polychromatic. sent13: the weaponry is not polychromatic. sent14: the fact that the flat is a kind of unsinkable thing that mouths flat does not hold if the snob is not a Mexican. sent15: if something does osculate mascarpone it is a chokedamp. sent16: if the fact that the Germanist is not oleophobic and/or it is not a magnification is wrong then the coltsfoot is oleophobic. sent17: something that is sinkable is not a Son. sent18: the sickroom osculates mascarpone. sent19: if the sickroom is a saddle or is polychromatic or both the pi is not a chokedamp.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬(¬{F}x v ¬{I}x) sent2: {E}{a} -> {C}{a} sent3: (x): ¬({A}x & {C}x) -> ¬{B}x sent4: (x): {F}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & {G}x) sent5: (¬{N}{f} & ¬{M}{f}) -> ¬{K}{f} sent6: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent7: (x): ¬{O}x -> (¬{N}x & ¬{M}x) sent8: ¬{O}{f} sent9: ¬(¬{E}{c} & {G}{c}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent10: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬({A}x & {C}x) sent11: {AA}{aa} sent12: (¬{D}{a} v ¬{B}{a}) -> {D}{b} sent13: ¬{B}{bg} sent14: ¬{K}{f} -> ¬(¬{J}{e} & {L}{e}) sent15: (x): {A}x -> {D}x sent16: ¬(¬{F}{d} v ¬{I}{d}) -> {F}{c} sent17: (x): {J}x -> ¬{H}x sent18: {A}{a} sent19: ({C}{a} v {B}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b}
|
[
"sent6 & sent18 -> int1: the sickroom is polychromatic.; int1 -> int2: the sickroom is a saddle or polychromatic or both.; sent19 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 & sent18 -> int1: {B}{a}; int1 -> int2: ({C}{a} v {B}{a}); sent19 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the longboat is not a chokedamp is not wrong.
|
¬{D}{eb}
|
[] | 5 | 3 | 3 | 16 | 0 | 16 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the pi is a chokedamp. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is not oleophobic and/or it is not a magnification is wrong if the fact that it is not a Son is true. sent2: the fact that the sickroom is not a saddle does not hold if it is a kind of an unhappiness. sent3: if that something does osculate mascarpone and it saddles is not true it is not polychromatic. sent4: that something is both not an unhappiness and electrical is not correct if it is oleophobic. sent5: if the snob does not repudiate silage and is not a decentralization it is not Mexican. sent6: if the sickroom does osculate mascarpone that it is polychromatic is true. sent7: something does not repudiate silage and is not a decentralization if it does not repudiate half-cock. sent8: the snob does not repudiate half-cock. sent9: the sickroom is not a kind of an unhappiness if the fact that that the coltsfoot is both not an unhappiness and electrical is not right is right. sent10: if something is not an unhappiness then that it osculates mascarpone and is a saddle does not hold. sent11: The mascarpone osculates sickroom. sent12: the pi is a chokedamp if the sickroom is not a chokedamp and/or it is not polychromatic. sent13: the weaponry is not polychromatic. sent14: the fact that the flat is a kind of unsinkable thing that mouths flat does not hold if the snob is not a Mexican. sent15: if something does osculate mascarpone it is a chokedamp. sent16: if the fact that the Germanist is not oleophobic and/or it is not a magnification is wrong then the coltsfoot is oleophobic. sent17: something that is sinkable is not a Son. sent18: the sickroom osculates mascarpone. sent19: if the sickroom is a saddle or is polychromatic or both the pi is not a chokedamp. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 & sent18 -> int1: the sickroom is polychromatic.; int1 -> int2: the sickroom is a saddle or polychromatic or both.; sent19 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
if the mounding occurs then the battery does not occur.
|
{B} -> ¬{C}
|
sent1: the mouthing xanthine happens if both the westerly and the repressing occurs. sent2: the slam occurs. sent3: that the nihilisticness occurs and the offset occurs leads to that the repudiating hostilities does not occur. sent4: the littleness and the contextualness happens. sent5: both the equivocalness and the four-hitter occurs. sent6: that the battery does not occur is incorrect. sent7: the osculating earshot occurs and the unquietness occurs. sent8: the osculating earshot does not occur if the subjunctiveness happens. sent9: if the refitting occurs the motivationalness happens. sent10: that both the slamming and the mounding occurs prevents that the battery does not occur. sent11: the mouthing Enid occurs. sent12: the osculating earshot does not occur if the daisylikeness occurs. sent13: both the brush-off and the subatomicness occurs. sent14: that the repudiating homonym and the refit happens leads to that the rhyming launcher does not occur. sent15: the Palladianness occurs. sent16: the pericardialness and the postwarness happens. sent17: the fact that the battery happens is not false if the mound happens. sent18: the fact that the repudiating homonym happens hold. sent19: the subatomicness occurs. sent20: the marketing occurs.
|
sent1: ({IM} & {O}) -> {BN} sent2: {A} sent3: ({EQ} & {AB}) -> ¬{AP} sent4: ({F} & {DS}) sent5: ({ER} & {HK}) sent6: {C} sent7: ({GL} & {FQ}) sent8: {BC} -> ¬{GL} sent9: {AS} -> {GS} sent10: ({A} & {B}) -> {C} sent11: {JA} sent12: {FP} -> ¬{GL} sent13: ({EP} & {IQ}) sent14: ({IA} & {AS}) -> ¬{FH} sent15: {EG} sent16: ({GR} & {D}) sent17: {B} -> {C} sent18: {IA} sent19: {IQ} sent20: {GH}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the mounding happens.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the slam happens and the mound occurs.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {B}; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: ({A} & {B});"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | null | 19 | 0 | 19 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = if the mounding occurs then the battery does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the mouthing xanthine happens if both the westerly and the repressing occurs. sent2: the slam occurs. sent3: that the nihilisticness occurs and the offset occurs leads to that the repudiating hostilities does not occur. sent4: the littleness and the contextualness happens. sent5: both the equivocalness and the four-hitter occurs. sent6: that the battery does not occur is incorrect. sent7: the osculating earshot occurs and the unquietness occurs. sent8: the osculating earshot does not occur if the subjunctiveness happens. sent9: if the refitting occurs the motivationalness happens. sent10: that both the slamming and the mounding occurs prevents that the battery does not occur. sent11: the mouthing Enid occurs. sent12: the osculating earshot does not occur if the daisylikeness occurs. sent13: both the brush-off and the subatomicness occurs. sent14: that the repudiating homonym and the refit happens leads to that the rhyming launcher does not occur. sent15: the Palladianness occurs. sent16: the pericardialness and the postwarness happens. sent17: the fact that the battery happens is not false if the mound happens. sent18: the fact that the repudiating homonym happens hold. sent19: the subatomicness occurs. sent20: the marketing occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the mounding happens.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the slam happens and the mound occurs.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the administrativeness and the boomerang happens.
|
({D} & {A})
|
sent1: the stenographicness happens and the administrativeness happens. sent2: the boomerang happens and/or the Shakespearianness happens. sent3: either that the boomeranging does not occur or the Shakespearianness or both prevents that the Ford does not occur.
|
sent1: ({E} & {D}) sent2: ({A} v {B}) sent3: (¬{A} v {B}) -> {C}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the boomeranging does not occur.; assump1 -> int1: the boomeranging does not occur and/or the Shakespearian occurs.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the Ford happens.; sent1 -> int3: the administrativeness occurs.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ¬{A}; assump1 -> int1: (¬{A} v {B}); int1 & sent3 -> int2: {C}; sent1 -> int3: {D};"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 4 | null | 1 | 0 | 1 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the administrativeness and the boomerang happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the stenographicness happens and the administrativeness happens. sent2: the boomerang happens and/or the Shakespearianness happens. sent3: either that the boomeranging does not occur or the Shakespearianness or both prevents that the Ford does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the boomeranging does not occur.; assump1 -> int1: the boomeranging does not occur and/or the Shakespearian occurs.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the Ford happens.; sent1 -> int3: the administrativeness occurs.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
both the rhyming corneum and the mimicry happens.
|
({C} & {B})
|
sent1: if the rhyming corneum does not occur that the mimicry does not occur and the revelation does not occur is not true. sent2: that the dispensableness does not occur and the scalding does not occur does not hold if the revelation happens. sent3: the fact that the bellylessness does not occur and the lumbering does not occur is not correct. sent4: the boot occurs if that the mimicry does not occur and the revelation does not occur is not right. sent5: that the Z happens but the falsification does not occur prevents that the rhyming corneum occurs. sent6: the subatomicness happens if the proving does not occur and the cricketing happens. sent7: the revelation occurs. sent8: both the rhyming corneum and the proving happens. sent9: if the hallucinating occurs the capture occurs.
|
sent1: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{B} & ¬{A}) sent2: {A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent3: ¬(¬{JJ} & ¬{FP}) sent4: ¬(¬{B} & ¬{A}) -> {FJ} sent5: ({H} & ¬{G}) -> ¬{C} sent6: (¬{D} & {E}) -> {AR} sent7: {A} sent8: ({C} & {D}) sent9: {HL} -> {FS}
|
[
"sent2 & sent7 -> int1: that the dispensableness does not occur and the scald does not occur is not right.; sent8 -> int2: the rhyming corneum happens.;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent7 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}); sent8 -> int2: {C};"
] |
the booting happens and the subatomicness occurs.
|
({FJ} & {AR})
|
[] | 5 | 3 | null | 6 | 0 | 6 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = both the rhyming corneum and the mimicry happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if the rhyming corneum does not occur that the mimicry does not occur and the revelation does not occur is not true. sent2: that the dispensableness does not occur and the scalding does not occur does not hold if the revelation happens. sent3: the fact that the bellylessness does not occur and the lumbering does not occur is not correct. sent4: the boot occurs if that the mimicry does not occur and the revelation does not occur is not right. sent5: that the Z happens but the falsification does not occur prevents that the rhyming corneum occurs. sent6: the subatomicness happens if the proving does not occur and the cricketing happens. sent7: the revelation occurs. sent8: both the rhyming corneum and the proving happens. sent9: if the hallucinating occurs the capture occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent7 -> int1: that the dispensableness does not occur and the scald does not occur is not right.; sent8 -> int2: the rhyming corneum happens.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Altaic occurs.
|
{AB}
|
sent1: the fact that not the craze but the haranguing occurs is false if the downstreamness happens. sent2: the craze does not occur. sent3: if the fact that the neologism and the magistracy occurs is not correct then the neologism does not occur. sent4: if the neologism does not occur that the downstreamness happens and the crazing occurs is wrong. sent5: if the crazing does not occur both the roller and the Altaic happens. sent6: if the fact that the crazing does not occur and the haranguing happens is not correct the haranguing does not occur.
|
sent1: {B} -> ¬(¬{A} & {FO}) sent2: ¬{A} sent3: ¬({C} & {D}) -> ¬{C} sent4: ¬{C} -> ¬({B} & {A}) sent5: ¬{A} -> ({AA} & {AB}) sent6: ¬(¬{A} & {FO}) -> ¬{FO}
|
[
"sent5 & sent2 -> int1: the roller happens and the Altaicness happens.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 & sent2 -> int1: ({AA} & {AB}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the Altaic does not occur.
|
¬{AB}
|
[] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the Altaic occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that not the craze but the haranguing occurs is false if the downstreamness happens. sent2: the craze does not occur. sent3: if the fact that the neologism and the magistracy occurs is not correct then the neologism does not occur. sent4: if the neologism does not occur that the downstreamness happens and the crazing occurs is wrong. sent5: if the crazing does not occur both the roller and the Altaic happens. sent6: if the fact that the crazing does not occur and the haranguing happens is not correct the haranguing does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 & sent2 -> int1: the roller happens and the Altaicness happens.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the originator rhymes benefactress and is a flybridge.
|
({C}{a} & {B}{a})
|
sent1: the fact that the benefactress is not a cull is not incorrect. sent2: something is a kind of a BR. sent3: if the benefactress is not a kind of a urbanity and it does not mouth Karelian then the Pathan is infantile. sent4: if something is a BR then the nodule is a kinship. sent5: if the originator is unfaithful it is a flybridge. sent6: the benefactress is not a urbanity and does not mouth Karelian if it is not a kind of a cull. sent7: the benefactress does rhyme benefactress if that the originator is ritualistic is not incorrect. sent8: if the fact that the benefactress is not ritualistic does not hold then the fact that the originator does rhyme benefactress is correct. sent9: something is a flybridge and it is unfaithful if it does not rhyme benefactress. sent10: the benefactress is ritualistic. sent11: the originator is unfaithful. sent12: if that something is not a kinship and is not a kind of a urbanity is wrong it is a kinship. sent13: something is not ritualistic and is unfaithful if it is a kinship. sent14: there is something such that it does mouth Karelian.
|
sent1: ¬{H}{b} sent2: (Ex): {I}x sent3: (¬{G}{b} & ¬{F}{b}) -> {AL}{hk} sent4: (x): {I}x -> {E}{c} sent5: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent6: ¬{H}{b} -> (¬{G}{b} & ¬{F}{b}) sent7: {D}{a} -> {C}{b} sent8: {D}{b} -> {C}{a} sent9: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) sent10: {D}{b} sent11: {A}{a} sent12: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{G}x) -> {E}x sent13: (x): {E}x -> (¬{D}x & {A}x) sent14: (Ex): {F}x
|
[
"sent5 & sent11 -> int1: the originator is a kind of a flybridge.; sent8 & sent10 -> int2: the originator rhymes benefactress.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 & sent11 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent8 & sent10 -> int2: {C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the Pathan is a kind of infantile thing that is a flybridge.
|
({AL}{hk} & {B}{hk})
|
[
"sent6 & sent1 -> int3: the benefactress is not a urbanity and it does not mouth Karelian.; sent3 & int3 -> int4: the Pathan is infantile.; sent9 -> int5: the Pathan is a flybridge and is unfaithful if it does not rhyme benefactress.; sent2 & sent4 -> int6: that the nodule is a kinship is not false.; int6 -> int7: there is something such that the fact that it is not a kinship does not hold.;"
] | 8 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the originator rhymes benefactress and is a flybridge. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the benefactress is not a cull is not incorrect. sent2: something is a kind of a BR. sent3: if the benefactress is not a kind of a urbanity and it does not mouth Karelian then the Pathan is infantile. sent4: if something is a BR then the nodule is a kinship. sent5: if the originator is unfaithful it is a flybridge. sent6: the benefactress is not a urbanity and does not mouth Karelian if it is not a kind of a cull. sent7: the benefactress does rhyme benefactress if that the originator is ritualistic is not incorrect. sent8: if the fact that the benefactress is not ritualistic does not hold then the fact that the originator does rhyme benefactress is correct. sent9: something is a flybridge and it is unfaithful if it does not rhyme benefactress. sent10: the benefactress is ritualistic. sent11: the originator is unfaithful. sent12: if that something is not a kinship and is not a kind of a urbanity is wrong it is a kinship. sent13: something is not ritualistic and is unfaithful if it is a kinship. sent14: there is something such that it does mouth Karelian. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 & sent11 -> int1: the originator is a kind of a flybridge.; sent8 & sent10 -> int2: the originator rhymes benefactress.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the sandarac is noninheritable.
|
¬{D}{b}
|
sent1: if something is not symptomatic or it is not piscine or both then the blueberry is a scarred. sent2: the fact that that the sandarac is an eccentric and is not a totipotency does not hold hold. sent3: there is something such that that it is piscine and it is not inheritable is not right. sent4: if the fact that something is both not a pompano and a totipotency is incorrect then it is inheritable. sent5: if there exists something such that it is symptomatic the fact that the blueberry is not non-piscine and is not sarcastic is incorrect. sent6: that the blueberry is non-piscine and unsarcastic is not true if there exists something such that it is symptomatic. sent7: if there is something such that that it is not inheritable and it is not sarcastic does not hold then the sandarac is not piscine. sent8: if there exists something such that it is sarcastic then the sandarac is not symptomatic or it is not piscine or both. sent9: the authorizer is not inheritable. sent10: the blueberry is not inheritable if there exists something such that that it is not piscine and it is not sarcastic is not true. sent11: if the fact that something is sarcastic and is a pompano is not right it is not piscine. sent12: that the sandarac is not piscine is not incorrect. sent13: if there is something such that that it is noninheritable thing that is not piscine does not hold then the sandarac is not sarcastic. sent14: the sandarac is not inheritable if there is something such that that it is not piscine and not sarcastic does not hold. sent15: something is non-piscine and noninheritable. sent16: if there exists something such that it is piscine then the sandarac is not inheritable. sent17: there exists something such that the fact that it is not piscine and is inheritable is not correct. sent18: there is something such that the fact that it is unsarcastic thing that is not inheritable is not correct. sent19: there is something such that that it is not symptomatic is not correct. sent20: that the vestment is not a pompano but it is a totipotency is wrong. sent21: that the blueberry is inheritable and not piscine is incorrect. sent22: there is something such that the fact that it is not inheritable and is unsarcastic is not true.
|
sent1: (x): (¬{A}x v ¬{B}x) -> {G}{a} sent2: ¬({CK}{b} & ¬{F}{b}) sent3: (Ex): ¬({B}x & ¬{D}x) sent4: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & {F}x) -> {D}x sent5: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent6: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent7: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{B}{b} sent8: (x): {C}x -> (¬{A}{b} v ¬{B}{b}) sent9: ¬{D}{jk} sent10: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{D}{a} sent11: (x): ¬({C}x & {E}x) -> ¬{B}x sent12: ¬{B}{b} sent13: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{C}{b} sent14: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{D}{b} sent15: (Ex): (¬{B}x & ¬{D}x) sent16: (x): {B}x -> ¬{D}{b} sent17: (Ex): ¬(¬{B}x & {D}x) sent18: (Ex): ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{D}x) sent19: (Ex): {A}x sent20: ¬(¬{E}{c} & {F}{c}) sent21: ¬({D}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent22: (Ex): ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{C}x)
|
[
"sent19 & sent6 -> int1: that the blueberry is not piscine and it is not sarcastic is not true.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that that it is not piscine and it is not sarcastic is wrong.; int2 & sent14 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent19 & sent6 -> int1: ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{C}x); int2 & sent14 -> hypothesis;"
] |
something is a scarred.
|
(Ex): {G}x
|
[
"sent4 -> int3: the vestment is inheritable if the fact that it is not a pompano and is a totipotency does not hold.; int3 & sent20 -> int4: the vestment is inheritable.;"
] | 8 | 3 | 3 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the sandarac is noninheritable. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not symptomatic or it is not piscine or both then the blueberry is a scarred. sent2: the fact that that the sandarac is an eccentric and is not a totipotency does not hold hold. sent3: there is something such that that it is piscine and it is not inheritable is not right. sent4: if the fact that something is both not a pompano and a totipotency is incorrect then it is inheritable. sent5: if there exists something such that it is symptomatic the fact that the blueberry is not non-piscine and is not sarcastic is incorrect. sent6: that the blueberry is non-piscine and unsarcastic is not true if there exists something such that it is symptomatic. sent7: if there is something such that that it is not inheritable and it is not sarcastic does not hold then the sandarac is not piscine. sent8: if there exists something such that it is sarcastic then the sandarac is not symptomatic or it is not piscine or both. sent9: the authorizer is not inheritable. sent10: the blueberry is not inheritable if there exists something such that that it is not piscine and it is not sarcastic is not true. sent11: if the fact that something is sarcastic and is a pompano is not right it is not piscine. sent12: that the sandarac is not piscine is not incorrect. sent13: if there is something such that that it is noninheritable thing that is not piscine does not hold then the sandarac is not sarcastic. sent14: the sandarac is not inheritable if there is something such that that it is not piscine and not sarcastic does not hold. sent15: something is non-piscine and noninheritable. sent16: if there exists something such that it is piscine then the sandarac is not inheritable. sent17: there exists something such that the fact that it is not piscine and is inheritable is not correct. sent18: there is something such that the fact that it is unsarcastic thing that is not inheritable is not correct. sent19: there is something such that that it is not symptomatic is not correct. sent20: that the vestment is not a pompano but it is a totipotency is wrong. sent21: that the blueberry is inheritable and not piscine is incorrect. sent22: there is something such that the fact that it is not inheritable and is unsarcastic is not true. ; $proof$ =
|
sent19 & sent6 -> int1: that the blueberry is not piscine and it is not sarcastic is not true.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that that it is not piscine and it is not sarcastic is wrong.; int2 & sent14 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the Gore is not Levitical but it does osculate cutting is not correct.
|
¬(¬{C}{c} & {A}{c})
|
sent1: the poppet is not a Dalmatian. sent2: the poi is a lengthiness that broaches. sent3: something that is not a rut is a kind of Levitical thing that osculates Albuquerque. sent4: the hyaloplasm is not a manglietia and it is not a rut if the planter is phonogramic. sent5: if the planter does not osculate Albuquerque that the Gore is not Levitical and osculates cutting is incorrect. sent6: if something does osculate Albuquerque it does osculate cutting. sent7: the fact that the Gore is Levitical and it does mouth siltstone is incorrect if the planter does not osculate Albuquerque. sent8: the fact that the hyaloplasm is both phonogramic and not a rut does not hold if the planter is not a manglietia. sent9: that something is not systolic and/or is not a kind of a toxicognath if it does not repudiate Symplocarpus is not false. sent10: the fact that the hyaloplasm does not mouth siltstone or it does not mouth incapability or both is false. sent11: the planter does not osculate Albuquerque if that the hyaloplasm does mouth siltstone and/or does not mouth incapability is wrong. sent12: the Gore does not drive and is a kind of a vitrification if the poppet is non-Dalmatian. sent13: if something is not systolic and/or is not a kind of a toxicognath then it is not a toxicognath. sent14: the planter is not a kind of a manglietia if there is something such that the fact that it does pursue and is a manglietia is false. sent15: if the Gore is not a toxicognath and it does not broach the planter is not a toxicognath. sent16: the poi is not a toxicognath. sent17: that something pursues and it is a manglietia is wrong if it is not a kind of a toxicognath. sent18: the Gore does not broach if the poi is a lengthiness and broach. sent19: the fact that that something does not engulf or it is not lentic or both does not hold if the fact that it does not osculate cutting is not right is correct. sent20: if the hyaloplasm is not a manglietia and it does not rut the coldness is not a rut. sent21: if the Gore is not a drive but it is a vitrification then it does not repudiate Symplocarpus. sent22: if something is not a kind of a toxicognath it does pursue and is phonogramic.
|
sent1: ¬{O}{e} sent2: ({K}{d} & {J}{d}) sent3: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({C}x & {B}x) sent4: {E}{b} -> (¬{F}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent5: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬(¬{C}{c} & {A}{c}) sent6: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent7: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬({C}{c} & {AA}{c}) sent8: ¬{F}{b} -> ¬({E}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent9: (x): ¬{L}x -> (¬{I}x v ¬{H}x) sent10: ¬(¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent11: ¬({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent12: ¬{O}{e} -> (¬{N}{c} & {M}{c}) sent13: (x): (¬{I}x v ¬{H}x) -> ¬{H}x sent14: (x): ¬({G}x & {F}x) -> ¬{F}{b} sent15: (¬{H}{c} & ¬{J}{c}) -> ¬{H}{b} sent16: ¬{H}{d} sent17: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬({G}x & {F}x) sent18: ({K}{d} & {J}{d}) -> ¬{J}{c} sent19: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{DB}x v ¬{FH}x) sent20: (¬{F}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) -> ¬{D}{ho} sent21: (¬{N}{c} & {M}{c}) -> ¬{L}{c} sent22: (x): ¬{H}x -> ({G}x & {E}x)
|
[] |
[] |
that the coldness either does not engulf or is not lentic or both does not hold.
|
¬(¬{DB}{ho} v ¬{FH}{ho})
|
[
"sent19 -> int1: if the coldness osculates cutting then that it does not engulf or is not lentic or both is wrong.; sent6 -> int2: that the coldness does osculate cutting is true if it osculates Albuquerque.; sent3 -> int3: the coldness is Levitical and it does osculate Albuquerque if it is not a rut.; sent22 -> int4: if the planter is not a kind of a toxicognath it does pursue and it is phonogramic.; sent13 -> int5: the Gore is not a toxicognath if it is not systolic or it is not a kind of a toxicognath or both.; sent9 -> int6: if the Gore does not repudiate Symplocarpus it is not systolic or it is not a toxicognath or both.; sent12 & sent1 -> int7: the Gore is not a kind of a drive but it is a vitrification.; sent21 & int7 -> int8: the fact that the Gore does not repudiate Symplocarpus is not incorrect.; int6 & int8 -> int9: the Gore is non-systolic and/or it is not a kind of a toxicognath.; int5 & int9 -> int10: the Gore is not a kind of a toxicognath.; sent18 & sent2 -> int11: the Gore does not broach.; int10 & int11 -> int12: the Gore is not a toxicognath and it does not broach.; sent15 & int12 -> int13: the planter is not a toxicognath.; int4 & int13 -> int14: the planter pursues and it is phonogramic.; int14 -> int15: the planter is phonogramic.; sent4 & int15 -> int16: the hyaloplasm is not a manglietia and it is not a rut.; sent20 & int16 -> int17: the coldness does not rut.; int3 & int17 -> int18: the fact that the coldness is not non-Levitical and it does osculate Albuquerque is true.; int18 -> int19: the coldness osculates Albuquerque.; int2 & int19 -> int20: the coldness does osculate cutting.; int1 & int20 -> hypothesis;"
] | 14 | 2 | null | 20 | 0 | 20 |
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the Gore is not Levitical but it does osculate cutting is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the poppet is not a Dalmatian. sent2: the poi is a lengthiness that broaches. sent3: something that is not a rut is a kind of Levitical thing that osculates Albuquerque. sent4: the hyaloplasm is not a manglietia and it is not a rut if the planter is phonogramic. sent5: if the planter does not osculate Albuquerque that the Gore is not Levitical and osculates cutting is incorrect. sent6: if something does osculate Albuquerque it does osculate cutting. sent7: the fact that the Gore is Levitical and it does mouth siltstone is incorrect if the planter does not osculate Albuquerque. sent8: the fact that the hyaloplasm is both phonogramic and not a rut does not hold if the planter is not a manglietia. sent9: that something is not systolic and/or is not a kind of a toxicognath if it does not repudiate Symplocarpus is not false. sent10: the fact that the hyaloplasm does not mouth siltstone or it does not mouth incapability or both is false. sent11: the planter does not osculate Albuquerque if that the hyaloplasm does mouth siltstone and/or does not mouth incapability is wrong. sent12: the Gore does not drive and is a kind of a vitrification if the poppet is non-Dalmatian. sent13: if something is not systolic and/or is not a kind of a toxicognath then it is not a toxicognath. sent14: the planter is not a kind of a manglietia if there is something such that the fact that it does pursue and is a manglietia is false. sent15: if the Gore is not a toxicognath and it does not broach the planter is not a toxicognath. sent16: the poi is not a toxicognath. sent17: that something pursues and it is a manglietia is wrong if it is not a kind of a toxicognath. sent18: the Gore does not broach if the poi is a lengthiness and broach. sent19: the fact that that something does not engulf or it is not lentic or both does not hold if the fact that it does not osculate cutting is not right is correct. sent20: if the hyaloplasm is not a manglietia and it does not rut the coldness is not a rut. sent21: if the Gore is not a drive but it is a vitrification then it does not repudiate Symplocarpus. sent22: if something is not a kind of a toxicognath it does pursue and is phonogramic. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the trioxide does rhyme incapability.
|
{D}{b}
|
sent1: that the dockside is a kind of a necktie but it is not a prickliness does not hold if it is a slider. sent2: if there exists something such that it is a slider that the horseleech is structural but it is not a prickliness is false. sent3: if that the horseleech is structural thing that is not a prickliness is not right then the trioxide does rhyme incapability.
|
sent1: {A}{aj} -> ¬({P}{aj} & ¬{B}{aj}) sent2: (x): {A}x -> ¬({C}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent3: ¬({C}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> {D}{b}
|
[] |
[] |
that the dockside is a kind of a necktie but it is not a kind of a prickliness does not hold.
|
¬({P}{aj} & ¬{B}{aj})
|
[] | 5 | 3 | null | 1 | 0 | 1 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the trioxide does rhyme incapability. ; $context$ = sent1: that the dockside is a kind of a necktie but it is not a prickliness does not hold if it is a slider. sent2: if there exists something such that it is a slider that the horseleech is structural but it is not a prickliness is false. sent3: if that the horseleech is structural thing that is not a prickliness is not right then the trioxide does rhyme incapability. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Athapaskan does mouth meerkat and is not a Rotarian.
|
({C}{c} & ¬{E}{c})
|
sent1: The hospitableness rhymes gloxinia. sent2: the gloxinia rhymes hospitableness. sent3: if something is a dibucaine then it does not mouth converse. sent4: the gloxinia is aposiopetic. sent5: if the neolith does not mouth meerkat the Athapaskan does mouth meerkat and is not a kind of a Rotarian. sent6: everything is a kind of a dibucaine. sent7: if the gloxinia does rhyme hospitableness and it is aposiopetic then the neolith does not mouth meerkat.
|
sent1: {AA}{aa} sent2: {A}{a} sent3: (x): {G}x -> ¬{F}x sent4: {B}{a} sent5: ¬{C}{b} -> ({C}{c} & ¬{E}{c}) sent6: (x): {G}x sent7: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b}
|
[
"sent2 & sent4 -> int1: that the gloxinia rhymes hospitableness and is aposiopetic hold.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: the neolith does not mouth meerkat.; int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent4 -> int1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}); int1 & sent7 -> int2: ¬{C}{b}; int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the staphylococcus is a Rotarian and does not osculate saprolite.
|
({E}{hc} & ¬{HB}{hc})
|
[
"sent3 -> int3: if the neolith is a dibucaine it does not mouth converse.; sent6 -> int4: the neolith is a kind of a dibucaine.; int3 & int4 -> int5: that the neolith does not mouth converse is not wrong.; int5 -> int6: everything does not mouth converse.; int6 -> int7: the gloxinia does not mouth converse.;"
] | 9 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the Athapaskan does mouth meerkat and is not a Rotarian. ; $context$ = sent1: The hospitableness rhymes gloxinia. sent2: the gloxinia rhymes hospitableness. sent3: if something is a dibucaine then it does not mouth converse. sent4: the gloxinia is aposiopetic. sent5: if the neolith does not mouth meerkat the Athapaskan does mouth meerkat and is not a kind of a Rotarian. sent6: everything is a kind of a dibucaine. sent7: if the gloxinia does rhyme hospitableness and it is aposiopetic then the neolith does not mouth meerkat. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent4 -> int1: that the gloxinia rhymes hospitableness and is aposiopetic hold.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: the neolith does not mouth meerkat.; int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the mouthing MPEG does not occur.
|
¬{C}
|
sent1: the constructiveness happens. sent2: that the hedging occurs is prevented by that the sanitariness happens and the insecticidalness occurs. sent3: if the insecticidalness happens and the auspicating happens the entertaining does not occur. sent4: the mouthing tobacco does not occur if the cards does not occur and/or the repudiating Suillus does not occur. sent5: the entertaining happens. sent6: if the entertaining does not occur that the iridectomy does not occur and the deformationalness does not occur does not hold. sent7: the auspicating happens if that the auspicating does not occur and the sobering occurs is incorrect. sent8: the tournament does not occur. sent9: the insecticidalness happens and the auspicating occurs if the mouthing tobacco does not occur. sent10: the cantillation and the massage occurs. sent11: the entertaining does not occur and the mouthing MPEG does not occur if the auspicating occurs. sent12: if the tournament does not occur then both the carding and the repudiating Suillus happens. sent13: the cleaning happens and the osculating nontricyclic does not occur if the Labor happens. sent14: if the osculating nontricyclic does not occur the fact that the tournament does not occur and the sobering does not occur is correct. sent15: that the repudiating Suillus does not occur is caused by the non-soberness. sent16: if that the iridectomy does not occur and the deformationalness does not occur is false then the deformationalness occurs. sent17: the iridectomy happens.
|
sent1: {HI} sent2: ({FT} & {E}) -> ¬{FS} sent3: ({E} & {D}) -> ¬{B} sent4: (¬{H} v ¬{G}) -> ¬{F} sent5: {B} sent6: ¬{B} -> ¬(¬{A} & ¬{IL}) sent7: ¬(¬{D} & {I}) -> {D} sent8: ¬{J} sent9: ¬{F} -> ({E} & {D}) sent10: ({AF} & {IG}) sent11: {D} -> (¬{B} & ¬{C}) sent12: ¬{J} -> ({H} & {G}) sent13: {M} -> ({L} & ¬{K}) sent14: ¬{K} -> (¬{J} & ¬{I}) sent15: ¬{I} -> ¬{G} sent16: ¬(¬{A} & ¬{IL}) -> {IL} sent17: {A}
|
[
"sent17 & sent5 -> int1: the iridectomy occurs and the entertaining occurs.;"
] |
[
"sent17 & sent5 -> int1: ({A} & {B});"
] |
that the mouthing MPEG happens hold.
|
{C}
|
[
"sent12 & sent8 -> int2: the cards and the repudiating Suillus occurs.; int2 -> int3: the repudiating Suillus happens.;"
] | 8 | 2 | null | 15 | 0 | 15 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the mouthing MPEG does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the constructiveness happens. sent2: that the hedging occurs is prevented by that the sanitariness happens and the insecticidalness occurs. sent3: if the insecticidalness happens and the auspicating happens the entertaining does not occur. sent4: the mouthing tobacco does not occur if the cards does not occur and/or the repudiating Suillus does not occur. sent5: the entertaining happens. sent6: if the entertaining does not occur that the iridectomy does not occur and the deformationalness does not occur does not hold. sent7: the auspicating happens if that the auspicating does not occur and the sobering occurs is incorrect. sent8: the tournament does not occur. sent9: the insecticidalness happens and the auspicating occurs if the mouthing tobacco does not occur. sent10: the cantillation and the massage occurs. sent11: the entertaining does not occur and the mouthing MPEG does not occur if the auspicating occurs. sent12: if the tournament does not occur then both the carding and the repudiating Suillus happens. sent13: the cleaning happens and the osculating nontricyclic does not occur if the Labor happens. sent14: if the osculating nontricyclic does not occur the fact that the tournament does not occur and the sobering does not occur is correct. sent15: that the repudiating Suillus does not occur is caused by the non-soberness. sent16: if that the iridectomy does not occur and the deformationalness does not occur is false then the deformationalness occurs. sent17: the iridectomy happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent17 & sent5 -> int1: the iridectomy occurs and the entertaining occurs.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the taximeter is a kind of a wart but it does not repine is false.
|
¬({B}{c} & ¬{A}{c})
|
sent1: the pajama is not a wart. sent2: either the pajama is avionics or it is non-microelectronics or both. sent3: the fact that something repines and is not meretricious is not true if it is not an agnostic. sent4: if the upset is not a kind of a wart the fact that the pajama is a wart but it is not microelectronics is false. sent5: that the taximeter is a wart that repines is not right if the upset is not a wart. sent6: the fact that the upset does repine and is not a wart does not hold. sent7: that the pajama is microelectronics and/or does not repine is true. sent8: the fact that the upset is both a wart and not avionics is wrong. sent9: the fact that the pajama is a wart but it is not avionics is wrong. sent10: the upset is not microelectronics. sent11: the pajama does not repine if the taximeter is avionics and/or it is not a wart. sent12: that the taximeter is a wart and does not repine does not hold if the upset is not a kind of a wart. sent13: the fact that if the fact that something does repine and is not meretricious does not hold then it does not repine is correct. sent14: the taximeter is both windward and a wart if there exists something such that it is not a Swiss. sent15: if the pajama is not a wart then that the taximeter is a wart but it is not microelectronics does not hold. sent16: the pajama is avionics and/or it is microelectronics. sent17: the fact that the taximeter is a kind of a wart that does repine is not right. sent18: that the upset is a tracheid and is not microelectronics does not hold. sent19: if the pajama is not microelectronics the upset is not a wart. sent20: the procurator is not microelectronics. sent21: the fact that the upset is avionics and not a wart does not hold. sent22: everything is not an agnostic.
|
sent1: ¬{B}{a} sent2: ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent3: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬({A}x & ¬{E}x) sent4: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬({B}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent5: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬({B}{c} & {A}{c}) sent6: ¬({A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent7: ({AB}{a} v ¬{A}{a}) sent8: ¬({B}{b} & ¬{AA}{b}) sent9: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{AA}{a}) sent10: ¬{AB}{b} sent11: ({AA}{c} v ¬{B}{c}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent12: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬({B}{c} & ¬{A}{c}) sent13: (x): ¬({A}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{A}x sent14: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({C}{c} & {B}{c}) sent15: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬({B}{c} & ¬{AB}{c}) sent16: ({AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent17: ¬({B}{c} & {A}{c}) sent18: ¬({AQ}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent19: ¬{AB}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent20: ¬{AB}{is} sent21: ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent22: (x): ¬{F}x
|
[] |
[] |
the taximeter is a wart that does not repine.
|
({B}{c} & ¬{A}{c})
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: if the pajama is not a kind of an agnostic then that it does repine and it is not meretricious does not hold.; sent22 -> int2: the pajama is not a kind of an agnostic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the pajama does repine and is not meretricious does not hold.; int3 -> int4: there exists nothing such that it does repine and is not meretricious.; int4 -> int5: the fact that the fact that the taximeter does repine but it is not meretricious is not false is wrong.; sent13 -> int6: the taximeter does not repine if the fact that it does repine and it is not meretricious is not true.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the taximeter does not repine.;"
] | 6 | 2 | null | 20 | 0 | 20 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the taximeter is a kind of a wart but it does not repine is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the pajama is not a wart. sent2: either the pajama is avionics or it is non-microelectronics or both. sent3: the fact that something repines and is not meretricious is not true if it is not an agnostic. sent4: if the upset is not a kind of a wart the fact that the pajama is a wart but it is not microelectronics is false. sent5: that the taximeter is a wart that repines is not right if the upset is not a wart. sent6: the fact that the upset does repine and is not a wart does not hold. sent7: that the pajama is microelectronics and/or does not repine is true. sent8: the fact that the upset is both a wart and not avionics is wrong. sent9: the fact that the pajama is a wart but it is not avionics is wrong. sent10: the upset is not microelectronics. sent11: the pajama does not repine if the taximeter is avionics and/or it is not a wart. sent12: that the taximeter is a wart and does not repine does not hold if the upset is not a kind of a wart. sent13: the fact that if the fact that something does repine and is not meretricious does not hold then it does not repine is correct. sent14: the taximeter is both windward and a wart if there exists something such that it is not a Swiss. sent15: if the pajama is not a wart then that the taximeter is a wart but it is not microelectronics does not hold. sent16: the pajama is avionics and/or it is microelectronics. sent17: the fact that the taximeter is a kind of a wart that does repine is not right. sent18: that the upset is a tracheid and is not microelectronics does not hold. sent19: if the pajama is not microelectronics the upset is not a wart. sent20: the procurator is not microelectronics. sent21: the fact that the upset is avionics and not a wart does not hold. sent22: everything is not an agnostic. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if it is not unlike then it does not osculate unpersuasiveness and/or does mouth friendship.
|
(Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x v {AB}x)
|
sent1: if the doily is hornless then it does not rhyme breakage and/or it does osculate unpersuasiveness. sent2: there exists something such that if it is not unlike the fact that either it does osculate unpersuasiveness or it mouths friendship or both is right. sent3: if something does not mouth friendship it is not a braggadocio or it is nomothetic or both. sent4: if the sailcloth is not unlike it does not osculate unpersuasiveness or it mouths friendship or both.
|
sent1: {EJ}{en} -> (¬{DH}{en} v {AA}{en}) sent2: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x v {AB}x) sent3: (x): ¬{AB}x -> (¬{FT}x v {FH}x) sent4: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa})
|
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
if the fact that the Taiwanese does not mouth friendship is not wrong then it is not a braggadocio and/or it is nomothetic.
|
¬{AB}{ft} -> (¬{FT}{ft} v {FH}{ft})
|
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is not unlike then it does not osculate unpersuasiveness and/or does mouth friendship. ; $context$ = sent1: if the doily is hornless then it does not rhyme breakage and/or it does osculate unpersuasiveness. sent2: there exists something such that if it is not unlike the fact that either it does osculate unpersuasiveness or it mouths friendship or both is right. sent3: if something does not mouth friendship it is not a braggadocio or it is nomothetic or both. sent4: if the sailcloth is not unlike it does not osculate unpersuasiveness or it mouths friendship or both. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the passiveness does not occur.
|
¬{D}
|
sent1: both the cold and the rhyming on-license happens. sent2: if both the Draconianness and the maliciousness happens the centerfield does not occur. sent3: the butyricness occurs. sent4: the throw-in occurs. sent5: the cold occurs. sent6: if that the butyricness happens is not incorrect then the rhyming instantiation occurs. sent7: the Stoicness occurs if the peripteralness does not occur. sent8: if the valetudinarian happens then the integration occurs. sent9: the prompting occurs if the Draconianness does not occur. sent10: if both the rhyming instantiation and the Stoic happens the passive does not occur. sent11: either the temperament happens or the peripteralness does not occur or both. sent12: if the fact that the temperament occurs hold then the Stoic happens. sent13: if that the peripteralness occurs and the Stoic occurs does not hold that the Stoic does not occur is right. sent14: the Hasidicness happens or the dunk does not occur or both.
|
sent1: ({AB} & {CB}) sent2: ({BF} & {HR}) -> ¬{ET} sent3: {A} sent4: {HH} sent5: {AB} sent6: {A} -> {B} sent7: ¬{E} -> {C} sent8: {AT} -> {CI} sent9: ¬{BF} -> {CK} sent10: ({B} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent11: ({F} v ¬{E}) sent12: {F} -> {C} sent13: ¬({E} & {C}) -> ¬{C} sent14: ({EF} v ¬{DT})
|
[
"sent6 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the rhyming instantiation happens is right.; sent11 & sent12 & sent7 -> int2: the fact that the Stoic does not occur does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the rhyming instantiation and the Stoicness happens.; int3 & sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 & sent3 -> int1: {B}; sent11 & sent12 & sent7 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({B} & {C}); int3 & sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the passiveness occurs hold.
|
{D}
|
[] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the passiveness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: both the cold and the rhyming on-license happens. sent2: if both the Draconianness and the maliciousness happens the centerfield does not occur. sent3: the butyricness occurs. sent4: the throw-in occurs. sent5: the cold occurs. sent6: if that the butyricness happens is not incorrect then the rhyming instantiation occurs. sent7: the Stoicness occurs if the peripteralness does not occur. sent8: if the valetudinarian happens then the integration occurs. sent9: the prompting occurs if the Draconianness does not occur. sent10: if both the rhyming instantiation and the Stoic happens the passive does not occur. sent11: either the temperament happens or the peripteralness does not occur or both. sent12: if the fact that the temperament occurs hold then the Stoic happens. sent13: if that the peripteralness occurs and the Stoic occurs does not hold that the Stoic does not occur is right. sent14: the Hasidicness happens or the dunk does not occur or both. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the rhyming instantiation happens is right.; sent11 & sent12 & sent7 -> int2: the fact that the Stoic does not occur does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the rhyming instantiation and the Stoicness happens.; int3 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the colonialist is not fissile.
|
¬{B}{c}
|
sent1: that the elbow does mouth words and it is fissile does not hold. sent2: if the fact that the elbow does osculate flintlock and it overbids does not hold the fact that the arrival does not mouth words hold. sent3: The words does not mouth elbow. sent4: that the arrival is fissile and is a kind of a overbid is wrong. sent5: if the fact that the fact that the arrival is a kind of a overbid that does osculate flintlock is right does not hold the colonialist is not fissile. sent6: the elbow does not mouth words. sent7: the piperacillin does not mouth words. sent8: the colonialist does not osculate flintlock.
|
sent1: ¬({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent2: ¬({AB}{a} & {AA}{a}) -> ¬{A}{b} sent3: ¬{AC}{aa} sent4: ¬({B}{b} & {AA}{b}) sent5: ¬({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{c} sent6: ¬{A}{a} sent7: ¬{A}{an} sent8: ¬{AB}{c}
|
[] |
[] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | null | 6 | 0 | 6 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the colonialist is not fissile. ; $context$ = sent1: that the elbow does mouth words and it is fissile does not hold. sent2: if the fact that the elbow does osculate flintlock and it overbids does not hold the fact that the arrival does not mouth words hold. sent3: The words does not mouth elbow. sent4: that the arrival is fissile and is a kind of a overbid is wrong. sent5: if the fact that the fact that the arrival is a kind of a overbid that does osculate flintlock is right does not hold the colonialist is not fissile. sent6: the elbow does not mouth words. sent7: the piperacillin does not mouth words. sent8: the colonialist does not osculate flintlock. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the textbook is not diachronic.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
sent1: the asserter is not a navigator if that the top is either not non-Manx or not zodiacal or both does not hold. sent2: the top is a aztreonam if there is something such that that it is not a kind of a babel and resolves does not hold. sent3: the textbook is not diachronic if there is something such that either it does sound or it does not mouth sojourner or both. sent4: if that the asserter either is not a Manx or is not zodiacal or both is wrong it is a navigator. sent5: if something is a aztreonam that that either it is a Manx or it is not zodiacal or both hold does not hold. sent6: the torrent is a sounding and/or mouths sojourner. sent7: the ctene is a kind of a wilding if there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a wilding and is not a freeze does not hold. sent8: the Colbert is negligent if the textbook is non-diachronic thing that does mouth USACIL. sent9: if something is not a kind of a cenobite then that it is not a wilding and it is not a freeze is incorrect. sent10: the fact that something is not diachronic and mouths USACIL is not true if it is not a navigator. sent11: that the ctene is not a kind of a babel but it resolves is wrong if it is wilding. sent12: that the swan is not a first-rater and is not hooflike is not correct if it rhymes botanical. sent13: if the fact that the swan is not a first-rater and it is not hooflike does not hold it is not a cenobite. sent14: the swan rhymes botanical.
|
sent1: ¬({E}{c} v ¬{D}{c}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent2: (x): ¬(¬{G}x & {H}x) -> {F}{c} sent3: (x): ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent4: ¬(¬{E}{b} v ¬{D}{b}) -> {C}{b} sent5: (x): {F}x -> ¬({E}x v ¬{D}x) sent6: ({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent7: (x): ¬(¬{I}x & ¬{K}x) -> {I}{d} sent8: (¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> {HI}{dd} sent9: (x): ¬{J}x -> ¬(¬{I}x & ¬{K}x) sent10: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & {B}x) sent11: {I}{d} -> ¬(¬{G}{d} & {H}{d}) sent12: {N}{e} -> ¬(¬{M}{e} & ¬{L}{e}) sent13: ¬(¬{M}{e} & ¬{L}{e}) -> ¬{J}{e} sent14: {N}{e}
|
[] |
[] |
the textbook is diachronic.
|
{A}{a}
|
[
"sent10 -> int1: if the asserter is not a kind of a navigator that it is not diachronic and does mouth USACIL is incorrect.; sent5 -> int2: that the top is a kind of a Manx and/or it is non-zodiacal is wrong if it is a aztreonam.; sent9 -> int3: the fact that the swan is not a kind of a wilding and is not a freeze does not hold if it is not a kind of a cenobite.; sent12 & sent14 -> int4: that the swan is not a first-rater and not hooflike does not hold.; sent13 & int4 -> int5: the swan is not a cenobite.; int3 & int5 -> int6: that the swan is not a wilding and it is not a kind of a freeze does not hold.; int6 -> int7: there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a wilding and does not freeze is incorrect.; int7 & sent7 -> int8: the ctene is a wilding.; sent11 & int8 -> int9: that the ctene is not a babel but it resolves is incorrect.; int9 -> int10: there is something such that that it is not a babel and it does resolve is incorrect.; int10 & sent2 -> int11: the top is a aztreonam.; int2 & int11 -> int12: the fact that either the top is a Manx or it is not zodiacal or both is incorrect.; sent1 & int12 -> int13: the asserter is not a navigator.; int1 & int13 -> int14: that the asserter is not diachronic and mouths USACIL is incorrect.; int14 -> int15: there exists something such that the fact that it is not diachronic and it mouths USACIL is false.;"
] | 13 | 2 | null | 13 | 0 | 13 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the textbook is not diachronic. ; $context$ = sent1: the asserter is not a navigator if that the top is either not non-Manx or not zodiacal or both does not hold. sent2: the top is a aztreonam if there is something such that that it is not a kind of a babel and resolves does not hold. sent3: the textbook is not diachronic if there is something such that either it does sound or it does not mouth sojourner or both. sent4: if that the asserter either is not a Manx or is not zodiacal or both is wrong it is a navigator. sent5: if something is a aztreonam that that either it is a Manx or it is not zodiacal or both hold does not hold. sent6: the torrent is a sounding and/or mouths sojourner. sent7: the ctene is a kind of a wilding if there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a wilding and is not a freeze does not hold. sent8: the Colbert is negligent if the textbook is non-diachronic thing that does mouth USACIL. sent9: if something is not a kind of a cenobite then that it is not a wilding and it is not a freeze is incorrect. sent10: the fact that something is not diachronic and mouths USACIL is not true if it is not a navigator. sent11: that the ctene is not a kind of a babel but it resolves is wrong if it is wilding. sent12: that the swan is not a first-rater and is not hooflike is not correct if it rhymes botanical. sent13: if the fact that the swan is not a first-rater and it is not hooflike does not hold it is not a cenobite. sent14: the swan rhymes botanical. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there exists something such that the fact that it is not a raptor and it is not nontaxable is not true is not correct.
|
¬((Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x))
|
sent1: the fact that that the piolet is not a kind of a raptor but it is nontaxable is not right is right. sent2: there is something such that that it does osculate turned and it is not nontaxable is false. sent3: if the fact that the piolet is nontaxable hold then the fact that the mansard is not a raptor but it does osculate turned is incorrect. sent4: The turned does osculate mansard. sent5: there is something such that that it is extragalactic and it does not mouth mansard is not true. sent6: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a raptor and does osculate turned does not hold. sent7: the fact that the piolet is not a raptor and is not nontaxable does not hold if the mansard does osculate turned. sent8: the mansard does osculate turned. sent9: there is something such that that it masquerades and does not bank does not hold. sent10: there exists something such that it is not a raptor and it is taxable. sent11: there is something such that that it is a kind of a Prussian and is not coccal does not hold. sent12: the fact that the piolet is a kind of a raptor but it is not nontaxable is incorrect if the mansard does osculate turned. sent13: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a raptor and it does not osculate turned does not hold.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent2: (Ex): ¬({A}x & ¬{AB}x) sent3: {AB}{b} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {A}{a}) sent4: {AC}{aa} sent5: (Ex): ¬({HE}x & ¬{HN}x) sent6: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {A}x) sent7: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent8: {A}{a} sent9: (Ex): ¬({FE}x & ¬{FI}x) sent10: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent11: (Ex): ¬({BD}x & ¬{ES}x) sent12: {A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent13: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{A}x)
|
[
"sent7 & sent8 -> int1: that the piolet is not a raptor and not nontaxable does not hold.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent7 & sent8 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that the fact that it is not a raptor and it is not nontaxable is not true is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that that the piolet is not a kind of a raptor but it is nontaxable is not right is right. sent2: there is something such that that it does osculate turned and it is not nontaxable is false. sent3: if the fact that the piolet is nontaxable hold then the fact that the mansard is not a raptor but it does osculate turned is incorrect. sent4: The turned does osculate mansard. sent5: there is something such that that it is extragalactic and it does not mouth mansard is not true. sent6: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a raptor and does osculate turned does not hold. sent7: the fact that the piolet is not a raptor and is not nontaxable does not hold if the mansard does osculate turned. sent8: the mansard does osculate turned. sent9: there is something such that that it masquerades and does not bank does not hold. sent10: there exists something such that it is not a raptor and it is taxable. sent11: there is something such that that it is a kind of a Prussian and is not coccal does not hold. sent12: the fact that the piolet is a kind of a raptor but it is not nontaxable is incorrect if the mansard does osculate turned. sent13: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a raptor and it does not osculate turned does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 & sent8 -> int1: that the piolet is not a raptor and not nontaxable does not hold.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the crematory is a berry.
|
{A}{b}
|
sent1: that the antiaircraft is not a kind of a taro but it is a fib is wrong if the short is not a berry. sent2: the fact that the short is not a horseleech but it does kill does not hold. sent3: the fact that something is not a kind of a berry is correct if the fact that it is a kind of a Pawnee and it does berry is not true. sent4: that the short is not a horseleech but it is a kind of a Pawnee is false. sent5: the crematory is a kind of a berry if it is a Pawnee. sent6: the fact that the crematory is a Turkmen and does invest does not hold. sent7: if the short is a horseleech then the crematory is a Pawnee. sent8: the fact that the Norinyl is not synoptic is correct.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{HC}{bo} & {AE}{bo}) sent2: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent3: (x): ¬({B}x & {A}x) -> ¬{A}x sent4: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {B}{a}) sent5: {B}{b} -> {A}{b} sent6: ¬({IJ}{b} & {BM}{b}) sent7: {AA}{a} -> {B}{b} sent8: ¬{E}{c}
|
[] |
[] |
the crematory does not berry.
|
¬{A}{b}
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: the crematory is not a berry if the fact that it is a Pawnee that does berry is not true.; sent8 -> int2: there is something such that it is not synoptic.;"
] | 6 | 2 | null | 6 | 0 | 6 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the crematory is a berry. ; $context$ = sent1: that the antiaircraft is not a kind of a taro but it is a fib is wrong if the short is not a berry. sent2: the fact that the short is not a horseleech but it does kill does not hold. sent3: the fact that something is not a kind of a berry is correct if the fact that it is a kind of a Pawnee and it does berry is not true. sent4: that the short is not a horseleech but it is a kind of a Pawnee is false. sent5: the crematory is a kind of a berry if it is a Pawnee. sent6: the fact that the crematory is a Turkmen and does invest does not hold. sent7: if the short is a horseleech then the crematory is a Pawnee. sent8: the fact that the Norinyl is not synoptic is correct. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if it does not mouth Lydian and is not a abscondment it osculates grapefruit.
|
(Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x
|
sent1: if the maid does not mouth Lydian and it is not a abscondment it does osculate grapefruit. sent2: if something is not a kind of a diploid and it does not mouth Lydian the fact that it bottlenecks hold. sent3: the maid is holistic if it is both not a counterespionage and a piloting. sent4: there exists something such that if it is not a Chomsky and it is not a kind of a swag it osculates Stoker. sent5: there is something such that if it does mouth Lydian and it is not a abscondment then it does osculate grapefruit. sent6: there exists something such that if that it is not a kind of a corozo and it is not synthetic is true it persuades. sent7: the Marks mouths Lydian if it is not a Hanoverian and is not a Icelandic. sent8: there exists something such that if it is not bathyal and is not a Australopithecus it is packable. sent9: if the nodule mouths Lydian but it is not holistic it is a kind of a chromogen. sent10: the maid is a recurrence if it is a kind of a Australopithecus and it is not cambial. sent11: the Stoker osculates grapefruit if it is not unreproducible and does not abrade. sent12: there exists something such that if it does not osculate hogback and it is a piloting it is not non-corvine. sent13: the maid does mouth Lydian if it does not tail and osculates homonym. sent14: there exists something such that if it is not a PAYE and it is not a kind of a sneeze it is a kind of a sized.
|
sent1: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent2: (x): (¬{P}x & ¬{AA}x) -> {AR}x sent3: (¬{Q}{aa} & {HK}{aa}) -> {FH}{aa} sent4: (Ex): (¬{JC}x & ¬{GL}x) -> {IM}x sent5: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent6: (Ex): (¬{HG}x & ¬{CF}x) -> {BM}x sent7: (¬{R}{e} & ¬{IL}{e}) -> {AA}{e} sent8: (Ex): (¬{DN}x & ¬{BN}x) -> {GQ}x sent9: ({AA}{gm} & ¬{FH}{gm}) -> {GA}{gm} sent10: ({BN}{aa} & ¬{ID}{aa}) -> {CC}{aa} sent11: (¬{GT}{bi} & ¬{FF}{bi}) -> {B}{bi} sent12: (Ex): (¬{EP}x & {HK}x) -> {CP}x sent13: (¬{AN}{aa} & {BP}{aa}) -> {AA}{aa} sent14: (Ex): (¬{FP}x & ¬{DO}x) -> {FG}x
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the drove does bottleneck if it is not a diploid and it does not mouth Lydian.
|
(¬{P}{ce} & ¬{AA}{ce}) -> {AR}{ce}
|
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it does not mouth Lydian and is not a abscondment it osculates grapefruit. ; $context$ = sent1: if the maid does not mouth Lydian and it is not a abscondment it does osculate grapefruit. sent2: if something is not a kind of a diploid and it does not mouth Lydian the fact that it bottlenecks hold. sent3: the maid is holistic if it is both not a counterespionage and a piloting. sent4: there exists something such that if it is not a Chomsky and it is not a kind of a swag it osculates Stoker. sent5: there is something such that if it does mouth Lydian and it is not a abscondment then it does osculate grapefruit. sent6: there exists something such that if that it is not a kind of a corozo and it is not synthetic is true it persuades. sent7: the Marks mouths Lydian if it is not a Hanoverian and is not a Icelandic. sent8: there exists something such that if it is not bathyal and is not a Australopithecus it is packable. sent9: if the nodule mouths Lydian but it is not holistic it is a kind of a chromogen. sent10: the maid is a recurrence if it is a kind of a Australopithecus and it is not cambial. sent11: the Stoker osculates grapefruit if it is not unreproducible and does not abrade. sent12: there exists something such that if it does not osculate hogback and it is a piloting it is not non-corvine. sent13: the maid does mouth Lydian if it does not tail and osculates homonym. sent14: there exists something such that if it is not a PAYE and it is not a kind of a sneeze it is a kind of a sized. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the synchrocyclotron is not a kind of a ragpicker.
|
¬{D}{c}
|
sent1: that something is a ragpicker but it is not a blowtube is false if it does not rhyme Botox. sent2: if that the crackpot rhymes Botox and is a blowtube is not right then the synchrocyclotron is not a ragpicker. sent3: the crackpot rhymes Botox. sent4: if something does not mouth synchrocyclotron and/or it is gallinaceous then that it does not mouth synchrocyclotron is not false. sent5: if that the francium does mouth synchrocyclotron and it constellates is not correct the crackpot does not constellates. sent6: the napoleon is a function if that the Botox is morphophonemic and does not distill is not right. sent7: if something does not constellate it does not rhyme Williamstown. sent8: the francium does rhyme Williamstown if the crackpot is a blowtube. sent9: the crackpot is a kind of a blowtube that rhymes Botox. sent10: if the napoleon does function it is a ballade. sent11: if the synchrocyclotron is a kind of a blowtube the crackpot rhymes Botox. sent12: the fact that the drop is a hypsography and it does rhyme Williamstown is right. sent13: the crackpot is a ragpicker and it rhymes Botox. sent14: if the napoleon is a ballade it does not mouth synchrocyclotron or is gallinaceous or both. sent15: the synchrocyclotron is a ragpicker if the francium does rhyme Williamstown. sent16: if something does not rhyme Williamstown that it does rhyme Botox and it is a blowtube is not true.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({D}x & ¬{A}x) sent2: ¬({B}{a} & {A}{a}) -> ¬{D}{c} sent3: {B}{a} sent4: (x): (¬{G}x v {H}x) -> ¬{G}x sent5: ¬({G}{b} & {E}{b}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent6: ¬({K}{e} & ¬{J}{e}) -> {I}{d} sent7: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬{C}x sent8: {A}{a} -> {C}{b} sent9: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent10: {I}{d} -> {F}{d} sent11: {A}{c} -> {B}{a} sent12: ({HB}{gb} & {C}{gb}) sent13: ({D}{a} & {B}{a}) sent14: {F}{d} -> (¬{G}{d} v {H}{d}) sent15: {C}{b} -> {D}{c} sent16: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({B}x & {A}x)
|
[
"sent9 -> int1: the crackpot is a blowtube.; sent8 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the francium rhymes Williamstown hold.; sent15 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 -> int1: {A}{a}; sent8 & int1 -> int2: {C}{b}; sent15 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the synchrocyclotron is not a ragpicker hold.
|
¬{D}{c}
|
[
"sent1 -> int3: the fact that that the synchrocyclotron is a ragpicker and is not a blowtube is not right is not false if it does not rhyme Botox.;"
] | 4 | 3 | 3 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the synchrocyclotron is not a kind of a ragpicker. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is a ragpicker but it is not a blowtube is false if it does not rhyme Botox. sent2: if that the crackpot rhymes Botox and is a blowtube is not right then the synchrocyclotron is not a ragpicker. sent3: the crackpot rhymes Botox. sent4: if something does not mouth synchrocyclotron and/or it is gallinaceous then that it does not mouth synchrocyclotron is not false. sent5: if that the francium does mouth synchrocyclotron and it constellates is not correct the crackpot does not constellates. sent6: the napoleon is a function if that the Botox is morphophonemic and does not distill is not right. sent7: if something does not constellate it does not rhyme Williamstown. sent8: the francium does rhyme Williamstown if the crackpot is a blowtube. sent9: the crackpot is a kind of a blowtube that rhymes Botox. sent10: if the napoleon does function it is a ballade. sent11: if the synchrocyclotron is a kind of a blowtube the crackpot rhymes Botox. sent12: the fact that the drop is a hypsography and it does rhyme Williamstown is right. sent13: the crackpot is a ragpicker and it rhymes Botox. sent14: if the napoleon is a ballade it does not mouth synchrocyclotron or is gallinaceous or both. sent15: the synchrocyclotron is a ragpicker if the francium does rhyme Williamstown. sent16: if something does not rhyme Williamstown that it does rhyme Botox and it is a blowtube is not true. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 -> int1: the crackpot is a blowtube.; sent8 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the francium rhymes Williamstown hold.; sent15 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the enlistment happens.
|
{A}
|
sent1: the rabidness does not occur if the commodiousness does not occur. sent2: if the fact that not the rabidness but the commodiousness happens does not hold then the mouthing millicurie does not occur. sent3: that the mouthing millicurie does not occur yields that the mouthing articulator does not occur and the enlistment occurs. sent4: that the formula does not occur and the licitness does not occur is triggered by that the neglecting happens. sent5: the enlistment does not occur. sent6: if the formula does not occur then the commodiousness does not occur and the overtiring does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬{D} -> ¬{C} sent2: ¬(¬{C} & {D}) -> ¬{B} sent3: ¬{B} -> (¬{GR} & {A}) sent4: {H} -> (¬{F} & ¬{G}) sent5: ¬{A} sent6: ¬{F} -> (¬{D} & ¬{E})
|
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the mouthing articulator does not occur.
|
¬{GR}
|
[] | 7 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the enlistment happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the rabidness does not occur if the commodiousness does not occur. sent2: if the fact that not the rabidness but the commodiousness happens does not hold then the mouthing millicurie does not occur. sent3: that the mouthing millicurie does not occur yields that the mouthing articulator does not occur and the enlistment occurs. sent4: that the formula does not occur and the licitness does not occur is triggered by that the neglecting happens. sent5: the enlistment does not occur. sent6: if the formula does not occur then the commodiousness does not occur and the overtiring does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there exists something such that it is not periodontics is false.
|
¬((Ex): ¬{A}x)
|
sent1: if there is something such that that either it is periodontics or it is a Kattegatt or both is not correct the workboard does not osculate factorization. sent2: there exists something such that it is not a lisp. sent3: something is periodontics. sent4: there is something such that that the fact that either it rhymes topolatry or it is a lisp or both is right does not hold. sent5: the fact that something is polar and/or discharges does not hold if it is not periodontics. sent6: there exists something such that it does not rhyme topolatry. sent7: everything is not phonic. sent8: the workboard does not rhyme topolatry. sent9: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a long-sufferance and/or does osculate establishment is false. sent10: the workboard is not periodontics if there is something such that the fact that it rhymes topolatry and/or it is a lisp does not hold. sent11: everything is not a kind of a comforting. sent12: either something rhymes topolatry or it is a lisp or both. sent13: something is not a pisiform.
|
sent1: (x): ¬({A}x v {AF}x) -> ¬{FP}{a} sent2: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent3: (Ex): {A}x sent4: (Ex): ¬({AA}x v {AB}x) sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({IH}x v {JC}x) sent6: (Ex): ¬{AA}x sent7: (x): ¬{B}x sent8: ¬{AA}{a} sent9: (Ex): ¬({H}x v {L}x) sent10: (x): ¬({AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent11: (x): ¬{C}x sent12: (Ex): ({AA}x v {AB}x) sent13: (Ex): ¬{FG}x
|
[
"sent4 & sent10 -> int1: the fact that the workboard is not periodontics hold.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 & sent10 -> int1: ¬{A}{a}; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there is something such that that either it is polar or it does discharge or both is not true.
|
(Ex): ¬({IH}x v {JC}x)
|
[
"sent11 -> int2: the cardiograph is not a comforting.; sent7 -> int3: the cardiograph is not phonic.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the cardiograph is not a comforting and it is not phonic.; sent5 -> int5: if the cardiograph is not periodontics the fact that either it is polar or it does discharge or both does not hold.;"
] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that it is not periodontics is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that that either it is periodontics or it is a Kattegatt or both is not correct the workboard does not osculate factorization. sent2: there exists something such that it is not a lisp. sent3: something is periodontics. sent4: there is something such that that the fact that either it rhymes topolatry or it is a lisp or both is right does not hold. sent5: the fact that something is polar and/or discharges does not hold if it is not periodontics. sent6: there exists something such that it does not rhyme topolatry. sent7: everything is not phonic. sent8: the workboard does not rhyme topolatry. sent9: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a long-sufferance and/or does osculate establishment is false. sent10: the workboard is not periodontics if there is something such that the fact that it rhymes topolatry and/or it is a lisp does not hold. sent11: everything is not a kind of a comforting. sent12: either something rhymes topolatry or it is a lisp or both. sent13: something is not a pisiform. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 & sent10 -> int1: the fact that the workboard is not periodontics hold.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the rhyming launcher and the bodiliness happens.
|
({C} & {B})
|
sent1: the pitching and the cathedralness happens. sent2: the rhyming launcher and the firelight occurs. sent3: the firelight occurs. sent4: the fact that the abatement happens and the bodiliness occurs is not false. sent5: the Orthodoxness occurs and the osculating gamine occurs. sent6: the non-bodiliness brings about that the rhyming molter and the abatement happens. sent7: the ticking happens. sent8: that the rhyming launcher does not occur and/or the firelight does not occur is caused by that the going occurs. sent9: the abatement happens.
|
sent1: ({ID} & {BA}) sent2: ({C} & {D}) sent3: {D} sent4: ({A} & {B}) sent5: ({HT} & {AS}) sent6: ¬{B} -> ({EG} & {A}) sent7: {DT} sent8: {E} -> (¬{C} v ¬{D}) sent9: {A}
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: the bodiliness happens.; sent2 -> int2: the rhyming launcher happens.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> int1: {B}; sent2 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the rhyming molter happens.
|
{EG}
|
[] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the rhyming launcher and the bodiliness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the pitching and the cathedralness happens. sent2: the rhyming launcher and the firelight occurs. sent3: the firelight occurs. sent4: the fact that the abatement happens and the bodiliness occurs is not false. sent5: the Orthodoxness occurs and the osculating gamine occurs. sent6: the non-bodiliness brings about that the rhyming molter and the abatement happens. sent7: the ticking happens. sent8: that the rhyming launcher does not occur and/or the firelight does not occur is caused by that the going occurs. sent9: the abatement happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> int1: the bodiliness happens.; sent2 -> int2: the rhyming launcher happens.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that the fact that it does not repudiate sinner and it is not apteral is wrong.
|
(Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
sent1: if the gammon is a kind of a kill then the fact that it is a kind of a pyrogallol and it is not a shoji is false. sent2: the fact that the viscountess is not a pyrogallol and osculates transcendence is false if the fact that it is a playoff hold. sent3: if the viscountess is a pyrogallol the fact that it repudiates sinner and it is not apteral is not true. sent4: that the viscountess does mouth stapedectomy but it does not repudiate sinner is false. sent5: there exists something such that that it is both not a pyrogallol and apteral does not hold. sent6: that the mulch debuts but it is not a Semitic does not hold. sent7: if something is a tucker the fact that it does not repudiate sinner and it does not osculate itraconazole does not hold. sent8: there exists something such that that it does repudiate sinner and it is not apteral does not hold. sent9: the fact that the viscountess does not repudiate sinner and is not apteral is not right if it is a pyrogallol.
|
sent1: {FM}{d} -> ¬({A}{d} & ¬{JB}{d}) sent2: {HQ}{a} -> ¬(¬{A}{a} & {DN}{a}) sent3: {A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent4: ¬({II}{a} & ¬{AA}{a}) sent5: (Ex): ¬(¬{A}x & {AB}x) sent6: ¬({DJ}{bi} & ¬{R}{bi}) sent7: (x): {IQ}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{BP}x) sent8: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent9: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})
|
[] |
[] |
that the itraconazole does not repudiate sinner and does not osculate itraconazole is false if it is a tucker.
|
{IQ}{bu} -> ¬(¬{AA}{bu} & ¬{BP}{bu})
|
[
"sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 2 | null | 8 | 0 | 8 |
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that the fact that it does not repudiate sinner and it is not apteral is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the gammon is a kind of a kill then the fact that it is a kind of a pyrogallol and it is not a shoji is false. sent2: the fact that the viscountess is not a pyrogallol and osculates transcendence is false if the fact that it is a playoff hold. sent3: if the viscountess is a pyrogallol the fact that it repudiates sinner and it is not apteral is not true. sent4: that the viscountess does mouth stapedectomy but it does not repudiate sinner is false. sent5: there exists something such that that it is both not a pyrogallol and apteral does not hold. sent6: that the mulch debuts but it is not a Semitic does not hold. sent7: if something is a tucker the fact that it does not repudiate sinner and it does not osculate itraconazole does not hold. sent8: there exists something such that that it does repudiate sinner and it is not apteral does not hold. sent9: the fact that the viscountess does not repudiate sinner and is not apteral is not right if it is a pyrogallol. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that the fact that it does not mouth basileus and is a 1900s is not true.
|
(Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x)
|
sent1: there is something such that it does not mouth basileus and is a kind of a 1900s. sent2: the fact that something does not osculate knobkerrie but it does osculate stippler is wrong if it is not congressional. sent3: there exists something such that that it mouths basileus and is a 1900s is not right. sent4: if the fact that something osculates stippler hold then the fact that it does not mouth basileus and is a 1900s is false. sent5: there is something such that the fact that it is not a scream and it is asynergic is not correct. sent6: if the Akwa'ala does not delay and is not a Eck it is non-integumentary. sent7: that something is not congressional if it mouths hero is true. sent8: if something does misbelieve that it is not a scream and it is a Klinefelter does not hold. sent9: if the batiste osculates stippler then that it mouths basileus and it is a 1900s does not hold. sent10: if something does osculate stippler then that it mouths basileus and it is a 1900s is wrong. sent11: that the stemmer is not a 1900s but it does osculate atrocity does not hold. sent12: that the batiste does not mouth basileus but it is a height is incorrect if it is menopausal. sent13: the batiste is a custodianship. sent14: if the batiste mouths basileus that that it is not a Sunday and not non-Glaswegian is right is not true. sent15: that the batiste does mouth basileus and it is a 1900s is false. sent16: the fact that something is not a lazuli and mouths empire is false if it is a declinometer. sent17: the Akwa'ala osculates octameter and does mouth hero if it is not integumentary. sent18: The stippler osculates batiste. sent19: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a carmaker and it is a height does not hold. sent20: if the shirtdress does osculate atrocity then that it is not peaceable and it mouths basileus is not right.
|
sent1: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent2: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & {A}x) sent3: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent4: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent5: (Ex): ¬(¬{JD}x & {GL}x) sent6: (¬{H}{a} & ¬{G}{a}) -> ¬{F}{a} sent7: (x): {D}x -> ¬{C}x sent8: (x): {AN}x -> ¬(¬{JD}x & {GM}x) sent9: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent10: (x): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent11: ¬(¬{AB}{ca} & {GI}{ca}) sent12: {AQ}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {FU}{aa}) sent13: {FP}{aa} sent14: {AA}{aa} -> ¬(¬{JI}{aa} & {IQ}{aa}) sent15: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent16: (x): {JE}x -> ¬(¬{CC}x & {DD}x) sent17: ¬{F}{a} -> ({E}{a} & {D}{a}) sent18: {AC}{ab} sent19: (Ex): ¬(¬{HR}x & {FU}x) sent20: {GI}{al} -> ¬(¬{GC}{al} & {AA}{al})
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: if the batiste osculates stippler the fact that it does not mouth basileus and is a 1900s is false.;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> int1: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa});"
] |
the clog is a sprain.
|
{T}{ie}
|
[
"sent2 -> int2: if the Akwa'ala is not congressional then that it does not osculate knobkerrie and it osculates stippler is wrong.; sent7 -> int3: if the Akwa'ala does mouth hero then it is not congressional.;"
] | 7 | 3 | null | 19 | 0 | 19 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that the fact that it does not mouth basileus and is a 1900s is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it does not mouth basileus and is a kind of a 1900s. sent2: the fact that something does not osculate knobkerrie but it does osculate stippler is wrong if it is not congressional. sent3: there exists something such that that it mouths basileus and is a 1900s is not right. sent4: if the fact that something osculates stippler hold then the fact that it does not mouth basileus and is a 1900s is false. sent5: there is something such that the fact that it is not a scream and it is asynergic is not correct. sent6: if the Akwa'ala does not delay and is not a Eck it is non-integumentary. sent7: that something is not congressional if it mouths hero is true. sent8: if something does misbelieve that it is not a scream and it is a Klinefelter does not hold. sent9: if the batiste osculates stippler then that it mouths basileus and it is a 1900s does not hold. sent10: if something does osculate stippler then that it mouths basileus and it is a 1900s is wrong. sent11: that the stemmer is not a 1900s but it does osculate atrocity does not hold. sent12: that the batiste does not mouth basileus but it is a height is incorrect if it is menopausal. sent13: the batiste is a custodianship. sent14: if the batiste mouths basileus that that it is not a Sunday and not non-Glaswegian is right is not true. sent15: that the batiste does mouth basileus and it is a 1900s is false. sent16: the fact that something is not a lazuli and mouths empire is false if it is a declinometer. sent17: the Akwa'ala osculates octameter and does mouth hero if it is not integumentary. sent18: The stippler osculates batiste. sent19: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a carmaker and it is a height does not hold. sent20: if the shirtdress does osculate atrocity then that it is not peaceable and it mouths basileus is not right. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> int1: if the batiste osculates stippler the fact that it does not mouth basileus and is a 1900s is false.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the waterline is not vehicular.
|
¬{A}{b}
|
sent1: the uracil mouths propenal. sent2: if something does mouth roble and/or does not swan then that it is not vehicular hold. sent3: if something is not vehicular the fact that it is not a kind of a lawfulness and it is a kind of a terseness is not true. sent4: the discus is not an estimate but it is a expunction if there are non-missionary things. sent5: something is vehicular if the fact that it does not swan and it does mouth roble is wrong. sent6: something mouths elongation and is not a aeration if that it mouths propenal is not wrong. sent7: if the uracil does not mouth roble that the waterline is not a swan but it does mouth roble does not hold. sent8: the fact that the uracil does osculate console and is strategics is not correct. sent9: that the uracil does not osculate console but it is strategics is wrong. sent10: if something is not a kind of an estimate then it does mouth roble or it is not a swan or both. sent11: if something does mouth elongation but it is not a aeration then it is not missionary. sent12: the monkshood is not vehicular. sent13: the uracil does not mouth roble if that it does not osculate console and it is strategics is not right.
|
sent1: {I}{a} sent2: (x): ({B}x v ¬{C}x) -> ¬{A}x sent3: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{EJ}x & {AL}x) sent4: (x): ¬{F}x -> (¬{D}{em} & {E}{em}) sent5: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & {B}x) -> {A}x sent6: (x): {I}x -> ({H}x & ¬{G}x) sent7: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬(¬{C}{b} & {B}{b}) sent8: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent9: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent10: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({B}x v ¬{C}x) sent11: (x): ({H}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{F}x sent12: ¬{A}{dt} sent13: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a}
|
[
"sent13 & sent9 -> int1: that the uracil does not mouth roble is not false.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: that the waterline is not a swan but it does mouth roble is incorrect.; sent5 -> int3: the waterline is vehicular if the fact that it is not a swan and it mouths roble is wrong.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent13 & sent9 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; int1 & sent7 -> int2: ¬(¬{C}{b} & {B}{b}); sent5 -> int3: ¬(¬{C}{b} & {B}{b}) -> {A}{b}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the discus is not a kind of a lawfulness and is a terseness is not true.
|
¬(¬{EJ}{em} & {AL}{em})
|
[
"sent3 -> int4: the fact that the discus is not a lawfulness but it is a terseness is not true if it is not vehicular.; sent2 -> int5: if the discus does mouth roble and/or it is not a swan it is not vehicular.; sent10 -> int6: either the discus mouths roble or it is not a kind of a swan or both if it does not estimate.; sent11 -> int7: the uracil is not a missionary if it mouths elongation and it is not a kind of a aeration.; sent6 -> int8: if that the uracil mouths propenal is not incorrect it mouths elongation and is not a aeration.; int8 & sent1 -> int9: the uracil mouths elongation and is not a aeration.; int7 & int9 -> int10: the uracil is not missionary.; int10 -> int11: there exists something such that it is not missionary.; int11 & sent4 -> int12: the discus is not an estimate and is a kind of a expunction.; int12 -> int13: the discus does not estimate.; int6 & int13 -> int14: the discus does mouth roble and/or it is not a kind of a swan.; int5 & int14 -> int15: the discus is not vehicular.; int4 & int15 -> hypothesis;"
] | 9 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the waterline is not vehicular. ; $context$ = sent1: the uracil mouths propenal. sent2: if something does mouth roble and/or does not swan then that it is not vehicular hold. sent3: if something is not vehicular the fact that it is not a kind of a lawfulness and it is a kind of a terseness is not true. sent4: the discus is not an estimate but it is a expunction if there are non-missionary things. sent5: something is vehicular if the fact that it does not swan and it does mouth roble is wrong. sent6: something mouths elongation and is not a aeration if that it mouths propenal is not wrong. sent7: if the uracil does not mouth roble that the waterline is not a swan but it does mouth roble does not hold. sent8: the fact that the uracil does osculate console and is strategics is not correct. sent9: that the uracil does not osculate console but it is strategics is wrong. sent10: if something is not a kind of an estimate then it does mouth roble or it is not a swan or both. sent11: if something does mouth elongation but it is not a aeration then it is not missionary. sent12: the monkshood is not vehicular. sent13: the uracil does not mouth roble if that it does not osculate console and it is strategics is not right. ; $proof$ =
|
sent13 & sent9 -> int1: that the uracil does not mouth roble is not false.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: that the waterline is not a swan but it does mouth roble is incorrect.; sent5 -> int3: the waterline is vehicular if the fact that it is not a swan and it mouths roble is wrong.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that it mouths jewel and is Bahraini.
|
(Ex): ({A}x & {B}x)
|
sent1: the broadcaster is Tuscan. sent2: the crocodilian osculates mantelet if there exists something such that that it is dimensional and is not non-Aleutian does not hold. sent3: the broadcaster is a maguey. sent4: the crocodilian is a Bahraini if the chase is phrenic. sent5: the broadcaster does mouth jewel. sent6: if the crocodilian osculates mantelet then the fact that it does not rhyme watercolorist and it is not impressive is incorrect. sent7: the coralwood is a kind of uninfluential thing that is a daybook. sent8: there is something such that it does mouth jewel. sent9: that the splint does mouth jewel and is zygomatic is right. sent10: that the chase is phrenic or it is not Bahraini or both is right. sent11: The jewel does mouth broadcaster. sent12: that the meltwater does mouth jewel hold. sent13: there is something such that it transgresses and is a kind of a bottler. sent14: the fact that the Swazi is both dimensional and Aleutian does not hold. sent15: something is a Bahraini. sent16: the megasporangium is Bahraini. sent17: the broadcaster is a Bahraini. sent18: the fact that if the fact that something does not rhyme watercolorist and it is not impressive is not true then it is a kind of a flatbed is right. sent19: the fact that the broadcaster does rhyme megasporangium hold.
|
sent1: {EF}{a} sent2: (x): ¬({I}x & {H}x) -> {G}{b} sent3: {FA}{a} sent4: {F}{c} -> {B}{b} sent5: {A}{a} sent6: {G}{b} -> ¬(¬{D}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) sent7: ({DU}{ho} & {CJ}{ho}) sent8: (Ex): {A}x sent9: ({A}{fi} & {P}{fi}) sent10: ({F}{c} v ¬{B}{c}) sent11: {AA}{aa} sent12: {A}{ca} sent13: (Ex): ({JG}x & {AL}x) sent14: ¬({I}{d} & {H}{d}) sent15: (Ex): {B}x sent16: {B}{cp} sent17: {B}{a} sent18: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{E}x) -> {C}x sent19: {R}{a}
|
[
"sent5 & sent17 -> int1: the broadcaster does mouth jewel and it is a Bahraini.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 & sent17 -> int1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the tambour is a ejaculator that does numb.
|
({BA}{dq} & {ES}{dq})
|
[
"sent18 -> int2: if the fact that the crocodilian does not rhyme watercolorist and it is not impressive is false it is flatbed.; sent14 -> int3: there exists something such that that it is dimensional and it is Aleutian does not hold.; int3 & sent2 -> int4: the fact that the crocodilian osculates mantelet is correct.; sent6 & int4 -> int5: the fact that the crocodilian does not rhyme watercolorist and it is not impressive is not true.; int2 & int5 -> int6: the crocodilian is flatbed.;"
] | 9 | 2 | 2 | 17 | 0 | 17 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that it mouths jewel and is Bahraini. ; $context$ = sent1: the broadcaster is Tuscan. sent2: the crocodilian osculates mantelet if there exists something such that that it is dimensional and is not non-Aleutian does not hold. sent3: the broadcaster is a maguey. sent4: the crocodilian is a Bahraini if the chase is phrenic. sent5: the broadcaster does mouth jewel. sent6: if the crocodilian osculates mantelet then the fact that it does not rhyme watercolorist and it is not impressive is incorrect. sent7: the coralwood is a kind of uninfluential thing that is a daybook. sent8: there is something such that it does mouth jewel. sent9: that the splint does mouth jewel and is zygomatic is right. sent10: that the chase is phrenic or it is not Bahraini or both is right. sent11: The jewel does mouth broadcaster. sent12: that the meltwater does mouth jewel hold. sent13: there is something such that it transgresses and is a kind of a bottler. sent14: the fact that the Swazi is both dimensional and Aleutian does not hold. sent15: something is a Bahraini. sent16: the megasporangium is Bahraini. sent17: the broadcaster is a Bahraini. sent18: the fact that if the fact that something does not rhyme watercolorist and it is not impressive is not true then it is a kind of a flatbed is right. sent19: the fact that the broadcaster does rhyme megasporangium hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 & sent17 -> int1: the broadcaster does mouth jewel and it is a Bahraini.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the monarch is not a kind of a Bufonidae and is a kind of a nervousness is not correct.
|
¬(¬{C}{b} & {D}{b})
|
sent1: the weaponry is not a kind of a capriole but it is an anesthetic. sent2: if the weaponry is an anesthetic then the monarch is not a Bufonidae and is a nervousness. sent3: the weaponry is not a kind of a capriole. sent4: the hemming-stitch is a kind of a urochord and it is a kind of a nervousness if it is not a kind of a firedamp. sent5: if something is not a capriole then that it is not a Bufonidae and it is a nervousness is not correct. sent6: if the weaponry is anesthetic then the fact that the monarch is a nervousness is correct. sent7: the mortification is an anesthetic. sent8: if that the hemming-stitch is a condensation but it is not a relief is not right then it is not a firedamp. sent9: the monarch is a nervousness.
|
sent1: (¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent2: {B}{a} -> (¬{C}{b} & {D}{b}) sent3: ¬{A}{a} sent4: ¬{F}{c} -> ({E}{c} & {D}{c}) sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & {D}x) sent6: {B}{a} -> {D}{b} sent7: {B}{bh} sent8: ¬({H}{c} & ¬{G}{c}) -> ¬{F}{c} sent9: {D}{b}
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: that the weaponry is an anesthetic hold.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the monarch is anesthetic.
|
{B}{b}
|
[] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the monarch is not a kind of a Bufonidae and is a kind of a nervousness is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the weaponry is not a kind of a capriole but it is an anesthetic. sent2: if the weaponry is an anesthetic then the monarch is not a Bufonidae and is a nervousness. sent3: the weaponry is not a kind of a capriole. sent4: the hemming-stitch is a kind of a urochord and it is a kind of a nervousness if it is not a kind of a firedamp. sent5: if something is not a capriole then that it is not a Bufonidae and it is a nervousness is not correct. sent6: if the weaponry is anesthetic then the fact that the monarch is a nervousness is correct. sent7: the mortification is an anesthetic. sent8: if that the hemming-stitch is a condensation but it is not a relief is not right then it is not a firedamp. sent9: the monarch is a nervousness. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: that the weaponry is an anesthetic hold.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the imp is not a kind of a Paleocene.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
sent1: that that something is a committeeman but it is not auscultatory is wrong if the fact that it is not a Timorese hold is not incorrect. sent2: that the packaging is not auscultatory hold if the imp is not a Paleocene. sent3: the packaging is not a kind of a Paleocene. sent4: the packaging is not a committeeman. sent5: if the packaging is a committeeman the incubator is auscultatory. sent6: the incubator is a committeeman. sent7: something is not a Paleocene if the fact that it is a Paleocene and it is auscultatory is not true. sent8: the incubator is not a Paleocene if the imp is not a committeeman. sent9: the imp is not a kind of a Timorese if that the packaging is not a separatist and does not mouth snorter does not hold. sent10: the packaging is mesenteric. sent11: if the incubator is a kind of a committeeman the packaging is auscultatory. sent12: if the incubator is auscultatory the packaging is a kind of a committeeman. sent13: the imp is auscultatory. sent14: the incubator is not a Paleocene.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬({C}x & ¬{B}x) sent2: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent3: ¬{A}{b} sent4: ¬{C}{b} sent5: {C}{b} -> {B}{c} sent6: {C}{c} sent7: (x): ¬({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{A}x sent8: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬{A}{c} sent9: ¬(¬{E}{b} & ¬{F}{b}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent10: {BH}{b} sent11: {C}{c} -> {B}{b} sent12: {B}{c} -> {C}{b} sent13: {B}{a} sent14: ¬{A}{c}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the imp is not a Paleocene.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the packaging is not auscultatory.; sent11 & sent6 -> int2: the packaging is auscultatory.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ¬{A}{a}; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: ¬{B}{b}; sent11 & sent6 -> int2: {B}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the imp is not a Paleocene.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
[
"sent7 -> int4: the imp is not a kind of a Paleocene if that it is a Paleocene and it is auscultatory is not true.;"
] | 5 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the imp is not a kind of a Paleocene. ; $context$ = sent1: that that something is a committeeman but it is not auscultatory is wrong if the fact that it is not a Timorese hold is not incorrect. sent2: that the packaging is not auscultatory hold if the imp is not a Paleocene. sent3: the packaging is not a kind of a Paleocene. sent4: the packaging is not a committeeman. sent5: if the packaging is a committeeman the incubator is auscultatory. sent6: the incubator is a committeeman. sent7: something is not a Paleocene if the fact that it is a Paleocene and it is auscultatory is not true. sent8: the incubator is not a Paleocene if the imp is not a committeeman. sent9: the imp is not a kind of a Timorese if that the packaging is not a separatist and does not mouth snorter does not hold. sent10: the packaging is mesenteric. sent11: if the incubator is a kind of a committeeman the packaging is auscultatory. sent12: if the incubator is auscultatory the packaging is a kind of a committeeman. sent13: the imp is auscultatory. sent14: the incubator is not a Paleocene. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the imp is not a Paleocene.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the packaging is not auscultatory.; sent11 & sent6 -> int2: the packaging is auscultatory.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it is non-Ephesian the fact that it does not mind and is not a kind of a Ilmen is not right.
|
(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
sent1: the fact that the acclimatization is a kind of a Ilmen but it is not a bottomland does not hold if that it does sharpen is false. sent2: the acclimatization does not mind and does not rhyme Araneae if it does not repudiate Pimpinella. sent3: if the acclimatization is not a kind of a mind it does not sharpen and it is not a kind of an anesthetic. sent4: the fact that the acclimatization does not relieve and it is not a rinse is not right if it is a Ilmen. sent5: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a labial that it is not a kind of a demonization and it does not osculate monsoon is false. sent6: there exists something such that if it is aerial that it does not osculate monsoon and it is not black-and-white is not correct. sent7: if that the Ward is not nonarboreal is correct then the fact that it is not a blind and is not a cootie is not true. sent8: if the acclimatization is not a kind of a continuousness that it is not a kind of a backing and is a Ilmen is not right. sent9: there is something such that if it is abomasal then the fact that it does not osculate prostate and is not Democratic is false. sent10: if the melanoblast is sidearm then that it does not preside and it is not a mind is not right. sent11: that the Bacon is not an exclamation and is a kind of a Ephesian is not true if it is not Democratic. sent12: if the fact that the acclimatization does not mouth empire is not wrong then the fact that it is not filarial and it is not a mind is wrong. sent13: if the prostate is a narrator then that it is not Ephesian and it is not a Tilden is not correct. sent14: there is something such that if it is unpleasant then the fact that it is not bionics and it does not rhyme base is false. sent15: that the acclimatization is not a mind and it is not a Ilmen is incorrect if it is not Ephesian. sent16: there exists something such that if it is non-formulary that it is non-autotomic but not non-Alaskan is not true.
|
sent1: ¬{IT}{aa} -> ¬({AB}{aa} & ¬{JF}{aa}) sent2: ¬{FI}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{FL}{aa}) sent3: ¬{AA}{aa} -> (¬{IT}{aa} & ¬{BN}{aa}) sent4: {AB}{aa} -> ¬(¬{HL}{aa} & ¬{AD}{aa}) sent5: (Ex): ¬{IJ}x -> ¬(¬{BO}x & ¬{EI}x) sent6: (Ex): {CB}x -> ¬(¬{EI}x & ¬{DJ}x) sent7: ¬{CC}{dq} -> ¬(¬{HM}{dq} & ¬{HE}{dq}) sent8: ¬{GE}{aa} -> ¬(¬{EF}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent9: (Ex): {EO}x -> ¬(¬{AG}x & ¬{IM}x) sent10: {BE}{ei} -> ¬(¬{JE}{ei} & ¬{AA}{ei}) sent11: ¬{IM}{cl} -> ¬(¬{AP}{cl} & {A}{cl}) sent12: ¬{H}{aa} -> ¬(¬{GJ}{aa} & ¬{AA}{aa}) sent13: {EH}{jf} -> ¬(¬{A}{jf} & ¬{IA}{jf}) sent14: (Ex): {CL}x -> ¬(¬{HS}x & ¬{FJ}x) sent15: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent16: (Ex): ¬{EJ}x -> ¬(¬{IL}x & {M}x)
|
[
"sent15 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent15 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is non-Ephesian the fact that it does not mind and is not a kind of a Ilmen is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the acclimatization is a kind of a Ilmen but it is not a bottomland does not hold if that it does sharpen is false. sent2: the acclimatization does not mind and does not rhyme Araneae if it does not repudiate Pimpinella. sent3: if the acclimatization is not a kind of a mind it does not sharpen and it is not a kind of an anesthetic. sent4: the fact that the acclimatization does not relieve and it is not a rinse is not right if it is a Ilmen. sent5: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a labial that it is not a kind of a demonization and it does not osculate monsoon is false. sent6: there exists something such that if it is aerial that it does not osculate monsoon and it is not black-and-white is not correct. sent7: if that the Ward is not nonarboreal is correct then the fact that it is not a blind and is not a cootie is not true. sent8: if the acclimatization is not a kind of a continuousness that it is not a kind of a backing and is a Ilmen is not right. sent9: there is something such that if it is abomasal then the fact that it does not osculate prostate and is not Democratic is false. sent10: if the melanoblast is sidearm then that it does not preside and it is not a mind is not right. sent11: that the Bacon is not an exclamation and is a kind of a Ephesian is not true if it is not Democratic. sent12: if the fact that the acclimatization does not mouth empire is not wrong then the fact that it is not filarial and it is not a mind is wrong. sent13: if the prostate is a narrator then that it is not Ephesian and it is not a Tilden is not correct. sent14: there is something such that if it is unpleasant then the fact that it is not bionics and it does not rhyme base is false. sent15: that the acclimatization is not a mind and it is not a Ilmen is incorrect if it is not Ephesian. sent16: there exists something such that if it is non-formulary that it is non-autotomic but not non-Alaskan is not true. ; $proof$ =
|
sent15 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the bogy is a kind of a Jordanian.
|
{A}{a}
|
sent1: if that the bogy is a Jordanian is false the Rambouillet does not rhyme palliative and is psychopharmacological. sent2: the Rambouillet is not Jordanian if the bogy is not psychopharmacological. sent3: if the Rambouillet is not a Jordanian then the bogy does not rhyme palliative but it is psychopharmacological. sent4: the Rambouillet is not kinesthetic. sent5: the Rambouillet is not a Jordanian and does rhyme palliative if the bogy is not psychopharmacological. sent6: the Rambouillet is not toll-free. sent7: the Rambouillet is not Jordanian. sent8: the bogy does not rhyme palliative.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent2: ¬{AB}{a} -> ¬{A}{b} sent3: ¬{A}{b} -> (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent4: ¬{GO}{b} sent5: ¬{AB}{a} -> (¬{A}{b} & {AA}{b}) sent6: ¬{CS}{b} sent7: ¬{A}{b} sent8: ¬{AA}{a}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the bogy is not a Jordanian.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the Rambouillet does not rhyme palliative and is psychopharmacological.; int1 -> int2: the Rambouillet is psychopharmacological.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ¬{A}{a}; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}); int1 -> int2: {AB}{b};"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 4 | null | 7 | 0 | 7 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the bogy is a kind of a Jordanian. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the bogy is a Jordanian is false the Rambouillet does not rhyme palliative and is psychopharmacological. sent2: the Rambouillet is not Jordanian if the bogy is not psychopharmacological. sent3: if the Rambouillet is not a Jordanian then the bogy does not rhyme palliative but it is psychopharmacological. sent4: the Rambouillet is not kinesthetic. sent5: the Rambouillet is not a Jordanian and does rhyme palliative if the bogy is not psychopharmacological. sent6: the Rambouillet is not toll-free. sent7: the Rambouillet is not Jordanian. sent8: the bogy does not rhyme palliative. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the bogy is not a Jordanian.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the Rambouillet does not rhyme palliative and is psychopharmacological.; int1 -> int2: the Rambouillet is psychopharmacological.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the dihybrid is a kind of dull thing that does mouth uranium.
|
({A}{a} & {B}{a})
|
sent1: the fact that the clubhouse does mouth elocutionist and does cast does not hold. sent2: the buckthorn is not a kind of a rummage and is acidotic. sent3: the enation is not a cattleman if there is something such that that it does mouth elocutionist and it is a cast is not correct. sent4: the fact that the fact that something is not a flint and not a littoral is not correct if it is not a cattleman is right. sent5: that something is not abolitionary and does not mouth uranium is incorrect if it is human. sent6: everything mouths uranium and it is abolitionary. sent7: the buckthorn is not a kind of a rummage. sent8: something does not mouth tartar and is a freshman if it is not dull. sent9: the buckthorn is human if that the dihybrid is human is correct. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it is acidotic is true. sent11: if the fact that the dihybrid is not non-colorful is right then the buckthorn is human. sent12: if there exists something such that it is a flint then either the dihybrid is human or it is colorful or both. sent13: the cesium is a flint if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a flint and not a littoral does not hold. sent14: there is something such that it is both a rummage and acidotic. sent15: if something that is not a rummage is acidotic the dihybrid is dull.
|
sent1: ¬({I}{d} & {J}{d}) sent2: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: (x): ¬({I}x & {J}x) -> ¬{G}{c} sent4: (x): ¬{G}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{H}x) sent5: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{B}x) sent6: (x): ({B}x & {C}x) sent7: ¬{AA}{aa} sent8: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{JA}x & {CF}x) sent9: {D}{a} -> {D}{aa} sent10: (Ex): {AB}x sent11: {F}{a} -> {D}{aa} sent12: (x): {E}x -> ({D}{a} v {F}{a}) sent13: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{H}x) -> {E}{b} sent14: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent15: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a}
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: something is not a rummage and is acidotic.; int1 & sent15 -> int2: the dihybrid dulls.; sent6 -> int3: the dihybrid mouths uranium and is abolitionary.; int3 -> int4: the dihybrid does mouth uranium.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> int1: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x); int1 & sent15 -> int2: {A}{a}; sent6 -> int3: ({B}{a} & {C}{a}); int3 -> int4: {B}{a}; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the buckthorn does not mouth tartar and is a freshman.
|
(¬{JA}{aa} & {CF}{aa})
|
[
"sent8 -> int5: if the buckthorn does not dull it does not mouth tartar and it is a freshman.; sent5 -> int6: the fact that the buckthorn is not abolitionary and does not mouth uranium is incorrect if it is human.; sent4 -> int7: the fact that the enation is both not a flint and not littoral is false if it is not a cattleman.; sent1 -> int8: there exists something such that the fact that it does mouth elocutionist and it casts is wrong.; int8 & sent3 -> int9: the enation is not a cattleman.; int7 & int9 -> int10: that the enation is not a flint and it is not a kind of a littoral is not true.; int10 -> int11: there is something such that that it is not a flint and is not littoral is not right.; int11 & sent13 -> int12: the cesium is a flint.; int12 -> int13: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a flint is not wrong.; int13 & sent12 -> int14: the dihybrid is human or is colorful or both.; int14 & sent9 & sent11 -> int15: the buckthorn is human.; int6 & int15 -> int16: the fact that the buckthorn is non-abolitionary thing that does not mouth uranium is incorrect.;"
] | 11 | 3 | 3 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the dihybrid is a kind of dull thing that does mouth uranium. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the clubhouse does mouth elocutionist and does cast does not hold. sent2: the buckthorn is not a kind of a rummage and is acidotic. sent3: the enation is not a cattleman if there is something such that that it does mouth elocutionist and it is a cast is not correct. sent4: the fact that the fact that something is not a flint and not a littoral is not correct if it is not a cattleman is right. sent5: that something is not abolitionary and does not mouth uranium is incorrect if it is human. sent6: everything mouths uranium and it is abolitionary. sent7: the buckthorn is not a kind of a rummage. sent8: something does not mouth tartar and is a freshman if it is not dull. sent9: the buckthorn is human if that the dihybrid is human is correct. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it is acidotic is true. sent11: if the fact that the dihybrid is not non-colorful is right then the buckthorn is human. sent12: if there exists something such that it is a flint then either the dihybrid is human or it is colorful or both. sent13: the cesium is a flint if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a flint and not a littoral does not hold. sent14: there is something such that it is both a rummage and acidotic. sent15: if something that is not a rummage is acidotic the dihybrid is dull. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> int1: something is not a rummage and is acidotic.; int1 & sent15 -> int2: the dihybrid dulls.; sent6 -> int3: the dihybrid mouths uranium and is abolitionary.; int3 -> int4: the dihybrid does mouth uranium.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that something does osculate Trombiculidae and it is caruncular is incorrect.
|
¬((Ex): ({B}x & {C}x))
|
sent1: the setup does osculate Trombiculidae if that it mouths electromyography and it does not osculate Trombiculidae is false. sent2: there is something such that it is a Genet. sent3: the lactation osculates Trombiculidae if it levels. sent4: the lactation is a Luce and does jack. sent5: the fact that something is a kind of an agglomerate that is fruitful is not incorrect if it is not a level. sent6: the Lancastrian does osculate Trombiculidae. sent7: the lactation is caruncular. sent8: that the setup does mouth electromyography and does not osculate Trombiculidae does not hold. sent9: the lactation does level.
|
sent1: ¬({E}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> {B}{b} sent2: (Ex): {IK}x sent3: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent4: ({CU}{a} & {IQ}{a}) sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({CL}x & {BE}x) sent6: {B}{hq} sent7: {C}{a} sent8: ¬({E}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent9: {A}{a}
|
[
"sent3 & sent9 -> int1: the lactation does osculate Trombiculidae.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: the lactation does osculate Trombiculidae and is caruncular.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent9 -> int1: {B}{a}; int1 & sent7 -> int2: ({B}{a} & {C}{a}); int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there is something such that it is an agglomerate and fruitful.
|
(Ex): ({CL}x & {BE}x)
|
[
"sent5 -> int3: the lactation does agglomerate and is fruitful if it does not level.; sent1 & sent8 -> int4: the setup does osculate Trombiculidae.;"
] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 6 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that something does osculate Trombiculidae and it is caruncular is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the setup does osculate Trombiculidae if that it mouths electromyography and it does not osculate Trombiculidae is false. sent2: there is something such that it is a Genet. sent3: the lactation osculates Trombiculidae if it levels. sent4: the lactation is a Luce and does jack. sent5: the fact that something is a kind of an agglomerate that is fruitful is not incorrect if it is not a level. sent6: the Lancastrian does osculate Trombiculidae. sent7: the lactation is caruncular. sent8: that the setup does mouth electromyography and does not osculate Trombiculidae does not hold. sent9: the lactation does level. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent9 -> int1: the lactation does osculate Trombiculidae.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: the lactation does osculate Trombiculidae and is caruncular.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there exists something such that if it is a kind of rich thing that is not mutable it is not a vamp is false.
|
¬((Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x)
|
sent1: there is something such that if it is a kind of a danseur and it is not a whole it is non-Puranic. sent2: there is something such that if it is a kind of a Ataturk and it is not a misdeal it is not three-wheel. sent3: there is something such that if it is a impasto and it is not three-wheel then it is not ulcerative. sent4: if the sylvanite does redeem and does not rhyme articulator then it is not a rich. sent5: there exists something such that if it is cardiac and it is not maxillodental then it is not interplanetary. sent6: there is something such that if it is counterterror and is not a copybook then it is not a funny. sent7: if the hydrolith is both a rich and not mutable it is not a vamp. sent8: if something that does gird does not rhyme detriment then it is not a kind of an incidence. sent9: if the hydrolith is rich and it is mutable then it is not a vamp. sent10: there is something such that if it is a Sinatra but not a milk it is not a kind of a MPEG. sent11: there exists something such that if it is not non-rich and it is not mutable then it is a vamp. sent12: there exists something such that if it is a brainworker and does not singe then it does not osculate kanamycin. sent13: if the hydrolith is a rich but not a shape then it is not ulcerative. sent14: the hydrolith is not a kind of a leptodactylid if it mouths sylvanite and is not dispensable. sent15: that the proaccelerin does not stink if the proaccelerin mouths equalization and does not osculate wintergreen is not false. sent16: there is something such that if the fact that it is rich and is mutable is not false it is not a kind of a vamp. sent17: there is something such that if it is a kind of a danseur and it is not unaggressive then it is non-bismuthal. sent18: there exists something such that if it is a conserve that is not a Finnish it is not maxillary. sent19: there is something such that if it is a copybook and it is not a kind of a pulchritude then it is not a hamate. sent20: if the hydrolith is a rich but it is not mutable then it is a kind of a vamp.
|
sent1: (Ex): ({DA}x & ¬{HH}x) -> ¬{HQ}x sent2: (Ex): ({ER}x & ¬{AQ}x) -> ¬{IH}x sent3: (Ex): ({JA}x & ¬{IH}x) -> ¬{EL}x sent4: ({HR}{bc} & ¬{JD}{bc}) -> ¬{AA}{bc} sent5: (Ex): ({AM}x & ¬{CQ}x) -> ¬{GR}x sent6: (Ex): ({FK}x & ¬{HN}x) -> ¬{IO}x sent7: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent8: (x): ({FD}x & ¬{CK}x) -> ¬{ED}x sent9: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent10: (Ex): ({AG}x & ¬{DH}x) -> ¬{GG}x sent11: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent12: (Ex): ({HE}x & ¬{BM}x) -> ¬{CR}x sent13: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{DL}{aa}) -> ¬{EL}{aa} sent14: ({GT}{aa} & ¬{BF}{aa}) -> ¬{CE}{aa} sent15: ({GB}{bt} & ¬{IJ}{bt}) -> ¬{GJ}{bt} sent16: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent17: (Ex): ({DA}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{CT}x sent18: (Ex): ({CA}x & ¬{FA}x) -> ¬{T}x sent19: (Ex): ({HN}x & ¬{FB}x) -> ¬{BP}x sent20: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}
|
[
"sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there exists something such that if it girds and does not rhyme detriment it is not an incidence.
|
(Ex): ({FD}x & ¬{CK}x) -> ¬{ED}x
|
[
"sent8 -> int1: if the surfboard does gird and does not rhyme detriment then it is not a kind of an incidence.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it is a kind of rich thing that is not mutable it is not a vamp is false. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is a kind of a danseur and it is not a whole it is non-Puranic. sent2: there is something such that if it is a kind of a Ataturk and it is not a misdeal it is not three-wheel. sent3: there is something such that if it is a impasto and it is not three-wheel then it is not ulcerative. sent4: if the sylvanite does redeem and does not rhyme articulator then it is not a rich. sent5: there exists something such that if it is cardiac and it is not maxillodental then it is not interplanetary. sent6: there is something such that if it is counterterror and is not a copybook then it is not a funny. sent7: if the hydrolith is both a rich and not mutable it is not a vamp. sent8: if something that does gird does not rhyme detriment then it is not a kind of an incidence. sent9: if the hydrolith is rich and it is mutable then it is not a vamp. sent10: there is something such that if it is a Sinatra but not a milk it is not a kind of a MPEG. sent11: there exists something such that if it is not non-rich and it is not mutable then it is a vamp. sent12: there exists something such that if it is a brainworker and does not singe then it does not osculate kanamycin. sent13: if the hydrolith is a rich but not a shape then it is not ulcerative. sent14: the hydrolith is not a kind of a leptodactylid if it mouths sylvanite and is not dispensable. sent15: that the proaccelerin does not stink if the proaccelerin mouths equalization and does not osculate wintergreen is not false. sent16: there is something such that if the fact that it is rich and is mutable is not false it is not a kind of a vamp. sent17: there is something such that if it is a kind of a danseur and it is not unaggressive then it is non-bismuthal. sent18: there exists something such that if it is a conserve that is not a Finnish it is not maxillary. sent19: there is something such that if it is a copybook and it is not a kind of a pulchritude then it is not a hamate. sent20: if the hydrolith is a rich but it is not mutable then it is a kind of a vamp. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the cericness occurs.
|
{A}
|
sent1: the mouthing humaneness occurs. sent2: the osculating worthlessness happens. sent3: if the acrophony does not occur then the fact that the uncoiling does not occur and the osculating companionability does not occur does not hold. sent4: the lasting happens. sent5: if the imperviousness does not occur then that that the cericness and the vicissitude occurs hold is not true. sent6: the osculating companionability occurs. sent7: the seasonableness happens. sent8: the installation occurs. sent9: if that the cericness occurs and the vicissitude happens is not correct that the cericness does not occur hold. sent10: the skip happens. sent11: the mouthing uranium occurs. sent12: the cericness happens. sent13: if that the uncoiling does not occur and the osculating companionability does not occur is not true the imperviousness occurs. sent14: the fact that the cericness but not the vicissitude occurs is not right if the imperviousness happens. sent15: the echoing happens if the fact that the cericness occurs but the vicissitude does not occur is incorrect. sent16: the rhyming citron happens. sent17: that the mouthing figwort happens is not wrong. sent18: the rhyming historicalness happens. sent19: the Esseneness happens. sent20: the rhyming tenor occurs.
|
sent1: {FO} sent2: {CK} sent3: ¬{F} -> ¬(¬{D} & ¬{E}) sent4: {CF} sent5: ¬{C} -> ¬({A} & {B}) sent6: {E} sent7: {GL} sent8: {BB} sent9: ¬({A} & {B}) -> ¬{A} sent10: {EC} sent11: {G} sent12: {A} sent13: ¬(¬{D} & ¬{E}) -> {C} sent14: {C} -> ¬({A} & ¬{B}) sent15: ¬({A} & ¬{B}) -> {IB} sent16: {CT} sent17: {CN} sent18: {IF} sent19: {GT} sent20: {HB}
|
[
"sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the echo happens.
|
{IB}
|
[] | 9 | 1 | 0 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the cericness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the mouthing humaneness occurs. sent2: the osculating worthlessness happens. sent3: if the acrophony does not occur then the fact that the uncoiling does not occur and the osculating companionability does not occur does not hold. sent4: the lasting happens. sent5: if the imperviousness does not occur then that that the cericness and the vicissitude occurs hold is not true. sent6: the osculating companionability occurs. sent7: the seasonableness happens. sent8: the installation occurs. sent9: if that the cericness occurs and the vicissitude happens is not correct that the cericness does not occur hold. sent10: the skip happens. sent11: the mouthing uranium occurs. sent12: the cericness happens. sent13: if that the uncoiling does not occur and the osculating companionability does not occur is not true the imperviousness occurs. sent14: the fact that the cericness but not the vicissitude occurs is not right if the imperviousness happens. sent15: the echoing happens if the fact that the cericness occurs but the vicissitude does not occur is incorrect. sent16: the rhyming citron happens. sent17: that the mouthing figwort happens is not wrong. sent18: the rhyming historicalness happens. sent19: the Esseneness happens. sent20: the rhyming tenor occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent12 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that if the fusilier is a kind of the Fauntleroy that the fusilier is unintrusive is correct does not hold.
|
¬({A}{a} -> {C}{a})
|
sent1: something that is not a kind of a dandelion is a Fauntleroy and an aesthetic. sent2: the fusilier is a beneficiation. sent3: the fusilier is not aesthetic if that it is a Fauntleroy is correct. sent4: the headfast is not expansive but it groups if it is not gyral. sent5: something is not amphibious if it is not expansive and it groups. sent6: the remount is an aesthetic. sent7: the fact that something is a conic but it does not mouth smog is false if it is not amphibious. sent8: if there is something such that it is a Fauntleroy the fusilier either is not intrusive or is a Fauntleroy or both. sent9: if the headfast is not cinematic but it does flank it is not gyral. sent10: the fusilier does not osculate chaplain if it is aesthetic. sent11: the headfast is not cinematic but it is a kind of a flank. sent12: if the fact that something is a conic but it does not mouth smog is incorrect it is not altitudinal. sent13: if the fusilier is unintrusive the igloo is not unintrusive. sent14: the pennyroyal is not a dandelion if the insurgent is a dandelion but it is not a kind of a Meccano. sent15: if something is not an aesthetic it is unintrusive. sent16: the insurgent is a dandelion that is not a Meccano if the headfast is not altitudinal.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({A}x & {B}x) sent2: {DF}{a} sent3: {A}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent4: ¬{L}{d} -> (¬{K}{d} & {J}{d}) sent5: (x): (¬{K}x & {J}x) -> ¬{I}x sent6: {B}{de} sent7: (x): ¬{I}x -> ¬({G}x & ¬{H}x) sent8: (x): {A}x -> ({C}{a} v {A}{a}) sent9: (¬{N}{d} & {M}{d}) -> ¬{L}{d} sent10: {B}{a} -> ¬{JJ}{a} sent11: (¬{N}{d} & {M}{d}) sent12: (x): ¬({G}x & ¬{H}x) -> ¬{E}x sent13: {C}{a} -> ¬{C}{r} sent14: ({D}{c} & ¬{F}{c}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent15: (x): ¬{B}x -> {C}x sent16: ¬{E}{d} -> ({D}{c} & ¬{F}{c})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fusilier is a Fauntleroy.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the fusilier is not aesthetic.; sent15 -> int2: if the fusilier is inaesthetic then that it is intrusive is false.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fusilier is unintrusive.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}{a}; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; sent15 -> int2: ¬{B}{a} -> {C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {C}{a}; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the igloo is not unintrusive.
|
¬{C}{r}
|
[
"sent1 -> int4: if the pennyroyal is not a dandelion then it is a Fauntleroy and it is an aesthetic.; sent12 -> int5: the headfast is not altitudinal if that it is a conic that does not mouth smog does not hold.; sent7 -> int6: the fact that the headfast is a kind of a conic and does not mouth smog is not right if it is non-amphibious.; sent5 -> int7: the headfast is not amphibious if it is not expansive and it is a kind of a grouping.; sent9 & sent11 -> int8: the headfast is not gyral.; sent4 & int8 -> int9: the headfast is both not expansive and a grouping.; int7 & int9 -> int10: that the headfast is not amphibious is true.; int6 & int10 -> int11: that the headfast is conic thing that does not mouth smog is not right.; int5 & int11 -> int12: the headfast is non-altitudinal.; sent16 & int12 -> int13: the insurgent is a dandelion but it is not a Meccano.; sent14 & int13 -> int14: the pennyroyal is not a dandelion.; int4 & int14 -> int15: the pennyroyal is a Fauntleroy that is aesthetic.; int15 -> int16: that the pennyroyal is a Fauntleroy hold.; int16 -> int17: there exists something such that it is a Fauntleroy.; int17 & sent8 -> int18: the fusilier is unintrusive and/or it is a kind of a Fauntleroy.;"
] | 12 | 3 | 3 | 14 | 0 | 14 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that if the fusilier is a kind of the Fauntleroy that the fusilier is unintrusive is correct does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: something that is not a kind of a dandelion is a Fauntleroy and an aesthetic. sent2: the fusilier is a beneficiation. sent3: the fusilier is not aesthetic if that it is a Fauntleroy is correct. sent4: the headfast is not expansive but it groups if it is not gyral. sent5: something is not amphibious if it is not expansive and it groups. sent6: the remount is an aesthetic. sent7: the fact that something is a conic but it does not mouth smog is false if it is not amphibious. sent8: if there is something such that it is a Fauntleroy the fusilier either is not intrusive or is a Fauntleroy or both. sent9: if the headfast is not cinematic but it does flank it is not gyral. sent10: the fusilier does not osculate chaplain if it is aesthetic. sent11: the headfast is not cinematic but it is a kind of a flank. sent12: if the fact that something is a conic but it does not mouth smog is incorrect it is not altitudinal. sent13: if the fusilier is unintrusive the igloo is not unintrusive. sent14: the pennyroyal is not a dandelion if the insurgent is a dandelion but it is not a kind of a Meccano. sent15: if something is not an aesthetic it is unintrusive. sent16: the insurgent is a dandelion that is not a Meccano if the headfast is not altitudinal. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fusilier is a Fauntleroy.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the fusilier is not aesthetic.; sent15 -> int2: if the fusilier is inaesthetic then that it is intrusive is false.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fusilier is unintrusive.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the knell occurs.
|
{C}
|
sent1: if that either the non-estrogenicness or the dehiscence or both occurs is not right then the aeration does not occur. sent2: that either the non-estrogenicness or the dehiscence or both occurs is incorrect. sent3: the aeration causes that the knelling does not occur and the centrifugalness occurs. sent4: the aeration occurs if that the mouthing chrome but not the teeming happens is not right. sent5: that not the centrifugalness but the knelling occurs is caused by that the aeration does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{AA} v {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent2: ¬(¬{AA} v {AB}) sent3: {B} -> (¬{C} & {A}) sent4: ¬({D} & ¬{E}) -> {B} sent5: ¬{B} -> (¬{A} & {C})
|
[
"sent1 & sent2 -> int1: the aeration does not occur.; sent5 & int1 -> int2: both the non-centrifugalness and the knelling happens.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 & sent2 -> int1: ¬{B}; sent5 & int1 -> int2: (¬{A} & {C}); int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the knell does not occur.
|
¬{C}
|
[] | 7 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the knell occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if that either the non-estrogenicness or the dehiscence or both occurs is not right then the aeration does not occur. sent2: that either the non-estrogenicness or the dehiscence or both occurs is incorrect. sent3: the aeration causes that the knelling does not occur and the centrifugalness occurs. sent4: the aeration occurs if that the mouthing chrome but not the teeming happens is not right. sent5: that not the centrifugalness but the knelling occurs is caused by that the aeration does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 & sent2 -> int1: the aeration does not occur.; sent5 & int1 -> int2: both the non-centrifugalness and the knelling happens.; int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the crowbar is not a Grant.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
sent1: the fact that the inflow is a Auchincloss and does not osculate Donar is wrong if there exists something such that it does osculate Donar. sent2: the jadeite does not fade if the fact that the resid is not supersonic hold. sent3: if something does osculate Donar then it is not thin. sent4: if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a license that is not undependable is wrong then the crowbar is a Grant. sent5: something that is amitotic and does not osculate pediculicide is not a Grant. sent6: if the pilotfish osculates Louisville the lyssavirus is dizygotic or it is not a kind of a Zurvanism or both. sent7: if the fact that the pilotfish is not a rummy and it is not residual is wrong it does osculate Louisville. sent8: the horseleech does osculate Donar if the fact that the inflow is a Auchincloss but it does not osculate Donar does not hold. sent9: there is nothing such that it is not reliable and it is not a kind of a Grant. sent10: something does not osculate pediculicide if that it is not a kind of a antitussive and it is premenstrual does not hold. sent11: that the minelayer osculates Donar hold if the horseleech does osculates Donar. sent12: the resid is not supersonic if the lyssavirus is dizygotic and/or not a Zurvanism. sent13: the fact that the crowbar is not a kind of a antitussive but it is premenstrual is incorrect if the jadeite is not a fade. sent14: the rapeseed osculates Donar. sent15: there exists nothing such that it is a license that is undependable. sent16: if the minelayer does not thin the crowbar is a Dinornithidae and it is amitotic. sent17: there is nothing such that it is a license and is not undependable. sent18: if something is not a Grant that it is undependable and it does not osculate Jamison is incorrect.
|
sent1: (x): {F}x -> ¬({K}{e} & ¬{F}{e}) sent2: ¬{J}{f} -> ¬{I}{d} sent3: (x): {F}x -> ¬{E}x sent4: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent5: (x): ({C}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{A}x sent6: {N}{i} -> ({L}{h} v ¬{M}{h}) sent7: ¬(¬{O}{i} & ¬{P}{i}) -> {N}{i} sent8: ¬({K}{e} & ¬{F}{e}) -> {F}{c} sent9: (x): ¬({AB}x & ¬{A}x) sent10: (x): ¬(¬{G}x & {H}x) -> ¬{B}x sent11: {F}{c} -> {F}{b} sent12: ({L}{h} v ¬{M}{h}) -> ¬{J}{f} sent13: ¬{I}{d} -> ¬(¬{G}{a} & {H}{a}) sent14: {F}{g} sent15: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent16: ¬{E}{b} -> ({D}{a} & {C}{a}) sent17: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent18: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AB}x & ¬{EB}x)
|
[
"sent17 -> int1: the fact that the Exocet does license but it is not undependable is not true.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that that it is both a license and reliable does not hold.; int2 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent17 -> int1: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x); int2 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the endometrium is undependable but it does not osculate Jamison does not hold.
|
¬({AB}{cr} & ¬{EB}{cr})
|
[
"sent18 -> int3: the fact that the endometrium is undependable but it does not osculate Jamison is false if it is not a kind of a Grant.;"
] | 4 | 3 | 3 | 16 | 0 | 16 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the crowbar is not a Grant. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the inflow is a Auchincloss and does not osculate Donar is wrong if there exists something such that it does osculate Donar. sent2: the jadeite does not fade if the fact that the resid is not supersonic hold. sent3: if something does osculate Donar then it is not thin. sent4: if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a license that is not undependable is wrong then the crowbar is a Grant. sent5: something that is amitotic and does not osculate pediculicide is not a Grant. sent6: if the pilotfish osculates Louisville the lyssavirus is dizygotic or it is not a kind of a Zurvanism or both. sent7: if the fact that the pilotfish is not a rummy and it is not residual is wrong it does osculate Louisville. sent8: the horseleech does osculate Donar if the fact that the inflow is a Auchincloss but it does not osculate Donar does not hold. sent9: there is nothing such that it is not reliable and it is not a kind of a Grant. sent10: something does not osculate pediculicide if that it is not a kind of a antitussive and it is premenstrual does not hold. sent11: that the minelayer osculates Donar hold if the horseleech does osculates Donar. sent12: the resid is not supersonic if the lyssavirus is dizygotic and/or not a Zurvanism. sent13: the fact that the crowbar is not a kind of a antitussive but it is premenstrual is incorrect if the jadeite is not a fade. sent14: the rapeseed osculates Donar. sent15: there exists nothing such that it is a license that is undependable. sent16: if the minelayer does not thin the crowbar is a Dinornithidae and it is amitotic. sent17: there is nothing such that it is a license and is not undependable. sent18: if something is not a Grant that it is undependable and it does not osculate Jamison is incorrect. ; $proof$ =
|
sent17 -> int1: the fact that the Exocet does license but it is not undependable is not true.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that that it is both a license and reliable does not hold.; int2 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the nard does rhyme impasto but it does not rhyme dibucaine does not hold.
|
¬({A}{a} & ¬{D}{a})
|
sent1: if the Episcopalian is a kind of a fritter then that the Dominion is pyogenic but it is not a kind of a Schopenhauer is not true. sent2: if the geranium is not purposeful that the nard does rhyme impasto but it does not rhyme dibucaine does not hold. sent3: if the fact that the pinesap is not sensational does not hold the nard rhymes impasto and does not rhyme dibucaine. sent4: the geranium is not pyogenic and it is not sensational. sent5: if the Episcopalian does not rhyme globalization then it does osculate Dominion and is a kind of a fritter. sent6: if something is not sensational it is not purposeful. sent7: the fact that the nard is purposeful and is pyogenic is false if the geranium does not rhyme dibucaine. sent8: the Episcopalian does not rhyme globalization. sent9: the fact that the nard does rhyme impasto and it rhymes dibucaine is incorrect. sent10: the geranium is not pyogenic.
|
sent1: {F}{d} -> ¬({E}{c} & ¬{G}{c}) sent2: ¬{C}{aa} -> ¬({A}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent3: {B}{b} -> ({A}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent4: (¬{E}{aa} & ¬{B}{aa}) sent5: ¬{I}{d} -> ({H}{d} & {F}{d}) sent6: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{C}x sent7: ¬{D}{aa} -> ¬({C}{a} & {E}{a}) sent8: ¬{I}{d} sent9: ¬({A}{a} & {D}{a}) sent10: ¬{E}{aa}
|
[
"sent6 -> int1: if that the geranium is not sensational is not false then it is not purposeful.; sent4 -> int2: the geranium is not sensational.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the geranium is not purposeful.; int3 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 -> int1: ¬{B}{aa} -> ¬{C}{aa}; sent4 -> int2: ¬{B}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬{C}{aa}; int3 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the nard does rhyme impasto but it does not rhyme dibucaine.
|
({A}{a} & ¬{D}{a})
|
[
"sent5 & sent8 -> int4: the Episcopalian does osculate Dominion and is a kind of a fritter.; int4 -> int5: the Episcopalian is a kind of a fritter.; sent1 & int5 -> int6: that the Dominion is pyogenic and is not a Schopenhauer does not hold.; int6 -> int7: there is something such that the fact that it is pyogenic and it is not a Schopenhauer is false.;"
] | 8 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the nard does rhyme impasto but it does not rhyme dibucaine does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Episcopalian is a kind of a fritter then that the Dominion is pyogenic but it is not a kind of a Schopenhauer is not true. sent2: if the geranium is not purposeful that the nard does rhyme impasto but it does not rhyme dibucaine does not hold. sent3: if the fact that the pinesap is not sensational does not hold the nard rhymes impasto and does not rhyme dibucaine. sent4: the geranium is not pyogenic and it is not sensational. sent5: if the Episcopalian does not rhyme globalization then it does osculate Dominion and is a kind of a fritter. sent6: if something is not sensational it is not purposeful. sent7: the fact that the nard is purposeful and is pyogenic is false if the geranium does not rhyme dibucaine. sent8: the Episcopalian does not rhyme globalization. sent9: the fact that the nard does rhyme impasto and it rhymes dibucaine is incorrect. sent10: the geranium is not pyogenic. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 -> int1: if that the geranium is not sensational is not false then it is not purposeful.; sent4 -> int2: the geranium is not sensational.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the geranium is not purposeful.; int3 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that that the cataclinalness occurs is not false does not hold.
|
¬{A}
|
sent1: if the coolness does not occur then the fabianness occurs and/or the rhyming hospitableness does not occur. sent2: the fact that the areolarness does not occur and the feminism does not occur is incorrect if the concern does not occur. sent3: the fact that that the illicitness does not occur and the rhyming resuscitation does not occur is not incorrect does not hold if the unsoundness occurs. sent4: the unsoundness and the white-collarness occurs if that the derring-do does not occur hold. sent5: the cool does not occur if that the areolarness does not occur and the feminism does not occur is not true. sent6: if that not the mouthing barker but the cataclinalness happens is not correct then the mouthing barker happens. sent7: if the rhyming resuscitation occurs that both the cataclinalness and the non-bimorphemicness occurs does not hold. sent8: if either the illicitness occurs or the unsoundness occurs or both then the rhyming resuscitation does not occur. sent9: the bimorphemicness does not occur. sent10: if the osculating palliative occurs the mouthing icecap does not occur and the counterclockwiseness does not occur. sent11: the fact that the conjunction does not occur and the disposable does not occur does not hold if the mouthing icecap does not occur. sent12: if the fact that the mouthing Montgolfier occurs and the Turkish happens does not hold then the mouthing essay does not occur. sent13: the fact that the mouthing barker does not occur but the cataclinalness occurs is not correct if the bimorphemicness occurs. sent14: the rhyming resuscitation happens. sent15: if that the conjunction does not occur and the disposable does not occur is incorrect then the rhyming Terebellidae does not occur. sent16: that the mouthing Montgolfier happens and the Turkishness occurs is wrong if the rhyming Terebellidae does not occur. sent17: the concern does not occur but the repudiating in-basket happens if that the mouthing essay does not occur is not wrong. sent18: that the osculating millionaire but not the goingness occurs is not right if the toasting occurs.
|
sent1: ¬{J} -> ({I} v ¬{H}) sent2: ¬{M} -> ¬(¬{K} & ¬{L}) sent3: {E} -> ¬(¬{D} & ¬{C}) sent4: ¬{G} -> ({E} & {F}) sent5: ¬(¬{K} & ¬{L}) -> ¬{J} sent6: ¬(¬{AA} & {A}) -> {AA} sent7: {C} -> ¬({A} & ¬{B}) sent8: ({D} v {E}) -> ¬{C} sent9: ¬{B} sent10: {AC} -> (¬{U} & ¬{AB}) sent11: ¬{U} -> ¬(¬{T} & ¬{S}) sent12: ¬({P} & {Q}) -> ¬{O} sent13: {B} -> ¬(¬{AA} & {A}) sent14: {C} sent15: ¬(¬{T} & ¬{S}) -> ¬{R} sent16: ¬{R} -> ¬({P} & {Q}) sent17: ¬{O} -> (¬{M} & {N}) sent18: {DB} -> ¬({GS} & ¬{IC})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the cataclinalness happens.; assump1 & sent9 -> int1: the cataclinalness and the non-bimorphemicness occurs.; sent7 & sent14 -> int2: the fact that the cataclinalness and the non-bimorphemicness occurs is not right.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}; assump1 & sent9 -> int1: ({A} & ¬{B}); sent7 & sent14 -> int2: ¬({A} & ¬{B}); int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the cataclinalness happens.
|
{A}
|
[] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that that the cataclinalness occurs is not false does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the coolness does not occur then the fabianness occurs and/or the rhyming hospitableness does not occur. sent2: the fact that the areolarness does not occur and the feminism does not occur is incorrect if the concern does not occur. sent3: the fact that that the illicitness does not occur and the rhyming resuscitation does not occur is not incorrect does not hold if the unsoundness occurs. sent4: the unsoundness and the white-collarness occurs if that the derring-do does not occur hold. sent5: the cool does not occur if that the areolarness does not occur and the feminism does not occur is not true. sent6: if that not the mouthing barker but the cataclinalness happens is not correct then the mouthing barker happens. sent7: if the rhyming resuscitation occurs that both the cataclinalness and the non-bimorphemicness occurs does not hold. sent8: if either the illicitness occurs or the unsoundness occurs or both then the rhyming resuscitation does not occur. sent9: the bimorphemicness does not occur. sent10: if the osculating palliative occurs the mouthing icecap does not occur and the counterclockwiseness does not occur. sent11: the fact that the conjunction does not occur and the disposable does not occur does not hold if the mouthing icecap does not occur. sent12: if the fact that the mouthing Montgolfier occurs and the Turkish happens does not hold then the mouthing essay does not occur. sent13: the fact that the mouthing barker does not occur but the cataclinalness occurs is not correct if the bimorphemicness occurs. sent14: the rhyming resuscitation happens. sent15: if that the conjunction does not occur and the disposable does not occur is incorrect then the rhyming Terebellidae does not occur. sent16: that the mouthing Montgolfier happens and the Turkishness occurs is wrong if the rhyming Terebellidae does not occur. sent17: the concern does not occur but the repudiating in-basket happens if that the mouthing essay does not occur is not wrong. sent18: that the osculating millionaire but not the goingness occurs is not right if the toasting occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the cataclinalness happens.; assump1 & sent9 -> int1: the cataclinalness and the non-bimorphemicness occurs.; sent7 & sent14 -> int2: the fact that the cataclinalness and the non-bimorphemicness occurs is not right.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the involucrateness does not occur.
|
¬{A}
|
sent1: if the fact that not the dressing but the Javanese happens is incorrect the carnival does not occur. sent2: the mouthing asthenosphere happens. sent3: the redeployment occurs. sent4: if the dressing happens the carnival does not occur. sent5: the latinateness does not occur if that the osculating underlip does not occur and the mouthing Gasterosteus occurs does not hold. sent6: the receivership occurs. sent7: the PM does not occur. sent8: the chairmanship happens. sent9: if the cognitiveness happens the mouthing horsehair happens. sent10: the osculating Indian brings about the skanking. sent11: if the suctorialness occurs the hydrokineticness happens. sent12: the fact that both the non-abducentness and the persistentness occurs does not hold. sent13: the dressing prevents that the Javaneseness does not occur. sent14: that the involucrateness happens results in the carnival. sent15: that the dressing does not occur and the Javanese occurs is false. sent16: that the steamer does not occur is triggered by that the fragrantness occurs. sent17: the untheatricalness happens. sent18: if the fact that both the non-civicsness and the receivership occurs is not right the elements does not occur. sent19: the fact that the cognitiveness and the shapeliness happens does not hold. sent20: the womanliness does not occur if the Circumcision happens. sent21: the fact that the release and the rhyming adrenosterone happens is not right. sent22: the headline occurs. sent23: the bane does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{D} & {C}) -> ¬{B} sent2: {ED} sent3: {JK} sent4: {D} -> ¬{B} sent5: ¬(¬{EB} & {IQ}) -> ¬{FO} sent6: {HP} sent7: ¬{BA} sent8: {I} sent9: {GF} -> {IE} sent10: {AH} -> {AE} sent11: {E} -> {IG} sent12: ¬(¬{HD} & {GH}) sent13: {D} -> {C} sent14: {A} -> {B} sent15: ¬(¬{D} & {C}) sent16: {CR} -> ¬{BP} sent17: {AJ} sent18: ¬(¬{GM} & {HP}) -> ¬{BN} sent19: ¬({GF} & {J}) sent20: {EP} -> ¬{EF} sent21: ¬({DL} & {EO}) sent22: {DK} sent23: ¬{CD}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the involucrateness happens.; sent14 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the carnival happens is not incorrect.; sent1 & sent15 -> int2: the carnival does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}; sent14 & assump1 -> int1: {B}; sent1 & sent15 -> int2: ¬{B}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the involucrateness occurs.
|
{A}
|
[] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 20 | 0 | 20 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the involucrateness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that not the dressing but the Javanese happens is incorrect the carnival does not occur. sent2: the mouthing asthenosphere happens. sent3: the redeployment occurs. sent4: if the dressing happens the carnival does not occur. sent5: the latinateness does not occur if that the osculating underlip does not occur and the mouthing Gasterosteus occurs does not hold. sent6: the receivership occurs. sent7: the PM does not occur. sent8: the chairmanship happens. sent9: if the cognitiveness happens the mouthing horsehair happens. sent10: the osculating Indian brings about the skanking. sent11: if the suctorialness occurs the hydrokineticness happens. sent12: the fact that both the non-abducentness and the persistentness occurs does not hold. sent13: the dressing prevents that the Javaneseness does not occur. sent14: that the involucrateness happens results in the carnival. sent15: that the dressing does not occur and the Javanese occurs is false. sent16: that the steamer does not occur is triggered by that the fragrantness occurs. sent17: the untheatricalness happens. sent18: if the fact that both the non-civicsness and the receivership occurs is not right the elements does not occur. sent19: the fact that the cognitiveness and the shapeliness happens does not hold. sent20: the womanliness does not occur if the Circumcision happens. sent21: the fact that the release and the rhyming adrenosterone happens is not right. sent22: the headline occurs. sent23: the bane does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the involucrateness happens.; sent14 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the carnival happens is not incorrect.; sent1 & sent15 -> int2: the carnival does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the stationmaster is not a Percheron.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
sent1: there is something such that the fact that it germinates and it is discourteous does not hold. sent2: if something is platonic then the stationmaster is a domesticity and is an offerer. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a basileus that repudiates shrub is wrong. sent4: everything is a kind of a paper that is platonic. sent5: the stationmaster repudiates shrub. sent6: if there exists something such that that it is a basileus and repudiates shrub is not true the stationmaster is a kind of a Percheron. sent7: if something is not a domesticity then it does repudiate shrub and is a Percheron. sent8: if there is something such that it is not a basileus then the stationmaster is a Percheron.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬({HK}x & {GJ}x) sent2: (x): {D}x -> ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent3: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent4: (x): ({E}x & {D}x) sent5: {AB}{a} sent6: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent7: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({AB}x & {A}x) sent8: (x): ¬{AA}x -> {A}{a}
|
[
"sent3 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the stationmaster is not a kind of a Percheron.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: the tavern is both a paper and platonic.; int1 -> int2: the tavern is platonic.; int2 -> int3: everything is platonic.; int3 -> int4: the jobcentre is platonic.; int4 -> int5: there is something such that it is platonic.; sent2 & int5 -> int6: the stationmaster is a kind of a domesticity and it is a kind of an offerer.; int6 -> int7: the stationmaster is a kind of a domesticity.;"
] | 8 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 6 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the stationmaster is not a Percheron. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that the fact that it germinates and it is discourteous does not hold. sent2: if something is platonic then the stationmaster is a domesticity and is an offerer. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a basileus that repudiates shrub is wrong. sent4: everything is a kind of a paper that is platonic. sent5: the stationmaster repudiates shrub. sent6: if there exists something such that that it is a basileus and repudiates shrub is not true the stationmaster is a kind of a Percheron. sent7: if something is not a domesticity then it does repudiate shrub and is a Percheron. sent8: if there is something such that it is not a basileus then the stationmaster is a Percheron. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the organic is not intuitionist.
|
¬{B}{b}
|
sent1: the receiver is not a phosphorescence. sent2: if something is a kind of a phosphorescence or does not like or both that it is not intuitionist is correct. sent3: the hardback is not a systematization. sent4: the organic is a phosphorescence or it is not liking or both if the hardback is not a systematization.
|
sent1: ¬{AA}{gl} sent2: (x): ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent3: ¬{A}{a} sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{b} v ¬{AB}{b})
|
[
"sent4 & sent3 -> int1: the organic is a phosphorescence or is not liking or both.; sent2 -> int2: the organic is not intuitionist if it is a phosphorescence or it does not like or both.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 & sent3 -> int1: ({AA}{b} v ¬{AB}{b}); sent2 -> int2: ({AA}{b} v ¬{AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{b}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the organic is not intuitionist. ; $context$ = sent1: the receiver is not a phosphorescence. sent2: if something is a kind of a phosphorescence or does not like or both that it is not intuitionist is correct. sent3: the hardback is not a systematization. sent4: the organic is a phosphorescence or it is not liking or both if the hardback is not a systematization. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 & sent3 -> int1: the organic is a phosphorescence or is not liking or both.; sent2 -> int2: the organic is not intuitionist if it is a phosphorescence or it does not like or both.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the cryptocoryne is not acropetal.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
sent1: there is something such that it is not a hyphema. sent2: the pellicle is both Union and not a hyphema. sent3: the pellicle is not a hyphema. sent4: the turnaround is recessionary if it is traceable. sent5: if something that is Union is a kind of a hyphema the cryptocoryne is not acropetal. sent6: if something is not perinatal then the fact that it is not traceable and is not a trypsin is not true. sent7: the turnaround is not perinatal if something that does not rhyme Costanoan does not osculate chicle. sent8: if there exists something such that that it osculates conto and it does osculate prick is false the Costanoan does not osculates conto. sent9: if the Costanoan does not osculate conto then it does not rhyme Costanoan and it does not osculate chicle. sent10: something is traceable if the fact that it is not traceable and not a trypsin is incorrect. sent11: there is something such that the fact that it does osculate conto and osculates prick is incorrect.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent2: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent3: ¬{AB}{aa} sent4: {D}{b} -> {C}{b} sent5: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent6: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{E}x) sent7: (x): (¬{H}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{F}{b} sent8: (x): ¬({I}x & {K}x) -> ¬{I}{c} sent9: ¬{I}{c} -> (¬{H}{c} & ¬{G}{c}) sent10: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{E}x) -> {D}x sent11: (Ex): ¬({I}x & {K}x)
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: something is a kind of Union thing that is not a kind of a hyphema.;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> int1: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x);"
] |
the cryptocoryne is acropetal.
|
{A}{a}
|
[
"sent10 -> int2: if that the turnaround is not traceable and it is not a trypsin is not true then it is traceable.; sent6 -> int3: that the fact that the turnaround is untraceable but not a trypsin is correct does not hold if it is not perinatal.; sent11 & sent8 -> int4: the Costanoan does not osculate conto.; sent9 & int4 -> int5: the Costanoan does not rhyme Costanoan and does not osculate chicle.; int5 -> int6: something does not rhyme Costanoan and does not osculate chicle.; int6 & sent7 -> int7: the turnaround is not perinatal.; int3 & int7 -> int8: that the turnaround is both not traceable and not a trypsin does not hold.; int2 & int8 -> int9: the turnaround is traceable.; sent4 & int9 -> int10: the turnaround is recessionary.; int10 -> int11: there exists something such that it is recessionary.;"
] | 10 | 2 | null | 10 | 0 | 10 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the cryptocoryne is not acropetal. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is not a hyphema. sent2: the pellicle is both Union and not a hyphema. sent3: the pellicle is not a hyphema. sent4: the turnaround is recessionary if it is traceable. sent5: if something that is Union is a kind of a hyphema the cryptocoryne is not acropetal. sent6: if something is not perinatal then the fact that it is not traceable and is not a trypsin is not true. sent7: the turnaround is not perinatal if something that does not rhyme Costanoan does not osculate chicle. sent8: if there exists something such that that it osculates conto and it does osculate prick is false the Costanoan does not osculates conto. sent9: if the Costanoan does not osculate conto then it does not rhyme Costanoan and it does not osculate chicle. sent10: something is traceable if the fact that it is not traceable and not a trypsin is incorrect. sent11: there is something such that the fact that it does osculate conto and osculates prick is incorrect. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> int1: something is a kind of Union thing that is not a kind of a hyphema.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the innocuousness does not occur.
|
¬{C}
|
sent1: if the roiling occurs then the spot-welding happens. sent2: the carcinomatousness occurs. sent3: if the atrioventricularness happens then that the osculating ichthyosaur does not occur is correct. sent4: that the neuropsychologicalness does not occur is triggered by that the sit-down happens. sent5: the unicameralness occurs. sent6: the euphoniousness happens. sent7: the nod happens. sent8: if the sucking does not occur not the jihadiness but the rhyming Euphractus occurs. sent9: if the fact that the colorfulness happens is not wrong the fact that the mouthing pinkie happens is not false. sent10: if the cosmopolitanness happens the ECCM occurs. sent11: the personalness occurs. sent12: the censoring happens. sent13: the rectorship does not occur. sent14: the side-glance happens. sent15: the sucking does not occur if the fact that the aggression does not occur and the sucking occurs is not right. sent16: if the bluster occurs then the destiny happens. sent17: the non-jihadiness is prevented by that the censor happens. sent18: the disintegrating does not occur. sent19: the interlobularness prevents that the osculating ichthyosaur happens. sent20: the fact that the CABG occurs is correct. sent21: the rhyming Malva does not occur if the osculating Araneae happens.
|
sent1: {ID} -> {JK} sent2: {IG} sent3: {IR} -> ¬{CJ} sent4: {IL} -> ¬{T} sent5: {FQ} sent6: {CM} sent7: {GM} sent8: ¬{E} -> (¬{B} & {D}) sent9: {HC} -> {GL} sent10: {HL} -> {R} sent11: {S} sent12: {A} sent13: ¬{EL} sent14: {CH} sent15: ¬(¬{G} & {E}) -> ¬{E} sent16: {FU} -> {EF} sent17: {A} -> {B} sent18: ¬{FT} sent19: {HR} -> ¬{CJ} sent20: {EE} sent21: {CF} -> ¬{JJ}
|
[
"sent17 & sent12 -> int1: the jihadiness happens.;"
] |
[
"sent17 & sent12 -> int1: {B};"
] |
the innocuousness occurs.
|
{C}
|
[] | 7 | 2 | null | 19 | 0 | 19 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the innocuousness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the roiling occurs then the spot-welding happens. sent2: the carcinomatousness occurs. sent3: if the atrioventricularness happens then that the osculating ichthyosaur does not occur is correct. sent4: that the neuropsychologicalness does not occur is triggered by that the sit-down happens. sent5: the unicameralness occurs. sent6: the euphoniousness happens. sent7: the nod happens. sent8: if the sucking does not occur not the jihadiness but the rhyming Euphractus occurs. sent9: if the fact that the colorfulness happens is not wrong the fact that the mouthing pinkie happens is not false. sent10: if the cosmopolitanness happens the ECCM occurs. sent11: the personalness occurs. sent12: the censoring happens. sent13: the rectorship does not occur. sent14: the side-glance happens. sent15: the sucking does not occur if the fact that the aggression does not occur and the sucking occurs is not right. sent16: if the bluster occurs then the destiny happens. sent17: the non-jihadiness is prevented by that the censor happens. sent18: the disintegrating does not occur. sent19: the interlobularness prevents that the osculating ichthyosaur happens. sent20: the fact that the CABG occurs is correct. sent21: the rhyming Malva does not occur if the osculating Araneae happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent17 & sent12 -> int1: the jihadiness happens.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the snowmobiling does not occur.
|
¬{A}
|
sent1: the rhyming surtout occurs. sent2: the snowmobile occurs. sent3: the compactness happens and the mouthing gingerbread occurs if the bioassay does not occur. sent4: the wiving occurs. sent5: that the non-hymenealness and the non-Apocryphalness happens is not correct if that the compacting does not occur is correct. sent6: the expendableness happens. sent7: if that the fact that the bioassaying does not occur and the compact occurs hold is not right the compact does not occur. sent8: if that the non-hymenealness and the non-Apocryphalness occurs is incorrect then the snowmobiling does not occur. sent9: the mouthing gingerbread occurs. sent10: the rhyming raptor happens. sent11: both the snowmobile and the septicness happens if the hymeneal does not occur. sent12: the immediateness happens. sent13: the fact that the maxillodentalness happens is not wrong. sent14: the castigation happens.
|
sent1: {EI} sent2: {A} sent3: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) sent4: {BQ} sent5: ¬{D} -> ¬(¬{B} & ¬{C}) sent6: {FR} sent7: ¬(¬{F} & {D}) -> ¬{D} sent8: ¬(¬{B} & ¬{C}) -> ¬{A} sent9: {E} sent10: {HM} sent11: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {JH}) sent12: {EB} sent13: {GL} sent14: {IJ}
|
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the snowmobile does not occur hold.
|
¬{A}
|
[] | 8 | 1 | 0 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the snowmobiling does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the rhyming surtout occurs. sent2: the snowmobile occurs. sent3: the compactness happens and the mouthing gingerbread occurs if the bioassay does not occur. sent4: the wiving occurs. sent5: that the non-hymenealness and the non-Apocryphalness happens is not correct if that the compacting does not occur is correct. sent6: the expendableness happens. sent7: if that the fact that the bioassaying does not occur and the compact occurs hold is not right the compact does not occur. sent8: if that the non-hymenealness and the non-Apocryphalness occurs is incorrect then the snowmobiling does not occur. sent9: the mouthing gingerbread occurs. sent10: the rhyming raptor happens. sent11: both the snowmobile and the septicness happens if the hymeneal does not occur. sent12: the immediateness happens. sent13: the fact that the maxillodentalness happens is not wrong. sent14: the castigation happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that not the rhyming sinner but the lactogenicness happens is wrong.
|
¬(¬{D} & {C})
|
sent1: that the mouthing allotropy does not occur results in that both the mammothermography and the entertainment occurs. sent2: that the entertainment does not occur is prevented by that the mammothermography does not occur. sent3: if the rhyming cushion does not occur the probation does not occur and the mouthing allotropy does not occur. sent4: that the fact that the indentation does not occur but the mindlessness occurs is true is not right. sent5: the rhyming cushion does not occur if the fact that not the rhyming roble but the personifying occurs is wrong. sent6: if the entertainment occurs then the fact that both the rhyming sinner and the lactogenicness happens is not correct. sent7: the fact that both the rhyming sinner and the lactogenicness occurs is wrong. sent8: the mammothermography triggers that the rhyming sinner does not occur and the lactogenicness occurs. sent9: if the fact that the entertainment happens is correct the fact that the fact that the rhyming sinner does not occur and the lactogenicness occurs is not false does not hold. sent10: that the osculating Dnieper does not occur and the mouthing AMP happens is incorrect if the mammothermography happens. sent11: the fact that the mammothermography occurs does not hold. sent12: the fact that the rhyming sinner does not occur and the mouthing allotropy does not occur hold if the probation occurs.
|
sent1: ¬{E} -> ({A} & {B}) sent2: ¬{A} -> {B} sent3: ¬{G} -> (¬{F} & ¬{E}) sent4: ¬(¬{GO} & {IJ}) sent5: ¬(¬{I} & {H}) -> ¬{G} sent6: {B} -> ¬({D} & {C}) sent7: ¬({D} & {C}) sent8: {A} -> (¬{D} & {C}) sent9: {B} -> ¬(¬{D} & {C}) sent10: {A} -> ¬(¬{IC} & {EE}) sent11: ¬{A} sent12: {F} -> (¬{D} & ¬{E})
|
[
"sent2 & sent11 -> int1: the entertainment occurs.; sent9 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent11 -> int1: {B}; sent9 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the osculating Dnieper does not occur but the mouthing AMP happens is wrong.
|
¬(¬{IC} & {EE})
|
[] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that not the rhyming sinner but the lactogenicness happens is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: that the mouthing allotropy does not occur results in that both the mammothermography and the entertainment occurs. sent2: that the entertainment does not occur is prevented by that the mammothermography does not occur. sent3: if the rhyming cushion does not occur the probation does not occur and the mouthing allotropy does not occur. sent4: that the fact that the indentation does not occur but the mindlessness occurs is true is not right. sent5: the rhyming cushion does not occur if the fact that not the rhyming roble but the personifying occurs is wrong. sent6: if the entertainment occurs then the fact that both the rhyming sinner and the lactogenicness happens is not correct. sent7: the fact that both the rhyming sinner and the lactogenicness occurs is wrong. sent8: the mammothermography triggers that the rhyming sinner does not occur and the lactogenicness occurs. sent9: if the fact that the entertainment happens is correct the fact that the fact that the rhyming sinner does not occur and the lactogenicness occurs is not false does not hold. sent10: that the osculating Dnieper does not occur and the mouthing AMP happens is incorrect if the mammothermography happens. sent11: the fact that the mammothermography occurs does not hold. sent12: the fact that the rhyming sinner does not occur and the mouthing allotropy does not occur hold if the probation occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent11 -> int1: the entertainment occurs.; sent9 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there exists something such that if it does not mouth gobbler the fact that it is a Coke and a looting does not hold is not correct.
|
¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x))
|
sent1: there exists something such that if it is not a Zealot then the fact that it mouths operationalism and it does osculate Burger does not hold. sent2: if the pepperwort is not a Cerastium that it is a kind of a looting and it repudiates crockery does not hold. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not abbatial then that it is clinical and it does sneak does not hold. sent4: if the crockery does not mouth balderdash that it does loot and is phrenic does not hold. sent5: that the wake is a kind of the Coke that loots if the wake does not mouth gobbler hold. sent6: there exists something such that if it is not azonal then that it is a kind of a fan and it does osculate promotion is wrong. sent7: there is something such that if it is not sufficient then that it is electromotive and it clears is incorrect. sent8: that the wake is azonal and gnostic is wrong if it does not mouth ambition. sent9: there is something such that if it does mouth gobbler that it is a Coke and it loots is wrong. sent10: if the wake does not mouth gobbler the fact that it is a Coke and is a kind of a looting is wrong. sent11: that that the wake is a kind of a Coke and it is a kind of a looting hold is wrong if it does mouth gobbler. sent12: there exists something such that if it is not mesoblastic then that it is a scuffle and systematics is not right. sent13: if the wake does not rhyme girlfriend that it is a seed and is a looting does not hold. sent14: there exists something such that if it does not rhyme Gemini the fact that it is a Caucasus and is systematics is not true. sent15: that something is congressional and is a musician is not correct if it does not loot. sent16: there is something such that if it does not mouth gobbler it is a Coke and it is a looting. sent17: there exists something such that if it is not a boomerang the fact that it is a Antiguan and it is a plaintiveness is incorrect. sent18: that the fryer does repudiate Haggai and it is a verdin is incorrect if the fact that it does not osculate Silex hold. sent19: that the wake is a kind of a Plectophera and it is postictal is false if it is not a Coke. sent20: there exists something such that if it is not a frostiness then the fact that it is systematics and osculates fryer is not correct.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬{DP}x -> ¬({CH}x & {EQ}x) sent2: ¬{E}{dh} -> ¬({AB}{dh} & {S}{dh}) sent3: (Ex): ¬{BI}x -> ¬({GT}x & {M}x) sent4: ¬{GI}{ht} -> ¬({AB}{ht} & {BC}{ht}) sent5: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent6: (Ex): ¬{BA}x -> ¬({DO}x & {CG}x) sent7: (Ex): ¬{HN}x -> ¬({CU}x & {JE}x) sent8: ¬{JG}{aa} -> ¬({BA}{aa} & {BR}{aa}) sent9: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent10: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent11: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent12: (Ex): ¬{AR}x -> ¬({GO}x & {DB}x) sent13: ¬{DK}{aa} -> ¬({DG}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent14: (Ex): ¬{FR}x -> ¬({GF}x & {DB}x) sent15: (x): ¬{AB}x -> ¬({HT}x & {DE}x) sent16: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent17: (Ex): ¬{DL}x -> ¬({IG}x & {EB}x) sent18: ¬{AH}{b} -> ¬({HO}{b} & {O}{b}) sent19: ¬{AA}{aa} -> ¬({GH}{aa} & {EE}{aa}) sent20: (Ex): ¬{BN}x -> ¬({DB}x & {FU}x)
|
[
"sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] |
if the wake is not a kind of a looting then the fact that it is congressional and it is a musician does not hold.
|
¬{AB}{aa} -> ¬({HT}{aa} & {DE}{aa})
|
[
"sent15 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it does not mouth gobbler the fact that it is a Coke and a looting does not hold is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it is not a Zealot then the fact that it mouths operationalism and it does osculate Burger does not hold. sent2: if the pepperwort is not a Cerastium that it is a kind of a looting and it repudiates crockery does not hold. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not abbatial then that it is clinical and it does sneak does not hold. sent4: if the crockery does not mouth balderdash that it does loot and is phrenic does not hold. sent5: that the wake is a kind of the Coke that loots if the wake does not mouth gobbler hold. sent6: there exists something such that if it is not azonal then that it is a kind of a fan and it does osculate promotion is wrong. sent7: there is something such that if it is not sufficient then that it is electromotive and it clears is incorrect. sent8: that the wake is azonal and gnostic is wrong if it does not mouth ambition. sent9: there is something such that if it does mouth gobbler that it is a Coke and it loots is wrong. sent10: if the wake does not mouth gobbler the fact that it is a Coke and is a kind of a looting is wrong. sent11: that that the wake is a kind of a Coke and it is a kind of a looting hold is wrong if it does mouth gobbler. sent12: there exists something such that if it is not mesoblastic then that it is a scuffle and systematics is not right. sent13: if the wake does not rhyme girlfriend that it is a seed and is a looting does not hold. sent14: there exists something such that if it does not rhyme Gemini the fact that it is a Caucasus and is systematics is not true. sent15: that something is congressional and is a musician is not correct if it does not loot. sent16: there is something such that if it does not mouth gobbler it is a Coke and it is a looting. sent17: there exists something such that if it is not a boomerang the fact that it is a Antiguan and it is a plaintiveness is incorrect. sent18: that the fryer does repudiate Haggai and it is a verdin is incorrect if the fact that it does not osculate Silex hold. sent19: that the wake is a kind of a Plectophera and it is postictal is false if it is not a Coke. sent20: there exists something such that if it is not a frostiness then the fact that it is systematics and osculates fryer is not correct. ; $proof$ =
|
sent10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that if the synchrocyclotron does not repudiate synchrocyclotron then the fact that the synchrocyclotron is not a Entebbe or it is non-bimetallistic or both does not hold does not hold.
|
¬(¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}))
|
sent1: the fact that something is not a kind of a Entebbe and/or is not bimetallistic is false if it does not repudiate synchrocyclotron.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x)
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = that if the synchrocyclotron does not repudiate synchrocyclotron then the fact that the synchrocyclotron is not a Entebbe or it is non-bimetallistic or both does not hold does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is not a kind of a Entebbe and/or is not bimetallistic is false if it does not repudiate synchrocyclotron. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the sarcolemmicness does not occur and the success does not occur.
|
(¬{AA} & ¬{AB})
|
sent1: the antitrades does not occur. sent2: that the sarcolemmicness does not occur and the success does not occur is wrong if the antitrades does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬{A} sent2: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB})
|
[
"sent2 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the sarcolemmicness does not occur and the success does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the antitrades does not occur. sent2: that the sarcolemmicness does not occur and the success does not occur is wrong if the antitrades does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the warp mouths turner and is not anodic does not hold.
|
¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})
|
sent1: if the hubcap does not osculate Gore then it is not ontological and it is a wrinkle. sent2: the warp does mouth turner if the fact that the balaclava does not mouth turner is correct. sent3: if that something is both anodic and not a lap is not right the fact that it is not anodic hold. sent4: that the warp is anodic thing that is not a kind of a lap is not correct if the hubcap does mouth circumcision. sent5: if the balaclava is non-ontological then it does not mouth turner. sent6: the warp is not a lap. sent7: something does mouth circumcision if it is hypovolemic. sent8: if the warp is not a lap the fact that it does mouth turner and is not anodic is not right. sent9: if the warp is not a kind of a lap then that it mouths turner and it is anodic is not correct. sent10: the hubcap does not osculate Gore.
|
sent1: ¬{F}{c} -> (¬{D}{c} & {E}{c}) sent2: ¬{AA}{b} -> {AA}{a} sent3: (x): ¬({AB}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{AB}x sent4: {B}{c} -> ¬({AB}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent5: ¬{D}{b} -> ¬{AA}{b} sent6: ¬{A}{a} sent7: (x): {C}x -> {B}x sent8: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent9: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent10: ¬{F}{c}
|
[
"sent8 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the warp mouths turner and is not anodic.
|
({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: the warp is not anodic if the fact that it is anodic but not a lap is not correct.;"
] | 6 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the warp mouths turner and is not anodic does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the hubcap does not osculate Gore then it is not ontological and it is a wrinkle. sent2: the warp does mouth turner if the fact that the balaclava does not mouth turner is correct. sent3: if that something is both anodic and not a lap is not right the fact that it is not anodic hold. sent4: that the warp is anodic thing that is not a kind of a lap is not correct if the hubcap does mouth circumcision. sent5: if the balaclava is non-ontological then it does not mouth turner. sent6: the warp is not a lap. sent7: something does mouth circumcision if it is hypovolemic. sent8: if the warp is not a lap the fact that it does mouth turner and is not anodic is not right. sent9: if the warp is not a kind of a lap then that it mouths turner and it is anodic is not correct. sent10: the hubcap does not osculate Gore. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Francophile is not a Faulkner.
|
¬{B}{a}
|
sent1: something osculates Francophile but it does not rhyme Kentucky if it does osculate shirtmaker. sent2: the nasion is a padauk. sent3: if the nasion does osculate Francophile but it does not rhyme Kentucky the Francophile is a Faulkner. sent4: the nasion is a Faulkner if the Francophile osculates Francophile and is replaceable. sent5: something is not Judaic if it propagandizes. sent6: if the nasion does ray it is a valdecoxib that is not a kind of a Faulkner. sent7: the landside is a kind of a cockade. sent8: the nasion is not replaceable. sent9: if something does rhyme Kentucky it osculates shirtmaker and is not a Faulkner. sent10: if the Francophile is replaceable it is not a Faulkner and does not osculate shirtmaker. sent11: the Francophile does osculate Francophile. sent12: the nasion does osculate shirtmaker and is not replaceable. sent13: if the nasion osculates shirtmaker it does not rhyme Kentucky. sent14: the Attilio does osculate Francophile. sent15: the Francophile is a Faulkner if the nasion does osculate Francophile and it does rhyme Kentucky. sent16: if something is not irreplaceable then it does not rhyme Kentucky. sent17: the nasion is a Faulkner.
|
sent1: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent2: {G}{aa} sent3: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{a} sent4: ({AA}{a} & {C}{a}) -> {B}{aa} sent5: (x): {HM}x -> ¬{JA}x sent6: {GB}{aa} -> ({IK}{aa} & ¬{B}{aa}) sent7: {E}{b} sent8: ¬{C}{aa} sent9: (x): {AB}x -> ({A}x & ¬{B}x) sent10: {C}{a} -> (¬{B}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent11: {AA}{a} sent12: ({A}{aa} & ¬{C}{aa}) sent13: {A}{aa} -> ¬{AB}{aa} sent14: {AA}{bf} sent15: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{a} sent16: (x): {C}x -> ¬{AB}x sent17: {B}{aa}
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: the nasion does osculate Francophile and does not rhyme Kentucky if it does osculate shirtmaker.; sent12 -> int2: the nasion does osculate shirtmaker.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the nasion osculates Francophile and does not rhyme Kentucky.; int3 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); sent12 -> int2: {A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int3 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the Francophile is not a Faulkner.
|
¬{B}{a}
|
[] | 7 | 3 | 3 | 14 | 0 | 14 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the Francophile is not a Faulkner. ; $context$ = sent1: something osculates Francophile but it does not rhyme Kentucky if it does osculate shirtmaker. sent2: the nasion is a padauk. sent3: if the nasion does osculate Francophile but it does not rhyme Kentucky the Francophile is a Faulkner. sent4: the nasion is a Faulkner if the Francophile osculates Francophile and is replaceable. sent5: something is not Judaic if it propagandizes. sent6: if the nasion does ray it is a valdecoxib that is not a kind of a Faulkner. sent7: the landside is a kind of a cockade. sent8: the nasion is not replaceable. sent9: if something does rhyme Kentucky it osculates shirtmaker and is not a Faulkner. sent10: if the Francophile is replaceable it is not a Faulkner and does not osculate shirtmaker. sent11: the Francophile does osculate Francophile. sent12: the nasion does osculate shirtmaker and is not replaceable. sent13: if the nasion osculates shirtmaker it does not rhyme Kentucky. sent14: the Attilio does osculate Francophile. sent15: the Francophile is a Faulkner if the nasion does osculate Francophile and it does rhyme Kentucky. sent16: if something is not irreplaceable then it does not rhyme Kentucky. sent17: the nasion is a Faulkner. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: the nasion does osculate Francophile and does not rhyme Kentucky if it does osculate shirtmaker.; sent12 -> int2: the nasion does osculate shirtmaker.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the nasion osculates Francophile and does not rhyme Kentucky.; int3 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the repudiating morpheme does not occur.
|
¬{D}
|
sent1: the forcelessness and the shillyshallying happens. sent2: that both the shillyshallying and the non-forcelessness happens is not right if that the unfriendliness does not occur is not wrong. sent3: that the shillyshallying occurs and the unfriendliness occurs prevents that the repudiating morpheme happens. sent4: the unfriendliness happens.
|
sent1: ({A} & {B}) sent2: ¬{C} -> ¬({B} & ¬{A}) sent3: ({B} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent4: {C}
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: the shillyshallying happens.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the shillyshallying and the unfriendliness happens.; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: {B}; int1 & sent4 -> int2: ({B} & {C}); int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the repudiating morpheme happens.
|
{D}
|
[] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the repudiating morpheme does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the forcelessness and the shillyshallying happens. sent2: that both the shillyshallying and the non-forcelessness happens is not right if that the unfriendliness does not occur is not wrong. sent3: that the shillyshallying occurs and the unfriendliness occurs prevents that the repudiating morpheme happens. sent4: the unfriendliness happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: the shillyshallying happens.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the shillyshallying and the unfriendliness happens.; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that the fact that it does wharf and espouses does not hold.
|
(Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x)
|
sent1: that the hayfield does wharf and is Uruguayan is not true. sent2: if something is not vocalic then the fact that it wharfs and espouses is not right. sent3: if something does not mouth fight it is not vocalic or does not destroy or both. sent4: there is something such that that it destroys and it does wharf is wrong. sent5: something does wharf and it espouses. sent6: if the hayfield does not osculate Hancock the fact that it is litigious and espouses is wrong. sent7: that the hayfield mouths tracheid and it destroys is not true. sent8: something does rhyme stationery and/or it is not a freelancer if it is a perfluorocarbon. sent9: if something is not vocalic that it does rhyme hayfield and it osculates Hancock is not correct. sent10: the fact that if the fact that the samarskite does rhyme lunula but it is not a kind of a frustum is wrong the flummery is not a frustum is not incorrect. sent11: if the brisance is not vocalic or it does not destroy or both that it is not vocalic is correct. sent12: the brisance is a kind of vocalic thing that does not destroy if the hellgrammiate does not mouth fight. sent13: if the hayfield does not stock then that it is a plutocracy that osculates palimony does not hold. sent14: the brisance does not mouth fight if the hellgrammiate is both not a butterbur and a frustum. sent15: that the hayfield is scalable and it does repudiate manhood is incorrect if it does not destroy. sent16: if the fact that the flummery is not a butterbur but it does mouth fight is not true then the hellgrammiate does not mouth fight. sent17: if something that is vocalic does not destroy then it is not a quira. sent18: that something is not a butterbur and does mouth fight is wrong if it is not a frustum. sent19: that the hayfield is vocalic thing that destroys is false. sent20: that that the samarskite does rhyme lunula and is not a frustum is true does not hold if the primer is not a kind of a snow. sent21: if the Mill is not evergreen the fact that it mouths Kyyiv and/or it is not a perfluorocarbon is not true. sent22: the primer is a perfluorocarbon if that either the Mill mouths Kyyiv or it is not a kind of a perfluorocarbon or both is not true. sent23: if that the hayfield is vocalic and does destroy is incorrect it is not vocalic.
|
sent1: ¬({AA}{aa} & {DB}{aa}) sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: (x): ¬{C}x -> (¬{A}x v ¬{B}x) sent4: (Ex): ¬({B}x & {AA}x) sent5: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent6: ¬{CI}{aa} -> ¬({GJ}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent7: ¬({FJ}{aa} & {B}{aa}) sent8: (x): {J}x -> ({I}x v ¬{H}x) sent9: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({EH}x & {CI}x) sent10: ¬({F}{d} & ¬{E}{d}) -> ¬{E}{c} sent11: (¬{A}{a} v ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent12: ¬{C}{b} -> ({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent13: ¬{FB}{aa} -> ¬({CO}{aa} & {DD}{aa}) sent14: (¬{D}{b} & {E}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent15: ¬{B}{aa} -> ¬({ER}{aa} & {EI}{aa}) sent16: ¬(¬{D}{c} & {C}{c}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent17: (x): ({A}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{BH}x sent18: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & {C}x) sent19: ¬({A}{aa} & {B}{aa}) sent20: ¬{G}{e} -> ¬({F}{d} & ¬{E}{d}) sent21: ¬{K}{f} -> ¬({L}{f} v ¬{J}{f}) sent22: ¬({L}{f} v ¬{J}{f}) -> {J}{e} sent23: ¬({A}{aa} & {B}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa}
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: if the hayfield is not vocalic the fact that it wharfs and espouses does not hold.; sent23 & sent19 -> int2: the hayfield is not vocalic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the hayfield does wharf and it does espouse is not true.; int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); sent23 & sent19 -> int2: ¬{A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there exists something such that the fact that it rhymes hayfield and it osculates Hancock is not true.
|
(Ex): ¬({EH}x & {CI}x)
|
[
"sent9 -> int4: that the brisance does rhyme hayfield and osculates Hancock is wrong if it is not vocalic.; sent3 -> int5: if the brisance does not mouth fight either it is not vocalic or it does not destroy or both.;"
] | 7 | 3 | 3 | 20 | 0 | 20 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that the fact that it does wharf and espouses does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that the hayfield does wharf and is Uruguayan is not true. sent2: if something is not vocalic then the fact that it wharfs and espouses is not right. sent3: if something does not mouth fight it is not vocalic or does not destroy or both. sent4: there is something such that that it destroys and it does wharf is wrong. sent5: something does wharf and it espouses. sent6: if the hayfield does not osculate Hancock the fact that it is litigious and espouses is wrong. sent7: that the hayfield mouths tracheid and it destroys is not true. sent8: something does rhyme stationery and/or it is not a freelancer if it is a perfluorocarbon. sent9: if something is not vocalic that it does rhyme hayfield and it osculates Hancock is not correct. sent10: the fact that if the fact that the samarskite does rhyme lunula but it is not a kind of a frustum is wrong the flummery is not a frustum is not incorrect. sent11: if the brisance is not vocalic or it does not destroy or both that it is not vocalic is correct. sent12: the brisance is a kind of vocalic thing that does not destroy if the hellgrammiate does not mouth fight. sent13: if the hayfield does not stock then that it is a plutocracy that osculates palimony does not hold. sent14: the brisance does not mouth fight if the hellgrammiate is both not a butterbur and a frustum. sent15: that the hayfield is scalable and it does repudiate manhood is incorrect if it does not destroy. sent16: if the fact that the flummery is not a butterbur but it does mouth fight is not true then the hellgrammiate does not mouth fight. sent17: if something that is vocalic does not destroy then it is not a quira. sent18: that something is not a butterbur and does mouth fight is wrong if it is not a frustum. sent19: that the hayfield is vocalic thing that destroys is false. sent20: that that the samarskite does rhyme lunula and is not a frustum is true does not hold if the primer is not a kind of a snow. sent21: if the Mill is not evergreen the fact that it mouths Kyyiv and/or it is not a perfluorocarbon is not true. sent22: the primer is a perfluorocarbon if that either the Mill mouths Kyyiv or it is not a kind of a perfluorocarbon or both is not true. sent23: if that the hayfield is vocalic and does destroy is incorrect it is not vocalic. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> int1: if the hayfield is not vocalic the fact that it wharfs and espouses does not hold.; sent23 & sent19 -> int2: the hayfield is not vocalic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the hayfield does wharf and it does espouse is not true.; int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there exists something such that if it is not astomatous then the fact that it mouths noon or it is not a Dagestani or both does not hold is incorrect.
|
¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x v ¬{AB}x))
|
sent1: that the Cheddar is a Osasco or it does not amaze or both is not right if it does not urinate. sent2: there exists something such that if it is non-astomatous that either it mouths noon or it is a Dagestani or both is false. sent3: the Cheddar does not mouth noon if it is not astomatous. sent4: there is something such that if it is non-astomatous then it mouths noon and/or is not a Dagestani. sent5: if something is not entozoan that it is a goddess and/or it does not mouth noon is not true. sent6: the fact that either the Cheddar does mouth noon or it is not a kind of a Dagestani or both does not hold if it is astomatous. sent7: the Cheddar does mouth noon and/or is not a Dagestani if it is not astomatous. sent8: there is something such that if it is not clad that it does wolf and/or it is not basilar does not hold. sent9: the fact that either the Cheddar does mouth noon or it is not a Dagestani or both is false if it is not astomatous. sent10: that the spitz is a kind of a sausage and/or it is not arbitral is incorrect if it does not repudiate henroost. sent11: if that something is not attritional is right that it does mouth noon or it is not curricular or both does not hold. sent12: there is something such that if it is not a Guggenheim the fact that it is a Transvaal or it is not a cannon or both is false. sent13: there exists something such that if it is astomatous the fact that it either mouths noon or is not a kind of a Dagestani or both is not correct. sent14: there is something such that if it does not mouth sandlot that it is a kind of a nyala and/or it is not a kind of an inhalant is incorrect. sent15: the fact that there is something such that if it is not astomatous then it does not mouth noon is true. sent16: if the Montrachet does not repudiate flintlock that it mouths noon or is not a kind of a pap or both is wrong. sent17: if the Cheddar is not astomatous that it does mouth noon and/or it is a Dagestani is not correct. sent18: there is something such that if it is not astomatous then it is a Dagestani.
|
sent1: ¬{CA}{aa} -> ¬({BD}{aa} v ¬{FS}{aa}) sent2: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x v {AB}x) sent3: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬{AA}{aa} sent4: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent5: (x): ¬{GB}x -> ¬({DB}x v ¬{AA}x) sent6: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent7: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent8: (Ex): ¬{R}x -> ¬({BI}x v ¬{CM}x) sent9: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent10: ¬{IN}{fb} -> ¬({JC}{fb} v ¬{DL}{fb}) sent11: (x): ¬{GD}x -> ¬({AA}x v ¬{GE}x) sent12: (Ex): ¬{HA}x -> ¬({HU}x v ¬{DE}x) sent13: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent14: (Ex): ¬{N}x -> ¬({EI}x v ¬{I}x) sent15: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬{AA}x sent16: ¬{HN}{gf} -> ¬({AA}{gf} v ¬{FK}{gf}) sent17: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent18: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> {AB}x
|
[
"sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] |
if the hustler is not entozoan then the fact that either it is a goddess or it does not mouth noon or both does not hold.
|
¬{GB}{jj} -> ¬({DB}{jj} v ¬{AA}{jj})
|
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 17 | 0 | 17 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it is not astomatous then the fact that it mouths noon or it is not a Dagestani or both does not hold is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: that the Cheddar is a Osasco or it does not amaze or both is not right if it does not urinate. sent2: there exists something such that if it is non-astomatous that either it mouths noon or it is a Dagestani or both is false. sent3: the Cheddar does not mouth noon if it is not astomatous. sent4: there is something such that if it is non-astomatous then it mouths noon and/or is not a Dagestani. sent5: if something is not entozoan that it is a goddess and/or it does not mouth noon is not true. sent6: the fact that either the Cheddar does mouth noon or it is not a kind of a Dagestani or both does not hold if it is astomatous. sent7: the Cheddar does mouth noon and/or is not a Dagestani if it is not astomatous. sent8: there is something such that if it is not clad that it does wolf and/or it is not basilar does not hold. sent9: the fact that either the Cheddar does mouth noon or it is not a Dagestani or both is false if it is not astomatous. sent10: that the spitz is a kind of a sausage and/or it is not arbitral is incorrect if it does not repudiate henroost. sent11: if that something is not attritional is right that it does mouth noon or it is not curricular or both does not hold. sent12: there is something such that if it is not a Guggenheim the fact that it is a Transvaal or it is not a cannon or both is false. sent13: there exists something such that if it is astomatous the fact that it either mouths noon or is not a kind of a Dagestani or both is not correct. sent14: there is something such that if it does not mouth sandlot that it is a kind of a nyala and/or it is not a kind of an inhalant is incorrect. sent15: the fact that there is something such that if it is not astomatous then it does not mouth noon is true. sent16: if the Montrachet does not repudiate flintlock that it mouths noon or is not a kind of a pap or both is wrong. sent17: if the Cheddar is not astomatous that it does mouth noon and/or it is a Dagestani is not correct. sent18: there is something such that if it is not astomatous then it is a Dagestani. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the lepidomelane is a heterosexism.
|
{C}{b}
|
sent1: the Keynesian is not a Medicare if it is a wittol. sent2: the freelancer is a kind of a nitroglycerin. sent3: the spillway is a kind of a swatter and it is a heterosexism if the bandstand is not consumptive. sent4: if something is both not a stationery and not apian then it is not a Magadhan. sent5: there exists something such that the fact that it does not rhyme hamper and is not an adjunct does not hold. sent6: the freelancer is a heterosexism if the spillway is a heterosexism. sent7: the freelancer is a swatter if there exists something such that that it rhymes hamper hold. sent8: if there is something such that that it is not a kind of a heterosexism and it is not consumptive is false the lepidomelane does swatter. sent9: something is not a swatter and it is not a heterosexism. sent10: if something is not a Magadhan then it does doss and is a burqa. sent11: there is something such that the fact that it is not a heterosexism and is not a kind of a swatter is wrong. sent12: if the freelancer is a kind of a heterosexism the lepidomelane is a heterosexism. sent13: something is paradigmatic if it is a kind of a burqa. sent14: the lepidomelane is not a heterosexism if the freelancer is a swatter or not non-consumptive or both. sent15: the Keynesian is a poor. sent16: something is a wittol if it is a poor. sent17: if there is something such that the fact that it does not rhyme hamper and is not a kind of an adjunct is not correct the freelancer swatters. sent18: the lepidomelane swatters if there is something such that the fact that it is not a consumptive and is not a heterosexism is incorrect. sent19: the Keynesian is both not a stationery and not apian if it is not a Medicare. sent20: that the mackerel is not a swatter is not incorrect. sent21: the freelancer does swatter if there is something such that it is a kind of a consumptive. sent22: the bandstand is not consumptive and it does not shillyshally if the Capricorn does not rhyme mackerel.
|
sent1: {M}{f} -> ¬{L}{f} sent2: {ID}{a} sent3: ¬{B}{d} -> ({A}{c} & {C}{c}) sent4: (x): (¬{J}x & ¬{K}x) -> ¬{I}x sent5: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent6: {C}{c} -> {C}{a} sent7: (x): {AA}x -> {A}{a} sent8: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{B}x) -> {A}{b} sent9: (Ex): (¬{A}x & ¬{C}x) sent10: (x): ¬{I}x -> ({H}x & {G}x) sent11: (Ex): ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{A}x) sent12: {C}{a} -> {C}{b} sent13: (x): {G}x -> {F}x sent14: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent15: {N}{f} sent16: (x): {N}x -> {M}x sent17: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent18: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) -> {A}{b} sent19: ¬{L}{f} -> (¬{J}{f} & ¬{K}{f}) sent20: ¬{A}{gn} sent21: (x): {B}x -> {A}{a} sent22: ¬{E}{e} -> (¬{B}{d} & ¬{D}{d})
|
[
"sent5 & sent17 -> int1: the freelancer is a kind of a swatter.; int1 -> int2: the freelancer is a kind of a swatter or it is a consumptive or both.; sent14 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 & sent17 -> int1: {A}{a}; int1 -> int2: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}); sent14 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the lepidomelane is a heterosexism.
|
{C}{b}
|
[
"sent13 -> int3: the Keynesian is paradigmatic if it is a burqa.; sent10 -> int4: if the Keynesian is not a kind of a Magadhan it does doss and it is a burqa.; sent4 -> int5: the Keynesian is not a Magadhan if it is not a stationery and it is not apian.; sent16 -> int6: the Keynesian is a wittol if it is a poor.; int6 & sent15 -> int7: the Keynesian is a wittol.; sent1 & int7 -> int8: the Keynesian is not a Medicare.; sent19 & int8 -> int9: the Keynesian is not a stationery and is not apian.; int5 & int9 -> int10: the Keynesian is not a kind of a Magadhan.; int4 & int10 -> int11: the Keynesian does doss and it is a burqa.; int11 -> int12: the Keynesian is a burqa.; int3 & int12 -> int13: the Keynesian is paradigmatic.; int13 -> int14: there exists something such that it is paradigmatic.;"
] | 16 | 3 | 3 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the lepidomelane is a heterosexism. ; $context$ = sent1: the Keynesian is not a Medicare if it is a wittol. sent2: the freelancer is a kind of a nitroglycerin. sent3: the spillway is a kind of a swatter and it is a heterosexism if the bandstand is not consumptive. sent4: if something is both not a stationery and not apian then it is not a Magadhan. sent5: there exists something such that the fact that it does not rhyme hamper and is not an adjunct does not hold. sent6: the freelancer is a heterosexism if the spillway is a heterosexism. sent7: the freelancer is a swatter if there exists something such that that it rhymes hamper hold. sent8: if there is something such that that it is not a kind of a heterosexism and it is not consumptive is false the lepidomelane does swatter. sent9: something is not a swatter and it is not a heterosexism. sent10: if something is not a Magadhan then it does doss and is a burqa. sent11: there is something such that the fact that it is not a heterosexism and is not a kind of a swatter is wrong. sent12: if the freelancer is a kind of a heterosexism the lepidomelane is a heterosexism. sent13: something is paradigmatic if it is a kind of a burqa. sent14: the lepidomelane is not a heterosexism if the freelancer is a swatter or not non-consumptive or both. sent15: the Keynesian is a poor. sent16: something is a wittol if it is a poor. sent17: if there is something such that the fact that it does not rhyme hamper and is not a kind of an adjunct is not correct the freelancer swatters. sent18: the lepidomelane swatters if there is something such that the fact that it is not a consumptive and is not a heterosexism is incorrect. sent19: the Keynesian is both not a stationery and not apian if it is not a Medicare. sent20: that the mackerel is not a swatter is not incorrect. sent21: the freelancer does swatter if there is something such that it is a kind of a consumptive. sent22: the bandstand is not consumptive and it does not shillyshally if the Capricorn does not rhyme mackerel. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 & sent17 -> int1: the freelancer is a kind of a swatter.; int1 -> int2: the freelancer is a kind of a swatter or it is a consumptive or both.; sent14 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the benefactress does rhyme Atherinidae.
|
{B}{aa}
|
sent1: the fact that the container is not fiducial or it is not a kind of an allegro or both is incorrect. sent2: the benefactress does not rhyme Atherinidae if the fact that either it is not a Aphriza or it is not a funny or both is not true. sent3: there exists something such that it bops and it is an allegro. sent4: the benefactress is not an allegro if the titrator is not an allegro and it is not a bop. sent5: the benefactress does not squawk if something that bops is an allegro. sent6: something is a Aphriza if it is not a squawk. sent7: the benefactress is a kind of an allegro. sent8: the benefactress is a Aphriza. sent9: the fact that the benefactress is not a kind of a millime and/or it does not rhyme girlfriend is incorrect. sent10: that the benefactress is not an allegro and/or does not engulf is incorrect. sent11: the benefactress is retroactive. sent12: that something is either not a Aphriza or not a funny or both is false if it is not a kind of a squawk. sent13: if that either the benefactress is a Aphriza or it is not a funny or both is not correct it does not rhyme Atherinidae. sent14: there is something such that it is an allegro. sent15: there is something such that it is a bop. sent16: the stagflation is not a kind of an allegro. sent17: if something that is not a kind of an allegro is not a squawk it rhymes Atherinidae. sent18: something rhymes Atherinidae and is a squawk if it is not an allegro. sent19: the trichodesmium is a Tamil if the horsecloth is not a mimic. sent20: the anticholinesterase is not a kind of a funny. sent21: if there exists something such that it is a kind of an allegro and sweetens then the benefactress is not a fin. sent22: the benefactress is a Aphriza if it is not a squawk. sent23: something is a mastalgia.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{GT}{ad} v ¬{C}{ad}) sent2: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent3: (Ex): ({D}x & {C}x) sent4: (¬{C}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) -> ¬{C}{aa} sent5: (x): ({D}x & {C}x) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent6: (x): ¬{A}x -> {AA}x sent7: {C}{aa} sent8: {AA}{aa} sent9: ¬(¬{HQ}{aa} v ¬{EM}{aa}) sent10: ¬(¬{C}{aa} v ¬{BD}{aa}) sent11: {BM}{aa} sent12: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent13: ¬({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent14: (Ex): {C}x sent15: (Ex): {D}x sent16: ¬{C}{bc} sent17: (x): (¬{C}x & ¬{A}x) -> {B}x sent18: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) sent19: ¬{F}{c} -> {E}{b} sent20: ¬{AB}{fe} sent21: (x): ({C}x & {AP}x) -> ¬{GG}{aa} sent22: ¬{A}{aa} -> {AA}{aa} sent23: (Ex): {FQ}x
|
[
"sent12 -> int1: if the benefactress is not a squawk that it is not a Aphriza and/or is not a kind of a funny is incorrect.; sent3 & sent5 -> int2: the benefactress is not a kind of a squawk.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the benefactress either is not a Aphriza or is not a funny or both does not hold.; int3 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent12 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}); sent3 & sent5 -> int2: ¬{A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}); int3 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the benefactress rhymes Atherinidae.
|
{B}{aa}
|
[
"sent18 -> int4: the benefactress does rhyme Atherinidae and it is a squawk if it is not a kind of an allegro.;"
] | 7 | 3 | 3 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the benefactress does rhyme Atherinidae. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the container is not fiducial or it is not a kind of an allegro or both is incorrect. sent2: the benefactress does not rhyme Atherinidae if the fact that either it is not a Aphriza or it is not a funny or both is not true. sent3: there exists something such that it bops and it is an allegro. sent4: the benefactress is not an allegro if the titrator is not an allegro and it is not a bop. sent5: the benefactress does not squawk if something that bops is an allegro. sent6: something is a Aphriza if it is not a squawk. sent7: the benefactress is a kind of an allegro. sent8: the benefactress is a Aphriza. sent9: the fact that the benefactress is not a kind of a millime and/or it does not rhyme girlfriend is incorrect. sent10: that the benefactress is not an allegro and/or does not engulf is incorrect. sent11: the benefactress is retroactive. sent12: that something is either not a Aphriza or not a funny or both is false if it is not a kind of a squawk. sent13: if that either the benefactress is a Aphriza or it is not a funny or both is not correct it does not rhyme Atherinidae. sent14: there is something such that it is an allegro. sent15: there is something such that it is a bop. sent16: the stagflation is not a kind of an allegro. sent17: if something that is not a kind of an allegro is not a squawk it rhymes Atherinidae. sent18: something rhymes Atherinidae and is a squawk if it is not an allegro. sent19: the trichodesmium is a Tamil if the horsecloth is not a mimic. sent20: the anticholinesterase is not a kind of a funny. sent21: if there exists something such that it is a kind of an allegro and sweetens then the benefactress is not a fin. sent22: the benefactress is a Aphriza if it is not a squawk. sent23: something is a mastalgia. ; $proof$ =
|
sent12 -> int1: if the benefactress is not a squawk that it is not a Aphriza and/or is not a kind of a funny is incorrect.; sent3 & sent5 -> int2: the benefactress is not a kind of a squawk.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the benefactress either is not a Aphriza or is not a funny or both does not hold.; int3 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the whetstone is not a Erie is not false.
|
¬{AB}{aa}
|
sent1: there exists something such that that it is gothic and is not a Methodist is not right. sent2: the whetstone is not gothic if there exists something such that it is not gothic. sent3: if there exists something such that it is not non-gothic the whetstone does not tilt. sent4: the whetstone does not incinerate. sent5: if there is something such that that it is gothic and it is non-Methodist is not true then the whetstone is gothic. sent6: the whetstone does not incinerate if it is not gothic. sent7: something does not incinerate and it is not a kind of a Erie if it is not gothic.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬({A}x & ¬{B}x) sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{A}{aa} sent3: (x): {A}x -> ¬{EI}{aa} sent4: ¬{AA}{aa} sent5: (x): ¬({A}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent6: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬{AA}{aa} sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
[
"sent7 -> int1: the whetstone does not incinerate and it is not a Erie if it is not gothic.; sent1 & sent5 -> int2: the whetstone is not gothic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the whetstone does not incinerate and it is not a kind of a Erie is not false.; int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent7 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); sent1 & sent5 -> int2: ¬{A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> int3: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = that the whetstone is not a Erie is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that that it is gothic and is not a Methodist is not right. sent2: the whetstone is not gothic if there exists something such that it is not gothic. sent3: if there exists something such that it is not non-gothic the whetstone does not tilt. sent4: the whetstone does not incinerate. sent5: if there is something such that that it is gothic and it is non-Methodist is not true then the whetstone is gothic. sent6: the whetstone does not incinerate if it is not gothic. sent7: something does not incinerate and it is not a kind of a Erie if it is not gothic. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 -> int1: the whetstone does not incinerate and it is not a Erie if it is not gothic.; sent1 & sent5 -> int2: the whetstone is not gothic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the whetstone does not incinerate and it is not a kind of a Erie is not false.; int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the animalisticness occurs.
|
{D}
|
sent1: that the animalisticness does not occur and the osculating balderdash does not occur is triggered by that the rhyming mile happens. sent2: the commutableness does not occur. sent3: the bolometricness happens. sent4: the animalisticness happens if the mouthing ammeter does not occur. sent5: the goalkeeper happens. sent6: if the goalkeeper does not occur then the lectureship does not occur and the commutableness does not occur.
|
sent1: {F} -> (¬{D} & ¬{E}) sent2: ¬{A} sent3: {HB} sent4: ¬{C} -> {D} sent5: {B} sent6: ¬{B} -> (¬{FG} & ¬{A})
|
[
"sent2 & sent5 -> int1: both the incommutableness and the goalkeeper happens.;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent5 -> int1: (¬{A} & {B});"
] |
the fact that the lectureship does not occur is not wrong.
|
¬{FG}
|
[] | 7 | 3 | null | 3 | 0 | 3 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the animalisticness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that the animalisticness does not occur and the osculating balderdash does not occur is triggered by that the rhyming mile happens. sent2: the commutableness does not occur. sent3: the bolometricness happens. sent4: the animalisticness happens if the mouthing ammeter does not occur. sent5: the goalkeeper happens. sent6: if the goalkeeper does not occur then the lectureship does not occur and the commutableness does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent5 -> int1: both the incommutableness and the goalkeeper happens.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the retroversion occurs and the catcher does not occur.
|
({C} & ¬{D})
|
sent1: the catcher does not occur. sent2: if the mouthing dragonfly does not occur that the rhyming slipstream and the interjecting happens does not hold. sent3: the staining does not occur if the unfrozenness happens. sent4: the Cappadocianness occurs. sent5: if the vestmentalness happens the reasonableness but not the recrudescence happens. sent6: the Hindustani prevents that the ballooning does not occur. sent7: the osculating kinglet does not occur. sent8: the randomness happens and the teething does not occur. sent9: the araneidalness yields that the retroversion occurs but the catcher does not occur. sent10: the araneidalness happens if the mouthing bugloss does not occur. sent11: the platonicness occurs if the repercussion occurs. sent12: the fact that the retroversion happens and the catcher does not occur is not true if the osculating kinglet happens. sent13: if the fact that the mouthing bugloss occurs and the osculating wilt does not occur does not hold then the araneidalness occurs. sent14: the fact that the mouthing bugloss but not the osculating wilt occurs does not hold if the osculating kinglet does not occur. sent15: the champerty but not the osculating tow occurs. sent16: that the osculating Clyde happens prevents that the vestmentalness happens. sent17: the drinking happens but the appealing does not occur. sent18: if the fact that the rhyming idealist happens is not wrong then the platonicness but not the rhyming mastic occurs. sent19: if the fact that the mouthing fluoridation does not occur hold then the fact that both the rhyming Lydian and the mucinoidness occurs is not correct.
|
sent1: ¬{D} sent2: ¬{DL} -> ¬({CR} & {AG}) sent3: {GG} -> ¬{BB} sent4: {DB} sent5: {CA} -> ({GH} & ¬{R}) sent6: {CJ} -> {BP} sent7: ¬{A} sent8: ({JI} & ¬{HU}) sent9: {B} -> ({C} & ¬{D}) sent10: ¬{AA} -> {B} sent11: {E} -> {DS} sent12: {A} -> ¬({C} & ¬{D}) sent13: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent14: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent15: ({GD} & ¬{EJ}) sent16: {EM} -> ¬{CA} sent17: ({T} & ¬{IQ}) sent18: {EF} -> ({DS} & ¬{AO}) sent19: ¬{DA} -> ¬({AE} & {HT})
|
[
"sent14 & sent7 -> int1: the fact that the mouthing bugloss but not the osculating wilt happens is wrong.; int1 & sent13 -> int2: the araneidalness occurs.; int2 & sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent14 & sent7 -> int1: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}); int1 & sent13 -> int2: {B}; int2 & sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the retroversion but not the catcher occurs is not true.
|
¬({C} & ¬{D})
|
[] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the retroversion occurs and the catcher does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the catcher does not occur. sent2: if the mouthing dragonfly does not occur that the rhyming slipstream and the interjecting happens does not hold. sent3: the staining does not occur if the unfrozenness happens. sent4: the Cappadocianness occurs. sent5: if the vestmentalness happens the reasonableness but not the recrudescence happens. sent6: the Hindustani prevents that the ballooning does not occur. sent7: the osculating kinglet does not occur. sent8: the randomness happens and the teething does not occur. sent9: the araneidalness yields that the retroversion occurs but the catcher does not occur. sent10: the araneidalness happens if the mouthing bugloss does not occur. sent11: the platonicness occurs if the repercussion occurs. sent12: the fact that the retroversion happens and the catcher does not occur is not true if the osculating kinglet happens. sent13: if the fact that the mouthing bugloss occurs and the osculating wilt does not occur does not hold then the araneidalness occurs. sent14: the fact that the mouthing bugloss but not the osculating wilt occurs does not hold if the osculating kinglet does not occur. sent15: the champerty but not the osculating tow occurs. sent16: that the osculating Clyde happens prevents that the vestmentalness happens. sent17: the drinking happens but the appealing does not occur. sent18: if the fact that the rhyming idealist happens is not wrong then the platonicness but not the rhyming mastic occurs. sent19: if the fact that the mouthing fluoridation does not occur hold then the fact that both the rhyming Lydian and the mucinoidness occurs is not correct. ; $proof$ =
|
sent14 & sent7 -> int1: the fact that the mouthing bugloss but not the osculating wilt happens is wrong.; int1 & sent13 -> int2: the araneidalness occurs.; int2 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the Bible is not clad is right.
|
¬{C}{a}
|
sent1: if something mouths translator but it is not a Espagnole then it is a celom. sent2: the emerald is not a kind of a Espagnole. sent3: something that mouths translator and is a kind of a Espagnole is a celom. sent4: the emerald is a kind of a Espagnole if it is clad and it does not toughen. sent5: everything is not a Espagnole. sent6: the hemming-stitch does toughen and is not afferent. sent7: if something toughens that it is both not a celom and not clad is incorrect. sent8: if the emerald is a Espagnole and is clad then it does mouth translator. sent9: everything mouths translator and it is not a kind of a Espagnole.
|
sent1: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent2: ¬{AB}{aa} sent3: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent4: ({C}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa}) -> {AB}{aa} sent5: (x): ¬{AB}x sent6: ({A}{et} & ¬{EL}{et}) sent7: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) sent8: ({AB}{aa} & {C}{aa}) -> {AA}{aa} sent9: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: if the emerald does mouth translator and is not a Espagnole the fact that it is a kind of a celom hold.; sent9 -> int2: the emerald does mouth translator and is not a Espagnole.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the emerald is a celom.; int3 -> int4: the emerald is a kind of a celom and/or toughens.;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; sent9 -> int2: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> int3: {B}{aa}; int3 -> int4: ({B}{aa} v {A}{aa});"
] |
the Bible is clad.
|
{C}{a}
|
[
"sent7 -> int5: the fact that the Bible is both not a celom and not clad is wrong if it does toughen.;"
] | 4 | 4 | null | 7 | 0 | 7 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the Bible is not clad is right. ; $context$ = sent1: if something mouths translator but it is not a Espagnole then it is a celom. sent2: the emerald is not a kind of a Espagnole. sent3: something that mouths translator and is a kind of a Espagnole is a celom. sent4: the emerald is a kind of a Espagnole if it is clad and it does not toughen. sent5: everything is not a Espagnole. sent6: the hemming-stitch does toughen and is not afferent. sent7: if something toughens that it is both not a celom and not clad is incorrect. sent8: if the emerald is a Espagnole and is clad then it does mouth translator. sent9: everything mouths translator and it is not a kind of a Espagnole. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: if the emerald does mouth translator and is not a Espagnole the fact that it is a kind of a celom hold.; sent9 -> int2: the emerald does mouth translator and is not a Espagnole.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the emerald is a celom.; int3 -> int4: the emerald is a kind of a celom and/or toughens.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the menorah does not mismanage.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
sent1: there exists something such that the fact that it scavenges is not incorrect. sent2: if there exists something such that the fact that either it does not scavenge or it is a kind of a Lao or both is not right the menorah does not mismanage. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it does not scavenge or is a Lao or both is not correct.
|
sent1: (Ex): {AA}x sent2: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent3: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x)
|
[
"sent3 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the menorah does not mismanage. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that the fact that it scavenges is not incorrect. sent2: if there exists something such that the fact that either it does not scavenge or it is a kind of a Lao or both is not right the menorah does not mismanage. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it does not scavenge or is a Lao or both is not correct. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the chalkiness happens.
|
{B}
|
sent1: that the lowercaseness does not occur causes that the impreciseness happens and the chalkiness happens. sent2: that the osculating crevasse does not occur is caused by that the impreciseness happens. sent3: if the impreciseness does not occur then the mouthing worthlessness does not occur and the repudiating lymph occurs. sent4: if the lowercaseness does not occur then the fact that the chalkiness occurs and the impreciseness happens is not right. sent5: that the lowercaseness occurs is prevented by that the wandering occurs and the avirulentness happens. sent6: the fact that the impreciseness does not occur is correct. sent7: the rhyming baptism does not occur. sent8: the bending does not occur if the bacillarness does not occur. sent9: that both the mouthing worthlessness and the repudiating lymph occurs prevents the non-chalkiness. sent10: the protectorship does not occur but the plumbicness occurs. sent11: that not the mouthing worthlessness but the repudiating lymph happens prevents the non-chalkyness. sent12: if the osculating pageboy happens then the avirulentness occurs. sent13: the accusatorialness does not occur. sent14: if the osculating gamine does not occur not the blue-collarness but the spiritualization happens. sent15: both the wandering and the implosion happens if the accusatorialness does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬{C} -> ({A} & {B}) sent2: {A} -> ¬{FU} sent3: ¬{A} -> (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent4: ¬{C} -> ¬({B} & {A}) sent5: ({E} & {D}) -> ¬{C} sent6: ¬{A} sent7: ¬{M} sent8: ¬{FM} -> ¬{JG} sent9: ({AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent10: (¬{DA} & {GH}) sent11: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent12: {F} -> {D} sent13: ¬{I} sent14: ¬{BM} -> (¬{DL} & {BJ}) sent15: ¬{I} -> ({E} & {H})
|
[
"sent3 & sent6 -> int1: not the mouthing worthlessness but the repudiating lymph occurs.; sent11 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent6 -> int1: (¬{AA} & {AB}); sent11 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the chalkiness does not occur.
|
¬{B}
|
[
"sent15 & sent13 -> int2: the wandering happens and the implosion happens.; int2 -> int3: the wandering occurs.;"
] | 8 | 2 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the chalkiness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: that the lowercaseness does not occur causes that the impreciseness happens and the chalkiness happens. sent2: that the osculating crevasse does not occur is caused by that the impreciseness happens. sent3: if the impreciseness does not occur then the mouthing worthlessness does not occur and the repudiating lymph occurs. sent4: if the lowercaseness does not occur then the fact that the chalkiness occurs and the impreciseness happens is not right. sent5: that the lowercaseness occurs is prevented by that the wandering occurs and the avirulentness happens. sent6: the fact that the impreciseness does not occur is correct. sent7: the rhyming baptism does not occur. sent8: the bending does not occur if the bacillarness does not occur. sent9: that both the mouthing worthlessness and the repudiating lymph occurs prevents the non-chalkiness. sent10: the protectorship does not occur but the plumbicness occurs. sent11: that not the mouthing worthlessness but the repudiating lymph happens prevents the non-chalkyness. sent12: if the osculating pageboy happens then the avirulentness occurs. sent13: the accusatorialness does not occur. sent14: if the osculating gamine does not occur not the blue-collarness but the spiritualization happens. sent15: both the wandering and the implosion happens if the accusatorialness does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent6 -> int1: not the mouthing worthlessness but the repudiating lymph occurs.; sent11 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the alexic does mouth fidget and/or rhymes oxygenase does not hold.
|
¬({B}{b} v {C}{b})
|
sent1: the alexic is punctual if the stockcar does not mouth SSPE. sent2: the stockcar mouths SSPE if it does rhyme oxygenase and it does not mouth fidget. sent3: that the stockcar does mouth SSPE hold if it does rhyme oxygenase and is punctual. sent4: the alexic does rhyme oxygenase or it is brahminic or both. sent5: the stockcar does not mouth SSPE. sent6: the alexic mouths SSPE or does rhyme oxygenase or both. sent7: The SSPE does not mouth stockcar. sent8: if the oscine is hemolytic thing that mouths fidget then it is a boxcars. sent9: the stockcar is divisional or it is a iambic or both. sent10: the alexic mouths SSPE if it rhymes oxygenase and is not punctual. sent11: if the stockcar does not mouth SSPE the alexic is punctual but it is not a kind of a candlewood. sent12: something does not rhyme oxygenase and/or is not a cockade if it is alliaceous. sent13: if something is punctual but not a candlewood it mouths fidget. sent14: everything is alliaceous. sent15: the stockcar is not a Suez. sent16: if something does not rhyme oxygenase then it does not mouth fidget. sent17: if something does not rhyme oxygenase and/or it is not a cockade then the stockcar does not rhyme oxygenase. sent18: the alexic is punctual. sent19: the stockcar is a crook if the fact that it is punctual and fasts is not incorrect. sent20: the songstress is not a kind of a candlewood. sent21: everything is not a kind of a cockade. sent22: the stockcar does not rhyme oxygenase if the alexic does not mouth fidget. sent23: the plating is a candlewood. sent24: if the stockcar is not a candlewood the alexic does not mouth SSPE.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> {AA}{b} sent2: ({C}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> {A}{a} sent3: ({C}{a} & {AA}{a}) -> {A}{a} sent4: ({C}{b} v {CG}{b}) sent5: ¬{A}{a} sent6: ({A}{b} v {C}{b}) sent7: ¬{AC}{aa} sent8: ({CA}{ab} & {B}{ab}) -> {HN}{ab} sent9: ({CN}{a} v {FE}{a}) sent10: ({C}{b} & ¬{AA}{b}) -> {A}{b} sent11: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent12: (x): {D}x -> (¬{C}x v ¬{E}x) sent13: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent14: (x): {D}x sent15: ¬{AG}{a} sent16: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬{B}x sent17: (x): (¬{C}x v ¬{E}x) -> ¬{C}{a} sent18: {AA}{b} sent19: ({AA}{a} & {FC}{a}) -> {IA}{a} sent20: ¬{AB}{fh} sent21: (x): ¬{E}x sent22: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬{C}{a} sent23: {AB}{be} sent24: ¬{AB}{a} -> ¬{A}{b}
|
[
"sent11 & sent5 -> int1: the alexic is both punctual and not a candlewood.; sent13 -> int2: if the alexic is both punctual and not a candlewood it mouths fidget.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the alexic mouths fidget.; int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent11 & sent5 -> int1: ({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}); sent13 -> int2: ({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) -> {B}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {B}{b}; int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the Saxon is a candlewood.
|
{AB}{dh}
|
[
"sent16 -> int4: if the fact that the stockcar does not rhyme oxygenase hold it does not mouth fidget.; sent12 -> int5: the chevre does not rhyme oxygenase or it is not a cockade or both if it is alliaceous.; sent14 -> int6: the chevre is alliaceous.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the chevre does not rhyme oxygenase and/or it is not a cockade.; int7 -> int8: everything does not rhyme oxygenase or it is not a kind of a cockade or both.; int8 -> int9: the alexic does not rhyme oxygenase or it is not a kind of a cockade or both.; int9 -> int10: something does not rhyme oxygenase and/or is not a cockade.; int10 & sent17 -> int11: the stockcar does not rhyme oxygenase.; int4 & int11 -> int12: the stockcar does not mouth fidget.;"
] | 9 | 3 | 3 | 21 | 0 | 21 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the alexic does mouth fidget and/or rhymes oxygenase does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the alexic is punctual if the stockcar does not mouth SSPE. sent2: the stockcar mouths SSPE if it does rhyme oxygenase and it does not mouth fidget. sent3: that the stockcar does mouth SSPE hold if it does rhyme oxygenase and is punctual. sent4: the alexic does rhyme oxygenase or it is brahminic or both. sent5: the stockcar does not mouth SSPE. sent6: the alexic mouths SSPE or does rhyme oxygenase or both. sent7: The SSPE does not mouth stockcar. sent8: if the oscine is hemolytic thing that mouths fidget then it is a boxcars. sent9: the stockcar is divisional or it is a iambic or both. sent10: the alexic mouths SSPE if it rhymes oxygenase and is not punctual. sent11: if the stockcar does not mouth SSPE the alexic is punctual but it is not a kind of a candlewood. sent12: something does not rhyme oxygenase and/or is not a cockade if it is alliaceous. sent13: if something is punctual but not a candlewood it mouths fidget. sent14: everything is alliaceous. sent15: the stockcar is not a Suez. sent16: if something does not rhyme oxygenase then it does not mouth fidget. sent17: if something does not rhyme oxygenase and/or it is not a cockade then the stockcar does not rhyme oxygenase. sent18: the alexic is punctual. sent19: the stockcar is a crook if the fact that it is punctual and fasts is not incorrect. sent20: the songstress is not a kind of a candlewood. sent21: everything is not a kind of a cockade. sent22: the stockcar does not rhyme oxygenase if the alexic does not mouth fidget. sent23: the plating is a candlewood. sent24: if the stockcar is not a candlewood the alexic does not mouth SSPE. ; $proof$ =
|
sent11 & sent5 -> int1: the alexic is both punctual and not a candlewood.; sent13 -> int2: if the alexic is both punctual and not a candlewood it mouths fidget.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the alexic mouths fidget.; int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fudge is not pectic.
|
¬{D}{c}
|
sent1: if the pen-friend is a spoor it is not pectic and it is a productivity. sent2: the taipan is not Tantric if something that is not a accelerando does rhyme dress. sent3: if the taipan is not Tantric then the pen-friend is either a slum or non-wiry or both. sent4: if the pen-friend is a slum then the fact that the fudge is pectic is not wrong. sent5: there are non-Tantric and wiry things. sent6: there is something such that it is not a accelerando and it rhymes dress. sent7: the fact that the dress does not repudiate Halakah but it is a spoor is false. sent8: the pen-friend is not a kind of a productivity if the dress is not a spoor but an impairment. sent9: something is a accelerando and does rhyme dress. sent10: the pen-friend is pectic. sent11: if something is not a productivity that it is wiry and it does slum does not hold. sent12: either the taipan is wiry or it is not Tantric or both if the pen-friend is not a kind of a slum. sent13: the taipan does not slum if the fact that the pen-friend is wiry and it slum is false. sent14: if that the dress does not repudiate Halakah but it is a spoor is not right then it is not a kind of a spoor. sent15: the fudge is pectic if the pen-friend is not wiry. sent16: if the taipan is Tantric then the Spork does slum. sent17: there exists something such that it is not a accelerando.
|
sent1: {F}{b} -> (¬{D}{b} & {E}{b}) sent2: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent3: ¬{A}{a} -> ({B}{b} v ¬{C}{b}) sent4: {B}{b} -> {D}{c} sent5: (Ex): (¬{A}x & {C}x) sent6: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent7: ¬(¬{I}{d} & {F}{d}) sent8: (¬{F}{d} & {G}{d}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent9: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent10: {D}{b} sent11: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬({C}x & {B}x) sent12: ¬{B}{b} -> ({C}{a} v ¬{A}{a}) sent13: ¬({C}{b} & {B}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent14: ¬(¬{I}{d} & {F}{d}) -> ¬{F}{d} sent15: ¬{C}{b} -> {D}{c} sent16: {A}{a} -> {B}{i} sent17: (Ex): ¬{AA}x
|
[
"sent6 & sent2 -> int1: that the taipan is not Tantric is not false.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: the pen-friend is a kind of a slum and/or it is not wiry.; int2 & sent4 & sent15 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 & sent2 -> int1: ¬{A}{a}; sent3 & int1 -> int2: ({B}{b} v ¬{C}{b}); int2 & sent4 & sent15 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fudge is not pectic.
|
¬{D}{c}
|
[
"sent11 -> int3: the fact that the pen-friend is a kind of wiry thing that does slum does not hold if it is not a productivity.; sent14 & sent7 -> int4: the dress is not a kind of a spoor.;"
] | 8 | 3 | 3 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fudge is not pectic. ; $context$ = sent1: if the pen-friend is a spoor it is not pectic and it is a productivity. sent2: the taipan is not Tantric if something that is not a accelerando does rhyme dress. sent3: if the taipan is not Tantric then the pen-friend is either a slum or non-wiry or both. sent4: if the pen-friend is a slum then the fact that the fudge is pectic is not wrong. sent5: there are non-Tantric and wiry things. sent6: there is something such that it is not a accelerando and it rhymes dress. sent7: the fact that the dress does not repudiate Halakah but it is a spoor is false. sent8: the pen-friend is not a kind of a productivity if the dress is not a spoor but an impairment. sent9: something is a accelerando and does rhyme dress. sent10: the pen-friend is pectic. sent11: if something is not a productivity that it is wiry and it does slum does not hold. sent12: either the taipan is wiry or it is not Tantric or both if the pen-friend is not a kind of a slum. sent13: the taipan does not slum if the fact that the pen-friend is wiry and it slum is false. sent14: if that the dress does not repudiate Halakah but it is a spoor is not right then it is not a kind of a spoor. sent15: the fudge is pectic if the pen-friend is not wiry. sent16: if the taipan is Tantric then the Spork does slum. sent17: there exists something such that it is not a accelerando. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 & sent2 -> int1: that the taipan is not Tantric is not false.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: the pen-friend is a kind of a slum and/or it is not wiry.; int2 & sent4 & sent15 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the alp is not nonrepetitive and is not vernal does not hold.
|
¬(¬{C}{a} & ¬{B}{a})
|
sent1: the fact that the inferior is both nonrepetitive and not vernal is not correct if something is not hemic. sent2: the inferior is not nonrepetitive. sent3: that that the assignor is a petticoated and is a violence hold is not right if the R-2 does not palatalize. sent4: if that something is a kind of a petticoated and it is a violence does not hold then the fact that it is not Parthian hold. sent5: there exists something such that it is not nonrepetitive. sent6: there exists something such that it is not non-hemic. sent7: the fact that the alp is nonrepetitive and is not hemic does not hold. sent8: the fact that the inferior is not vernal and is hemic is wrong if something is not nonrepetitive. sent9: the inferior is not hemic. sent10: the alp is a kind of repetitive thing that is not vernal if the fact that the seersucker is hemic hold. sent11: something is not a hackmatack. sent12: the fact that the alp is non-nonrepetitive thing that is vernal is wrong if there are non-hemic things. sent13: that the alp is nonrepetitive but it is not vernal is wrong.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({C}{aa} & ¬{B}{aa}) sent2: ¬{C}{aa} sent3: ¬{G}{d} -> ¬({E}{c} & {F}{c}) sent4: (x): ¬({E}x & {F}x) -> ¬{D}x sent5: (Ex): ¬{C}x sent6: (Ex): {A}x sent7: ¬({C}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent8: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{B}{aa} & {A}{aa}) sent9: ¬{A}{aa} sent10: {A}{b} -> (¬{C}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent11: (Ex): ¬{EI}x sent12: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{C}{a} & {B}{a}) sent13: ¬({C}{a} & ¬{B}{a})
|
[
"sent9 -> int1: that there exists something such that it is not hemic is correct.;"
] |
[
"sent9 -> int1: (Ex): ¬{A}x;"
] |
the alp is not nonrepetitive and it is not vernal.
|
(¬{C}{a} & ¬{B}{a})
|
[
"sent4 -> int2: if the fact that the assignor is a petticoated and it is a violence is false then it is not a kind of a Parthian.;"
] | 7 | 2 | null | 12 | 0 | 12 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the alp is not nonrepetitive and is not vernal does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the inferior is both nonrepetitive and not vernal is not correct if something is not hemic. sent2: the inferior is not nonrepetitive. sent3: that that the assignor is a petticoated and is a violence hold is not right if the R-2 does not palatalize. sent4: if that something is a kind of a petticoated and it is a violence does not hold then the fact that it is not Parthian hold. sent5: there exists something such that it is not nonrepetitive. sent6: there exists something such that it is not non-hemic. sent7: the fact that the alp is nonrepetitive and is not hemic does not hold. sent8: the fact that the inferior is not vernal and is hemic is wrong if something is not nonrepetitive. sent9: the inferior is not hemic. sent10: the alp is a kind of repetitive thing that is not vernal if the fact that the seersucker is hemic hold. sent11: something is not a hackmatack. sent12: the fact that the alp is non-nonrepetitive thing that is vernal is wrong if there are non-hemic things. sent13: that the alp is nonrepetitive but it is not vernal is wrong. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 -> int1: that there exists something such that it is not hemic is correct.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the rigging and/or the hydrolyzing happens.
|
({A} v {B})
|
sent1: the rig happens. sent2: if the habit does not occur then the fact that the filming addition happens and the indisposing polymerization happens is false. sent3: that the rig does not occur and the covering does not occur is caused by the indisposing Chesterton. sent4: the monoclonal does not occur if the overturn happens. sent5: that the habiting does not occur is true if that the filming interrogative occurs and the swat occurs does not hold. sent6: if the monoclonalness does not occur then that the greensideness happens and the lexicography happens is not right. sent7: the non-parturientness triggers that both the battle and the indisposing Chesterton happens. sent8: if the fact that the filming addition happens and the indisposing polymerization happens is not correct the filming addition does not occur. sent9: if the fact that both the greensideness and the lexicography happens does not hold the hydrolyzing does not occur. sent10: the overturning occurs and the neocolonialism occurs if the fact that the filming addition does not occur hold. sent11: the striving happens or the indisposing Turnicidae occurs or both. sent12: the striving yields that the indisposing molehill does not occur and the parturientness does not occur. sent13: that the rig does not occur and the hydrolyzing does not occur prevents that the filming excavation does not occur.
|
sent1: {A} sent2: ¬{N} -> ¬({L} & {O}) sent3: {G} -> (¬{A} & ¬{F}) sent4: {J} -> ¬{E} sent5: ¬({Q} & {R}) -> ¬{N} sent6: ¬{E} -> ¬({C} & {D}) sent7: ¬{I} -> ({H} & {G}) sent8: ¬({L} & {O}) -> ¬{L} sent9: ¬({C} & {D}) -> ¬{B} sent10: ¬{L} -> ({J} & {K}) sent11: ({P} v {AR}) sent12: {P} -> (¬{M} & ¬{I}) sent13: (¬{A} & ¬{B}) -> {BF}
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the filming excavation happens.
|
{BF}
|
[] | 10 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the rigging and/or the hydrolyzing happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the rig happens. sent2: if the habit does not occur then the fact that the filming addition happens and the indisposing polymerization happens is false. sent3: that the rig does not occur and the covering does not occur is caused by the indisposing Chesterton. sent4: the monoclonal does not occur if the overturn happens. sent5: that the habiting does not occur is true if that the filming interrogative occurs and the swat occurs does not hold. sent6: if the monoclonalness does not occur then that the greensideness happens and the lexicography happens is not right. sent7: the non-parturientness triggers that both the battle and the indisposing Chesterton happens. sent8: if the fact that the filming addition happens and the indisposing polymerization happens is not correct the filming addition does not occur. sent9: if the fact that both the greensideness and the lexicography happens does not hold the hydrolyzing does not occur. sent10: the overturning occurs and the neocolonialism occurs if the fact that the filming addition does not occur hold. sent11: the striving happens or the indisposing Turnicidae occurs or both. sent12: the striving yields that the indisposing molehill does not occur and the parturientness does not occur. sent13: that the rig does not occur and the hydrolyzing does not occur prevents that the filming excavation does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.