version
stringclasses 1
value | hypothesis
stringlengths 11
215
| hypothesis_formula
stringlengths 3
39
| context
stringlengths 0
2.9k
| context_formula
stringlengths 0
905
| proofs
list | proofs_formula
list | negative_hypothesis
stringlengths 15
193
⌀ | negative_hypothesis_formula
stringlengths 3
37
⌀ | negative_proofs
list | negative_original_tree_depth
int64 0
25
⌀ | original_tree_depth
int64 1
4
| depth
int64 0
3
⌀ | num_formula_distractors
int64 0
22
| num_translation_distractors
int64 0
0
| num_all_distractors
int64 0
22
| proof_label
stringclasses 3
values | negative_proof_label
stringclasses 2
values | world_assump_label
stringclasses 3
values | negative_world_assump_label
stringclasses 2
values | prompt_serial
stringlengths 89
3.09k
| proof_serial
stringlengths 11
654
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DeductionInstance
|
that there is something such that if the fact that it is not a Glenn and is not a kind of a sardonyx is not true then it is not a phosphatase does not hold.
|
¬((Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x)
|
sent1: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a Glenn and it is not a sardonyx then it is not a phosphatase. sent2: there is something such that if it is a sardonyx then it is not a kind of a phosphatase. sent3: the office is not a phosphatase if the fact that it is both not a Glenn and a sardonyx is not correct. sent4: if the plastid is not unsensational and it is not a sardonyx it is not a club. sent5: if that the office is not a snakewood and it is not a Glenn does not hold it is not a Schliemann. sent6: there is something such that if the fact that it is not a kind of a stomach and it does not lace Nixon does not hold it does not unfold Varanidae. sent7: there exists something such that if it is a Glenn then it is not a phosphatase. sent8: if the office is both not a Glenn and not antiphonary then it is not boustrophedonic. sent9: the office is not a kind of a phosphatase if it is a Glenn. sent10: there is something such that if the fact that it is a kind of a Glenn and is not a sardonyx is not correct it is not a kind of a phosphatase. sent11: there is something such that if that it is not a Glenn and it is a sardonyx does not hold it is not a phosphatase. sent12: the fact that something is not a sandman is not incorrect if the fact that it is non-phylogenetic thing that does not lace honk does not hold. sent13: the office is not a phosphatase if that it is not a Glenn and it is not a sardonyx is not correct.
|
sent1: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent2: (Ex): {AB}x -> ¬{B}x sent3: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent4: (¬{HI}{gb} & ¬{AB}{gb}) -> ¬{AL}{gb} sent5: ¬(¬{GR}{aa} & ¬{AA}{aa}) -> ¬{HT}{aa} sent6: (Ex): ¬(¬{CG}x & ¬{GJ}x) -> ¬{EC}x sent7: (Ex): {AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent8: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{FH}{aa}) -> ¬{IG}{aa} sent9: {AA}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent10: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent11: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent12: (x): ¬(¬{EU}x & ¬{EQ}x) -> ¬{EJ}x sent13: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}
|
[
"sent13 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent13 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there is something such that if the fact that it is non-phylogenetic thing that does not lace honk is not correct then it is not a sandman.
|
(Ex): ¬(¬{EU}x & ¬{EQ}x) -> ¬{EJ}x
|
[
"sent12 -> int1: if that the burlap is non-phylogenetic thing that does not lace honk does not hold it is not a sandman.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if the fact that it is not a Glenn and is not a kind of a sardonyx is not true then it is not a phosphatase does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a Glenn and it is not a sardonyx then it is not a phosphatase. sent2: there is something such that if it is a sardonyx then it is not a kind of a phosphatase. sent3: the office is not a phosphatase if the fact that it is both not a Glenn and a sardonyx is not correct. sent4: if the plastid is not unsensational and it is not a sardonyx it is not a club. sent5: if that the office is not a snakewood and it is not a Glenn does not hold it is not a Schliemann. sent6: there is something such that if the fact that it is not a kind of a stomach and it does not lace Nixon does not hold it does not unfold Varanidae. sent7: there exists something such that if it is a Glenn then it is not a phosphatase. sent8: if the office is both not a Glenn and not antiphonary then it is not boustrophedonic. sent9: the office is not a kind of a phosphatase if it is a Glenn. sent10: there is something such that if the fact that it is a kind of a Glenn and is not a sardonyx is not correct it is not a kind of a phosphatase. sent11: there is something such that if that it is not a Glenn and it is a sardonyx does not hold it is not a phosphatase. sent12: the fact that something is not a sandman is not incorrect if the fact that it is non-phylogenetic thing that does not lace honk does not hold. sent13: the office is not a phosphatase if that it is not a Glenn and it is not a sardonyx is not correct. ; $proof$ =
|
sent13 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the muskrat is a stalk.
|
{C}{b}
|
sent1: the briar is a downtown. sent2: The backflow does lace canvasback. sent3: the muskrat stalks if the canvasback is a kind of a downtown. sent4: the canvasback does lace backflow.
|
sent1: {B}{is} sent2: {AA}{aa} sent3: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent4: {A}{a}
|
[] |
[] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | null | 2 | 0 | 2 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the muskrat is a stalk. ; $context$ = sent1: the briar is a downtown. sent2: The backflow does lace canvasback. sent3: the muskrat stalks if the canvasback is a kind of a downtown. sent4: the canvasback does lace backflow. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there is something such that if it is not a nelfinavir and it does not pink Dalian then it does pink years does not hold.
|
¬((Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x)
|
sent1: the fascicle pinks years if it is a nelfinavir that does not pink Dalian. sent2: the fascicle does pink years if it is not a kind of a nelfinavir and it does not pink Dalian.
|
sent1: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent2: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}
|
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if it is not a nelfinavir and it does not pink Dalian then it does pink years does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fascicle pinks years if it is a nelfinavir that does not pink Dalian. sent2: the fascicle does pink years if it is not a kind of a nelfinavir and it does not pink Dalian. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the sapsago is sonic is right.
|
{D}{c}
|
sent1: the allosaur does lace viol but it is not a goliard if it pleads. sent2: the allosaur is not southern if something is not a kind of a mercaptopurine but it is tensional. sent3: if that the sapsago is sonic thing that laces viol is wrong the bog does not pink Frankfort. sent4: that the sapsago is not sonic is right if that the bog pinks Frankfort and does lace viol is not right. sent5: the bog is not a goliard if that the fact that it does plead and is a Caloocan is not incorrect is false. sent6: if that the sapsago is sonic thing that does pink Frankfort is not correct then the bog does not lace viol. sent7: something is a mercaptopurine and tensional. sent8: if there exists something such that it is not sonic and it does lace viol then the bog is not southern. sent9: that there exists something such that it is not a mercaptopurine and it is tensional is right. sent10: if something is southern it is sonic. sent11: if there exists something such that that it is not a Caloocan is not wrong that the bog does plead and it is a Caloocan is not right. sent12: something is not a Caloocan. sent13: the fact that the bog pinks Frankfort and it laces viol does not hold if the allosaur is not southern. sent14: the allosaur is not tensional. sent15: if the bog does not pink Frankfort then the sapsago is not sonic. sent16: the bog is not unawares. sent17: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a mercaptopurine. sent18: the allosaur is a Caloocan and it pleads. sent19: there is something such that it is tensional. sent20: the sapsago does not pink Frankfort if the bog does not lace viol. sent21: the allosaur laces viol and is sonic if there is something such that it is not a kind of a goliard. sent22: if the bog does plead then the fact that it is not a goliard and it laces viol is incorrect.
|
sent1: {F}{a} -> ({C}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) sent2: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent3: ¬({D}{c} & {C}{c}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent4: ¬({B}{b} & {C}{b}) -> ¬{D}{c} sent5: ¬({F}{b} & {G}{b}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent6: ¬({D}{c} & {B}{c}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent7: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent8: (x): (¬{D}x & {C}x) -> ¬{A}{b} sent9: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent10: (x): {A}x -> {D}x sent11: (x): ¬{G}x -> ¬({F}{b} & {G}{b}) sent12: (Ex): ¬{G}x sent13: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({B}{b} & {C}{b}) sent14: ¬{AB}{a} sent15: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬{D}{c} sent16: ¬{BR}{b} sent17: (Ex): ¬{AA}x sent18: ({G}{a} & {F}{a}) sent19: (Ex): {AB}x sent20: ¬{C}{b} -> ¬{B}{c} sent21: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({C}{a} & {D}{a}) sent22: {F}{b} -> ¬(¬{E}{b} & {C}{b})
|
[
"sent9 & sent2 -> int1: the fact that the allosaur is not southern is right.; sent13 & int1 -> int2: that the bog pinks Frankfort and it does lace viol does not hold.; sent4 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 & sent2 -> int1: ¬{A}{a}; sent13 & int1 -> int2: ¬({B}{b} & {C}{b}); sent4 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the sapsago is sonic.
|
{D}{c}
|
[
"sent10 -> int3: the sapsago is sonic if that it is southern is right.;"
] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the sapsago is sonic is right. ; $context$ = sent1: the allosaur does lace viol but it is not a goliard if it pleads. sent2: the allosaur is not southern if something is not a kind of a mercaptopurine but it is tensional. sent3: if that the sapsago is sonic thing that laces viol is wrong the bog does not pink Frankfort. sent4: that the sapsago is not sonic is right if that the bog pinks Frankfort and does lace viol is not right. sent5: the bog is not a goliard if that the fact that it does plead and is a Caloocan is not incorrect is false. sent6: if that the sapsago is sonic thing that does pink Frankfort is not correct then the bog does not lace viol. sent7: something is a mercaptopurine and tensional. sent8: if there exists something such that it is not sonic and it does lace viol then the bog is not southern. sent9: that there exists something such that it is not a mercaptopurine and it is tensional is right. sent10: if something is southern it is sonic. sent11: if there exists something such that that it is not a Caloocan is not wrong that the bog does plead and it is a Caloocan is not right. sent12: something is not a Caloocan. sent13: the fact that the bog pinks Frankfort and it laces viol does not hold if the allosaur is not southern. sent14: the allosaur is not tensional. sent15: if the bog does not pink Frankfort then the sapsago is not sonic. sent16: the bog is not unawares. sent17: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a mercaptopurine. sent18: the allosaur is a Caloocan and it pleads. sent19: there is something such that it is tensional. sent20: the sapsago does not pink Frankfort if the bog does not lace viol. sent21: the allosaur laces viol and is sonic if there is something such that it is not a kind of a goliard. sent22: if the bog does plead then the fact that it is not a goliard and it laces viol is incorrect. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 & sent2 -> int1: the fact that the allosaur is not southern is right.; sent13 & int1 -> int2: that the bog pinks Frankfort and it does lace viol does not hold.; sent4 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the radiologicalness occurs is not incorrect.
|
{C}
|
sent1: both the dissimilarness and the cannon happens. sent2: the radiologicalness does not occur if the simulation and the lacing diving happens. sent3: if the lacing diving does not occur then both the radiologicalness and the simulation occurs. sent4: the lacing diving happens. sent5: the simulation occurs.
|
sent1: ({ED} & {HU}) sent2: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent3: ¬{B} -> ({C} & {A}) sent4: {B} sent5: {A}
|
[
"sent5 & sent4 -> int1: both the simulation and the lacing diving happens.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 & sent4 -> int1: ({A} & {B}); sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the radiologicalness happens.
|
{C}
|
[] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the radiologicalness occurs is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: both the dissimilarness and the cannon happens. sent2: the radiologicalness does not occur if the simulation and the lacing diving happens. sent3: if the lacing diving does not occur then both the radiologicalness and the simulation occurs. sent4: the lacing diving happens. sent5: the simulation occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 & sent4 -> int1: both the simulation and the lacing diving happens.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
if the fact that the lacing Lemna occurs is not wrong the fact that the unfolding nucleosynthesis does not occur but the dalliance happens is not right.
|
{B} -> ¬(¬{AA} & {AB})
|
sent1: the propping does not occur but the biologisticness occurs. sent2: not the palliation but the sitcom occurs.
|
sent1: (¬{F} & {GT}) sent2: (¬{AO} & {DM})
|
[
"void -> assump2: Let's assume that the unfolding nucleosynthesis does not occur but the dalliance occurs.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump2: (¬{AA} & {AB});"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 4 | null | 2 | 0 | 2 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = if the fact that the lacing Lemna occurs is not wrong the fact that the unfolding nucleosynthesis does not occur but the dalliance happens is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the propping does not occur but the biologisticness occurs. sent2: not the palliation but the sitcom occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the unfolding nucleosynthesis does not occur but the dalliance occurs.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the pignut is non-Carthaginian and it is not fictile.
|
(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})
|
sent1: if the earthball does pink shave but it is not a medic the paving does not pink shave. sent2: the patella is a VIP if the etcher is not an optometrist and it is not a VIP. sent3: the etcher is not an optometrist and not a VIP. sent4: there exists something such that it does unfold earthball. sent5: if there exists something such that that it unfolds earthball is not incorrect the Davenport is not a Thalassoma and does not live. sent6: the etcher is not a kind of a VIP if the paving is both non-trabecular and a VIP. sent7: the patella is not a kind of a VIP if that the pignut is not a Carthaginian and is not fictile is false. sent8: if the fact that something does not pink shave is true then it is not trabecular and is a VIP. sent9: if the Davenport is not a Thalassoma and it is not live the earthball is non-Pacific. sent10: that something does pink shave and is not a medic is not incorrect if it is not a Pacific. sent11: the patella is fictile and it is a kind of an optometrist if there is something such that that it is not a VIP is true.
|
sent1: ({D}{e} & ¬{F}{e}) -> ¬{D}{d} sent2: (¬{A}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) -> {B}{b} sent3: (¬{A}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) sent4: (Ex): {I}x sent5: (x): {I}x -> (¬{G}{f} & ¬{H}{f}) sent6: (¬{C}{d} & {B}{d}) -> ¬{B}{c} sent7: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent8: (x): ¬{D}x -> (¬{C}x & {B}x) sent9: (¬{G}{f} & ¬{H}{f}) -> ¬{E}{e} sent10: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({D}x & ¬{F}x) sent11: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({AB}{b} & {A}{b})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the fact that the pignut is not a kind of a Carthaginian and it is not fictile does not hold hold.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: the patella is not a VIP.; sent2 & sent3 -> int2: the fact that the patella is a kind of a VIP is not false.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); sent7 & assump1 -> int1: ¬{B}{b}; sent2 & sent3 -> int2: {B}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the pignut is non-Carthaginian and not fictile does not hold.
|
¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})
|
[
"sent8 -> int4: the paving is non-trabecular thing that is a VIP if that it does not pink shave is right.; sent10 -> int5: the earthball does pink shave but it is not a medic if it is not a Pacific.; sent4 & sent5 -> int6: the Davenport is not a kind of a Thalassoma and it is not live.; sent9 & int6 -> int7: the fact that the earthball is not a Pacific hold.; int5 & int7 -> int8: the earthball pinks shave and is not a medic.; sent1 & int8 -> int9: the paving does not pink shave.; int4 & int9 -> int10: the paving is not trabecular but it is a VIP.; sent6 & int10 -> int11: the etcher is not a kind of a VIP.; int11 -> int12: there is something such that it is not a VIP.; int12 & sent11 -> int13: the patella is both fictile and an optometrist.; int13 -> int14: the patella is fictile.; int14 -> int15: there is something such that it is fictile.;"
] | 11 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the pignut is non-Carthaginian and it is not fictile. ; $context$ = sent1: if the earthball does pink shave but it is not a medic the paving does not pink shave. sent2: the patella is a VIP if the etcher is not an optometrist and it is not a VIP. sent3: the etcher is not an optometrist and not a VIP. sent4: there exists something such that it does unfold earthball. sent5: if there exists something such that that it unfolds earthball is not incorrect the Davenport is not a Thalassoma and does not live. sent6: the etcher is not a kind of a VIP if the paving is both non-trabecular and a VIP. sent7: the patella is not a kind of a VIP if that the pignut is not a Carthaginian and is not fictile is false. sent8: if the fact that something does not pink shave is true then it is not trabecular and is a VIP. sent9: if the Davenport is not a Thalassoma and it is not live the earthball is non-Pacific. sent10: that something does pink shave and is not a medic is not incorrect if it is not a Pacific. sent11: the patella is fictile and it is a kind of an optometrist if there is something such that that it is not a VIP is true. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the fact that the pignut is not a kind of a Carthaginian and it is not fictile does not hold hold.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: the patella is not a VIP.; sent2 & sent3 -> int2: the fact that the patella is a kind of a VIP is not false.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there is something such that if it is Alpine it is not conceptualistic and it is not a Washingtonian is not correct.
|
¬((Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x))
|
sent1: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a marasmus the fact that it is not a probabilism is right. sent2: there is something such that if it is a strophanthus that it is non-Tanzanian is not false. sent3: if the lamplighter is a arabesque then it is not Alpine and it is not a ballyhoo. sent4: there is something such that if it is an explication it is not a kind of a gigolo. sent5: there exists something such that if it is Alpine then it is conceptualistic and it is not a kind of a Washingtonian. sent6: the Rottweiler is an exit but it is not an incompetence if it is a kind of a Washingtonian. sent7: there is something such that if it is Alpine it is not Washingtonian. sent8: if the Rottweiler unfolds eggcup then it is not weatherly. sent9: there is something such that if it is unconscious it is a kind of a self-esteem and is not a apercu. sent10: there exists something such that if it does unfold Chippendale then it is not a kind of a Nostradamus. sent11: there exists something such that if it is not non-Alpine it is not conceptualistic. sent12: if the Rottweiler is Alpine it is not conceptualistic and not Washingtonian. sent13: there is something such that if it is a Moore then it is not radiotelephonic. sent14: if the Rottweiler is Alpine then it is a kind of non-conceptualistic thing that is a Washingtonian. sent15: there is something such that if it is professional it is not cross-sentential and it does unfold population. sent16: the Rottweiler is a LABLINK but it does not unfold Polyergus if it does lace grogram. sent17: if the Rottweiler is brave then it is not conceptualistic. sent18: there exists something such that if it is a professional then it does not lace settle and it is not a Fructidor. sent19: there is something such that if it is Alpine then it is both not conceptualistic and not non-Washingtonian.
|
sent1: (Ex): {DK}x -> ¬{BR}x sent2: (Ex): {EJ}x -> ¬{GL}x sent3: {IO}{ai} -> (¬{A}{ai} & ¬{ET}{ai}) sent4: (Ex): {AH}x -> ¬{GT}x sent5: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent6: {AB}{aa} -> ({K}{aa} & ¬{CG}{aa}) sent7: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬{AB}x sent8: {GU}{aa} -> ¬{ED}{aa} sent9: (Ex): {FE}x -> ({IC}x & ¬{CQ}x) sent10: (Ex): {AJ}x -> ¬{IN}x sent11: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬{AA}x sent12: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent13: (Ex): {GQ}x -> ¬{L}x sent14: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent15: (Ex): {FI}x -> (¬{CB}x & {ES}x) sent16: {GO}{aa} -> ({AC}{aa} & ¬{FB}{aa}) sent17: {FA}{aa} -> ¬{AA}{aa} sent18: (Ex): {FI}x -> (¬{J}x & ¬{FQ}x) sent19: (Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x)
|
[
"sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if it is Alpine it is not conceptualistic and it is not a Washingtonian is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a marasmus the fact that it is not a probabilism is right. sent2: there is something such that if it is a strophanthus that it is non-Tanzanian is not false. sent3: if the lamplighter is a arabesque then it is not Alpine and it is not a ballyhoo. sent4: there is something such that if it is an explication it is not a kind of a gigolo. sent5: there exists something such that if it is Alpine then it is conceptualistic and it is not a kind of a Washingtonian. sent6: the Rottweiler is an exit but it is not an incompetence if it is a kind of a Washingtonian. sent7: there is something such that if it is Alpine it is not Washingtonian. sent8: if the Rottweiler unfolds eggcup then it is not weatherly. sent9: there is something such that if it is unconscious it is a kind of a self-esteem and is not a apercu. sent10: there exists something such that if it does unfold Chippendale then it is not a kind of a Nostradamus. sent11: there exists something such that if it is not non-Alpine it is not conceptualistic. sent12: if the Rottweiler is Alpine it is not conceptualistic and not Washingtonian. sent13: there is something such that if it is a Moore then it is not radiotelephonic. sent14: if the Rottweiler is Alpine then it is a kind of non-conceptualistic thing that is a Washingtonian. sent15: there is something such that if it is professional it is not cross-sentential and it does unfold population. sent16: the Rottweiler is a LABLINK but it does not unfold Polyergus if it does lace grogram. sent17: if the Rottweiler is brave then it is not conceptualistic. sent18: there exists something such that if it is a professional then it does not lace settle and it is not a Fructidor. sent19: there is something such that if it is Alpine then it is both not conceptualistic and not non-Washingtonian. ; $proof$ =
|
sent12 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the assignee is not an arbitration.
|
¬{C}{a}
|
sent1: something is stylish and/or is a Garfield if it is a proconvertin. sent2: a helpful thing that is stagflationary is not a kind of an arbitration. sent3: the Guarnerius is quadrangular and is a proconvertin if the deterioration is not a sass. sent4: if the assignee is an arbitration and is not styleless the xylene is not helpful. sent5: that the roisterer is a kind of triangulate thing that does not pink backflow does not hold if it is not prokaryotic. sent6: if there is something such that the fact that it does triangulate and does not pink backflow is not right then the deterioration does not sass. sent7: the assignee is not unhelpful. sent8: that the roisterer is not exploratory and it is not a kind of a moorage is wrong. sent9: that the assignee is helpful and/or it is stagflationary is not incorrect if the instillation is not styleless. sent10: the fact that if the fact that the roisterer is nonexploratory but not the moorage is not correct the roisterer is not prokaryotic is not incorrect. sent11: if the Guarnerius is not styleless or it is a kind of a Garfield or both then the instillation is not styleless.
|
sent1: (x): {F}x -> (¬{D}x v {E}x) sent2: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}x sent3: ¬{H}{d} -> ({G}{c} & {F}{c}) sent4: ({C}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) -> ¬{A}{bb} sent5: ¬{K}{e} -> ¬({J}{e} & ¬{I}{e}) sent6: (x): ¬({J}x & ¬{I}x) -> ¬{H}{d} sent7: {A}{a} sent8: ¬(¬{M}{e} & ¬{L}{e}) sent9: ¬{D}{b} -> ({A}{a} v {B}{a}) sent10: ¬(¬{M}{e} & ¬{L}{e}) -> ¬{K}{e} sent11: (¬{D}{c} v {E}{c}) -> ¬{D}{b}
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: the assignee is not an arbitration if it is helpful and stagflationary.;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> int1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{a};"
] |
the assignee is an arbitration.
|
{C}{a}
|
[
"sent1 -> int2: the Guarnerius is not styleless or is a Garfield or both if it is a proconvertin.; sent10 & sent8 -> int3: the roisterer is not prokaryotic.; sent5 & int3 -> int4: that the roisterer is a kind of triangulate thing that does not pink backflow is false.; int4 -> int5: there is something such that that it does triangulate and it does not pink backflow is not true.; int5 & sent6 -> int6: the deterioration is not a sass.; sent3 & int6 -> int7: the Guarnerius is quadrangular and it is a proconvertin.; int7 -> int8: the Guarnerius is a kind of a proconvertin.; int2 & int8 -> int9: either the Guarnerius is not styleless or it is a kind of a Garfield or both.; sent11 & int9 -> int10: the instillation is not styleless.; sent9 & int10 -> int11: the assignee is helpful or stagflationary or both.;"
] | 10 | 2 | null | 9 | 0 | 9 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the assignee is not an arbitration. ; $context$ = sent1: something is stylish and/or is a Garfield if it is a proconvertin. sent2: a helpful thing that is stagflationary is not a kind of an arbitration. sent3: the Guarnerius is quadrangular and is a proconvertin if the deterioration is not a sass. sent4: if the assignee is an arbitration and is not styleless the xylene is not helpful. sent5: that the roisterer is a kind of triangulate thing that does not pink backflow does not hold if it is not prokaryotic. sent6: if there is something such that the fact that it does triangulate and does not pink backflow is not right then the deterioration does not sass. sent7: the assignee is not unhelpful. sent8: that the roisterer is not exploratory and it is not a kind of a moorage is wrong. sent9: that the assignee is helpful and/or it is stagflationary is not incorrect if the instillation is not styleless. sent10: the fact that if the fact that the roisterer is nonexploratory but not the moorage is not correct the roisterer is not prokaryotic is not incorrect. sent11: if the Guarnerius is not styleless or it is a kind of a Garfield or both then the instillation is not styleless. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> int1: the assignee is not an arbitration if it is helpful and stagflationary.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the moralist is Guinean.
|
{C}{b}
|
sent1: if the bed-and-breakfast either is not non-profound or does unfold photocopier or both then the moralist is not a Guinean. sent2: the bed-and-breakfast does not unfold photocopier if the moralist is profound and/or it is Guinean. sent3: the resuspension is not profound if the bed-and-breakfast is not profound. sent4: the bed-and-breakfast is profound.
|
sent1: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent2: ({A}{b} v {C}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent3: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{A}{bg} sent4: {A}{a}
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: the bed-and-breakfast is profound and/or it does unfold photocopier.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> int1: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}); sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the resuspension is not profound.
|
¬{A}{bg}
|
[] | 5 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the moralist is Guinean. ; $context$ = sent1: if the bed-and-breakfast either is not non-profound or does unfold photocopier or both then the moralist is not a Guinean. sent2: the bed-and-breakfast does not unfold photocopier if the moralist is profound and/or it is Guinean. sent3: the resuspension is not profound if the bed-and-breakfast is not profound. sent4: the bed-and-breakfast is profound. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> int1: the bed-and-breakfast is profound and/or it does unfold photocopier.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the beater is playful if the redstart is a kind of a Agee is wrong.
|
¬({A}{a} -> {C}{c})
|
sent1: if the redstart is a Agee the gynobase is disorderly. sent2: if the fact that the gynobase is disorderly is correct then the beater is playful.
|
sent1: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent2: {B}{b} -> {C}{c}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the redstart is a Agee.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the gynobase is disorderly.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the beater is playful.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}{a}; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: {B}{b}; int1 & sent2 -> int2: {C}{c}; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the beater is playful if the redstart is a kind of a Agee is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the redstart is a Agee the gynobase is disorderly. sent2: if the fact that the gynobase is disorderly is correct then the beater is playful. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the redstart is a Agee.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the gynobase is disorderly.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the beater is playful.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the roof sectionalizes originality does not hold.
|
¬{D}{b}
|
sent1: if something does sectionalize originality it is commutable. sent2: something is not a kind of a homeopath. sent3: if there exists something such that it pinks roof and it is not commutable then the roof does not sectionalize originality. sent4: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a homeopath the obsessive does pink roof and is not commutable. sent5: that if the supplier is a fettuccine then the argil does sectionalize originality hold. sent6: something does pink roof if it is commutable. sent7: if the roof is a kind of a homeopath the obsessive is eventful but it does not chap. sent8: if something does pink roof then it is a homeopath. sent9: if something is not a homeopath then the obsessive is not commutable. sent10: something is a kind of a fettuccine if it does not sulfate and it is not Gallican. sent11: the roof is a kind of a homeopath if the argil is a homeopath.
|
sent1: (x): {D}x -> {C}x sent2: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent3: (x): ({B}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{D}{b} sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent5: {E}{d} -> {D}{c} sent6: (x): {C}x -> {B}x sent7: {A}{b} -> ({AS}{a} & ¬{DJ}{a}) sent8: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent9: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{C}{a} sent10: (x): (¬{G}x & ¬{F}x) -> {E}x sent11: {A}{c} -> {A}{b}
|
[
"sent2 & sent4 -> int1: the obsessive does pink roof and is not commutable.; int1 -> int2: something does pink roof but it is not commutable.; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent4 -> int1: ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): ({B}x & ¬{C}x); int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that something is eventful but it is not a chapped is true.
|
(Ex): ({AS}x & ¬{DJ}x)
|
[
"sent8 -> int3: the argil is a homeopath if it does pink roof.; sent6 -> int4: if the argil is commutable it does pink roof.; sent1 -> int5: the argil is commutable if it does sectionalize originality.; sent10 -> int6: if the supplier is not a sulfate and it is not Gallican it is a fettuccine.;"
] | 9 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the roof sectionalizes originality does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does sectionalize originality it is commutable. sent2: something is not a kind of a homeopath. sent3: if there exists something such that it pinks roof and it is not commutable then the roof does not sectionalize originality. sent4: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a homeopath the obsessive does pink roof and is not commutable. sent5: that if the supplier is a fettuccine then the argil does sectionalize originality hold. sent6: something does pink roof if it is commutable. sent7: if the roof is a kind of a homeopath the obsessive is eventful but it does not chap. sent8: if something does pink roof then it is a homeopath. sent9: if something is not a homeopath then the obsessive is not commutable. sent10: something is a kind of a fettuccine if it does not sulfate and it is not Gallican. sent11: the roof is a kind of a homeopath if the argil is a homeopath. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent4 -> int1: the obsessive does pink roof and is not commutable.; int1 -> int2: something does pink roof but it is not commutable.; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if it laces pachinko then it does not pink senility and vocalizes.
|
(Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x)
|
sent1: there is something such that if it laces pachinko then that it vocalizes is correct. sent2: there exists something such that if the fact that it does unfold pomelo is right then it is autotrophic and it is a sketcher. sent3: that the entellus does contend if the entellus is streptococcal is not wrong. sent4: there exists something such that if it is a siderite then it pinks fret and it is a kind of a knot. sent5: there is something such that if it does unfold dolphinfish it does not misrepresent and is a favorableness. sent6: there exists something such that if it is a favorableness it does not lace acting. sent7: the churchgoer pinks senility if it does pink mohawk. sent8: the churchgoer is macrocosmic if it pinks invaluableness. sent9: there is something such that if it is billiards then it is non-Assamese thing that is macrocosmic. sent10: if the hominy pinks senility it is uncritical. sent11: if the fact that the churchgoer does lace pachinko is true then it does not pink senility. sent12: there is something such that if it unbends then it is not a Sardinian and pinks statement. sent13: there exists something such that if it laces pachinko it pinks senility and it does vocalize. sent14: if that the churchgoer is a sectarian is not wrong then it vocalizes. sent15: something does not pink mohawk and is not non-Timorese if it is a Mormons. sent16: there exists something such that if the fact that it is saxicolous is not false it is Timorese. sent17: if the PR does dish then it is not a kind of a tip and does faint. sent18: if the churchgoer laces pachinko it does not pink senility and vocalizes. sent19: there is something such that if it laces pachinko then it does not pink senility.
|
sent1: (Ex): {A}x -> {AB}x sent2: (Ex): {EP}x -> ({S}x & {EB}x) sent3: {IB}{ft} -> {HM}{ft} sent4: (Ex): {CP}x -> ({ES}x & {J}x) sent5: (Ex): {BD}x -> (¬{FO}x & {T}x) sent6: (Ex): {T}x -> ¬{AO}x sent7: {AF}{aa} -> {AA}{aa} sent8: {HD}{aa} -> {FI}{aa} sent9: (Ex): {HI}x -> (¬{ID}x & {FI}x) sent10: {AA}{jk} -> {JD}{jk} sent11: {A}{aa} -> ¬{AA}{aa} sent12: (Ex): {FP}x -> (¬{HK}x & {EI}x) sent13: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent14: {DF}{aa} -> {AB}{aa} sent15: (x): {IH}x -> (¬{AF}x & {FM}x) sent16: (Ex): {IT}x -> {FM}x sent17: {FL}{ep} -> (¬{JA}{ep} & {BG}{ep}) sent18: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent19: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬{AA}x
|
[
"sent18 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent18 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there is something such that if it is a kind of a Mormons it does not pink mohawk and it is a Timorese.
|
(Ex): {IH}x -> (¬{AF}x & {FM}x)
|
[
"sent15 -> int1: if the forty-five is Mormons it does not pink mohawk and is a kind of a Timorese.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it laces pachinko then it does not pink senility and vocalizes. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it laces pachinko then that it vocalizes is correct. sent2: there exists something such that if the fact that it does unfold pomelo is right then it is autotrophic and it is a sketcher. sent3: that the entellus does contend if the entellus is streptococcal is not wrong. sent4: there exists something such that if it is a siderite then it pinks fret and it is a kind of a knot. sent5: there is something such that if it does unfold dolphinfish it does not misrepresent and is a favorableness. sent6: there exists something such that if it is a favorableness it does not lace acting. sent7: the churchgoer pinks senility if it does pink mohawk. sent8: the churchgoer is macrocosmic if it pinks invaluableness. sent9: there is something such that if it is billiards then it is non-Assamese thing that is macrocosmic. sent10: if the hominy pinks senility it is uncritical. sent11: if the fact that the churchgoer does lace pachinko is true then it does not pink senility. sent12: there is something such that if it unbends then it is not a Sardinian and pinks statement. sent13: there exists something such that if it laces pachinko it pinks senility and it does vocalize. sent14: if that the churchgoer is a sectarian is not wrong then it vocalizes. sent15: something does not pink mohawk and is not non-Timorese if it is a Mormons. sent16: there exists something such that if the fact that it is saxicolous is not false it is Timorese. sent17: if the PR does dish then it is not a kind of a tip and does faint. sent18: if the churchgoer laces pachinko it does not pink senility and vocalizes. sent19: there is something such that if it laces pachinko then it does not pink senility. ; $proof$ =
|
sent18 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the lancet is Moravian if the clary is resistive.
|
{A}{a} -> {C}{b}
|
sent1: the lancet is resistive. sent2: the brisket rocks. sent3: the lancet is resistive if the clary is Moravian. sent4: the lancet unfolds Sir. sent5: if the lancet is Moravian it is resistive. sent6: the lancet is resistive if the clary is a rock. sent7: that the lancet is a kind of a rock if that the clary is resistive is not wrong is true. sent8: the clary does rock if the lancet is resistive. sent9: that the tobramycin is resistive is not wrong. sent10: the clary is Moravian if the fact that the lancet is resistive is true. sent11: if the clary is resistive then it is Moravian.
|
sent1: {A}{b} sent2: {B}{hh} sent3: {C}{a} -> {A}{b} sent4: {P}{b} sent5: {C}{b} -> {A}{b} sent6: {B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent7: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent8: {A}{b} -> {B}{a} sent9: {A}{hp} sent10: {A}{b} -> {C}{a} sent11: {A}{a} -> {C}{a}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the clary is resistive.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: the lancet rocks.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}{a}; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: {B}{b};"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | null | 10 | 0 | 10 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the lancet is Moravian if the clary is resistive. ; $context$ = sent1: the lancet is resistive. sent2: the brisket rocks. sent3: the lancet is resistive if the clary is Moravian. sent4: the lancet unfolds Sir. sent5: if the lancet is Moravian it is resistive. sent6: the lancet is resistive if the clary is a rock. sent7: that the lancet is a kind of a rock if that the clary is resistive is not wrong is true. sent8: the clary does rock if the lancet is resistive. sent9: that the tobramycin is resistive is not wrong. sent10: the clary is Moravian if the fact that the lancet is resistive is true. sent11: if the clary is resistive then it is Moravian. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the clary is resistive.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: the lancet rocks.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if that it is a kind of exocentric thing that does not unfold thermotherapy is not true then it is not conscientious.
|
(Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
sent1: there is something such that if that it is a prop and it does not pink stuck hold it does not totter. sent2: there exists something such that if it does unfold thermotherapy it is not conscientious. sent3: the fact that something does not unfold Solresol is correct if the fact that that it is a kind of a mauler and it is not a cherry is not incorrect does not hold. sent4: the crematory is not a Bucephala if it is a Sphinx. sent5: there is something such that if the fact that it is exocentric and it unfolds thermotherapy is false it is not conscientious. sent6: if the fact that the kerosene is both arteriolar and non-dietary is incorrect then it is not Hippocratic. sent7: the fact that there exists something such that if that it is nonprehensile and it is not a kind of a disposable does not hold then it does not unplug is correct. sent8: the rotogravure is conscientious if that it does lace backing and it is not a kind of a rifleman is wrong. sent9: there is something such that if that it does not pink intuitionism hold then it is not a femtometer. sent10: there exists something such that if it does pink rotogravure and is not custard-like it is not a stronghold. sent11: if the fact that the crematory is exocentric and does not unfold thermotherapy is incorrect then it is not conscientious. sent12: if that the crematory is conscientious but it does not ruminate does not hold it does not sectionalize Nixon.
|
sent1: (Ex): ({CT}x & ¬{AC}x) -> ¬{IM}x sent2: (Ex): {AB}x -> ¬{B}x sent3: (x): ¬({DD}x & ¬{DL}x) -> ¬{AE}x sent4: {BS}{aa} -> ¬{P}{aa} sent5: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent6: ¬({G}{es} & ¬{HU}{es}) -> ¬{DP}{es} sent7: (Ex): ¬({GU}x & ¬{O}x) -> ¬{DK}x sent8: ¬({EO}{is} & ¬{CJ}{is}) -> {B}{is} sent9: (Ex): ¬{CC}x -> ¬{GG}x sent10: (Ex): ({HH}x & ¬{AI}x) -> ¬{E}x sent11: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent12: ¬({B}{aa} & ¬{AR}{aa}) -> ¬{AT}{aa}
|
[
"sent11 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent11 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there exists something such that if that it is a mauler and it is not a kind of a cherry is not true then it does not unfold Solresol.
|
(Ex): ¬({DD}x & ¬{DL}x) -> ¬{AE}x
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: the balloonist does not unfold Solresol if the fact that it is a mauler that is not a kind of a cherry is wrong.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if that it is a kind of exocentric thing that does not unfold thermotherapy is not true then it is not conscientious. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if that it is a prop and it does not pink stuck hold it does not totter. sent2: there exists something such that if it does unfold thermotherapy it is not conscientious. sent3: the fact that something does not unfold Solresol is correct if the fact that that it is a kind of a mauler and it is not a cherry is not incorrect does not hold. sent4: the crematory is not a Bucephala if it is a Sphinx. sent5: there is something such that if the fact that it is exocentric and it unfolds thermotherapy is false it is not conscientious. sent6: if the fact that the kerosene is both arteriolar and non-dietary is incorrect then it is not Hippocratic. sent7: the fact that there exists something such that if that it is nonprehensile and it is not a kind of a disposable does not hold then it does not unplug is correct. sent8: the rotogravure is conscientious if that it does lace backing and it is not a kind of a rifleman is wrong. sent9: there is something such that if that it does not pink intuitionism hold then it is not a femtometer. sent10: there exists something such that if it does pink rotogravure and is not custard-like it is not a stronghold. sent11: if the fact that the crematory is exocentric and does not unfold thermotherapy is incorrect then it is not conscientious. sent12: if that the crematory is conscientious but it does not ruminate does not hold it does not sectionalize Nixon. ; $proof$ =
|
sent11 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the has-been is a kind of a teleology.
|
{A}{a}
|
sent1: if that the beldam is both a locksmith and not a phlogiston is not correct then that the has-been is not a teleology hold. sent2: if the has-been is a kind of a locksmith then the beldam is not a teleology. sent3: there is nothing such that it is a locksmith and it is not a phlogiston. sent4: if the fact that the beldam is a kind of a teleology that is not a kind of a locksmith does not hold then the has-been is not a phlogiston. sent5: there exists nothing that sectionalizes counterproposal and is a kind of a airgun. sent6: that the has-been is a kind of a teleology and it laces phalanx if the dicamptodon does not unfold prosperity is not false.
|
sent1: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent2: {AA}{a} -> ¬{A}{aa} sent3: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent4: ¬({A}{aa} & ¬{AA}{aa}) -> ¬{AB}{a} sent5: (x): ¬({IQ}x & {EL}x) sent6: ¬{C}{b} -> ({A}{a} & {B}{a})
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: the fact that the beldam is a locksmith but it is not a phlogiston is false.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> int1: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the has-been is a teleology.
|
{A}{a}
|
[] | 5 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the has-been is a kind of a teleology. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the beldam is both a locksmith and not a phlogiston is not correct then that the has-been is not a teleology hold. sent2: if the has-been is a kind of a locksmith then the beldam is not a teleology. sent3: there is nothing such that it is a locksmith and it is not a phlogiston. sent4: if the fact that the beldam is a kind of a teleology that is not a kind of a locksmith does not hold then the has-been is not a phlogiston. sent5: there exists nothing that sectionalizes counterproposal and is a kind of a airgun. sent6: that the has-been is a kind of a teleology and it laces phalanx if the dicamptodon does not unfold prosperity is not false. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> int1: the fact that the beldam is a locksmith but it is not a phlogiston is false.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the capacity is not a endameba but a Mosan.
|
(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})
|
sent1: the fact that the mine does dedicate is not correct if the fact that the piroxicam is biocatalytic thing that does not dedicate does not hold. sent2: that something is non-triangulate thing that does not unfold embodiment is incorrect if it is a lip-gloss. sent3: if that the capacity is both not a endameba and a Mosan does not hold the runaway does not triangulate. sent4: if the Rus is not a Heuchera then the fact that the piroxicam is biocatalytic but it does not dedicate does not hold. sent5: that the capacity is not a kind of a priest but it is a kind of a Mosan is true. sent6: the runaway is a priest. sent7: the runaway does not unfold embodiment and it is not a kind of a lip-gloss if the mine is gynecological. sent8: something that does not dedicate is a kind of gynecological thing that pinks mine. sent9: if something is a kind of a priest then that it is not a endameba and is a Mosan is incorrect. sent10: something is triangulate a priest if that it does not unfold embodiment hold. sent11: the runaway does not triangulate if the capacity is not a Mosan. sent12: the capacity is not triangulate but a Mosan. sent13: the runaway does triangulate if the fact that it is a kind of a priest is not false. sent14: if the runaway does not unfold embodiment and is not a lip-gloss then that the capacity does not unfold embodiment is not false. sent15: that the runaway is not a aminomethane but it is a priest is not right. sent16: if something is gnomic thing that does not unfold runaway it is not a Heuchera. sent17: that the capacity is a Mosan is not false. sent18: the capacity is a kind of a Mosan if it is a priest. sent19: the runaway unfolds embodiment if the mine is not gynecological and it is not a lip-gloss.
|
sent1: ¬({H}{d} & ¬{G}{d}) -> ¬{G}{c} sent2: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) sent3: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent4: ¬{I}{e} -> ¬({H}{d} & ¬{G}{d}) sent5: (¬{A}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent6: {A}{b} sent7: {E}{c} -> (¬{C}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent8: (x): ¬{G}x -> ({E}x & {F}x) sent9: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent10: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) sent11: ¬{AB}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent12: (¬{B}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent13: {A}{b} -> {B}{b} sent14: (¬{C}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent15: ¬(¬{ES}{b} & {A}{b}) sent16: (x): ({J}x & ¬{K}x) -> ¬{I}x sent17: {AB}{a} sent18: {A}{a} -> {AB}{a} sent19: (¬{E}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) -> {C}{b}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the capacity is not a endameba but a Mosan is not true.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the runaway is not triangulate.; sent13 & sent6 -> int2: the runaway is triangulate.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}); sent3 & assump1 -> int1: ¬{B}{b}; sent13 & sent6 -> int2: {B}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the acclimatization is non-faucal thing that is a kind of a Mosan does not hold.
|
¬(¬{EK}{da} & {AB}{da})
|
[
"sent2 -> int4: if the runaway is a lip-gloss the fact that it is a kind of non-triangulate thing that does not unfold embodiment is wrong.;"
] | 5 | 3 | 3 | 16 | 0 | 16 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the capacity is not a endameba but a Mosan. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the mine does dedicate is not correct if the fact that the piroxicam is biocatalytic thing that does not dedicate does not hold. sent2: that something is non-triangulate thing that does not unfold embodiment is incorrect if it is a lip-gloss. sent3: if that the capacity is both not a endameba and a Mosan does not hold the runaway does not triangulate. sent4: if the Rus is not a Heuchera then the fact that the piroxicam is biocatalytic but it does not dedicate does not hold. sent5: that the capacity is not a kind of a priest but it is a kind of a Mosan is true. sent6: the runaway is a priest. sent7: the runaway does not unfold embodiment and it is not a kind of a lip-gloss if the mine is gynecological. sent8: something that does not dedicate is a kind of gynecological thing that pinks mine. sent9: if something is a kind of a priest then that it is not a endameba and is a Mosan is incorrect. sent10: something is triangulate a priest if that it does not unfold embodiment hold. sent11: the runaway does not triangulate if the capacity is not a Mosan. sent12: the capacity is not triangulate but a Mosan. sent13: the runaway does triangulate if the fact that it is a kind of a priest is not false. sent14: if the runaway does not unfold embodiment and is not a lip-gloss then that the capacity does not unfold embodiment is not false. sent15: that the runaway is not a aminomethane but it is a priest is not right. sent16: if something is gnomic thing that does not unfold runaway it is not a Heuchera. sent17: that the capacity is a Mosan is not false. sent18: the capacity is a kind of a Mosan if it is a priest. sent19: the runaway unfolds embodiment if the mine is not gynecological and it is not a lip-gloss. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the capacity is not a endameba but a Mosan is not true.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the runaway is not triangulate.; sent13 & sent6 -> int2: the runaway is triangulate.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the fact that the mucosa is a kind of a Sabine but it is not a content is incorrect is not incorrect.
|
¬({C}{b} & ¬{B}{b})
|
sent1: that the mucosa is a Sabine that contents is not right. sent2: the aliterate does sectionalize Phyllium but it is not a despite if the lashing unfolds edacity. sent3: if the fact that the fetterbush is not a content does not hold then that the mucosa is a kind of a Sabine and it is a kind of a content is not correct. sent4: if the Gladstone is an oarsman then the lashing unfolds edacity. sent5: that the lashing does unfold edacity is not false if the Gladstone is robust. sent6: the valerian does content if the fetterbush does lace butylene and is not a content. sent7: The butylene laces fetterbush. sent8: the Gladstone is robust and/or it is an oarsman. sent9: something that does not pink Aranyaka is a kind of a Sabine that laces butylene. sent10: the schoolteacher does not pink Aranyaka if that the racket is negligent is not false. sent11: something does not pink Aranyaka if the fact that it is unlivable and it pink Aranyaka is incorrect. sent12: if the fetterbush is a content then the fact that the mucosa is a kind of a Sabine that is not a content is not true. sent13: the fetterbush laces butylene. sent14: the fact that the SLS is both not non-Sabine and not non-immunochemical does not hold if it does not pink Aranyaka. sent15: the fetterbush is a kind of a dispatch. sent16: the fact that the fetterbush is a Sabine and not a content is wrong. sent17: the fetterbush does content if it does lace butylene. sent18: the racket is negligent if something that sectionalizes Phyllium is not a despite.
|
sent1: ¬({C}{b} & {B}{b}) sent2: {J}{g} -> ({I}{f} & ¬{H}{f}) sent3: {B}{a} -> ¬({C}{b} & {B}{b}) sent4: {K}{h} -> {J}{g} sent5: {L}{h} -> {J}{g} sent6: ({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> {B}{gl} sent7: {AA}{aa} sent8: ({L}{h} v {K}{h}) sent9: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({C}x & {A}x) sent10: {G}{e} -> ¬{D}{d} sent11: (x): ¬({F}x & {D}x) -> ¬{D}x sent12: {B}{a} -> ¬({C}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent13: {A}{a} sent14: ¬{D}{c} -> ¬({C}{c} & {E}{c}) sent15: {EL}{a} sent16: ¬({C}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent17: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent18: (x): ({I}x & ¬{H}x) -> {G}{e}
|
[
"sent17 & sent13 -> int1: the fetterbush contents.; sent12 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent17 & sent13 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent12 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the valerian does content.
|
{B}{gl}
|
[
"sent11 -> int2: if that the SLS is unlivable and it pinks Aranyaka is not right it does not pinks Aranyaka.; sent8 & sent5 & sent4 -> int3: the lashing does unfold edacity.; sent2 & int3 -> int4: the fact that the aliterate sectionalizes Phyllium and is not a despite is true.; int4 -> int5: there is something such that it does sectionalize Phyllium and is not a despite.; int5 & sent18 -> int6: the racket is negligent.; sent10 & int6 -> int7: the schoolteacher does not pink Aranyaka.; int7 -> int8: there exists something such that it does not pink Aranyaka.;"
] | 13 | 2 | 2 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the fact that the mucosa is a kind of a Sabine but it is not a content is incorrect is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: that the mucosa is a Sabine that contents is not right. sent2: the aliterate does sectionalize Phyllium but it is not a despite if the lashing unfolds edacity. sent3: if the fact that the fetterbush is not a content does not hold then that the mucosa is a kind of a Sabine and it is a kind of a content is not correct. sent4: if the Gladstone is an oarsman then the lashing unfolds edacity. sent5: that the lashing does unfold edacity is not false if the Gladstone is robust. sent6: the valerian does content if the fetterbush does lace butylene and is not a content. sent7: The butylene laces fetterbush. sent8: the Gladstone is robust and/or it is an oarsman. sent9: something that does not pink Aranyaka is a kind of a Sabine that laces butylene. sent10: the schoolteacher does not pink Aranyaka if that the racket is negligent is not false. sent11: something does not pink Aranyaka if the fact that it is unlivable and it pink Aranyaka is incorrect. sent12: if the fetterbush is a content then the fact that the mucosa is a kind of a Sabine that is not a content is not true. sent13: the fetterbush laces butylene. sent14: the fact that the SLS is both not non-Sabine and not non-immunochemical does not hold if it does not pink Aranyaka. sent15: the fetterbush is a kind of a dispatch. sent16: the fact that the fetterbush is a Sabine and not a content is wrong. sent17: the fetterbush does content if it does lace butylene. sent18: the racket is negligent if something that sectionalizes Phyllium is not a despite. ; $proof$ =
|
sent17 & sent13 -> int1: the fetterbush contents.; sent12 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the tetracaine is a fellah.
|
{A}{a}
|
sent1: the T-bar is not informative but it is a kind of a fellah. sent2: something is a kind of a fellah if it is a diving. sent3: the ctenidium is not aneurysmal if there exists something such that it is few. sent4: if something is a diving that it pinks Anderson is true. sent5: if the tetracaine dives and does pink Anderson it regales. sent6: the bitterwood is a kind of a diving if it does not sectionalize ambulance and unfolds doxepin. sent7: the picture is a kind of a few if something does not pink tetracaine and it does not anguish. sent8: the roadhouse is not a moon-worship. sent9: if the tetracaine does not pink Anderson but it is a kind of a blue then it is a undercharge. sent10: the tetracaine is a sulindac. sent11: if that something is a kind of a fellah is not false it pinks Anderson. sent12: the vase-fine does regale. sent13: the tetracaine does resile. sent14: that if that the tetracaine is a kind of the fellah is right then the tetracaine is a Fructidor hold. sent15: the tetracaine does not dive but it does pink Anderson. sent16: the tetracaine is not a kind of a diving. sent17: if the tetracaine is not a diving but it pinks Anderson it regales. sent18: the roadhouse does not pink tetracaine and it is not an anguish if it is not a moon-worship. sent19: if something is a kind of a honeyed then it is a arabesque. sent20: the tetracaine is sadomasochistic if it is a Charadriidae and does lace tetracaine.
|
sent1: (¬{P}{hs} & {A}{hs}) sent2: (x): {AA}x -> {A}x sent3: (x): {E}x -> ¬{D}{c} sent4: (x): {AA}x -> {AB}x sent5: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent6: (¬{EP}{er} & {AH}{er}) -> {AA}{er} sent7: (x): (¬{F}x & ¬{G}x) -> {E}{d} sent8: ¬{H}{e} sent9: (¬{AB}{a} & {GO}{a}) -> {FF}{a} sent10: {S}{a} sent11: (x): {A}x -> {AB}x sent12: {B}{ht} sent13: {JG}{a} sent14: {A}{a} -> {DR}{a} sent15: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent16: ¬{AA}{a} sent17: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent18: ¬{H}{e} -> (¬{F}{e} & ¬{G}{e}) sent19: (x): {JD}x -> {ET}x sent20: ({HN}{a} & {DM}{a}) -> {BQ}{a}
|
[
"sent17 & sent15 -> int1: the tetracaine regales.;"
] |
[
"sent17 & sent15 -> int1: {B}{a};"
] |
if the vase-fine is a honeyed it is a arabesque.
|
{JD}{ht} -> {ET}{ht}
|
[
"sent19 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 2 | null | 18 | 0 | 18 |
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the tetracaine is a fellah. ; $context$ = sent1: the T-bar is not informative but it is a kind of a fellah. sent2: something is a kind of a fellah if it is a diving. sent3: the ctenidium is not aneurysmal if there exists something such that it is few. sent4: if something is a diving that it pinks Anderson is true. sent5: if the tetracaine dives and does pink Anderson it regales. sent6: the bitterwood is a kind of a diving if it does not sectionalize ambulance and unfolds doxepin. sent7: the picture is a kind of a few if something does not pink tetracaine and it does not anguish. sent8: the roadhouse is not a moon-worship. sent9: if the tetracaine does not pink Anderson but it is a kind of a blue then it is a undercharge. sent10: the tetracaine is a sulindac. sent11: if that something is a kind of a fellah is not false it pinks Anderson. sent12: the vase-fine does regale. sent13: the tetracaine does resile. sent14: that if that the tetracaine is a kind of the fellah is right then the tetracaine is a Fructidor hold. sent15: the tetracaine does not dive but it does pink Anderson. sent16: the tetracaine is not a kind of a diving. sent17: if the tetracaine is not a diving but it pinks Anderson it regales. sent18: the roadhouse does not pink tetracaine and it is not an anguish if it is not a moon-worship. sent19: if something is a kind of a honeyed then it is a arabesque. sent20: the tetracaine is sadomasochistic if it is a Charadriidae and does lace tetracaine. ; $proof$ =
|
sent17 & sent15 -> int1: the tetracaine regales.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there exists something such that if it is a kind of non-Haitian thing that does not sectionalize microglia then it is a diorite is incorrect.
|
¬((Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x)
|
sent1: the Creole is a chagrin if it is a kind of a Haitian that is not a civilian. sent2: if the rotogravure is non-lower-class and is not a Haitian then it sectionalizes hiatus. sent3: there is something such that if it does not pipe and it laces wild then it is albinal. sent4: if the rotogravure is not a Haitian and is not a kind of a procyonid it is illegible. sent5: if the fact that the treacle does not sectionalize microglia but it is a civilian is true then it aspirates. sent6: the fact that there is something such that if that it sprays and it is not viscometric hold that it does lace mesoderm is not false hold. sent7: there is something such that if it is not a Scorpaenidae but a feasibility then it is a clianthus. sent8: there exists something such that if it laces SoHo and is not a Luxemburger then it does pink ninepin. sent9: there is something such that if it is a kind of non-catoptrics thing that is a pantyhose it laces agonist. sent10: if the rotogravure is a diorite but it does not lace treacle it is a kind of a lamb's-quarter. sent11: the rotogravure is Haitian if it does not trephine and it is a kind of an aesthetics. sent12: if the rotogravure does not lace Belshazzar and tipples it is a Neapolitan. sent13: there exists something such that if it does not lace cynancum and is not nasopharyngeal it is intolerant. sent14: the rotogravure is a kind of a diorite if it is a kind of non-Haitian thing that does not sectionalize microglia. sent15: the rotogravure is shorts if it does not kern and it is a diorite. sent16: there exists something such that if it is not a quantization and it does not pink bur then it is a Acipenseridae. sent17: there exists something such that if it is not a shorts but an embankment then the fact that it is a chlorofucin hold.
|
sent1: ({AA}{cg} & ¬{IQ}{cg}) -> {GC}{cg} sent2: (¬{EO}{aa} & ¬{AA}{aa}) -> {AS}{aa} sent3: (Ex): (¬{FN}x & {CP}x) -> {J}x sent4: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{HR}{aa}) -> {DE}{aa} sent5: (¬{AB}{hh} & {IQ}{hh}) -> {DK}{hh} sent6: (Ex): ({BD}x & ¬{DQ}x) -> {BC}x sent7: (Ex): (¬{IT}x & {CG}x) -> {BK}x sent8: (Ex): ({FO}x & ¬{BB}x) -> {HU}x sent9: (Ex): (¬{GP}x & {AQ}x) -> {K}x sent10: ({B}{aa} & ¬{EN}{aa}) -> {DS}{aa} sent11: (¬{GM}{aa} & {AH}{aa}) -> {AA}{aa} sent12: (¬{GF}{aa} & {GA}{aa}) -> {DG}{aa} sent13: (Ex): (¬{CO}x & ¬{P}x) -> {IU}x sent14: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent15: (¬{GR}{aa} & {B}{aa}) -> {DC}{aa} sent16: (Ex): (¬{BF}x & ¬{DT}x) -> {GJ}x sent17: (Ex): (¬{DC}x & {JD}x) -> {DR}x
|
[
"sent14 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent14 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 16 | 0 | 16 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it is a kind of non-Haitian thing that does not sectionalize microglia then it is a diorite is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the Creole is a chagrin if it is a kind of a Haitian that is not a civilian. sent2: if the rotogravure is non-lower-class and is not a Haitian then it sectionalizes hiatus. sent3: there is something such that if it does not pipe and it laces wild then it is albinal. sent4: if the rotogravure is not a Haitian and is not a kind of a procyonid it is illegible. sent5: if the fact that the treacle does not sectionalize microglia but it is a civilian is true then it aspirates. sent6: the fact that there is something such that if that it sprays and it is not viscometric hold that it does lace mesoderm is not false hold. sent7: there is something such that if it is not a Scorpaenidae but a feasibility then it is a clianthus. sent8: there exists something such that if it laces SoHo and is not a Luxemburger then it does pink ninepin. sent9: there is something such that if it is a kind of non-catoptrics thing that is a pantyhose it laces agonist. sent10: if the rotogravure is a diorite but it does not lace treacle it is a kind of a lamb's-quarter. sent11: the rotogravure is Haitian if it does not trephine and it is a kind of an aesthetics. sent12: if the rotogravure does not lace Belshazzar and tipples it is a Neapolitan. sent13: there exists something such that if it does not lace cynancum and is not nasopharyngeal it is intolerant. sent14: the rotogravure is a kind of a diorite if it is a kind of non-Haitian thing that does not sectionalize microglia. sent15: the rotogravure is shorts if it does not kern and it is a diorite. sent16: there exists something such that if it is not a quantization and it does not pink bur then it is a Acipenseridae. sent17: there exists something such that if it is not a shorts but an embankment then the fact that it is a chlorofucin hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent14 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the ounce is not supervisory.
|
¬{D}{a}
|
sent1: if something is a kind of a Jinnah but it does not lace requirement it is not supervisory. sent2: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a madake the ounce is a Jinnah. sent3: there is something such that it is a madake. sent4: if something is medullary then that it is not a HS1 or it is not technophilic or both is false. sent5: there exists something such that that it is pompous hold. sent6: if that the osteocyte does not lace requirement and does unfold Frenchman is not correct then it does lace requirement. sent7: the ounce is not a wintergreen if it is both a Jinnah and not a Erastianism. sent8: something that is not technophilic is a greens that is a kind of an effectiveness. sent9: if the humanities is supervisory the ounce is not supervisory. sent10: the osteocyte is not technophilic if that the champagne is not a HS1 or it is not technophilic or both does not hold. sent11: the ounce is a Jinnah. sent12: if the ounce is a kind of a granny that is not a kind of a Jinnah then it does not pink humility. sent13: if there is something such that it is supervisory the cassette is a madake and it does lace requirement. sent14: if the humanities is a kind of a Jinnah and is not a madake the ounce is supervisory. sent15: if something laces requirement then the fact that it is not a madake and it is a Jinnah is false. sent16: the stimulant sectionalizes genitor and is a innervation if there is something such that it is pompous. sent17: if something is not a kind of a reagin then it does lace requirement and it does unfold Frenchman. sent18: if something is a kind of an effectiveness the fact that it does not lace confidentiality and it is not Parisian does not hold. sent19: if the ounce unfolds stimulant and is not a spank it does not sectionalize cassette. sent20: that if something that does sectionalize genitor is a innervation the champagne is medullary is correct. sent21: if there is something such that it is not a madake the ounce is a Jinnah and does not lace requirement.
|
sent1: (x): ({B}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{D}x sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> {B}{a} sent3: (Ex): {A}x sent4: (x): {M}x -> ¬(¬{L}x v ¬{K}x) sent5: (Ex): {P}x sent6: ¬(¬{C}{c} & {E}{c}) -> {C}{c} sent7: ({B}{a} & ¬{GO}{a}) -> ¬{EU}{a} sent8: (x): ¬{K}x -> ({J}x & {I}x) sent9: {D}{b} -> {D}{a} sent10: ¬(¬{L}{d} v ¬{K}{d}) -> ¬{K}{c} sent11: {B}{a} sent12: ({BJ}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{EE}{a} sent13: (x): {D}x -> ({A}{g} & {C}{g}) sent14: ({B}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) -> {D}{a} sent15: (x): {C}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & {B}x) sent16: (x): {P}x -> ({N}{e} & {O}{e}) sent17: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({C}x & {E}x) sent18: (x): {I}x -> ¬(¬{G}x & ¬{H}x) sent19: ({IS}{a} & ¬{HA}{a}) -> ¬{GP}{a} sent20: (x): ({N}x & {O}x) -> {M}{d} sent21: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a})
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: the ounce is not supervisory if it is a Jinnah and does not lace requirement.;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a};"
] |
the fact that the ounce is non-supervisory does not hold.
|
{D}{a}
|
[
"sent15 -> int2: that the osteocyte is both not a madake and a Jinnah is incorrect if it laces requirement.;"
] | 7 | 2 | null | 19 | 0 | 19 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the ounce is not supervisory. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a kind of a Jinnah but it does not lace requirement it is not supervisory. sent2: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a madake the ounce is a Jinnah. sent3: there is something such that it is a madake. sent4: if something is medullary then that it is not a HS1 or it is not technophilic or both is false. sent5: there exists something such that that it is pompous hold. sent6: if that the osteocyte does not lace requirement and does unfold Frenchman is not correct then it does lace requirement. sent7: the ounce is not a wintergreen if it is both a Jinnah and not a Erastianism. sent8: something that is not technophilic is a greens that is a kind of an effectiveness. sent9: if the humanities is supervisory the ounce is not supervisory. sent10: the osteocyte is not technophilic if that the champagne is not a HS1 or it is not technophilic or both does not hold. sent11: the ounce is a Jinnah. sent12: if the ounce is a kind of a granny that is not a kind of a Jinnah then it does not pink humility. sent13: if there is something such that it is supervisory the cassette is a madake and it does lace requirement. sent14: if the humanities is a kind of a Jinnah and is not a madake the ounce is supervisory. sent15: if something laces requirement then the fact that it is not a madake and it is a Jinnah is false. sent16: the stimulant sectionalizes genitor and is a innervation if there is something such that it is pompous. sent17: if something is not a kind of a reagin then it does lace requirement and it does unfold Frenchman. sent18: if something is a kind of an effectiveness the fact that it does not lace confidentiality and it is not Parisian does not hold. sent19: if the ounce unfolds stimulant and is not a spank it does not sectionalize cassette. sent20: that if something that does sectionalize genitor is a innervation the champagne is medullary is correct. sent21: if there is something such that it is not a madake the ounce is a Jinnah and does not lace requirement. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: the ounce is not supervisory if it is a Jinnah and does not lace requirement.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the saiga is not gerundial.
|
¬{D}{b}
|
sent1: if the fastnacht is not an ade that the saiga alligators and is stemmatic is false. sent2: if the W is a SSA that the pilgrim does overjoy is not wrong. sent3: if there exists something such that it is stemmatic either the fastnacht does lace Machaeranthera or it is stemmatic or both. sent4: that the saiga is a kind of non-stemmatic thing that is gerundial is incorrect. sent5: there exists something such that the fact that it unfolds pant and is a kind of a promycelium does not hold. sent6: there exists something such that it does not alligator. sent7: the W is not a bergamot if that it is a bergamot that is a Nietzsche is false. sent8: the fact that that the fastnacht is not an ade but a sounding hold does not hold. sent9: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not stemmatic but an ade is not true then the saiga is gerundial. sent10: that something does unfold pant is not wrong if it is a promycelium. sent11: if that the W is not a bergamot hold then the pilgrim is a kind of a sawdust and it is a promycelium. sent12: if the fact that something is an alligator and it is stemmatic is false it is not gerundial. sent13: the ACE alligators and is stemmatic if the pilgrim is not an ade. sent14: if something overjoys then it is both not gerundial and not an ade. sent15: if that something is not a SSA but it is an ade is not correct the fact that it is not an ade is true. sent16: the ACE overjoys if the pilgrim does unfold pant. sent17: that the fastnacht is not a SSA but it is an ade does not hold if the ACE overjoys. sent18: there exists something such that it is non-stemmatic and it is an ade. sent19: the fact that the fastnacht is both non-stemmatic and an ade is wrong if something is not an alligator.
|
sent1: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬({A}{b} & {B}{b}) sent2: {F}{e} -> {E}{d} sent3: (x): {B}x -> ({DJ}{a} v {B}{a}) sent4: ¬(¬{B}{b} & {D}{b}) sent5: (Ex): ¬({G}x & {H}x) sent6: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent7: ¬({J}{e} & {K}{e}) -> ¬{J}{e} sent8: ¬(¬{C}{a} & {JJ}{a}) sent9: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & {C}x) -> {D}{b} sent10: (x): {H}x -> {G}x sent11: ¬{J}{e} -> ({I}{d} & {H}{d}) sent12: (x): ¬({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{D}x sent13: ¬{C}{d} -> ({A}{c} & {B}{c}) sent14: (x): {E}x -> (¬{D}x & ¬{C}x) sent15: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & {C}x) -> ¬{C}x sent16: {G}{d} -> {E}{c} sent17: {E}{c} -> ¬(¬{F}{a} & {C}{a}) sent18: (Ex): (¬{B}x & {C}x) sent19: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a})
|
[
"sent6 & sent19 -> int1: the fact that the fastnacht is a kind of non-stemmatic an ade is false.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that that it is both not stemmatic and an ade is false.; int2 & sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 & sent19 -> int1: ¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): ¬(¬{B}x & {C}x); int2 & sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the saiga does lace Machaeranthera.
|
{DJ}{b}
|
[
"sent14 -> int3: if the pilgrim does overjoy then it is not gerundial and it is not an ade.;"
] | 9 | 3 | 3 | 16 | 0 | 16 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the saiga is not gerundial. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fastnacht is not an ade that the saiga alligators and is stemmatic is false. sent2: if the W is a SSA that the pilgrim does overjoy is not wrong. sent3: if there exists something such that it is stemmatic either the fastnacht does lace Machaeranthera or it is stemmatic or both. sent4: that the saiga is a kind of non-stemmatic thing that is gerundial is incorrect. sent5: there exists something such that the fact that it unfolds pant and is a kind of a promycelium does not hold. sent6: there exists something such that it does not alligator. sent7: the W is not a bergamot if that it is a bergamot that is a Nietzsche is false. sent8: the fact that that the fastnacht is not an ade but a sounding hold does not hold. sent9: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not stemmatic but an ade is not true then the saiga is gerundial. sent10: that something does unfold pant is not wrong if it is a promycelium. sent11: if that the W is not a bergamot hold then the pilgrim is a kind of a sawdust and it is a promycelium. sent12: if the fact that something is an alligator and it is stemmatic is false it is not gerundial. sent13: the ACE alligators and is stemmatic if the pilgrim is not an ade. sent14: if something overjoys then it is both not gerundial and not an ade. sent15: if that something is not a SSA but it is an ade is not correct the fact that it is not an ade is true. sent16: the ACE overjoys if the pilgrim does unfold pant. sent17: that the fastnacht is not a SSA but it is an ade does not hold if the ACE overjoys. sent18: there exists something such that it is non-stemmatic and it is an ade. sent19: the fact that the fastnacht is both non-stemmatic and an ade is wrong if something is not an alligator. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 & sent19 -> int1: the fact that the fastnacht is a kind of non-stemmatic an ade is false.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that that it is both not stemmatic and an ade is false.; int2 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the rainstorm is not a snap.
|
¬{C}{b}
|
sent1: the gelatin is a kind of a overprint. sent2: the Hokan is not a overprint. sent3: the Hokan does fringe if the fact that the MSG is a kind of a fringe is not incorrect. sent4: the fact that something is not a jet and it does not fringe is false if it is not microbial. sent5: something snaps if it pinks NUWC. sent6: if the Hokan is not a overprint then the rainstorm pinks NUWC. sent7: everything is not polymeric. sent8: the fact that the Hokan does not pink NUWC and/or it is not a kind of a overprint is incorrect if it does fringe. sent9: if something does not unfold roll it is non-microbial. sent10: something does snap if that it overprints is right. sent11: if there exists something such that the fact that it does not pink NUWC and/or it is not a overprint is not true then the rainstorm does not snap. sent12: everything is a psaltery. sent13: the acquaintance is a fringe if there is something such that that it does not jet and it does not fringe is not right. sent14: the cyprinid does not unfold roll if something is a psaltery and not polymeric.
|
sent1: {A}{ao} sent2: ¬{A}{a} sent3: {D}{c} -> {D}{a} sent4: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{D}x) sent5: (x): {B}x -> {C}x sent6: ¬{A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent7: (x): ¬{I}x sent8: {D}{a} -> ¬(¬{B}{a} v ¬{A}{a}) sent9: (x): ¬{G}x -> ¬{F}x sent10: (x): {A}x -> {C}x sent11: (x): ¬(¬{B}x v ¬{A}x) -> ¬{C}{b} sent12: (x): {H}x sent13: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{D}x) -> {D}{d} sent14: (x): ({H}x & ¬{I}x) -> ¬{G}{e}
|
[
"sent6 & sent2 -> int1: the rainstorm pinks NUWC.; sent5 -> int2: the rainstorm is a snap if it pinks NUWC.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 & sent2 -> int1: {B}{b}; sent5 -> int2: {B}{b} -> {C}{b}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the neckerchief is a snap.
|
{C}{dl}
|
[
"sent10 -> int3: if the neckerchief does overprint it does snap.;"
] | 5 | 2 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the rainstorm is not a snap. ; $context$ = sent1: the gelatin is a kind of a overprint. sent2: the Hokan is not a overprint. sent3: the Hokan does fringe if the fact that the MSG is a kind of a fringe is not incorrect. sent4: the fact that something is not a jet and it does not fringe is false if it is not microbial. sent5: something snaps if it pinks NUWC. sent6: if the Hokan is not a overprint then the rainstorm pinks NUWC. sent7: everything is not polymeric. sent8: the fact that the Hokan does not pink NUWC and/or it is not a kind of a overprint is incorrect if it does fringe. sent9: if something does not unfold roll it is non-microbial. sent10: something does snap if that it overprints is right. sent11: if there exists something such that the fact that it does not pink NUWC and/or it is not a overprint is not true then the rainstorm does not snap. sent12: everything is a psaltery. sent13: the acquaintance is a fringe if there is something such that that it does not jet and it does not fringe is not right. sent14: the cyprinid does not unfold roll if something is a psaltery and not polymeric. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 & sent2 -> int1: the rainstorm pinks NUWC.; sent5 -> int2: the rainstorm is a snap if it pinks NUWC.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the binocularsness does not occur.
|
¬{C}
|
sent1: that the binocularsness and the pinking tomahawk occurs is brought about by that the stating does not occur. sent2: if the fact that the pinking tomahawk does not occur but the state happens is not right then the bristling occurs. sent3: if the pinking tomahawk occurs and the state happens that the binocularsness does not occur hold. sent4: the fact that the stating happens is not incorrect.
|
sent1: ¬{B} -> ({C} & {A}) sent2: ¬(¬{A} & {B}) -> {JF} sent3: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent4: {B}
|
[] |
[] |
the bristle happens.
|
{JF}
|
[] | 6 | 2 | null | 2 | 0 | 2 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the binocularsness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the binocularsness and the pinking tomahawk occurs is brought about by that the stating does not occur. sent2: if the fact that the pinking tomahawk does not occur but the state happens is not right then the bristling occurs. sent3: if the pinking tomahawk occurs and the state happens that the binocularsness does not occur hold. sent4: the fact that the stating happens is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the sectionalizing sprechgesang occurs.
|
{C}
|
sent1: that the phlegminess does not occur and the scattering does not occur is caused by the planetalness. sent2: that the assortment does not occur and the sectionalizing sprechgesang does not occur is caused by that the acquiescence occurs. sent3: that the rallying but not the enslavement occurs is not correct if the plying happens. sent4: the impossibleness is caused by the nonfissionableness. sent5: if the unfolding inside happens and the noncrucialness does not occur then the acquiescence happens. sent6: that the sectionalizing sprechgesang does not occur is prevented by that the assortment happens. sent7: that the plying and the sectionalizing narwhal occurs is triggered by that the phlegminess does not occur. sent8: that the assortment does not occur causes that the negligence and the shanking happens. sent9: the rallying does not occur if the fact that the rallying but not the enslavement occurs is not right. sent10: the shanking happens. sent11: if the rallying does not occur then the unfolding inside and the non-noncrucialness happens.
|
sent1: {M} -> (¬{K} & ¬{L}) sent2: {D} -> (¬{B} & ¬{C}) sent3: {I} -> ¬({G} & ¬{H}) sent4: {CF} -> {CK} sent5: ({E} & ¬{F}) -> {D} sent6: {B} -> {C} sent7: ¬{K} -> ({I} & {J}) sent8: ¬{B} -> ({DA} & {A}) sent9: ¬({G} & ¬{H}) -> ¬{G} sent10: {A} sent11: ¬{G} -> ({E} & ¬{F})
|
[] |
[] |
the negligence occurs.
|
{DA}
|
[] | 13 | 2 | null | 10 | 0 | 10 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the sectionalizing sprechgesang occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that the phlegminess does not occur and the scattering does not occur is caused by the planetalness. sent2: that the assortment does not occur and the sectionalizing sprechgesang does not occur is caused by that the acquiescence occurs. sent3: that the rallying but not the enslavement occurs is not correct if the plying happens. sent4: the impossibleness is caused by the nonfissionableness. sent5: if the unfolding inside happens and the noncrucialness does not occur then the acquiescence happens. sent6: that the sectionalizing sprechgesang does not occur is prevented by that the assortment happens. sent7: that the plying and the sectionalizing narwhal occurs is triggered by that the phlegminess does not occur. sent8: that the assortment does not occur causes that the negligence and the shanking happens. sent9: the rallying does not occur if the fact that the rallying but not the enslavement occurs is not right. sent10: the shanking happens. sent11: if the rallying does not occur then the unfolding inside and the non-noncrucialness happens. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the mammalogist is not a infelicity and it does not savor.
|
(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})
|
sent1: something downsizes and does lace mandarin if it does not belong. sent2: if there is something such that the fact that it is both not a Tarawa and an agitprop is not true then the mammalogist is not an agitprop. sent3: everything does not unfold backpack or does not belong or both. sent4: something is not a Thoth and does not pink midiron if that it does not unfold cavalryman hold. sent5: the mammalogist is not isotopic and it is not a traitress. sent6: if there exists something such that the fact that it does not unfold dactylomegaly and it is a kind of a seventy does not hold then the mammalogist is not a kind of a seventy. sent7: something is not a millionaire and it is not a kind of a Testament if it is not a kind of a ash-key. sent8: the mammalogist is not a kind of an exclamation if it does not savor. sent9: something does not unfold Aranyaka and it is not a kind of a drainboard if it does not unfold dactylomegaly. sent10: something is not a infelicity and it does not savor if it is not a seventy. sent11: there is something such that it is not a coneflower and unfolds tucked. sent12: something does not belong if it does not unfold backpack and/or it does not belong. sent13: there exists something such that that it does not unfold dactylomegaly and is a kind of a seventy is not right. sent14: that the mammalogist is not a infelicity and does not savor does not hold if the scorer is a seventy.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({D}x & {E}x) sent2: (x): ¬(¬{FR}x & {GS}x) -> ¬{GS}{aa} sent3: (x): (¬{H}x v ¬{F}x) sent4: (x): ¬{AC}x -> (¬{IR}x & ¬{HC}x) sent5: (¬{FD}{aa} & ¬{DN}{aa}) sent6: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & {A}x) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent7: (x): ¬{HH}x -> (¬{C}x & ¬{CC}x) sent8: ¬{AB}{aa} -> ¬{BP}{aa} sent9: (x): ¬{B}x -> (¬{EO}x & ¬{S}x) sent10: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent11: (Ex): (¬{BR}x & {IA}x) sent12: (x): (¬{H}x v ¬{F}x) -> ¬{F}x sent13: (Ex): ¬(¬{B}x & {A}x) sent14: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})
|
[
"sent10 -> int1: the fact that if the mammalogist is not the seventy the mammalogist is not a infelicity and does not savor hold.; sent13 & sent6 -> int2: the mammalogist is not a kind of a seventy.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent10 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); sent13 & sent6 -> int2: ¬{A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the corespondent does not unfold Aranyaka and it is not a drainboard if it does not unfold dactylomegaly.
|
¬{B}{du} -> (¬{EO}{du} & ¬{S}{du})
|
[
"sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 2 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the mammalogist is not a infelicity and it does not savor. ; $context$ = sent1: something downsizes and does lace mandarin if it does not belong. sent2: if there is something such that the fact that it is both not a Tarawa and an agitprop is not true then the mammalogist is not an agitprop. sent3: everything does not unfold backpack or does not belong or both. sent4: something is not a Thoth and does not pink midiron if that it does not unfold cavalryman hold. sent5: the mammalogist is not isotopic and it is not a traitress. sent6: if there exists something such that the fact that it does not unfold dactylomegaly and it is a kind of a seventy does not hold then the mammalogist is not a kind of a seventy. sent7: something is not a millionaire and it is not a kind of a Testament if it is not a kind of a ash-key. sent8: the mammalogist is not a kind of an exclamation if it does not savor. sent9: something does not unfold Aranyaka and it is not a kind of a drainboard if it does not unfold dactylomegaly. sent10: something is not a infelicity and it does not savor if it is not a seventy. sent11: there is something such that it is not a coneflower and unfolds tucked. sent12: something does not belong if it does not unfold backpack and/or it does not belong. sent13: there exists something such that that it does not unfold dactylomegaly and is a kind of a seventy is not right. sent14: that the mammalogist is not a infelicity and does not savor does not hold if the scorer is a seventy. ; $proof$ =
|
sent10 -> int1: the fact that if the mammalogist is not the seventy the mammalogist is not a infelicity and does not savor hold.; sent13 & sent6 -> int2: the mammalogist is not a kind of a seventy.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the living-room does lace living-room.
|
{A}{b}
|
sent1: the electrometer does not lace leptotene. sent2: that the electrometer does not unfold Fortuna hold if the fact that it acquits or it brews or both is incorrect. sent3: the electrometer does lace living-room if the living-room is not a intercostal. sent4: if the electrometer is not a kind of a intercostal then that the living-room acquits is right. sent5: the retreat is a intercostal. sent6: the fact that the living-room is cataplastic or it is a roll or both is wrong. sent7: the living-room does lace living-room if the electrometer does not acquit. sent8: that the living-room is inadvisable or it is litigious or both is incorrect. sent9: the fact that the bisque is either unambitious or a Laburnum or both is not correct. sent10: the dragoon is intercostal. sent11: the fact that the living-room is ursine and/or does pink sprout is not true. sent12: if that the electrometer either is nosocomial or is not non-intercostal or both does not hold then it does not acquit. sent13: the fact that the living-room does acquit if the electrometer does not lace living-room is right. sent14: the electrometer is not nosocomial if the fact that it is a intercostal and/or it does lace living-room is not true. sent15: that the electrometer is nosocomial and/or laces living-room does not hold. sent16: the living-room is a intercostal. sent17: that the mandolin is either synonymous or packable or both is incorrect. sent18: that the electrometer laces living-room and/or it is nosocomial is not right. sent19: that the electrometer is either nosocomial or intercostal or both is false. sent20: the herald does not acquit.
|
sent1: ¬{HH}{a} sent2: ¬({B}{a} v {EJ}{a}) -> ¬{ER}{a} sent3: ¬{AB}{b} -> {A}{a} sent4: ¬{AB}{a} -> {B}{b} sent5: {AB}{hd} sent6: ¬({IA}{b} v {J}{b}) sent7: ¬{B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent8: ¬({FQ}{b} v {BO}{b}) sent9: ¬({HT}{en} v {DP}{en}) sent10: {AB}{bd} sent11: ¬({FO}{b} v {HM}{b}) sent12: ¬({AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent13: ¬{A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent14: ¬({AB}{a} v {A}{a}) -> ¬{AA}{a} sent15: ¬({AA}{a} v {A}{a}) sent16: {AB}{b} sent17: ¬({DQ}{ca} v {AF}{ca}) sent18: ¬({A}{a} v {AA}{a}) sent19: ¬({AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent20: ¬{B}{co}
|
[
"sent12 & sent19 -> int1: the electrometer does not acquit.; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent12 & sent19 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 17 | 0 | 17 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the living-room does lace living-room. ; $context$ = sent1: the electrometer does not lace leptotene. sent2: that the electrometer does not unfold Fortuna hold if the fact that it acquits or it brews or both is incorrect. sent3: the electrometer does lace living-room if the living-room is not a intercostal. sent4: if the electrometer is not a kind of a intercostal then that the living-room acquits is right. sent5: the retreat is a intercostal. sent6: the fact that the living-room is cataplastic or it is a roll or both is wrong. sent7: the living-room does lace living-room if the electrometer does not acquit. sent8: that the living-room is inadvisable or it is litigious or both is incorrect. sent9: the fact that the bisque is either unambitious or a Laburnum or both is not correct. sent10: the dragoon is intercostal. sent11: the fact that the living-room is ursine and/or does pink sprout is not true. sent12: if that the electrometer either is nosocomial or is not non-intercostal or both does not hold then it does not acquit. sent13: the fact that the living-room does acquit if the electrometer does not lace living-room is right. sent14: the electrometer is not nosocomial if the fact that it is a intercostal and/or it does lace living-room is not true. sent15: that the electrometer is nosocomial and/or laces living-room does not hold. sent16: the living-room is a intercostal. sent17: that the mandolin is either synonymous or packable or both is incorrect. sent18: that the electrometer laces living-room and/or it is nosocomial is not right. sent19: that the electrometer is either nosocomial or intercostal or both is false. sent20: the herald does not acquit. ; $proof$ =
|
sent12 & sent19 -> int1: the electrometer does not acquit.; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the Weizenbock is a garrison is correct.
|
{E}{b}
|
sent1: a non-testicular thing unfolds oblivion and reseeds. sent2: the fact that the seaquake is not testicular and it does not lace SALT is not correct if there exists something such that it is not unrecoverable. sent3: the fact that the baggageman does not lace Carew hold if something is ferromagnetic. sent4: the fact that the fact that the baggageman does garrison but it does not pink backsword does not hold is true if the phonebook is not basaltic. sent5: there is something such that that it is ferromagnetic is not wrong. sent6: if that the Weizenbock is a garrison but not ferromagnetic does not hold then it is not a garrison. sent7: if the tributyrin is not a kind of a Catholic and does not garrison the seat is not a Catholic. sent8: if there is something such that the fact that it is basaltic is true then the tributyrin is not a garrison. sent9: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a Catholic the tributyrin is non-basaltic. sent10: if the tributyrin is a garrison then the Weizenbock is not non-basaltic. sent11: there is something such that it laces Carew. sent12: something does not pink backsword and it is not a kind of a Catholic if that it is basaltic hold. sent13: the tributyrin does not garrison if the fact that the baggageman does garrison but it does not pink backsword is not correct. sent14: there is something such that it is not basaltic. sent15: if the fact that the seaquake is non-testicular thing that does not lace SALT does not hold then the saucepan is not testicular. sent16: if the saucepan does reseed then the fact that the phonebook is ferromagnetic but it does not lace Carew is not correct. sent17: the Weizenbock is basaltic if there is something such that it is ferromagnetic and it is not a garrison. sent18: there exists something such that it does pink backsword or it is a Catholic or both. sent19: the fact that something is not a garrison if the fact that it is Catholic a garrison is false is not false. sent20: if there is something such that it either does pink backsword or is a Catholic or both the tributyrin is not basaltic. sent21: if something that does lace Carew is not basaltic then the Weizenbock is a garrison. sent22: if the baggageman is ferromagnetic then the tributyrin laces Carew. sent23: something laces Carew and is basaltic. sent24: the tartar is not unrecoverable.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{I}x -> ({H}x & {G}x) sent2: (x): ¬{K}x -> ¬(¬{I}{f} & ¬{J}{f}) sent3: (x): {F}x -> ¬{D}{c} sent4: ¬{C}{d} -> ¬({E}{c} & ¬{A}{c}) sent5: (Ex): {F}x sent6: ¬({E}{b} & ¬{F}{b}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent7: (¬{B}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) -> ¬{B}{jd} sent8: (x): {C}x -> ¬{E}{a} sent9: (x): {B}x -> ¬{C}{a} sent10: {E}{a} -> {C}{b} sent11: (Ex): {D}x sent12: (x): {C}x -> (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) sent13: ¬({E}{c} & ¬{A}{c}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent14: (Ex): ¬{C}x sent15: ¬(¬{I}{f} & ¬{J}{f}) -> ¬{I}{e} sent16: {G}{e} -> ¬({F}{d} & ¬{D}{d}) sent17: (x): ({F}x & ¬{E}x) -> {C}{b} sent18: (Ex): ({A}x v {B}x) sent19: (x): ¬({B}x & {E}x) -> ¬{E}x sent20: (x): ({A}x v {B}x) -> ¬{C}{a} sent21: (x): ({D}x & ¬{C}x) -> {E}{b} sent22: {F}{c} -> {D}{a} sent23: (Ex): ({D}x & {C}x) sent24: ¬{K}{g}
|
[
"sent18 & sent20 -> int1: the fact that the tributyrin is not basaltic hold.;"
] |
[
"sent18 & sent20 -> int1: ¬{C}{a};"
] |
the Weizenbock is not a kind of a garrison.
|
¬{E}{b}
|
[
"sent19 -> int2: if the fact that the Weizenbock is a Catholic and it is a garrison does not hold it does not garrison.; sent1 -> int3: the saucepan does unfold oblivion and it does reseed if it is not testicular.; sent24 -> int4: there is something such that it is not unrecoverable.; int4 & sent2 -> int5: that the seaquake is not testicular and does not lace SALT is not true.; sent15 & int5 -> int6: the saucepan is not testicular.; int3 & int6 -> int7: the saucepan unfolds oblivion and it does reseed.; int7 -> int8: the saucepan reseeds.; sent16 & int8 -> int9: the fact that the phonebook is ferromagnetic but it does not lace Carew does not hold.;"
] | 12 | 4 | null | 20 | 0 | 20 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the Weizenbock is a garrison is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: a non-testicular thing unfolds oblivion and reseeds. sent2: the fact that the seaquake is not testicular and it does not lace SALT is not correct if there exists something such that it is not unrecoverable. sent3: the fact that the baggageman does not lace Carew hold if something is ferromagnetic. sent4: the fact that the fact that the baggageman does garrison but it does not pink backsword does not hold is true if the phonebook is not basaltic. sent5: there is something such that that it is ferromagnetic is not wrong. sent6: if that the Weizenbock is a garrison but not ferromagnetic does not hold then it is not a garrison. sent7: if the tributyrin is not a kind of a Catholic and does not garrison the seat is not a Catholic. sent8: if there is something such that the fact that it is basaltic is true then the tributyrin is not a garrison. sent9: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a Catholic the tributyrin is non-basaltic. sent10: if the tributyrin is a garrison then the Weizenbock is not non-basaltic. sent11: there is something such that it laces Carew. sent12: something does not pink backsword and it is not a kind of a Catholic if that it is basaltic hold. sent13: the tributyrin does not garrison if the fact that the baggageman does garrison but it does not pink backsword is not correct. sent14: there is something such that it is not basaltic. sent15: if the fact that the seaquake is non-testicular thing that does not lace SALT does not hold then the saucepan is not testicular. sent16: if the saucepan does reseed then the fact that the phonebook is ferromagnetic but it does not lace Carew is not correct. sent17: the Weizenbock is basaltic if there is something such that it is ferromagnetic and it is not a garrison. sent18: there exists something such that it does pink backsword or it is a Catholic or both. sent19: the fact that something is not a garrison if the fact that it is Catholic a garrison is false is not false. sent20: if there is something such that it either does pink backsword or is a Catholic or both the tributyrin is not basaltic. sent21: if something that does lace Carew is not basaltic then the Weizenbock is a garrison. sent22: if the baggageman is ferromagnetic then the tributyrin laces Carew. sent23: something laces Carew and is basaltic. sent24: the tartar is not unrecoverable. ; $proof$ =
|
sent18 & sent20 -> int1: the fact that the tributyrin is not basaltic hold.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that either the BVD does pink monogyny or it is not a stroboscope or both is not right.
|
¬({C}{b} v ¬{A}{b})
|
sent1: the Numidian is maxillodental if the BVD is agranulocytic. sent2: the fact that something is a denaturant and does not unfold electron is wrong if it is not Carthusian. sent3: if that the fact that the dodger is non-Carthusian or non-liturgical or both is not correct is correct the fact that the BVD is not a non-Carthusian hold. sent4: that the dodger does raid and it is a rag is not correct if the kitchenette does not unfold dodger. sent5: there is something such that either it is not a parasail or it is not Boeotian or both. sent6: the fact that the BVD does pink monogyny and/or is not a stroboscope does not hold if the fact that the Numidian is not a kind of a stroboscope is correct. sent7: if there is something such that it is not a parasail or it is not Boeotian or both the Numidian is not a stroboscope. sent8: if the fact that something is a denaturant that does not unfold electron does not hold then it is agranulocytic. sent9: if something is not a kind of a Galilee that it is a kind of a description or is not a kind of a stroboscope or both does not hold. sent10: that either something is not Carthusian or it is not liturgical or both does not hold if it is non-emptying. sent11: if the Numidian is a kind of a Galilee and does not pink monogyny the coalman is not a Galilee. sent12: the dodger is a lumber if it pinks tiling. sent13: the fact that the kitchenette does not unfold dodger hold. sent14: something that is not a hellebore is not emptying and is a kind of a languor. sent15: if that the dodger is non-maxillodental and not non-agranulocytic does not hold then the Numidian is not a Galilee. sent16: the BVD is Boeotian. sent17: the Numidian is a parasail if the BVD is not a parasail. sent18: the dodger is not a rag if that it is a raid and rag is false. sent19: the BVD is Boeotian if the Numidian is not Boeotian. sent20: the dodger pinks tiling. sent21: something is a Galilee that does not pink monogyny if it is maxillodental. sent22: if something is a kind of a lumber but it is not a rag that it is not a hellebore is not false.
|
sent1: {E}{b} -> {D}{a} sent2: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬({F}x & ¬{G}x) sent3: ¬(¬{H}{c} v ¬{J}{c}) -> ¬{H}{b} sent4: ¬{Q}{d} -> ¬({O}{c} & {M}{c}) sent5: (Ex): (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent6: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({C}{b} v ¬{A}{b}) sent7: (x): (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent8: (x): ¬({F}x & ¬{G}x) -> {E}x sent9: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({IB}x v ¬{A}x) sent10: (x): ¬{I}x -> ¬(¬{H}x v ¬{J}x) sent11: ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{B}{ge} sent12: {P}{c} -> {N}{c} sent13: ¬{Q}{d} sent14: (x): ¬{L}x -> (¬{I}x & {K}x) sent15: ¬(¬{D}{c} & {E}{c}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent16: {AB}{b} sent17: ¬{AA}{b} -> {AA}{a} sent18: ¬({O}{c} & {M}{c}) -> ¬{M}{c} sent19: ¬{AB}{a} -> {AB}{b} sent20: {P}{c} sent21: (x): {D}x -> ({B}x & ¬{C}x) sent22: (x): ({N}x & ¬{M}x) -> ¬{L}x
|
[
"sent5 & sent7 -> int1: the Numidian is not a stroboscope.; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 & sent7 -> int1: ¬{A}{a}; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the BVD does pink monogyny or is not a stroboscope or both.
|
({C}{b} v ¬{A}{b})
|
[] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that either the BVD does pink monogyny or it is not a stroboscope or both is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the Numidian is maxillodental if the BVD is agranulocytic. sent2: the fact that something is a denaturant and does not unfold electron is wrong if it is not Carthusian. sent3: if that the fact that the dodger is non-Carthusian or non-liturgical or both is not correct is correct the fact that the BVD is not a non-Carthusian hold. sent4: that the dodger does raid and it is a rag is not correct if the kitchenette does not unfold dodger. sent5: there is something such that either it is not a parasail or it is not Boeotian or both. sent6: the fact that the BVD does pink monogyny and/or is not a stroboscope does not hold if the fact that the Numidian is not a kind of a stroboscope is correct. sent7: if there is something such that it is not a parasail or it is not Boeotian or both the Numidian is not a stroboscope. sent8: if the fact that something is a denaturant that does not unfold electron does not hold then it is agranulocytic. sent9: if something is not a kind of a Galilee that it is a kind of a description or is not a kind of a stroboscope or both does not hold. sent10: that either something is not Carthusian or it is not liturgical or both does not hold if it is non-emptying. sent11: if the Numidian is a kind of a Galilee and does not pink monogyny the coalman is not a Galilee. sent12: the dodger is a lumber if it pinks tiling. sent13: the fact that the kitchenette does not unfold dodger hold. sent14: something that is not a hellebore is not emptying and is a kind of a languor. sent15: if that the dodger is non-maxillodental and not non-agranulocytic does not hold then the Numidian is not a Galilee. sent16: the BVD is Boeotian. sent17: the Numidian is a parasail if the BVD is not a parasail. sent18: the dodger is not a rag if that it is a raid and rag is false. sent19: the BVD is Boeotian if the Numidian is not Boeotian. sent20: the dodger pinks tiling. sent21: something is a Galilee that does not pink monogyny if it is maxillodental. sent22: if something is a kind of a lumber but it is not a rag that it is not a hellebore is not false. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 & sent7 -> int1: the Numidian is not a stroboscope.; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the T-man does lace Mugil or it is topographical or both does not hold.
|
¬({A}{b} v {B}{b})
|
sent1: the puck laces Mugil. sent2: the fact that the trumpetfish is infelicitous is correct if there exists something such that that it is a unresponsiveness and unfolds Lancastrian is false. sent3: if something is not a kind of a dialogue then the fact that it is a unresponsiveness that does unfold Lancastrian is false. sent4: that the footwall is analytic or is not ectodermal or both is wrong. sent5: either the footwall is analytic or it does lace Mugil or both. sent6: if there is something such that it is infelicitous then the footwall is not a obviation. sent7: if that either the T-man is analytic or it does not lace Mugil or both is wrong the footwall is topographical. sent8: everything is not a dialogue. sent9: the T-man is topographical if the fact that the footwall is analytic and/or it is not ectodermal is not correct. sent10: if that the footwall is analytic or it is ectodermal or both is false then the T-man is topographical.
|
sent1: {A}{ag} sent2: (x): ¬({F}x & {E}x) -> {D}{c} sent3: (x): ¬{G}x -> ¬({F}x & {E}x) sent4: ¬({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent5: ({AA}{a} v {A}{a}) sent6: (x): {D}x -> ¬{C}{a} sent7: ¬({AA}{b} v ¬{A}{b}) -> {B}{a} sent8: (x): ¬{G}x sent9: ¬({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent10: ¬({AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) -> {B}{b}
|
[
"sent9 & sent4 -> int1: the T-man is topographical.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 & sent4 -> int1: {B}{b}; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the T-man does lace Mugil and/or it is topographical is wrong.
|
¬({A}{b} v {B}{b})
|
[
"sent8 -> int2: the mischance is not a dialogue.; sent3 -> int3: if the mischance is not a kind of a dialogue that it is a kind of a unresponsiveness and does unfold Lancastrian is wrong.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the fact that the mischance is a kind of a unresponsiveness and it unfolds Lancastrian does not hold.; int4 -> int5: there is nothing such that it is a unresponsiveness and does unfold Lancastrian.; int5 -> int6: the fact that the bystander is a kind of a unresponsiveness that unfolds Lancastrian is not right.; int6 -> int7: there exists something such that the fact that it is a unresponsiveness and unfolds Lancastrian does not hold.; sent2 & int7 -> int8: the trumpetfish is infelicitous.; int8 -> int9: something is infelicitous.; sent6 & int9 -> int10: the footwall is not a kind of a obviation.; int10 -> int11: something is not a obviation.;"
] | 10 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the T-man does lace Mugil or it is topographical or both does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the puck laces Mugil. sent2: the fact that the trumpetfish is infelicitous is correct if there exists something such that that it is a unresponsiveness and unfolds Lancastrian is false. sent3: if something is not a kind of a dialogue then the fact that it is a unresponsiveness that does unfold Lancastrian is false. sent4: that the footwall is analytic or is not ectodermal or both is wrong. sent5: either the footwall is analytic or it does lace Mugil or both. sent6: if there is something such that it is infelicitous then the footwall is not a obviation. sent7: if that either the T-man is analytic or it does not lace Mugil or both is wrong the footwall is topographical. sent8: everything is not a dialogue. sent9: the T-man is topographical if the fact that the footwall is analytic and/or it is not ectodermal is not correct. sent10: if that the footwall is analytic or it is ectodermal or both is false then the T-man is topographical. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 & sent4 -> int1: the T-man is topographical.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the dystopianness occurs hold.
|
{D}
|
sent1: the send-off but not the meteor happens. sent2: the cycling occurs if the fact that the pastorship happens is correct. sent3: if the pinking embodiment does not occur the pastorship occurs and the conjuncture happens. sent4: if that the pinking superinfection does not occur is not wrong that both the pinking embodiment and the foxhunting occurs is not correct. sent5: the creep and the expressing happens. sent6: the basting occurs but the goalkeeper does not occur. sent7: if the breach occurs then either the non-mutafacientness or the bust-up or both happens. sent8: the non-mutafacientness is brought about by that the non-mutafacient does not occur and/or that the bust-up happens. sent9: the creep happens. sent10: the meteor does not occur. sent11: the pinking superinfection does not occur if that both the non-sepulchralness and the pickling occurs does not hold. sent12: that the creeping but not the breach occurs is false if the mutafacientness does not occur. sent13: the dystopianness does not occur if both the send-off and the expressing happens. sent14: if the mutafacientness does not occur then the creeping does not occur and the expressing happens. sent15: not the unfolding honk but the acquainting occurs if the cycling happens. sent16: the fact that the burrlikeness happens and the meteor happens hold if the creep does not occur. sent17: both the breach and the interlobularness occurs if the unfolding honk does not occur. sent18: the happiness occurs. sent19: if that the pinking embodiment occurs and the foxhunting occurs is incorrect the pinking embodiment does not occur. sent20: if that the fact that the creep happens but the breach does not occur is right does not hold the creep does not occur. sent21: that the meteor does not occur is caused by that not the creeping but the express happens.
|
sent1: ({A} & ¬{B}) sent2: {M} -> {L} sent3: ¬{O} -> ({M} & {N}) sent4: ¬{Q} -> ¬({O} & {P}) sent5: ({E} & {C}) sent6: ({HN} & ¬{EK}) sent7: {G} -> (¬{F} v {H}) sent8: (¬{F} v {H}) -> ¬{F} sent9: {E} sent10: ¬{B} sent11: ¬(¬{S} & {R}) -> ¬{Q} sent12: ¬{F} -> ¬({E} & ¬{G}) sent13: ({A} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent14: ¬{F} -> (¬{E} & {C}) sent15: {L} -> (¬{J} & {K}) sent16: ¬{E} -> ({EG} & {B}) sent17: ¬{J} -> ({G} & {I}) sent18: {DK} sent19: ¬({O} & {P}) -> ¬{O} sent20: ¬({E} & ¬{G}) -> ¬{E} sent21: (¬{E} & {C}) -> ¬{B}
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: the send-off happens.; sent5 -> int2: the express happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the send-off and the expressing occurs.; int3 & sent13 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: {A}; sent5 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({A} & {C}); int3 & sent13 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the dystopianness happens.
|
{D}
|
[] | 16 | 3 | 3 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the dystopianness occurs hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the send-off but not the meteor happens. sent2: the cycling occurs if the fact that the pastorship happens is correct. sent3: if the pinking embodiment does not occur the pastorship occurs and the conjuncture happens. sent4: if that the pinking superinfection does not occur is not wrong that both the pinking embodiment and the foxhunting occurs is not correct. sent5: the creep and the expressing happens. sent6: the basting occurs but the goalkeeper does not occur. sent7: if the breach occurs then either the non-mutafacientness or the bust-up or both happens. sent8: the non-mutafacientness is brought about by that the non-mutafacient does not occur and/or that the bust-up happens. sent9: the creep happens. sent10: the meteor does not occur. sent11: the pinking superinfection does not occur if that both the non-sepulchralness and the pickling occurs does not hold. sent12: that the creeping but not the breach occurs is false if the mutafacientness does not occur. sent13: the dystopianness does not occur if both the send-off and the expressing happens. sent14: if the mutafacientness does not occur then the creeping does not occur and the expressing happens. sent15: not the unfolding honk but the acquainting occurs if the cycling happens. sent16: the fact that the burrlikeness happens and the meteor happens hold if the creep does not occur. sent17: both the breach and the interlobularness occurs if the unfolding honk does not occur. sent18: the happiness occurs. sent19: if that the pinking embodiment occurs and the foxhunting occurs is incorrect the pinking embodiment does not occur. sent20: if that the fact that the creep happens but the breach does not occur is right does not hold the creep does not occur. sent21: that the meteor does not occur is caused by that not the creeping but the express happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: the send-off happens.; sent5 -> int2: the express happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the send-off and the expressing occurs.; int3 & sent13 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
something does not pink Fremontodendron and/or shleps.
|
(Ex): (¬{C}x v {B}x)
|
sent1: the sluicegate does not unfold Hyssopus if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of non-Dominican thing that does not unfold pyrilamine is not correct. sent2: there is something such that the fact that it is non-Dominican thing that does not unfold pyrilamine does not hold. sent3: the sluicegate does not pink Fremontodendron and/or it does shlep if it does not unfold Hyssopus.
|
sent1: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent2: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent3: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{C}{a} v {B}{a})
|
[
"sent2 & sent1 -> int1: that the sluicegate does not unfold Hyssopus is not false.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the sluicegate does not pink Fremontodendron and/or it shleps.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent1 -> int1: ¬{A}{a}; int1 & sent3 -> int2: (¬{C}{a} v {B}{a}); int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = something does not pink Fremontodendron and/or shleps. ; $context$ = sent1: the sluicegate does not unfold Hyssopus if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of non-Dominican thing that does not unfold pyrilamine is not correct. sent2: there is something such that the fact that it is non-Dominican thing that does not unfold pyrilamine does not hold. sent3: the sluicegate does not pink Fremontodendron and/or it does shlep if it does not unfold Hyssopus. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent1 -> int1: that the sluicegate does not unfold Hyssopus is not false.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the sluicegate does not pink Fremontodendron and/or it shleps.; int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if it does relocate then it does not unfold Tropaeolum and is an algebra.
|
(Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x)
|
sent1: there exists something such that if it is skinless then it is irremediable and it is a Rottweiler. sent2: something that does unfold Tropaeolum is a kind of non-restrictive thing that is a kind of a intactness. sent3: if the fact that the pew relocates is not wrong then the fact that it is an algebra is not incorrect. sent4: if the earthworm is a intactness then it is not a kind of a fandango and it unfolds Tropaeolum. sent5: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a Gikuyu it is a Nan. sent6: there exists something such that if it does relocate it does not unfold Tropaeolum. sent7: there exists something such that if it is a Owen then the fact that it laces Pindar and it is palatal is not incorrect. sent8: there exists something such that if the fact that it is a teleology hold then it is a kind of a Owen that steepens. sent9: there is something such that if it is exterior it is non-calligraphic thing that sectionalizes Varanidae. sent10: the pew is not a gaucho but it is a monism if it sectionalizes enthusiasm. sent11: the pew unfolds Tropaeolum and is an algebra if it does relocate. sent12: there exists something such that if it does subcontract then the fact that it gluttonizes is right. sent13: if the pew relocates it does not unfold Tropaeolum and is an algebra. sent14: there exists something such that if that it does writhe hold then it is not revocable and it is a Marlowe.
|
sent1: (Ex): {EM}x -> ({AG}x & {ER}x) sent2: (x): {AA}x -> (¬{FH}x & {DF}x) sent3: {A}{aa} -> {AB}{aa} sent4: {DF}{fs} -> (¬{IC}{fs} & {AA}{fs}) sent5: (Ex): {CE}x -> {EI}x sent6: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬{AA}x sent7: (Ex): {HI}x -> ({JE}x & {EP}x) sent8: (Ex): {FG}x -> ({HI}x & {IU}x) sent9: (Ex): {JA}x -> (¬{GB}x & {EQ}x) sent10: {FK}{aa} -> (¬{BK}{aa} & {BR}{aa}) sent11: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent12: (Ex): {BH}x -> {GH}x sent13: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent14: (Ex): {CK}x -> (¬{BU}x & {BT}x)
|
[
"sent13 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent13 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the geotropism is unrestrictive and a intactness if it does unfold Tropaeolum.
|
{AA}{cp} -> (¬{FH}{cp} & {DF}{cp})
|
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it does relocate then it does not unfold Tropaeolum and is an algebra. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it is skinless then it is irremediable and it is a Rottweiler. sent2: something that does unfold Tropaeolum is a kind of non-restrictive thing that is a kind of a intactness. sent3: if the fact that the pew relocates is not wrong then the fact that it is an algebra is not incorrect. sent4: if the earthworm is a intactness then it is not a kind of a fandango and it unfolds Tropaeolum. sent5: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a Gikuyu it is a Nan. sent6: there exists something such that if it does relocate it does not unfold Tropaeolum. sent7: there exists something such that if it is a Owen then the fact that it laces Pindar and it is palatal is not incorrect. sent8: there exists something such that if the fact that it is a teleology hold then it is a kind of a Owen that steepens. sent9: there is something such that if it is exterior it is non-calligraphic thing that sectionalizes Varanidae. sent10: the pew is not a gaucho but it is a monism if it sectionalizes enthusiasm. sent11: the pew unfolds Tropaeolum and is an algebra if it does relocate. sent12: there exists something such that if it does subcontract then the fact that it gluttonizes is right. sent13: if the pew relocates it does not unfold Tropaeolum and is an algebra. sent14: there exists something such that if that it does writhe hold then it is not revocable and it is a Marlowe. ; $proof$ =
|
sent13 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Casanova is a Dresden.
|
{C}{c}
|
sent1: the fact that the sensitizer is a kind of a ligature but it does not pink breechloader is false. sent2: that the impressionist does not sectionalize NUWC and it is not a Flaviviridae is not right if it unfolds mesoderm. sent3: something that either is not a kind of a copper or is aerobics or both does not copper. sent4: if the fact that the sensitizer is a ligature but it does not pink breechloader is wrong the fact that the impressionist is azimuthal hold. sent5: something that does not copper is a boo and/or a Dresden. sent6: the breechloader is not an eczema and does not pink worthiness if the sensitizer does not sectionalize NUWC. sent7: the impressionist is azimuthal if the sensitizer pinks breechloader. sent8: the impressionist does unfold mesoderm. sent9: the Casanova is a Dresden if the impressionist is seamanlike. sent10: if that the impressionist does not sectionalize NUWC and is not a Flaviviridae is not right then the sensitizer does not sectionalize NUWC. sent11: if something is a Dresden it is seamanlike. sent12: if something is seamanlike it is azimuthal. sent13: if something is a kind of a lament then it is a kind of a brattice. sent14: something either is not a copper or is aerobics or both if it is not an eczema. sent15: if something does boo it is seamanlike.
|
sent1: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent2: {K}{b} -> ¬(¬{I}{b} & ¬{J}{b}) sent3: (x): (¬{E}x v {F}x) -> ¬{E}x sent4: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent5: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({D}x v {C}x) sent6: ¬{I}{a} -> (¬{G}{es} & ¬{H}{es}) sent7: {AB}{a} -> {B}{b} sent8: {K}{b} sent9: {A}{b} -> {C}{c} sent10: ¬(¬{I}{b} & ¬{J}{b}) -> ¬{I}{a} sent11: (x): {C}x -> {A}x sent12: (x): {A}x -> {B}x sent13: (x): {GS}x -> {JH}x sent14: (x): ¬{G}x -> (¬{E}x v {F}x) sent15: (x): {D}x -> {A}x
|
[
"sent4 & sent1 -> int1: the impressionist is azimuthal.;"
] |
[
"sent4 & sent1 -> int1: {B}{b};"
] |
the breechloader is azimuthal.
|
{B}{es}
|
[
"sent12 -> int2: if the breechloader is seamanlike then it is azimuthal.; sent5 -> int3: if the breechloader is not a copper either it is a boo or it is a Dresden or both.; sent3 -> int4: if the breechloader does not copper and/or is aerobics then it is not a kind of a copper.; sent14 -> int5: either the breechloader is not a kind of a copper or it is aerobics or both if it is not an eczema.; sent2 & sent8 -> int6: that the impressionist does not sectionalize NUWC and it is not a Flaviviridae is wrong.; sent10 & int6 -> int7: the sensitizer does not sectionalize NUWC.; sent6 & int7 -> int8: that the breechloader is not an eczema and it does not pink worthiness is not wrong.; int8 -> int9: the breechloader is not an eczema.; int5 & int9 -> int10: the breechloader does not copper or it is aerobics or both.; int4 & int10 -> int11: the breechloader is not a kind of a copper.; int3 & int11 -> int12: the breechloader does boo and/or is a Dresden.; sent15 -> int13: that the breechloader is seamanlike is not incorrect if it does boo.; sent11 -> int14: the breechloader is seamanlike if it is a Dresden.; int12 & int13 & int14 -> int15: the breechloader is seamanlike.; int2 & int15 -> hypothesis;"
] | 9 | 3 | null | 12 | 0 | 12 |
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the Casanova is a Dresden. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the sensitizer is a kind of a ligature but it does not pink breechloader is false. sent2: that the impressionist does not sectionalize NUWC and it is not a Flaviviridae is not right if it unfolds mesoderm. sent3: something that either is not a kind of a copper or is aerobics or both does not copper. sent4: if the fact that the sensitizer is a ligature but it does not pink breechloader is wrong the fact that the impressionist is azimuthal hold. sent5: something that does not copper is a boo and/or a Dresden. sent6: the breechloader is not an eczema and does not pink worthiness if the sensitizer does not sectionalize NUWC. sent7: the impressionist is azimuthal if the sensitizer pinks breechloader. sent8: the impressionist does unfold mesoderm. sent9: the Casanova is a Dresden if the impressionist is seamanlike. sent10: if that the impressionist does not sectionalize NUWC and is not a Flaviviridae is not right then the sensitizer does not sectionalize NUWC. sent11: if something is a Dresden it is seamanlike. sent12: if something is seamanlike it is azimuthal. sent13: if something is a kind of a lament then it is a kind of a brattice. sent14: something either is not a copper or is aerobics or both if it is not an eczema. sent15: if something does boo it is seamanlike. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 & sent1 -> int1: the impressionist is azimuthal.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the cherry is cautious.
|
¬{C}{b}
|
sent1: if something is a plagioclase and/or it does not unfold Bai then it does not offload. sent2: if the fact that the entellus is a Blattidae is right then the fact that it does not pink morphophoneme and is fossiliferous is not right. sent3: something is a kind of a Fagus and/or is an executioner if it does not offload. sent4: the shoelace is squinty. sent5: if the shoelace is a tutelage or it is a kind of a Fagus or both then the cherry is not incautious. sent6: if the shoelace is a tutelage then the cherry is incautious. sent7: if something that is a tutelage is incautious the cherry is not a kind of a Fagus. sent8: the shoelace is a Fagus. sent9: the cherry is a tutelage or it is incautious or both. sent10: the fact that the entellus is a Blattidae hold. sent11: if the monoamine is a trillion then the zootoxin does not pink fricassee or it is not a kind of a Blattidae or both. sent12: something is incautious and is an executioner if it does not offload. sent13: if something does not pink morphophoneme that it is fossiliferous and it is a plagioclase is not true. sent14: the cherry is not incautious if the shoelace is a tutelage. sent15: the shoelace is a plagioclase or it does not unfold Bai or both. sent16: if that the shoelace is incautious is not false then the cherry is not a Fagus. sent17: the shoelace is incautious. sent18: if that something is fossiliferous and it is a kind of a plagioclase is not true it is not a kind of a plagioclase. sent19: the entellus does not pink morphophoneme if something does not pink fricassee and/or it is not a Blattidae. sent20: the fact that the monoamine is a kind of a trillion is not false. sent21: the touch-typist is extricable and/or pinks foaming. sent22: if the fact that the entellus is not a plagioclase is not wrong then it does not offload and does unfold Bai.
|
sent1: (x): ({G}x v ¬{F}x) -> ¬{E}x sent2: {J}{c} -> ¬(¬{I}{c} & {H}{c}) sent3: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({B}x v {D}x) sent4: {FK}{a} sent5: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent6: {A}{a} -> {C}{b} sent7: (x): ({A}x & {C}x) -> ¬{B}{b} sent8: {B}{a} sent9: ({A}{b} v {C}{b}) sent10: {J}{c} sent11: {L}{e} -> (¬{K}{d} v ¬{J}{d}) sent12: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({C}x & {D}x) sent13: (x): ¬{I}x -> ¬({H}x & {G}x) sent14: {A}{a} -> ¬{C}{b} sent15: ({G}{a} v ¬{F}{a}) sent16: {C}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent17: {C}{a} sent18: (x): ¬({H}x & {G}x) -> ¬{G}x sent19: (x): (¬{K}x v ¬{J}x) -> ¬{I}{c} sent20: {L}{e} sent21: ({EH}{ie} v {HI}{ie}) sent22: ¬{G}{c} -> (¬{E}{c} & {F}{c})
|
[
"sent8 -> int1: the shoelace is a tutelage and/or it is a kind of a Fagus.; int1 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 -> int1: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}); int1 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the cherry is not a Fagus.
|
¬{B}{b}
|
[
"sent2 & sent10 -> int2: the fact that the entellus does not pink morphophoneme and is fossiliferous is incorrect.; int2 -> int3: there exists something such that the fact that it does not pink morphophoneme and is fossiliferous is not true.; sent12 -> int4: the shoelace is incautious and it is an executioner if it does not offload.; sent1 -> int5: if the shoelace is a plagioclase or does not unfold Bai or both then it does not offload.; int5 & sent15 -> int6: the shoelace does not offload.; int4 & int6 -> int7: the shoelace is a kind of incautious thing that is an executioner.; int7 -> int8: the shoelace is not cautious.;"
] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 20 | 0 | 20 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the cherry is cautious. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a plagioclase and/or it does not unfold Bai then it does not offload. sent2: if the fact that the entellus is a Blattidae is right then the fact that it does not pink morphophoneme and is fossiliferous is not right. sent3: something is a kind of a Fagus and/or is an executioner if it does not offload. sent4: the shoelace is squinty. sent5: if the shoelace is a tutelage or it is a kind of a Fagus or both then the cherry is not incautious. sent6: if the shoelace is a tutelage then the cherry is incautious. sent7: if something that is a tutelage is incautious the cherry is not a kind of a Fagus. sent8: the shoelace is a Fagus. sent9: the cherry is a tutelage or it is incautious or both. sent10: the fact that the entellus is a Blattidae hold. sent11: if the monoamine is a trillion then the zootoxin does not pink fricassee or it is not a kind of a Blattidae or both. sent12: something is incautious and is an executioner if it does not offload. sent13: if something does not pink morphophoneme that it is fossiliferous and it is a plagioclase is not true. sent14: the cherry is not incautious if the shoelace is a tutelage. sent15: the shoelace is a plagioclase or it does not unfold Bai or both. sent16: if that the shoelace is incautious is not false then the cherry is not a Fagus. sent17: the shoelace is incautious. sent18: if that something is fossiliferous and it is a kind of a plagioclase is not true it is not a kind of a plagioclase. sent19: the entellus does not pink morphophoneme if something does not pink fricassee and/or it is not a Blattidae. sent20: the fact that the monoamine is a kind of a trillion is not false. sent21: the touch-typist is extricable and/or pinks foaming. sent22: if the fact that the entellus is not a plagioclase is not wrong then it does not offload and does unfold Bai. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 -> int1: the shoelace is a tutelage and/or it is a kind of a Fagus.; int1 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fishpond camps.
|
{C}{b}
|
sent1: if the immortelle is not a kind of a alendronate it is not celiac. sent2: if that something is both not a camp and not a counter is incorrect then it does camp. sent3: that the conger is a alendronate and it is sociocultural is wrong if that it does not garner is not false. sent4: if that something is a alendronate and it is sociocultural is wrong it is not a alendronate. sent5: the fact that the bottle-tree is a camp is right if the fishpond is a antepenult. sent6: if the radio-phonograph is not plumbic and/or it is not upmarket the immortelle is not upmarket. sent7: the conger does not garner if that it does garner and does lace echinococcus is not correct. sent8: the bottle-tree is a kind of a antepenult and it is gladiatorial. sent9: that something is not a camp and not a counter is not true if it is not a kind of a alendronate. sent10: the immortelle is not a kind of a alendronate. sent11: the bottle-tree is gladiatorial. sent12: if the bottle-tree does camp the fishpond is a antepenult. sent13: that the fishpond does not camp is not false if the bottle-tree is not a kind of a camp and it is not a kind of a antepenult. sent14: the bottle-tree is celiac and/or it is a kind of a antepenult if there is something such that that it is a kind of a camp is not false. sent15: if the radio-phonograph does not unfold commandant either it is not plumbic or it is not upmarket or both. sent16: the mousse is a xerography and it is a kind of a Muscari. sent17: the radio-phonograph does not unfold commandant. sent18: a antepenult is gladiatorial. sent19: the fact that the fact that the conger does garner and it laces echinococcus is not incorrect is not correct if the immortelle is not upmarket. sent20: the fishpond is a kind of a antepenult.
|
sent1: ¬{F}{d} -> ¬{D}{d} sent2: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{E}x) -> {C}x sent3: ¬{G}{c} -> ¬({F}{c} & {H}{c}) sent4: (x): ¬({F}x & {H}x) -> ¬{F}x sent5: {A}{b} -> {C}{a} sent6: (¬{L}{e} v ¬{I}{e}) -> ¬{I}{d} sent7: ¬({G}{c} & {J}{c}) -> ¬{G}{c} sent8: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent9: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{E}x) sent10: ¬{F}{d} sent11: {B}{a} sent12: {C}{a} -> {A}{b} sent13: (¬{C}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent14: (x): {C}x -> ({D}{a} v {A}{a}) sent15: ¬{K}{e} -> (¬{L}{e} v ¬{I}{e}) sent16: ({BR}{al} & {DF}{al}) sent17: ¬{K}{e} sent18: (x): {A}x -> {B}x sent19: ¬{I}{d} -> ¬({G}{c} & {J}{c}) sent20: {A}{b}
|
[
"sent8 -> int1: the bottle-tree is a antepenult.;"
] |
[
"sent8 -> int1: {A}{a};"
] |
the fishpond does not camp.
|
¬{C}{b}
|
[
"sent1 & sent10 -> int2: that the immortelle is not celiac hold.; int2 -> int3: there exists something such that it is not celiac.;"
] | 7 | 2 | null | 19 | 0 | 19 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fishpond camps. ; $context$ = sent1: if the immortelle is not a kind of a alendronate it is not celiac. sent2: if that something is both not a camp and not a counter is incorrect then it does camp. sent3: that the conger is a alendronate and it is sociocultural is wrong if that it does not garner is not false. sent4: if that something is a alendronate and it is sociocultural is wrong it is not a alendronate. sent5: the fact that the bottle-tree is a camp is right if the fishpond is a antepenult. sent6: if the radio-phonograph is not plumbic and/or it is not upmarket the immortelle is not upmarket. sent7: the conger does not garner if that it does garner and does lace echinococcus is not correct. sent8: the bottle-tree is a kind of a antepenult and it is gladiatorial. sent9: that something is not a camp and not a counter is not true if it is not a kind of a alendronate. sent10: the immortelle is not a kind of a alendronate. sent11: the bottle-tree is gladiatorial. sent12: if the bottle-tree does camp the fishpond is a antepenult. sent13: that the fishpond does not camp is not false if the bottle-tree is not a kind of a camp and it is not a kind of a antepenult. sent14: the bottle-tree is celiac and/or it is a kind of a antepenult if there is something such that that it is a kind of a camp is not false. sent15: if the radio-phonograph does not unfold commandant either it is not plumbic or it is not upmarket or both. sent16: the mousse is a xerography and it is a kind of a Muscari. sent17: the radio-phonograph does not unfold commandant. sent18: a antepenult is gladiatorial. sent19: the fact that the fact that the conger does garner and it laces echinococcus is not incorrect is not correct if the immortelle is not upmarket. sent20: the fishpond is a kind of a antepenult. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 -> int1: the bottle-tree is a antepenult.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the behavioralness happens is true.
|
{C}
|
sent1: the decoying occurs and the coexisting occurs. sent2: the interspersion happens. sent3: the annex happens. sent4: that both the interspersion and the annexing occurs triggers the non-behavioralness.
|
sent1: ({GM} & {U}) sent2: {A} sent3: {B} sent4: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C}
|
[
"sent2 & sent3 -> int1: both the interspersion and the annex happens.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent3 -> int1: ({A} & {B}); sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the behavioralness happens is true. ; $context$ = sent1: the decoying occurs and the coexisting occurs. sent2: the interspersion happens. sent3: the annex happens. sent4: that both the interspersion and the annexing occurs triggers the non-behavioralness. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent3 -> int1: both the interspersion and the annex happens.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there is something such that if it is not Lusitanian and laces quartering it is a bud does not hold.
|
¬((Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x)
|
sent1: there exists something such that if it is not non-cholinergic and is a kind of a burgrass then it laces reorganization. sent2: there is something such that if it does pink humanness and it decocts it is a collect. sent3: if the cynancum is not heavy but it buds it is a kind of a steeplejack. sent4: the financier laces jugular if it is not Lusitanian but premenopausal. sent5: there exists something such that if it laces vulcanite and is a grief it is mutative. sent6: there is something such that if it laces Appalachian and is a launderette it is a OR. sent7: if the hanger is not Lusitanian and laces quartering it does bud. sent8: there is something such that if it sectionalizes spongioblast and it laces cynancum then the fact that it is on-site is correct. sent9: the hanger laces quartering if it is a kind of non-vagal thing that unfolds hitter.
|
sent1: (Ex): ({FJ}x & {FK}x) -> {AK}x sent2: (Ex): ({BQ}x & {IB}x) -> {K}x sent3: (¬{AJ}{bl} & {B}{bl}) -> {CQ}{bl} sent4: (¬{AA}{bo} & {EE}{bo}) -> {GS}{bo} sent5: (Ex): ({FG}x & {JE}x) -> {HI}x sent6: (Ex): ({DH}x & {GJ}x) -> {ER}x sent7: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent8: (Ex): ({AL}x & {IM}x) -> {AN}x sent9: (¬{L}{aa} & {F}{aa}) -> {AB}{aa}
|
[
"sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if it is not Lusitanian and laces quartering it is a bud does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it is not non-cholinergic and is a kind of a burgrass then it laces reorganization. sent2: there is something such that if it does pink humanness and it decocts it is a collect. sent3: if the cynancum is not heavy but it buds it is a kind of a steeplejack. sent4: the financier laces jugular if it is not Lusitanian but premenopausal. sent5: there exists something such that if it laces vulcanite and is a grief it is mutative. sent6: there is something such that if it laces Appalachian and is a launderette it is a OR. sent7: if the hanger is not Lusitanian and laces quartering it does bud. sent8: there is something such that if it sectionalizes spongioblast and it laces cynancum then the fact that it is on-site is correct. sent9: the hanger laces quartering if it is a kind of non-vagal thing that unfolds hitter. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that if the fact that the Solomon's-seal is non-bimorphemic and laces glop does not hold the Solomon's-seal is not a mill is not correct.
|
¬(¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa})
|
sent1: if the Solomon's-seal does not lace glop then it is not a mill. sent2: if something that does not sectionalize emptiness does sectionalize rangpur it is not Delphic. sent3: if that something is non-bimetallistic thing that is a kind of a Wigner is wrong it is hemorrhagic. sent4: the torte is not a kind of a mill if the fact that it is a kind of a cotillion and it laces driven does not hold. sent5: if the fact that something is not a spongioblast but it is a kind of a multivitamin does not hold then it is myrmecophytic. sent6: if that the Solomon's-seal does not brighten but it does lace launderette is not true it does not pink Zostera. sent7: if that the bachelor is a kind of a Sunni that is energetic is not right it is not a mill. sent8: if the fact that something is not joyous but it is a Alexandrian is incorrect it laces celebration. sent9: the Solomon's-seal is not blastomycotic if that it does not pink oracle and does lace glop is not right. sent10: if the fact that the Solomon's-seal is bimorphemic and does lace glop does not hold then it is not a mill. sent11: something is not a mill if the fact that it is not bimorphemic and it does lace glop does not hold.
|
sent1: ¬{AB}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent2: (x): (¬{HL}x & {ER}x) -> ¬{EQ}x sent3: (x): ¬(¬{BB}x & {DP}x) -> {DL}x sent4: ¬({M}{fh} & {C}{fh}) -> ¬{B}{fh} sent5: (x): ¬(¬{GC}x & {FT}x) -> {GH}x sent6: ¬(¬{IF}{aa} & {JG}{aa}) -> ¬{I}{aa} sent7: ¬({JI}{ej} & {GB}{ej}) -> ¬{B}{ej} sent8: (x): ¬(¬{BK}x & {AE}x) -> {CK}x sent9: ¬(¬{IQ}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{T}{aa} sent10: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent11: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
[
"sent11 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent11 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that if the fact that the Solomon's-seal is non-bimorphemic and laces glop does not hold the Solomon's-seal is not a mill is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Solomon's-seal does not lace glop then it is not a mill. sent2: if something that does not sectionalize emptiness does sectionalize rangpur it is not Delphic. sent3: if that something is non-bimetallistic thing that is a kind of a Wigner is wrong it is hemorrhagic. sent4: the torte is not a kind of a mill if the fact that it is a kind of a cotillion and it laces driven does not hold. sent5: if the fact that something is not a spongioblast but it is a kind of a multivitamin does not hold then it is myrmecophytic. sent6: if that the Solomon's-seal does not brighten but it does lace launderette is not true it does not pink Zostera. sent7: if that the bachelor is a kind of a Sunni that is energetic is not right it is not a mill. sent8: if the fact that something is not joyous but it is a Alexandrian is incorrect it laces celebration. sent9: the Solomon's-seal is not blastomycotic if that it does not pink oracle and does lace glop is not right. sent10: if the fact that the Solomon's-seal is bimorphemic and does lace glop does not hold then it is not a mill. sent11: something is not a mill if the fact that it is not bimorphemic and it does lace glop does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the geotropism is a bash and a Millikan.
|
({B}{c} & {C}{c})
|
sent1: if the streptokinase sectionalizes ink but it does not tell the senator does tell. sent2: the senator is not flexible and does not wreathe. sent3: that something is thankless but it is not high-tech does not hold if it tells. sent4: the quinidine is not a kind of a chambray. sent5: that the senator is not sphingine is right. sent6: if the senator is not a kind of a Indonesian but it is a money the geotropism is not sphingine. sent7: something is not a Indonesian but it is a kind of a money if it is not thankless. sent8: if the fact that the streptokinase is Indonesian but not a bash is false then the geotropism is violent. sent9: the fact that the streptokinase is a kind of a chambray that is violent is not true if the senator is not sphingine. sent10: the senator is not a Millikan. sent11: the caroche is violent. sent12: that the fact that something is a bash and it is a Millikan is not wrong is not correct if it is not sphingine. sent13: that the streptokinase is a chambray and it is violent is incorrect. sent14: the fact that the senator is both sphingine and not a bash does not hold if the geotropism is not violent. sent15: if something that is not a money is not a Indonesian it is a Millikan. sent16: that something is not thankless if that it is thankless and it is not high-tech is wrong is not false. sent17: the geotropism is not a kind of a money. sent18: that the streptokinase is violent and is not sphingine is incorrect if the geotropism is not a money. sent19: that the streptokinase is both a chambray and not violent is not true if the senator is not sphingine. sent20: the geotropism is violent. sent21: if the streptokinase is violent the geotropism is a bash. sent22: if something that is not a kind of a chambray is not a money it is a Indonesian. sent23: the fact that the geotropism is a bash if that the streptokinase is a chambray but it is not violent does not hold is not false. sent24: the streptokinase sectionalizes ink and it sectionalizes tachylite.
|
sent1: ({J}{b} & ¬{H}{b}) -> {H}{a} sent2: (¬{IQ}{a} & ¬{EA}{a}) sent3: (x): {H}x -> ¬({F}x & ¬{G}x) sent4: ¬{AA}{f} sent5: ¬{A}{a} sent6: (¬{E}{a} & {D}{a}) -> ¬{A}{c} sent7: (x): ¬{F}x -> (¬{E}x & {D}x) sent8: ¬({E}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> {AB}{c} sent9: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent10: ¬{C}{a} sent11: {AB}{ji} sent12: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}x & {C}x) sent13: ¬({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent14: ¬{AB}{c} -> ¬({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent15: (x): (¬{D}x & ¬{E}x) -> {C}x sent16: (x): ¬({F}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{F}x sent17: ¬{D}{c} sent18: ¬{D}{c} -> ¬({AB}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent19: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent20: {AB}{c} sent21: {AB}{b} -> {B}{c} sent22: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{D}x) -> {E}x sent23: ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) -> {B}{c} sent24: ({J}{b} & {I}{b})
|
[
"sent19 & sent5 -> int1: the fact that the streptokinase is a kind of a chambray but it is nonviolent does not hold.; int1 & sent23 -> int2: the geotropism is a kind of a bash.; sent15 -> int3: the geotropism is a Millikan if it is both not a money and not Indonesian.;"
] |
[
"sent19 & sent5 -> int1: ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}); int1 & sent23 -> int2: {B}{c}; sent15 -> int3: (¬{D}{c} & ¬{E}{c}) -> {C}{c};"
] |
that the geotropism is a kind of a bash that is a Millikan is not correct.
|
¬({B}{c} & {C}{c})
|
[
"sent12 -> int4: the fact that the geotropism is a kind of a bash and it is a Millikan does not hold if it is not sphingine.; sent7 -> int5: the senator is both not Indonesian and a money if it is not thankless.; sent16 -> int6: if the fact that the senator is both thankless and not high-tech is incorrect then it is not thankless.; sent3 -> int7: if the senator tells the fact that it is both thankless and not high-tech is not right.; sent24 -> int8: the streptokinase does sectionalize ink.;"
] | 8 | 3 | null | 19 | 0 | 19 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the geotropism is a bash and a Millikan. ; $context$ = sent1: if the streptokinase sectionalizes ink but it does not tell the senator does tell. sent2: the senator is not flexible and does not wreathe. sent3: that something is thankless but it is not high-tech does not hold if it tells. sent4: the quinidine is not a kind of a chambray. sent5: that the senator is not sphingine is right. sent6: if the senator is not a kind of a Indonesian but it is a money the geotropism is not sphingine. sent7: something is not a Indonesian but it is a kind of a money if it is not thankless. sent8: if the fact that the streptokinase is Indonesian but not a bash is false then the geotropism is violent. sent9: the fact that the streptokinase is a kind of a chambray that is violent is not true if the senator is not sphingine. sent10: the senator is not a Millikan. sent11: the caroche is violent. sent12: that the fact that something is a bash and it is a Millikan is not wrong is not correct if it is not sphingine. sent13: that the streptokinase is a chambray and it is violent is incorrect. sent14: the fact that the senator is both sphingine and not a bash does not hold if the geotropism is not violent. sent15: if something that is not a money is not a Indonesian it is a Millikan. sent16: that something is not thankless if that it is thankless and it is not high-tech is wrong is not false. sent17: the geotropism is not a kind of a money. sent18: that the streptokinase is violent and is not sphingine is incorrect if the geotropism is not a money. sent19: that the streptokinase is both a chambray and not violent is not true if the senator is not sphingine. sent20: the geotropism is violent. sent21: if the streptokinase is violent the geotropism is a bash. sent22: if something that is not a kind of a chambray is not a money it is a Indonesian. sent23: the fact that the geotropism is a bash if that the streptokinase is a chambray but it is not violent does not hold is not false. sent24: the streptokinase sectionalizes ink and it sectionalizes tachylite. ; $proof$ =
|
sent19 & sent5 -> int1: the fact that the streptokinase is a kind of a chambray but it is nonviolent does not hold.; int1 & sent23 -> int2: the geotropism is a kind of a bash.; sent15 -> int3: the geotropism is a Millikan if it is both not a money and not Indonesian.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the anjou is not a centralization.
|
¬{E}{c}
|
sent1: if the smack is not a mailbox then that the anjou is an efferent and it is a Ceratopogonidae is incorrect. sent2: if the fact that that the anjou is an efferent and it is a Ceratopogonidae is not incorrect is not correct then it is not a centralization. sent3: the anjou is not a mailbox if the smack is not a centralization. sent4: if the sultana is not a Wabash that the smack is not a mailbox is correct. sent5: the sultana is not a Wabash.
|
sent1: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬({C}{c} & {D}{c}) sent2: ¬({C}{c} & {D}{c}) -> ¬{E}{c} sent3: ¬{E}{b} -> ¬{B}{c} sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent5: ¬{A}{a}
|
[
"sent4 & sent5 -> int1: the smack is not a mailbox.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: that the anjou is efferent and it is a Ceratopogonidae is not right.; int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 & sent5 -> int1: ¬{B}{b}; int1 & sent1 -> int2: ¬({C}{c} & {D}{c}); int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the anjou is not a centralization. ; $context$ = sent1: if the smack is not a mailbox then that the anjou is an efferent and it is a Ceratopogonidae is incorrect. sent2: if the fact that that the anjou is an efferent and it is a Ceratopogonidae is not incorrect is not correct then it is not a centralization. sent3: the anjou is not a mailbox if the smack is not a centralization. sent4: if the sultana is not a Wabash that the smack is not a mailbox is correct. sent5: the sultana is not a Wabash. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 & sent5 -> int1: the smack is not a mailbox.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: that the anjou is efferent and it is a Ceratopogonidae is not right.; int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that that the wearer does not sectionalize shoot but it is uninucleate is false if that the wearer jogs is true is incorrect.
|
¬({A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}))
|
sent1: the wearer does not sectionalize shoot but it is uninucleate if it is a jog. sent2: the fact that something does not unfold bine but it is a kind of a peregrine is not true if it is Deweyan. sent3: that something does not sectionalize shoot and is uninucleate is not right if it does jog. sent4: something does not sectionalize shoot but it is uninucleate if it is a jog. sent5: if something is a jog then that it sectionalizes shoot and is uninucleate does not hold.
|
sent1: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent2: (x): {FF}x -> ¬(¬{HI}x & {BD}x) sent3: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent4: (x): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent5: (x): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x)
|
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that that the wearer does not sectionalize shoot but it is uninucleate is false if that the wearer jogs is true is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the wearer does not sectionalize shoot but it is uninucleate if it is a jog. sent2: the fact that something does not unfold bine but it is a kind of a peregrine is not true if it is Deweyan. sent3: that something does not sectionalize shoot and is uninucleate is not right if it does jog. sent4: something does not sectionalize shoot but it is uninucleate if it is a jog. sent5: if something is a jog then that it sectionalizes shoot and is uninucleate does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the sublimate does not unfold extinction and does dissolve is incorrect.
|
¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})
|
sent1: something is both not a Seoul and non-electoral if it is not a kind of a hum. sent2: that the sublimate is not a ninepin and is a directness is not right. sent3: that something does not unfold monism and it is not a bottomed does not hold if it is not palpatory. sent4: the sublimate is not a Rottweiler. sent5: that something is a kind of a dissolving and it is a Libby does not hold if it does not unfold bygone. sent6: everything is not palpatory. sent7: the fact that the bicycle-built-for-two is not an intimidation is not incorrect if the foretop does not pink sublimate. sent8: the parts is not a kind of a dissolving. sent9: the fact that something does not unfold extinction but it is a dissolving is wrong if it does not unfold bygone. sent10: the foretop bottoms if the fact that the Libra does not unfold monism and is not a kind of a bottoms is not right. sent11: that the sublimate does not unfold extinction but it dissolves is not wrong if the bicycle-built-for-two unfolds bygone. sent12: if something is not a Seoul and is not electoral it is not a kind of a orach. sent13: the sublimate does not unfold bygone if it is not a Libby. sent14: something either is an intimidation or does not pink sublimate or both if it is not a orach. sent15: the foretop does not hum if it is not non-bottomed. sent16: that something does unfold extinction and is a dissolving is wrong if the fact that it does not unfold bygone hold. sent17: the fact that the Nahuatl is not palpatory but it does unfold extinction is not true. sent18: the bicycle-built-for-two is not an intimidation if the foretop is an intimidation. sent19: the fact that the sublimate unfolds extinction and is a kind of a dissolving does not hold. sent20: if the sublimate does not unfold bygone that it does unfold extinction and is a dissolving does not hold.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{H}x -> (¬{G}x & ¬{F}x) sent2: ¬(¬{IS}{aa} & {FF}{aa}) sent3: (x): ¬{J}x -> ¬(¬{K}x & ¬{I}x) sent4: ¬{HJ}{aa} sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AB}x & {B}x) sent6: (x): ¬{J}x sent7: ¬{D}{b} -> ¬{C}{a} sent8: ¬{AB}{en} sent9: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent10: ¬(¬{K}{c} & ¬{I}{c}) -> {I}{b} sent11: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent12: (x): (¬{G}x & ¬{F}x) -> ¬{E}x sent13: ¬{B}{aa} -> ¬{A}{aa} sent14: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({C}x v ¬{D}x) sent15: {I}{b} -> ¬{H}{b} sent16: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent17: ¬(¬{J}{au} & {AA}{au}) sent18: {C}{b} -> ¬{C}{a} sent19: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent20: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})
|
[
"sent9 -> int1: if the sublimate does not unfold bygone the fact that it does not unfold extinction and dissolves is incorrect.;"
] |
[
"sent9 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa});"
] |
the sublimate does not unfold extinction but it is a kind of a dissolving.
|
(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})
|
[
"sent14 -> int2: the foretop is a kind of an intimidation and/or it does not pink sublimate if it is not a orach.; sent12 -> int3: if the foretop is not a Seoul and not electoral then it is not a orach.; sent3 -> int4: if the ling is not palpatory the fact that it does not unfold monism and it does not bottom is false.; sent6 -> int5: the ling is not palpatory.; int4 & int5 -> int6: that the ling does not unfold monism and it is not bottomed is wrong.; int6 -> int7: there exists nothing such that it does not unfold monism and is not bottomed.; int7 -> int8: that the Libra does not unfold monism and it is not a bottomed is not right.; int8 & sent10 -> int9: the foretop does bottom.; sent15 & int9 -> int10: that the foretop does not hum hold.; sent1 -> int11: if the foretop does not hum then it is not a kind of a Seoul and it is not electoral.; int10 & int11 -> int12: the foretop is both not a Seoul and not electoral.; int3 & int12 -> int13: the foretop is not a orach.; int2 & int13 -> int14: the foretop is a kind of an intimidation and/or it does not pink sublimate.; sent18 & int14 & sent7 -> int15: the bicycle-built-for-two is not a kind of an intimidation.;"
] | 13 | 2 | null | 18 | 0 | 18 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the sublimate does not unfold extinction and does dissolve is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: something is both not a Seoul and non-electoral if it is not a kind of a hum. sent2: that the sublimate is not a ninepin and is a directness is not right. sent3: that something does not unfold monism and it is not a bottomed does not hold if it is not palpatory. sent4: the sublimate is not a Rottweiler. sent5: that something is a kind of a dissolving and it is a Libby does not hold if it does not unfold bygone. sent6: everything is not palpatory. sent7: the fact that the bicycle-built-for-two is not an intimidation is not incorrect if the foretop does not pink sublimate. sent8: the parts is not a kind of a dissolving. sent9: the fact that something does not unfold extinction but it is a dissolving is wrong if it does not unfold bygone. sent10: the foretop bottoms if the fact that the Libra does not unfold monism and is not a kind of a bottoms is not right. sent11: that the sublimate does not unfold extinction but it dissolves is not wrong if the bicycle-built-for-two unfolds bygone. sent12: if something is not a Seoul and is not electoral it is not a kind of a orach. sent13: the sublimate does not unfold bygone if it is not a Libby. sent14: something either is an intimidation or does not pink sublimate or both if it is not a orach. sent15: the foretop does not hum if it is not non-bottomed. sent16: that something does unfold extinction and is a dissolving is wrong if the fact that it does not unfold bygone hold. sent17: the fact that the Nahuatl is not palpatory but it does unfold extinction is not true. sent18: the bicycle-built-for-two is not an intimidation if the foretop is an intimidation. sent19: the fact that the sublimate unfolds extinction and is a kind of a dissolving does not hold. sent20: if the sublimate does not unfold bygone that it does unfold extinction and is a dissolving does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 -> int1: if the sublimate does not unfold bygone the fact that it does not unfold extinction and dissolves is incorrect.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the sac mints and does not pun deadness is not true.
|
¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})
|
sent1: the cyst is not a toasted if the sac mints but it does not pun deadness. sent2: the cyst does toast if the fact that it does sprout fullback is not incorrect. sent3: The fullback does sprout cyst. sent4: that the auk is both virulent and vesicular does not hold if the butler is not a selsyn. sent5: that something is a kind of a mint but it does not pun deadness is true if it sprouts fullback. sent6: if that something is virulent and vesicular is wrong it is not a stick.
|
sent1: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent2: {A}{b} -> {B}{b} sent3: {AC}{aa} sent4: ¬{F}{d} -> ¬({E}{c} & {D}{c}) sent5: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent6: (x): ¬({E}x & {D}x) -> ¬{C}x
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the sac is a kind of a mint but it does not pun deadness.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the cyst is a toasted does not hold.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); sent1 & assump1 -> int1: ¬{B}{b};"
] |
the sac is a mint that does not pun deadness.
|
({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})
|
[
"sent5 -> int2: if the fact that the sac does sprout fullback hold it is a mint that does not pun deadness.; sent6 -> int3: if that the auk is a kind of virulent thing that is vesicular is not correct it does not stick.;"
] | 6 | 3 | null | 4 | 0 | 4 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the sac mints and does not pun deadness is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the cyst is not a toasted if the sac mints but it does not pun deadness. sent2: the cyst does toast if the fact that it does sprout fullback is not incorrect. sent3: The fullback does sprout cyst. sent4: that the auk is both virulent and vesicular does not hold if the butler is not a selsyn. sent5: that something is a kind of a mint but it does not pun deadness is true if it sprouts fullback. sent6: if that something is virulent and vesicular is wrong it is not a stick. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the sac is a kind of a mint but it does not pun deadness.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the cyst is a toasted does not hold.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fugitive is a proofreader.
|
{A}{a}
|
sent1: if something is non-tuneful and variable it tubes. sent2: the district is not a Bhutanese if the fugitive does not bed-hop and is an audacity. sent3: the fugitive does not bed-hop but it is an audacity if that it is not a kind of a proofreader hold. sent4: the district is a Bhutanese if it is not invariable and it is not a kind of a scourge. sent5: the district is unexpendable.
|
sent1: (x): (¬{GC}x & ¬{D}x) -> {AR}x sent2: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent3: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent4: (¬{D}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> {B}{b} sent5: {E}{b}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fugitive is not a kind of a proofreader.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the fugitive does not bed-hop but it is a kind of an audacity.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: that the district is not Bhutanese hold.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ¬{A}{a}; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}); int1 & sent2 -> int2: ¬{B}{b};"
] |
the forklift tubes if it is not tuneful and it is not invariable.
|
(¬{GC}{ai} & ¬{D}{ai}) -> {AR}{ai}
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 4 | null | 1 | 0 | 1 |
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the fugitive is a proofreader. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is non-tuneful and variable it tubes. sent2: the district is not a Bhutanese if the fugitive does not bed-hop and is an audacity. sent3: the fugitive does not bed-hop but it is an audacity if that it is not a kind of a proofreader hold. sent4: the district is a Bhutanese if it is not invariable and it is not a kind of a scourge. sent5: the district is unexpendable. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fugitive is not a kind of a proofreader.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the fugitive does not bed-hop but it is a kind of an audacity.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: that the district is not Bhutanese hold.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Drixoral is not benignant.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
sent1: the fact that the Drixoral is benignant is correct if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a Phalacrocorax and is a Asian is not right. sent2: there exists something such that the fact that it is a Phalacrocorax that is Asian is incorrect. sent3: there is something such that it is a Phalacrocorax and Asian. sent4: the Drixoral is benignant if there exists something such that it is not a Asian. sent5: the Drixoral does audition if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a cardinal and it is a kind of a murine does not hold.
|
sent1: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent2: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent4: (x): ¬{AB}x -> {A}{a} sent5: (x): ¬({FR}x & {JC}x) -> {FC}{a}
|
[
"sent2 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the Drixoral is not benignant. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the Drixoral is benignant is correct if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a Phalacrocorax and is a Asian is not right. sent2: there exists something such that the fact that it is a Phalacrocorax that is Asian is incorrect. sent3: there is something such that it is a Phalacrocorax and Asian. sent4: the Drixoral is benignant if there exists something such that it is not a Asian. sent5: the Drixoral does audition if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a cardinal and it is a kind of a murine does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the cabining happens is true.
|
{C}
|
sent1: the fact that that the Jurassicness occurs and the punning jello occurs is not incorrect is not right if the marking does not occur. sent2: that the punning jello does not occur is not incorrect if that the Jurassic occurs and the punning jello happens is not true. sent3: if the fact that the Jurassic does not occur and the brecciating happens does not hold then the brecciating does not occur. sent4: that the punning jello happens brings about that the brecciating but not the sprouting hotspot occurs. sent5: the relation occurs. sent6: that the bespangling does not occur hold if that that both the non-sportiveness and the bespangling happens is not incorrect is wrong. sent7: if the diffuseness and the marketplace happens then the sprouting hotspot does not occur. sent8: the diffuseness and the marketplace happens. sent9: the fact that the magistracy does not occur but the acupressure happens is wrong. sent10: that the fact that the non-Jurassicness and the brecciating happens is not true is not false. sent11: if the sprouting hotspot occurs then the brecciating does not occur and the about-facing does not occur. sent12: the noticeableness does not occur if the slashing occurs and the impossible occurs. sent13: that the monopoly does not occur and the extensiveness does not occur prevents that the hostility does not occur. sent14: that the brecciating occurs but the sprouting hotspot does not occur triggers that the cabining does not occur. sent15: if the sprouting hotspot does not occur and the brecciating does not occur then the cabin happens. sent16: the marking does not occur if the fact that the marking and the nonenzymaticness happens is wrong. sent17: the diffuseness occurs.
|
sent1: ¬{F} -> ¬({E} & {D}) sent2: ¬({E} & {D}) -> ¬{D} sent3: ¬(¬{E} & {A}) -> ¬{A} sent4: {D} -> ({A} & ¬{B}) sent5: {BR} sent6: ¬(¬{DF} & {EM}) -> ¬{EM} sent7: ({AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent8: ({AA} & {AB}) sent9: ¬(¬{CI} & {EB}) sent10: ¬(¬{E} & {A}) sent11: {B} -> (¬{A} & ¬{FC}) sent12: ({JK} & {BB}) -> ¬{CR} sent13: (¬{HR} & ¬{GP}) -> {HU} sent14: ({A} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{C} sent15: (¬{B} & ¬{A}) -> {C} sent16: ¬({F} & {H}) -> ¬{F} sent17: {AA}
|
[
"sent7 & sent8 -> int1: the sprouting hotspot does not occur.; sent3 & sent10 -> int2: the brecciating does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the sprouting hotspot does not occur and the brecciating does not occur hold.; int3 & sent15 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent7 & sent8 -> int1: ¬{B}; sent3 & sent10 -> int2: ¬{A}; int1 & int2 -> int3: (¬{B} & ¬{A}); int3 & sent15 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the cabining does not occur.
|
¬{C}
|
[] | 7 | 3 | 3 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the cabining happens is true. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that that the Jurassicness occurs and the punning jello occurs is not incorrect is not right if the marking does not occur. sent2: that the punning jello does not occur is not incorrect if that the Jurassic occurs and the punning jello happens is not true. sent3: if the fact that the Jurassic does not occur and the brecciating happens does not hold then the brecciating does not occur. sent4: that the punning jello happens brings about that the brecciating but not the sprouting hotspot occurs. sent5: the relation occurs. sent6: that the bespangling does not occur hold if that that both the non-sportiveness and the bespangling happens is not incorrect is wrong. sent7: if the diffuseness and the marketplace happens then the sprouting hotspot does not occur. sent8: the diffuseness and the marketplace happens. sent9: the fact that the magistracy does not occur but the acupressure happens is wrong. sent10: that the fact that the non-Jurassicness and the brecciating happens is not true is not false. sent11: if the sprouting hotspot occurs then the brecciating does not occur and the about-facing does not occur. sent12: the noticeableness does not occur if the slashing occurs and the impossible occurs. sent13: that the monopoly does not occur and the extensiveness does not occur prevents that the hostility does not occur. sent14: that the brecciating occurs but the sprouting hotspot does not occur triggers that the cabining does not occur. sent15: if the sprouting hotspot does not occur and the brecciating does not occur then the cabin happens. sent16: the marking does not occur if the fact that the marking and the nonenzymaticness happens is wrong. sent17: the diffuseness occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 & sent8 -> int1: the sprouting hotspot does not occur.; sent3 & sent10 -> int2: the brecciating does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the sprouting hotspot does not occur and the brecciating does not occur hold.; int3 & sent15 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it does not sob then the fact that it does not pun history and does not sprout Brickellia is not true.
|
(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
sent1: if the handline is a kind of a sob then that it does not pun history and does not sprout Brickellia is not right. sent2: there exists something such that if it is not a sob then it does not pun history and does not sprout Brickellia. sent3: the fact that the out-and-outer is not an abductor and it does not pun handline does not hold if it does not pun history. sent4: the fact that the handline does pun history but it does not sprout Brickellia is not true if it is not a sob. sent5: that that the handline does not pun history and does not sprout Brickellia is incorrect hold if the fact that it does not sob is not false. sent6: if something does not synthesize then that the fact that it is not a kind of a paraprofessional and does not demise is not false is not true. sent7: if the handline does not sob then it does not pun history and does not sprout Brickellia. sent8: the fact that the handline does not pun history but it does sprout Brickellia does not hold if it does not sob. sent9: there exists something such that if it is a sob then the fact that it does not pun history and it does not sprout Brickellia is incorrect. sent10: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a sob the fact that it does not pun history and sprouts Brickellia does not hold. sent11: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a sob hold that that it puns history and it does not sprout Brickellia hold does not hold.
|
sent1: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent2: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent3: ¬{AA}{hh} -> ¬(¬{FQ}{hh} & ¬{DG}{hh}) sent4: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent5: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent6: (x): ¬{CG}x -> ¬(¬{FJ}x & ¬{HO}x) sent7: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent8: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent9: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent10: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent11: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there exists something such that if it does not synthesize the fact that it is not a paraprofessional and it does not demise is false.
|
(Ex): ¬{CG}x -> ¬(¬{FJ}x & ¬{HO}x)
|
[
"sent6 -> int1: that the fact that the millpond is not a paraprofessional and does not demise is right does not hold if it does not synthesize.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it does not sob then the fact that it does not pun history and does not sprout Brickellia is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: if the handline is a kind of a sob then that it does not pun history and does not sprout Brickellia is not right. sent2: there exists something such that if it is not a sob then it does not pun history and does not sprout Brickellia. sent3: the fact that the out-and-outer is not an abductor and it does not pun handline does not hold if it does not pun history. sent4: the fact that the handline does pun history but it does not sprout Brickellia is not true if it is not a sob. sent5: that that the handline does not pun history and does not sprout Brickellia is incorrect hold if the fact that it does not sob is not false. sent6: if something does not synthesize then that the fact that it is not a kind of a paraprofessional and does not demise is not false is not true. sent7: if the handline does not sob then it does not pun history and does not sprout Brickellia. sent8: the fact that the handline does not pun history but it does sprout Brickellia does not hold if it does not sob. sent9: there exists something such that if it is a sob then the fact that it does not pun history and it does not sprout Brickellia is incorrect. sent10: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a sob the fact that it does not pun history and sprouts Brickellia does not hold. sent11: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a sob hold that that it puns history and it does not sprout Brickellia hold does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the symbolicness occurs.
|
{A}
|
sent1: the heteroeciousness occurs. sent2: if the shamanistness occurs then the aerobicsness happens. sent3: if the fact that the consumption happens is not false then the culdoscopy happens. sent4: if the unservileness happens then the localness happens. sent5: the localness does not occur and the symbolicness does not occur if the unservileness does not occur. sent6: the unservileness is brought about by that the defect occurs. sent7: the fact that the apetalousness occurs and the interviewing occurs is wrong if the polymorphemicness does not occur. sent8: if the commercialness happens then the fact that the defecting occurs and/or the punning Sphecius does not occur hold. sent9: the fact that the unpredictableness happens is not false if the anachronism occurs. sent10: the fact that both the anamorphicness and the pivoting occurs does not hold. sent11: the shamanistness does not occur. sent12: the local does not occur if the fact that the sadisticness and the sprouting tulip happens is not right. sent13: the fact that the defecting happens is true.
|
sent1: {BB} sent2: {AQ} -> {CA} sent3: {IU} -> {IH} sent4: {C} -> {B} sent5: ¬{C} -> (¬{B} & ¬{A}) sent6: {D} -> {C} sent7: ¬{EK} -> ¬({BQ} & {EG}) sent8: {F} -> ({D} v ¬{E}) sent9: {GH} -> {FN} sent10: ¬({CB} & {JD}) sent11: ¬{AQ} sent12: ¬({AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent13: {D}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the symbolicness does not occur.; sent6 & sent13 -> int1: the unservileness happens.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: the localness happens.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ¬{A}; sent6 & sent13 -> int1: {C}; sent4 & int1 -> int2: {B};"
] |
the symbolicness does not occur.
|
¬{A}
|
[] | 7 | 4 | null | 9 | 0 | 9 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the symbolicness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the heteroeciousness occurs. sent2: if the shamanistness occurs then the aerobicsness happens. sent3: if the fact that the consumption happens is not false then the culdoscopy happens. sent4: if the unservileness happens then the localness happens. sent5: the localness does not occur and the symbolicness does not occur if the unservileness does not occur. sent6: the unservileness is brought about by that the defect occurs. sent7: the fact that the apetalousness occurs and the interviewing occurs is wrong if the polymorphemicness does not occur. sent8: if the commercialness happens then the fact that the defecting occurs and/or the punning Sphecius does not occur hold. sent9: the fact that the unpredictableness happens is not false if the anachronism occurs. sent10: the fact that both the anamorphicness and the pivoting occurs does not hold. sent11: the shamanistness does not occur. sent12: the local does not occur if the fact that the sadisticness and the sprouting tulip happens is not right. sent13: the fact that the defecting happens is true. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the symbolicness does not occur.; sent6 & sent13 -> int1: the unservileness happens.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: the localness happens.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that if the Hydra is not unperceptive then the Hydra is not odd and is not a technique is wrong.
|
¬(¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}))
|
sent1: the Hydra is a loir but it is not a kind of a technique if it does not worship. sent2: if the Hydra is not unperceptive then it is not odd and it is a technique. sent3: if the fact that the Venezuelan is subsurface is correct it is not entozoan and it is not a technique. sent4: the satinleaf does not sprout casino and does not bespangle service if it is odd. sent5: something that is not a falcon-gentle does not sprout pharmaceutical and does not bespangle innocence. sent6: the leatherjacket is not a cleanness and is not intralinguistic if it is not odd. sent7: the fact that the Hydra is not odd if the Hydra is not unperceptive is right. sent8: a non-carcinomatous thing is uncivil and does not hoe detector. sent9: something is not irresistible and is not a ineligibility if it is not a panic. sent10: if the Hydra is unperceptive then it is not odd and it is not a technique. sent11: something is not odd but it is a technique if it is not unperceptive. sent12: if the Hydra does not sprout pharmaceutical it is perceptive and not a completeness. sent13: something is not odd if it is not unperceptive. sent14: the swindler is a rhombohedron and not a untruthfulness if it does not sprout fallow. sent15: something is non-odd thing that is not a technique if it is not unperceptive. sent16: if something is unperceptive then it is a kind of non-odd thing that is not a technique. sent17: if something is a LLD it is not a wollastonite and it does not sprout casino.
|
sent1: ¬{ES}{aa} -> ({CR}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent2: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: {Q}{cr} -> (¬{HU}{cr} & ¬{AB}{cr}) sent4: {AA}{jd} -> (¬{FR}{jd} & ¬{FT}{jd}) sent5: (x): ¬{JF}x -> (¬{BJ}x & ¬{DQ}x) sent6: ¬{AA}{ai} -> (¬{HE}{ai} & ¬{BP}{ai}) sent7: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬{AA}{aa} sent8: (x): ¬{DL}x -> ({IR}x & ¬{HA}x) sent9: (x): ¬{GN}x -> (¬{HR}x & ¬{AT}x) sent10: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent11: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent12: ¬{BJ}{aa} -> (¬{A}{aa} & ¬{II}{aa}) sent13: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{AA}x sent14: ¬{DS}{be} -> ({AO}{be} & ¬{DE}{be}) sent15: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent16: (x): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent17: (x): {BD}x -> (¬{IU}x & ¬{FR}x)
|
[
"sent15 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent15 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 16 | 0 | 16 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that if the Hydra is not unperceptive then the Hydra is not odd and is not a technique is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the Hydra is a loir but it is not a kind of a technique if it does not worship. sent2: if the Hydra is not unperceptive then it is not odd and it is a technique. sent3: if the fact that the Venezuelan is subsurface is correct it is not entozoan and it is not a technique. sent4: the satinleaf does not sprout casino and does not bespangle service if it is odd. sent5: something that is not a falcon-gentle does not sprout pharmaceutical and does not bespangle innocence. sent6: the leatherjacket is not a cleanness and is not intralinguistic if it is not odd. sent7: the fact that the Hydra is not odd if the Hydra is not unperceptive is right. sent8: a non-carcinomatous thing is uncivil and does not hoe detector. sent9: something is not irresistible and is not a ineligibility if it is not a panic. sent10: if the Hydra is unperceptive then it is not odd and it is not a technique. sent11: something is not odd but it is a technique if it is not unperceptive. sent12: if the Hydra does not sprout pharmaceutical it is perceptive and not a completeness. sent13: something is not odd if it is not unperceptive. sent14: the swindler is a rhombohedron and not a untruthfulness if it does not sprout fallow. sent15: something is non-odd thing that is not a technique if it is not unperceptive. sent16: if something is unperceptive then it is a kind of non-odd thing that is not a technique. sent17: if something is a LLD it is not a wollastonite and it does not sprout casino. ; $proof$ =
|
sent15 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the hoeing fatback does not occur.
|
¬{B}
|
sent1: the bivalentness does not occur if the fact that the fact that the sprouting stomach does not occur and the fogbank occurs is true is not correct. sent2: the topographicalness occurs. sent3: if that the topographicalness happens is true the hoeing fatback does not occur. sent4: if the fact that the topographicalness but not the hoeing fatback happens does not hold that the exercising does not occur is not wrong. sent5: the bespangling Augustinian happens and/or the falseness does not occur. sent6: if the abolition occurs then the fact that not the abidance but the mile happens is false. sent7: the fact that the excess does not occur and the subordination happens is incorrect if the ductlessness occurs. sent8: if that not the excess but the subordination occurs is not true the acquiescence does not occur. sent9: the fact that the kabbalism does not occur is not wrong if that the abidance does not occur and the mile happens is incorrect. sent10: the languishing does not occur and the bespangling drainplug happens if the acquiescence does not occur. sent11: if that the lethargicness occurs is not false then that the sprouting stomach does not occur and the fogbank happens is not true. sent12: the fact that the chemicalness but not the drift happens is incorrect if the Danishness occurs. sent13: if the elasticness does not occur then both the stereoscopicness and the hoeing ostentation occurs. sent14: the fact that the Danishness does not occur and the hoeing boulder occurs is not correct if the unknowableness does not occur. sent15: that the abolition but not the weightlift happens is not incorrect if the bivalentness does not occur. sent16: that not the languishing but the bespangling drainplug happens prevents that the elasticness happens. sent17: the fact that the topographicalness happens and the hoeing fatback does not occur is wrong if the kabbalism happens. sent18: if the fact that both the non-Danishness and the hoeing boulder happens is not true the non-Danish occurs. sent19: the lethargicness occurs if that the chemical but not the drifting occurs is false. sent20: if the incumbency does not occur both the ductlessness and the parade happens. sent21: the fact that the hospitalization does not occur and the athleticsness does not occur is wrong if that the stereoscopicness occurs is not incorrect. sent22: the unknowableness does not occur if that the hospitalization does not occur and the athleticsness does not occur is wrong.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{J} & {I}) -> ¬{H} sent2: {A} sent3: {A} -> ¬{B} sent4: ¬({A} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{BJ} sent5: ({AI} v ¬{AJ}) sent6: {F} -> ¬(¬{D} & {E}) sent7: {AF} -> ¬(¬{AD} & {AE}) sent8: ¬(¬{AD} & {AE}) -> ¬{AC} sent9: ¬(¬{D} & {E}) -> ¬{C} sent10: ¬{AC} -> (¬{AB} & {AA}) sent11: {K} -> ¬(¬{J} & {I}) sent12: {N} -> ¬({L} & ¬{M}) sent13: ¬{U} -> ({S} & {T}) sent14: ¬{P} -> ¬(¬{N} & {O}) sent15: ¬{H} -> ({F} & ¬{G}) sent16: (¬{AB} & {AA}) -> ¬{U} sent17: {C} -> ¬({A} & ¬{B}) sent18: ¬(¬{N} & {O}) -> {N} sent19: ¬({L} & ¬{M}) -> {K} sent20: ¬{AH} -> ({AF} & {AG}) sent21: {S} -> ¬(¬{R} & ¬{Q}) sent22: ¬(¬{R} & ¬{Q}) -> ¬{P}
|
[
"sent3 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the exercising does not occur.
|
¬{BJ}
|
[] | 7 | 1 | 1 | 20 | 0 | 20 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the hoeing fatback does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the bivalentness does not occur if the fact that the fact that the sprouting stomach does not occur and the fogbank occurs is true is not correct. sent2: the topographicalness occurs. sent3: if that the topographicalness happens is true the hoeing fatback does not occur. sent4: if the fact that the topographicalness but not the hoeing fatback happens does not hold that the exercising does not occur is not wrong. sent5: the bespangling Augustinian happens and/or the falseness does not occur. sent6: if the abolition occurs then the fact that not the abidance but the mile happens is false. sent7: the fact that the excess does not occur and the subordination happens is incorrect if the ductlessness occurs. sent8: if that not the excess but the subordination occurs is not true the acquiescence does not occur. sent9: the fact that the kabbalism does not occur is not wrong if that the abidance does not occur and the mile happens is incorrect. sent10: the languishing does not occur and the bespangling drainplug happens if the acquiescence does not occur. sent11: if that the lethargicness occurs is not false then that the sprouting stomach does not occur and the fogbank happens is not true. sent12: the fact that the chemicalness but not the drift happens is incorrect if the Danishness occurs. sent13: if the elasticness does not occur then both the stereoscopicness and the hoeing ostentation occurs. sent14: the fact that the Danishness does not occur and the hoeing boulder occurs is not correct if the unknowableness does not occur. sent15: that the abolition but not the weightlift happens is not incorrect if the bivalentness does not occur. sent16: that not the languishing but the bespangling drainplug happens prevents that the elasticness happens. sent17: the fact that the topographicalness happens and the hoeing fatback does not occur is wrong if the kabbalism happens. sent18: if the fact that both the non-Danishness and the hoeing boulder happens is not true the non-Danish occurs. sent19: the lethargicness occurs if that the chemical but not the drifting occurs is false. sent20: if the incumbency does not occur both the ductlessness and the parade happens. sent21: the fact that the hospitalization does not occur and the athleticsness does not occur is wrong if that the stereoscopicness occurs is not incorrect. sent22: the unknowableness does not occur if that the hospitalization does not occur and the athleticsness does not occur is wrong. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the actinicness happens.
|
{A}
|
sent1: if the shift happens the ruse occurs. sent2: that either the non-heliocentricness or the ruse or both occurs is brought about by that the shift does not occur. sent3: that the ruse does not occur is caused by that the actinicness does not occur and the heliocentricness does not occur. sent4: the heliocentricness does not occur. sent5: the observation does not occur. sent6: if the fact that the punning makeweight but not the imposition happens is false the shifting does not occur. sent7: that the fact that the punning makeweight happens but the imposition does not occur is not correct if the incomprehensibleness happens is correct. sent8: the unjustness happens. sent9: if the hand does not occur the incomprehensibleness happens and the punning dermabrasion happens.
|
sent1: {D} -> {C} sent2: ¬{D} -> (¬{B} v {C}) sent3: (¬{A} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{C} sent4: ¬{B} sent5: ¬{AG} sent6: ¬({F} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{D} sent7: {G} -> ¬({F} & ¬{E}) sent8: {HD} sent9: ¬{I} -> ({G} & {H})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the actinicness does not occur.; assump1 & sent4 -> int1: the non-actinicness and the non-heliocentricness happens.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the fact that the ruse does not occur hold.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ¬{A}; assump1 & sent4 -> int1: (¬{A} & ¬{B}); int1 & sent3 -> int2: ¬{C};"
] |
the actinicness does not occur.
|
¬{A}
|
[] | 9 | 4 | null | 6 | 0 | 6 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the actinicness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if the shift happens the ruse occurs. sent2: that either the non-heliocentricness or the ruse or both occurs is brought about by that the shift does not occur. sent3: that the ruse does not occur is caused by that the actinicness does not occur and the heliocentricness does not occur. sent4: the heliocentricness does not occur. sent5: the observation does not occur. sent6: if the fact that the punning makeweight but not the imposition happens is false the shifting does not occur. sent7: that the fact that the punning makeweight happens but the imposition does not occur is not correct if the incomprehensibleness happens is correct. sent8: the unjustness happens. sent9: if the hand does not occur the incomprehensibleness happens and the punning dermabrasion happens. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the actinicness does not occur.; assump1 & sent4 -> int1: the non-actinicness and the non-heliocentricness happens.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the fact that the ruse does not occur hold.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the gunnel hoes tandem.
|
{B}{a}
|
sent1: the gunnel is a kind of a Lewiston and sprouts unadaptability. sent2: the gunnel is magnetic. sent3: the gunnel is a kind of a Naja and does hoe tandem. sent4: the windowpane hoes tandem. sent5: the gunnel is a Naja. sent6: if the fact that something is a Donar and does not unbutton is false then it does hoe tandem. sent7: something does not bespangle amino. sent8: the gunnel is a kind of a stinger.
|
sent1: ({IA}{a} & {CN}{a}) sent2: {EM}{a} sent3: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent4: {B}{ft} sent5: {A}{a} sent6: (x): ¬({D}x & ¬{C}x) -> {B}x sent7: (Ex): ¬{F}x sent8: {FI}{a}
|
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the siloxane does hoe tandem and fusses.
|
({B}{cq} & {FH}{cq})
|
[
"sent6 -> int1: if that the siloxane is a Donar that does not unbutton is not right it hoes tandem.;"
] | 4 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the gunnel hoes tandem. ; $context$ = sent1: the gunnel is a kind of a Lewiston and sprouts unadaptability. sent2: the gunnel is magnetic. sent3: the gunnel is a kind of a Naja and does hoe tandem. sent4: the windowpane hoes tandem. sent5: the gunnel is a Naja. sent6: if the fact that something is a Donar and does not unbutton is false then it does hoe tandem. sent7: something does not bespangle amino. sent8: the gunnel is a kind of a stinger. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
something is non-propagative.
|
(Ex): ¬{C}x
|
sent1: the leeward is both significant and not a ghat if the craft is not propagative. sent2: that the miller is a reminiscence is right. sent3: something sprouts rent. sent4: the miller is significant. sent5: the miller is significant and it is a kind of a ghat. sent6: there is something such that it is propagative. sent7: the miller is not precancerous if it is propagative. sent8: if something is a ghat then it is not propagative. sent9: the miller does not pun silverbush.
|
sent1: ¬{C}{b} -> ({B}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent2: {JH}{aa} sent3: (Ex): {DA}x sent4: {B}{aa} sent5: ({B}{aa} & {A}{aa}) sent6: (Ex): {C}x sent7: {C}{aa} -> ¬{HF}{aa} sent8: (x): {A}x -> ¬{C}x sent9: ¬{IO}{aa}
|
[
"sent8 -> int1: the miller is not propagative if that it is a ghat is not wrong.; sent5 -> int2: the miller is a ghat.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the miller is not propagative.; int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 -> int1: {A}{aa} -> ¬{C}{aa}; sent5 -> int2: {A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬{C}{aa}; int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the landscape does pun CEO.
|
{AM}{t}
|
[] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = something is non-propagative. ; $context$ = sent1: the leeward is both significant and not a ghat if the craft is not propagative. sent2: that the miller is a reminiscence is right. sent3: something sprouts rent. sent4: the miller is significant. sent5: the miller is significant and it is a kind of a ghat. sent6: there is something such that it is propagative. sent7: the miller is not precancerous if it is propagative. sent8: if something is a ghat then it is not propagative. sent9: the miller does not pun silverbush. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 -> int1: the miller is not propagative if that it is a ghat is not wrong.; sent5 -> int2: the miller is a ghat.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the miller is not propagative.; int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the toilet does not occur.
|
¬{E}
|
sent1: that the affray does not occur and/or that the revitalizing happens results in the toilet. sent2: the brachialness triggers that the affray does not occur and/or the revitalizing. sent3: the cortico-hypothalamicness does not occur and the brachialness happens. sent4: the punning campus occurs. sent5: the fact that the cortico-hypothalamicness does not occur is correct. sent6: the toilet occurs if the revitalizing happens. sent7: if the cortico-hypothalamicness occurs the toilet does not occur.
|
sent1: (¬{C} v {D}) -> {E} sent2: {B} -> (¬{C} v {D}) sent3: (¬{A} & {B}) sent4: {AQ} sent5: ¬{A} sent6: {D} -> {E} sent7: {A} -> ¬{E}
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: the brachialness happens.; sent2 & int1 -> int2: that the affray does not occur and/or the revitalizing happens is correct.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> int1: {B}; sent2 & int1 -> int2: (¬{C} v {D}); sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the toilet does not occur.
|
¬{E}
|
[] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the toilet does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the affray does not occur and/or that the revitalizing happens results in the toilet. sent2: the brachialness triggers that the affray does not occur and/or the revitalizing. sent3: the cortico-hypothalamicness does not occur and the brachialness happens. sent4: the punning campus occurs. sent5: the fact that the cortico-hypothalamicness does not occur is correct. sent6: the toilet occurs if the revitalizing happens. sent7: if the cortico-hypothalamicness occurs the toilet does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> int1: the brachialness happens.; sent2 & int1 -> int2: that the affray does not occur and/or the revitalizing happens is correct.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the flocculation is a kind of a screwup.
|
{B}{a}
|
sent1: the flocculation is not a kind of a linseed and sprouts bride. sent2: if something is not uncomplimentary then that that it is not cultural and it is a screwup is not wrong does not hold. sent3: the flocculation is cultural. sent4: that the flocculation is a screwup hold if it is cultural. sent5: something is not uncomplimentary if the fact that it is a swab that is uncomplimentary is not right. sent6: if something is not a linseed that the two-by-four does swab and is uncomplimentary is not right. sent7: the nepheline is a photo-offset if it is a kind of an artiodactyl.
|
sent1: (¬{E}{a} & {F}{a}) sent2: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & {B}x) sent3: {A}{a} sent4: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent5: (x): ¬({D}x & {C}x) -> ¬{C}x sent6: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬({D}{ii} & {C}{ii}) sent7: {AR}{e} -> {DM}{e}
|
[
"sent4 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the two-by-four is cultural.
|
{A}{ii}
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: the fact that the two-by-four is non-cultural thing that is a kind of a screwup is not true if it is not uncomplimentary.; sent5 -> int2: the two-by-four is not uncomplimentary if that it swabs and it is uncomplimentary is not true.; sent1 -> int3: the flocculation is not a kind of a linseed.; int3 -> int4: something is not a linseed.; int4 & sent6 -> int5: the fact that the two-by-four does swab and it is uncomplimentary does not hold.; int2 & int5 -> int6: the two-by-four is not uncomplimentary.; int1 & int6 -> int7: that the two-by-four is both not cultural and a screwup does not hold.;"
] | 6 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the flocculation is a kind of a screwup. ; $context$ = sent1: the flocculation is not a kind of a linseed and sprouts bride. sent2: if something is not uncomplimentary then that that it is not cultural and it is a screwup is not wrong does not hold. sent3: the flocculation is cultural. sent4: that the flocculation is a screwup hold if it is cultural. sent5: something is not uncomplimentary if the fact that it is a swab that is uncomplimentary is not right. sent6: if something is not a linseed that the two-by-four does swab and is uncomplimentary is not right. sent7: the nepheline is a photo-offset if it is a kind of an artiodactyl. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that it either is not a company or is changeable or both.
|
(Ex): (¬{B}x v {C}x)
|
sent1: something is not a kind of a mullet and/or it is profane. sent2: there is something such that it is not a megathere.
|
sent1: (Ex): (¬{FS}x v {FA}x) sent2: (Ex): ¬{A}x
|
[] |
[] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | null | 1 | 0 | 1 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that it either is not a company or is changeable or both. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not a kind of a mullet and/or it is profane. sent2: there is something such that it is not a megathere. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the skeletalness happens is true.
|
{A}
|
sent1: the icing does not occur. sent2: the alighting occurs. sent3: the punning noma does not occur and the recovery does not occur. sent4: that both the non-skeletalness and the sprouting myology happens is false if the punning noma does not occur. sent5: that the non-gastronomicness triggers that the biologicalness happens and the colorimetry occurs is true. sent6: either the punning noma occurs or the colorimetry does not occur or both if the gastronomicness does not occur. sent7: the sprouting myology does not occur if the fact that the skeletalness does not occur and the sprouting myology happens is wrong. sent8: the fact that the fact that both the gastronomicness and the non-pessimisticness occurs is incorrect is not false if the dicarboxylicness happens. sent9: if the fact that the gastronomicness and the non-pessimisticness happens does not hold then the gastronomicness does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬{DA} sent2: {AA} sent3: (¬{C} & ¬{H}) sent4: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{A} & {DC}) sent5: ¬{D} -> ({Q} & {B}) sent6: ¬{D} -> ({C} v ¬{B}) sent7: ¬(¬{A} & {DC}) -> ¬{DC} sent8: {E} -> ¬({D} & ¬{F}) sent9: ¬({D} & ¬{F}) -> ¬{D}
|
[] |
[] |
not the sprouting myology but the biologicalness occurs.
|
(¬{DC} & {Q})
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: the punning noma does not occur.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: that the skeletalness does not occur but the sprouting myology occurs is wrong.; sent7 & int2 -> int3: the sprouting myology does not occur.;"
] | 6 | 4 | null | 8 | 0 | 8 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the skeletalness happens is true. ; $context$ = sent1: the icing does not occur. sent2: the alighting occurs. sent3: the punning noma does not occur and the recovery does not occur. sent4: that both the non-skeletalness and the sprouting myology happens is false if the punning noma does not occur. sent5: that the non-gastronomicness triggers that the biologicalness happens and the colorimetry occurs is true. sent6: either the punning noma occurs or the colorimetry does not occur or both if the gastronomicness does not occur. sent7: the sprouting myology does not occur if the fact that the skeletalness does not occur and the sprouting myology happens is wrong. sent8: the fact that the fact that both the gastronomicness and the non-pessimisticness occurs is incorrect is not false if the dicarboxylicness happens. sent9: if the fact that the gastronomicness and the non-pessimisticness happens does not hold then the gastronomicness does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the apogamy does not scald and is not unpronounceable.
|
(¬{D}{b} & ¬{C}{b})
|
sent1: if something that is an incubator does not pun dacryocyst then it is an evanescence. sent2: the burnous is a kind of an evanescence and it does pun dacryocyst. sent3: if the burnous does pun dacryocyst then that the apogamy is both not a scald and pronounceable is not wrong. sent4: the squaretail is a scald if the apogamy is an incubator. sent5: the apogamy is a Iberian and an incubator if it does not polka. sent6: the apogamy is a kind of non-Kafkaesque thing that is not a kind of an evanescence. sent7: the burnous is a kind of an evanescence. sent8: the burnous is not a polka and it is not Iberian if the flashing does not sprout fibroma. sent9: the fact that something is not a scald and not unpronounceable is not right if it is an evanescence. sent10: everything does sprout fibroma. sent11: the apogamy does not polka. sent12: that something is a kind of an evanescence and is not unpronounceable is not true if it sprouts fibroma. sent13: if the burnous does pun dacryocyst then the apogamy is not a scald. sent14: the chalcanthite is unpronounceable and it is a kind of a Jacksonian. sent15: the apogamy does not scald. sent16: the squaretail is counterclockwise if there is something such that that it is an evanescence and is not unpronounceable is not right.
|
sent1: (x): ({E}x & ¬{B}x) -> {A}x sent2: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent3: {B}{a} -> (¬{D}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent4: {E}{b} -> {D}{im} sent5: ¬{G}{b} -> ({F}{b} & {E}{b}) sent6: (¬{DL}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent7: {A}{a} sent8: ¬{H}{c} -> (¬{G}{a} & ¬{F}{a}) sent9: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{C}x) sent10: (x): {H}x sent11: ¬{G}{b} sent12: (x): {H}x -> ¬({A}x & ¬{C}x) sent13: {B}{a} -> ¬{D}{b} sent14: ({C}{dk} & {BU}{dk}) sent15: ¬{D}{b} sent16: (x): ¬({A}x & ¬{C}x) -> {HD}{im}
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: the burnous puns dacryocyst.; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the squaretail puns dacryocyst and it is counterclockwise.
|
({B}{im} & {HD}{im})
|
[
"sent10 -> int2: the flashing sprouts fibroma.; sent12 -> int3: that the flashing is a kind of an evanescence but it is not unpronounceable does not hold if it does sprout fibroma.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the fact that the flashing is an evanescence but it is not unpronounceable is not right.; int4 -> int5: there exists nothing such that it is an evanescence and it is not unpronounceable.; int5 -> int6: that the burnous is a kind of an evanescence but it is not unpronounceable does not hold.; int6 -> int7: there exists something such that the fact that it is an evanescence but not unpronounceable is incorrect.; sent16 & int7 -> int8: the squaretail is counterclockwise.; sent5 & sent11 -> int9: the apogamy is not non-Iberian but an incubator.; int9 -> int10: the apogamy is an incubator.; sent4 & int10 -> int11: the squaretail is a kind of a scald.;"
] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 14 | 0 | 14 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the apogamy does not scald and is not unpronounceable. ; $context$ = sent1: if something that is an incubator does not pun dacryocyst then it is an evanescence. sent2: the burnous is a kind of an evanescence and it does pun dacryocyst. sent3: if the burnous does pun dacryocyst then that the apogamy is both not a scald and pronounceable is not wrong. sent4: the squaretail is a scald if the apogamy is an incubator. sent5: the apogamy is a Iberian and an incubator if it does not polka. sent6: the apogamy is a kind of non-Kafkaesque thing that is not a kind of an evanescence. sent7: the burnous is a kind of an evanescence. sent8: the burnous is not a polka and it is not Iberian if the flashing does not sprout fibroma. sent9: the fact that something is not a scald and not unpronounceable is not right if it is an evanescence. sent10: everything does sprout fibroma. sent11: the apogamy does not polka. sent12: that something is a kind of an evanescence and is not unpronounceable is not true if it sprouts fibroma. sent13: if the burnous does pun dacryocyst then the apogamy is not a scald. sent14: the chalcanthite is unpronounceable and it is a kind of a Jacksonian. sent15: the apogamy does not scald. sent16: the squaretail is counterclockwise if there is something such that that it is an evanescence and is not unpronounceable is not right. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> int1: the burnous puns dacryocyst.; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that that it is a kind of a federalism and is not cinematic is wrong.
|
(Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
sent1: there exists something such that the fact that it is a federalism that is cinematic is not correct. sent2: if that something is not a Homaridae hold then the fact that it is a federalism and it is not cinematic is false. sent3: the greengrocer is not a Homaridae and does not sprout contrariety.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent3: (¬{A}{aa} & ¬{B}{aa})
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: the fact that the greengrocer is a federalism but it is not cinematic is not true if it is not a Homaridae.; sent3 -> int2: the greengrocer is not a Homaridae.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the greengrocer is a federalism but it is not cinematic is not true.; int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); sent3 -> int2: ¬{A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that that it is a kind of a federalism and is not cinematic is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that the fact that it is a federalism that is cinematic is not correct. sent2: if that something is not a Homaridae hold then the fact that it is a federalism and it is not cinematic is false. sent3: the greengrocer is not a Homaridae and does not sprout contrariety. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> int1: the fact that the greengrocer is a federalism but it is not cinematic is not true if it is not a Homaridae.; sent3 -> int2: the greengrocer is not a Homaridae.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the greengrocer is a federalism but it is not cinematic is not true.; int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the clearway is both not stored-program and a dormancy is wrong.
|
¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})
|
sent1: the clearway does heap. sent2: the fact that the clearway does not heap hold if it is stored-program and it is a kind of a dormancy. sent3: that the clearway is both stored-program and a dormancy is false. sent4: the clearway is not stored-program.
|
sent1: {B}{a} sent2: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent3: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent4: ¬{AA}{a}
|
[] |
[] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | null | 3 | 0 | 3 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = that the clearway is both not stored-program and a dormancy is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the clearway does heap. sent2: the fact that the clearway does not heap hold if it is stored-program and it is a kind of a dormancy. sent3: that the clearway is both stored-program and a dormancy is false. sent4: the clearway is not stored-program. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the anarchisticness occurs and the Judaicness occurs is wrong.
|
¬({D} & {C})
|
sent1: that the anger does not occur leads to that the sprouting Elamitic happens and the sprouting roadbook happens. sent2: the Judaicness occurs if the hoeing anathema occurs but the sprouting reproach does not occur. sent3: the sprouting reproach does not occur. sent4: if the sprouting Elamitic occurs then the fact that the hoeing campus does not occur but the sprouting reproach happens does not hold. sent5: if the dirtiness happens the inadequateness does not occur and the deceleration does not occur. sent6: if the deceleration does not occur then the punning prejudgment does not occur and the angering does not occur. sent7: if the spilling happens the dirtiness occurs. sent8: that the anarchisticness happens and the Judaicness occurs is not true if the hoeing anathema does not occur. sent9: that the Kafkaesqueness does not occur causes that the spilling and the rhinoscopy occurs. sent10: if the sprouting Elamitic does not occur then the hoeing campus and the anarchisticness occurs. sent11: the hoeing anathema happens. sent12: that the sprouting Elamitic does not occur is right.
|
sent1: ¬{H} -> ({F} & {G}) sent2: ({A} & ¬{B}) -> {C} sent3: ¬{B} sent4: {F} -> ¬(¬{E} & {B}) sent5: {L} -> (¬{K} & ¬{J}) sent6: ¬{J} -> (¬{I} & ¬{H}) sent7: {M} -> {L} sent8: ¬{A} -> ¬({D} & {C}) sent9: ¬{O} -> ({M} & {N}) sent10: ¬{F} -> ({E} & {D}) sent11: {A} sent12: ¬{F}
|
[
"sent11 & sent3 -> int1: the hoeing anathema occurs but the sprouting reproach does not occur.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the Judaicness happens.; sent10 & sent12 -> int3: the hoeing campus occurs and the anarchisticness happens.; int3 -> int4: the anarchisticness happens.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent11 & sent3 -> int1: ({A} & ¬{B}); int1 & sent2 -> int2: {C}; sent10 & sent12 -> int3: ({E} & {D}); int3 -> int4: {D}; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that both the anarchisticness and the Judaicness happens is wrong.
|
¬({D} & {C})
|
[] | 12 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the anarchisticness occurs and the Judaicness occurs is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: that the anger does not occur leads to that the sprouting Elamitic happens and the sprouting roadbook happens. sent2: the Judaicness occurs if the hoeing anathema occurs but the sprouting reproach does not occur. sent3: the sprouting reproach does not occur. sent4: if the sprouting Elamitic occurs then the fact that the hoeing campus does not occur but the sprouting reproach happens does not hold. sent5: if the dirtiness happens the inadequateness does not occur and the deceleration does not occur. sent6: if the deceleration does not occur then the punning prejudgment does not occur and the angering does not occur. sent7: if the spilling happens the dirtiness occurs. sent8: that the anarchisticness happens and the Judaicness occurs is not true if the hoeing anathema does not occur. sent9: that the Kafkaesqueness does not occur causes that the spilling and the rhinoscopy occurs. sent10: if the sprouting Elamitic does not occur then the hoeing campus and the anarchisticness occurs. sent11: the hoeing anathema happens. sent12: that the sprouting Elamitic does not occur is right. ; $proof$ =
|
sent11 & sent3 -> int1: the hoeing anathema occurs but the sprouting reproach does not occur.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the Judaicness happens.; sent10 & sent12 -> int3: the hoeing campus occurs and the anarchisticness happens.; int3 -> int4: the anarchisticness happens.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the crofter sprouts Polyodontidae and does not full.
|
({C}{c} & ¬{A}{c})
|
sent1: that the inhibitor is cryptanalytic and it is bursal is wrong. sent2: if the pensioner is not a content the crofter sprouts Polyodontidae but it is not full. sent3: if the inhibitor is a kind of a content that that the crofter does sprout Polyodontidae and is not full is not true is not wrong. sent4: that that the crofter is cryptanalytic thing that does sprout Polyodontidae is not wrong does not hold. sent5: if the pensioner is not a kind of a content the crofter sprouts Polyodontidae. sent6: the crofter sprouts Polyodontidae. sent7: the inhibitor sprouts Polyodontidae if there is something such that the fact that it puns woodenness and it is not a passionflower does not hold. sent8: if something does not sprout inhibitor then it is a crooked. sent9: the pensioner does not content if the inhibitor is not bursal. sent10: the fact that the elderberry is not full is not false if there is something such that it sprouts Polyodontidae and does content. sent11: the pensioner is not a content if that the inhibitor is both not non-cryptanalytic and bursal is not true. sent12: the crofter is not cryptanalytic if the fact that the inhibitor is bursal and it is full is not true. sent13: something does content and is a GIGO if it does not dropkick. sent14: the pensioner does not sprout inhibitor. sent15: the fact that the pensioner puns woodenness and is not a passionflower is not right if it is a crooked.
|
sent1: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent2: ¬{B}{b} -> ({C}{c} & ¬{A}{c}) sent3: {B}{a} -> ¬({C}{c} & ¬{A}{c}) sent4: ¬({AA}{c} & {C}{c}) sent5: ¬{B}{b} -> {C}{c} sent6: {C}{c} sent7: (x): ¬({E}x & ¬{D}x) -> {C}{a} sent8: (x): ¬{H}x -> {G}x sent9: ¬{AB}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent10: (x): ({C}x & {B}x) -> ¬{A}{jh} sent11: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent12: ¬({AB}{a} & {A}{a}) -> ¬{AA}{c} sent13: (x): ¬{I}x -> ({B}x & {F}x) sent14: ¬{H}{b} sent15: {G}{b} -> ¬({E}{b} & ¬{D}{b})
|
[
"sent11 & sent1 -> int1: the pensioner is not a content.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent11 & sent1 -> int1: ¬{B}{b}; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the elderberry is not full.
|
¬{A}{jh}
|
[
"sent8 -> int2: if the pensioner does not sprout inhibitor then it is a crooked.; int2 & sent14 -> int3: the pensioner is a crooked.; int3 & sent15 -> int4: the fact that the pensioner does pun woodenness and is not a passionflower does not hold.; int4 -> int5: there exists something such that the fact that it does pun woodenness and is not a passionflower is not correct.; sent7 & int5 -> int6: the inhibitor sprouts Polyodontidae.; sent13 -> int7: if the crofter is not a dropkick it contents and it is a GIGO.;"
] | 8 | 2 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the crofter sprouts Polyodontidae and does not full. ; $context$ = sent1: that the inhibitor is cryptanalytic and it is bursal is wrong. sent2: if the pensioner is not a content the crofter sprouts Polyodontidae but it is not full. sent3: if the inhibitor is a kind of a content that that the crofter does sprout Polyodontidae and is not full is not true is not wrong. sent4: that that the crofter is cryptanalytic thing that does sprout Polyodontidae is not wrong does not hold. sent5: if the pensioner is not a kind of a content the crofter sprouts Polyodontidae. sent6: the crofter sprouts Polyodontidae. sent7: the inhibitor sprouts Polyodontidae if there is something such that the fact that it puns woodenness and it is not a passionflower does not hold. sent8: if something does not sprout inhibitor then it is a crooked. sent9: the pensioner does not content if the inhibitor is not bursal. sent10: the fact that the elderberry is not full is not false if there is something such that it sprouts Polyodontidae and does content. sent11: the pensioner is not a content if that the inhibitor is both not non-cryptanalytic and bursal is not true. sent12: the crofter is not cryptanalytic if the fact that the inhibitor is bursal and it is full is not true. sent13: something does content and is a GIGO if it does not dropkick. sent14: the pensioner does not sprout inhibitor. sent15: the fact that the pensioner puns woodenness and is not a passionflower is not right if it is a crooked. ; $proof$ =
|
sent11 & sent1 -> int1: the pensioner is not a content.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the spoor is not a colter.
|
¬{E}{c}
|
sent1: the spoor does railroad if the orthoscope is a Turk. sent2: the fact that the spoor is a crayon hold. sent3: if that the orthoscope is a crayon is correct the spoor does railroad. sent4: if the orthoscope is not a colter but it is a kind of a crayon then the spoor is not a kind of a colter. sent5: if the spoor is a kind of a strontianite it does crayon. sent6: the orthoscope does railroad or it is a Turk or both. sent7: the fact that the spoor is a strontianite is right if it is a railroad. sent8: the pademelon is not a strontianite if the fact that the cavetto is not a kind of a liking and is non-anosmic is not correct. sent9: the orthoscope is not a kind of a colter but it does crayon if the recruit is not a Turk. sent10: something is a colter if that it is a strontianite hold. sent11: the orthoscope is a Anomalopidae. sent12: the orthoscope is a crayon and/or it is a Turk. sent13: the orthoscope is a kind of a strontianite. sent14: if the recruit is not a Turk the fact that the orthoscope does not crayon but it is a railroad is not correct. sent15: if the orthoscope is a kind of a strontianite the spoor is a Turk. sent16: if the recruit is anosmic then it is a kind of a strontianite. sent17: if that the termer is a pointillism hold then it informs. sent18: the recruit does railroad if it is a kind of a strontianite. sent19: the measure is incontestable if the fact that it is a colter is not incorrect. sent20: the orthoscope is a colter if the spoor does crayon.
|
sent1: {B}{a} -> {C}{c} sent2: {A}{c} sent3: {A}{a} -> {C}{c} sent4: (¬{E}{a} & {A}{a}) -> ¬{E}{c} sent5: {D}{c} -> {A}{c} sent6: ({C}{a} v {B}{a}) sent7: {C}{c} -> {D}{c} sent8: ¬(¬{G}{e} & ¬{F}{e}) -> ¬{D}{d} sent9: ¬{B}{b} -> (¬{E}{a} & {A}{a}) sent10: (x): {D}x -> {E}x sent11: {BT}{a} sent12: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}) sent13: {D}{a} sent14: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬(¬{A}{a} & {C}{a}) sent15: {D}{a} -> {B}{c} sent16: {F}{b} -> {D}{b} sent17: {BJ}{cf} -> {GN}{cf} sent18: {D}{b} -> {C}{b} sent19: {E}{aq} -> {AQ}{aq} sent20: {A}{c} -> {E}{a}
|
[
"sent12 & sent3 & sent1 -> int1: the spoor is a railroad.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: the fact that the spoor is a strontianite hold.; sent10 -> int3: the spoor is a colter if that it is a strontianite is not wrong.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent12 & sent3 & sent1 -> int1: {C}{c}; int1 & sent7 -> int2: {D}{c}; sent10 -> int3: {D}{c} -> {E}{c}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the Rush does crayon.
|
{A}{fi}
|
[] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the spoor is not a colter. ; $context$ = sent1: the spoor does railroad if the orthoscope is a Turk. sent2: the fact that the spoor is a crayon hold. sent3: if that the orthoscope is a crayon is correct the spoor does railroad. sent4: if the orthoscope is not a colter but it is a kind of a crayon then the spoor is not a kind of a colter. sent5: if the spoor is a kind of a strontianite it does crayon. sent6: the orthoscope does railroad or it is a Turk or both. sent7: the fact that the spoor is a strontianite is right if it is a railroad. sent8: the pademelon is not a strontianite if the fact that the cavetto is not a kind of a liking and is non-anosmic is not correct. sent9: the orthoscope is not a kind of a colter but it does crayon if the recruit is not a Turk. sent10: something is a colter if that it is a strontianite hold. sent11: the orthoscope is a Anomalopidae. sent12: the orthoscope is a crayon and/or it is a Turk. sent13: the orthoscope is a kind of a strontianite. sent14: if the recruit is not a Turk the fact that the orthoscope does not crayon but it is a railroad is not correct. sent15: if the orthoscope is a kind of a strontianite the spoor is a Turk. sent16: if the recruit is anosmic then it is a kind of a strontianite. sent17: if that the termer is a pointillism hold then it informs. sent18: the recruit does railroad if it is a kind of a strontianite. sent19: the measure is incontestable if the fact that it is a colter is not incorrect. sent20: the orthoscope is a colter if the spoor does crayon. ; $proof$ =
|
sent12 & sent3 & sent1 -> int1: the spoor is a railroad.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: the fact that the spoor is a strontianite hold.; sent10 -> int3: the spoor is a colter if that it is a strontianite is not wrong.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there is something such that if it is a kind of shallow-draft thing that does sprout nalorphine it does not accept is not correct.
|
¬((Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x)
|
sent1: the fact that the nalorphine is shallow-draft is correct if it is sulphuric and it is a hemosiderin. sent2: the hoodoo accepts if it is a tarsal that is a cattalo. sent3: if a atonalistic thing is areolar the fact that it is not a seeing hold. sent4: there exists something such that if it is ossiferous and it is a adjacency it is a musicality. sent5: if the nalorphine does pun bacteriologist and it is a kind of a funk it is shallow-draft. sent6: the stockfish is not shallow-draft if it is a kind of a adjacency that is afferent. sent7: if the nalorphine is a timid and it is presocratic then it does sprout nalorphine. sent8: that there exists something such that if it does sprout dinginess and it does sprout balderdash then it is not indecisive is correct. sent9: if the nalorphine is shallow-draft thing that does sprout nalorphine then it does not accept. sent10: there exists something such that if it is lovable thing that sprouts animator then it is congressional.
|
sent1: ({EG}{aa} & {DK}{aa}) -> {AA}{aa} sent2: ({JK}{hh} & {DA}{hh}) -> {B}{hh} sent3: (x): ({IP}x & {GF}x) -> ¬{CF}x sent4: (Ex): ({EQ}x & {FO}x) -> {BJ}x sent5: ({GS}{aa} & {D}{aa}) -> {AA}{aa} sent6: ({FO}{dn} & {EK}{dn}) -> ¬{AA}{dn} sent7: ({IC}{aa} & {FG}{aa}) -> {AB}{aa} sent8: (Ex): ({HH}x & {EA}x) -> ¬{EF}x sent9: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent10: (Ex): ({DE}x & {AD}x) -> {FB}x
|
[
"sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there exists something such that if it is atonalistic and is areolar it is not a seeing.
|
(Ex): ({IP}x & {GF}x) -> ¬{CF}x
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: if the georgette is atonalistic and is areolar then it is not a seeing.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if it is a kind of shallow-draft thing that does sprout nalorphine it does not accept is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the nalorphine is shallow-draft is correct if it is sulphuric and it is a hemosiderin. sent2: the hoodoo accepts if it is a tarsal that is a cattalo. sent3: if a atonalistic thing is areolar the fact that it is not a seeing hold. sent4: there exists something such that if it is ossiferous and it is a adjacency it is a musicality. sent5: if the nalorphine does pun bacteriologist and it is a kind of a funk it is shallow-draft. sent6: the stockfish is not shallow-draft if it is a kind of a adjacency that is afferent. sent7: if the nalorphine is a timid and it is presocratic then it does sprout nalorphine. sent8: that there exists something such that if it does sprout dinginess and it does sprout balderdash then it is not indecisive is correct. sent9: if the nalorphine is shallow-draft thing that does sprout nalorphine then it does not accept. sent10: there exists something such that if it is lovable thing that sprouts animator then it is congressional. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the waterer does not sprout casino but it is indirect is incorrect.
|
¬(¬{A}{b} & {C}{b})
|
sent1: that the pindolol does not hoe slowness and it does not bespangle anklet is not correct. sent2: that the pindolol does not hoe slowness and bespangles anklet is incorrect. sent3: the fact that the waterer does not bespangle Rutledge is true if the fact that the pindolol does not hoe slowness and does not bespangle anklet is incorrect. sent4: if the pindolol does bespangle anklet the waterer does not bespangle Rutledge. sent5: something does not sprout casino and is indirect if it does not bespangle Rutledge.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent2: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent3: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent4: {AB}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent5: (x): ¬{B}x -> (¬{A}x & {C}x)
|
[
"sent3 & sent1 -> int1: the fact that the waterer does not bespangle Rutledge is correct.; sent5 -> int2: if the waterer does not bespangle Rutledge it does not sprout casino and it is indirect.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent1 -> int1: ¬{B}{b}; sent5 -> int2: ¬{B}{b} -> (¬{A}{b} & {C}{b}); int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = that the waterer does not sprout casino but it is indirect is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: that the pindolol does not hoe slowness and it does not bespangle anklet is not correct. sent2: that the pindolol does not hoe slowness and bespangles anklet is incorrect. sent3: the fact that the waterer does not bespangle Rutledge is true if the fact that the pindolol does not hoe slowness and does not bespangle anklet is incorrect. sent4: if the pindolol does bespangle anklet the waterer does not bespangle Rutledge. sent5: something does not sprout casino and is indirect if it does not bespangle Rutledge. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent1 -> int1: the fact that the waterer does not bespangle Rutledge is correct.; sent5 -> int2: if the waterer does not bespangle Rutledge it does not sprout casino and it is indirect.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the crack sprouts cedar or does bespangle Bonn or both.
|
({E}{b} v {F}{b})
|
sent1: the yolk is a kind of a Mackenzie. sent2: something bespangles Bonn if it is a symbolism and it is not a kind of a Monophysite. sent3: if something sprouts cedar and does not bespangle Bonn that it is a symbolism is not incorrect. sent4: the crack sprouts cedar if the snatch is a symbolism. sent5: the contraband is not a symbolism if there is something such that the fact that it is both non-sartorial and not non-centroidal is wrong. sent6: if something is a Luce and is not a Monophysite it is a symbolism. sent7: the crack does bespangle Bonn if it is not non-Monophysite and not a Luce. sent8: if something is not a kind of a morpheme then that it is not sartorial and is centroidal is not true. sent9: if the hydrozoan does not consume then it is a theodicy and it is not a Mackenzie. sent10: the cedar is a Luce. sent11: if something bespangles Bonn then the snatch sprouts cedar and is not a Monophysite. sent12: the hydrozoan does not consume. sent13: the basuco is not a morpheme if the hydrozoan is a theodicy but it is not a Mackenzie. sent14: there exists something such that it is sadomasochistic. sent15: the snatch does sprout trademark. sent16: if there exists something such that the fact that it bespangles Bonn is true the snatch is a symbolism. sent17: the tribromoethanol is a kind of a Luce. sent18: the snatch is a kind of a Luce. sent19: if something is not a kind of a roomful then the fact that it either does sprout cedar or does bespangle Bonn or both is not correct. sent20: if something is a roomful then the snatch is a Luce but it is not a Monophysite. sent21: if there exists something such that that it is a roomful is right then the snatch is a Luce. sent22: the snatch is thermionic.
|
sent1: {K}{ck} sent2: (x): ({D}x & ¬{C}x) -> {F}x sent3: (x): ({E}x & ¬{F}x) -> {D}x sent4: {D}{a} -> {E}{b} sent5: (x): ¬(¬{H}x & {G}x) -> ¬{D}{c} sent6: (x): ({B}x & ¬{C}x) -> {D}x sent7: ({C}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> {F}{b} sent8: (x): ¬{I}x -> ¬(¬{H}x & {G}x) sent9: ¬{L}{e} -> ({J}{e} & ¬{K}{e}) sent10: {B}{gn} sent11: (x): {F}x -> ({E}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent12: ¬{L}{e} sent13: ({J}{e} & ¬{K}{e}) -> ¬{I}{d} sent14: (Ex): {JB}x sent15: {CB}{a} sent16: (x): {F}x -> {D}{a} sent17: {B}{f} sent18: {B}{a} sent19: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({E}x v {F}x) sent20: (x): {A}x -> ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent21: (x): {A}x -> {B}{a} sent22: {JG}{a}
|
[
"sent6 -> int1: if the snatch is a Luce but not Monophysite then it is a symbolism.;"
] |
[
"sent6 -> int1: ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {D}{a};"
] |
the fact that the crack either does sprout cedar or does bespangle Bonn or both does not hold.
|
¬({E}{b} v {F}{b})
|
[
"sent19 -> int2: that either the crack does sprout cedar or it bespangles Bonn or both is not correct if it is not a roomful.; sent8 -> int3: the fact that the basuco is not sartorial but it is centroidal is false if it is not a morpheme.; sent9 & sent12 -> int4: the hydrozoan is a theodicy but it is not a Mackenzie.; sent13 & int4 -> int5: the basuco is not a morpheme.; int3 & int5 -> int6: the fact that the basuco is non-sartorial thing that is centroidal does not hold.; int6 -> int7: there exists something such that that it is non-sartorial and it is centroidal is wrong.; int7 & sent5 -> int8: the contraband is not a symbolism.; int8 -> int9: there exists something such that it is not a symbolism.;"
] | 10 | 4 | null | 19 | 0 | 19 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the crack sprouts cedar or does bespangle Bonn or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the yolk is a kind of a Mackenzie. sent2: something bespangles Bonn if it is a symbolism and it is not a kind of a Monophysite. sent3: if something sprouts cedar and does not bespangle Bonn that it is a symbolism is not incorrect. sent4: the crack sprouts cedar if the snatch is a symbolism. sent5: the contraband is not a symbolism if there is something such that the fact that it is both non-sartorial and not non-centroidal is wrong. sent6: if something is a Luce and is not a Monophysite it is a symbolism. sent7: the crack does bespangle Bonn if it is not non-Monophysite and not a Luce. sent8: if something is not a kind of a morpheme then that it is not sartorial and is centroidal is not true. sent9: if the hydrozoan does not consume then it is a theodicy and it is not a Mackenzie. sent10: the cedar is a Luce. sent11: if something bespangles Bonn then the snatch sprouts cedar and is not a Monophysite. sent12: the hydrozoan does not consume. sent13: the basuco is not a morpheme if the hydrozoan is a theodicy but it is not a Mackenzie. sent14: there exists something such that it is sadomasochistic. sent15: the snatch does sprout trademark. sent16: if there exists something such that the fact that it bespangles Bonn is true the snatch is a symbolism. sent17: the tribromoethanol is a kind of a Luce. sent18: the snatch is a kind of a Luce. sent19: if something is not a kind of a roomful then the fact that it either does sprout cedar or does bespangle Bonn or both is not correct. sent20: if something is a roomful then the snatch is a Luce but it is not a Monophysite. sent21: if there exists something such that that it is a roomful is right then the snatch is a Luce. sent22: the snatch is thermionic. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 -> int1: if the snatch is a Luce but not Monophysite then it is a symbolism.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there is something such that if it does not hoe waterer then the fact that it is controversial and it is non-quintessential is not true does not hold.
|
¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x))
|
sent1: there exists something such that if it does not bespangle galactocele the fact that that it is a kind of a duress and it is a humor is right is wrong. sent2: there is something such that if it does not hoe waterer then that it is controversial and it is not quintessential is true. sent3: the ptyalith is controversial but it is not quintessential if it does not hoe waterer. sent4: that the ptyalith is controversial but it is not quintessential is not correct if it does hoe waterer. sent5: that the waterer sprouts blackbeetle and is not quintessential is not right if it does not bespangle vagus. sent6: that something does pontificate and is not a Sawan is incorrect if it is not a Sinitic. sent7: there is something such that if it does not hoe waterer then that it is controversial and it is quintessential is incorrect. sent8: there is something such that if it hoes waterer the fact that it is controversial and is not quintessential is not right. sent9: the fact that the fact that something puns Hypericum but it is not quintessential hold does not hold if it is not geographic. sent10: that the ptyalith is controversial and it is quintessential is not true if it does not hoe waterer. sent11: that the ptyalith is a kind of controversial thing that is not quintessential is not true if it does not hoe waterer. sent12: there exists something such that if it is a kind of an eddy then the fact that the fact that it is a watercolor and not vagile is not incorrect does not hold.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬{CQ}x -> ¬({B}x & {JD}x) sent2: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent3: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent4: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent5: ¬{FO}{s} -> ¬({GC}{s} & ¬{AB}{s}) sent6: (x): ¬{IA}x -> ¬({DU}x & ¬{CK}x) sent7: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent8: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent9: (x): ¬{CD}x -> ¬({DI}x & ¬{AB}x) sent10: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent11: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent12: (Ex): {CC}x -> ¬({CR}x & ¬{CL}x)
|
[
"sent11 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent11 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there exists something such that if it is not a Sinitic that it does pontificate and is not a Sawan does not hold.
|
(Ex): ¬{IA}x -> ¬({DU}x & ¬{CK}x)
|
[
"sent6 -> int1: the fact that the bladderwrack does pontificate but it is not a Sawan is not right if that it is not a kind of a Sinitic is correct.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if it does not hoe waterer then the fact that it is controversial and it is non-quintessential is not true does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it does not bespangle galactocele the fact that that it is a kind of a duress and it is a humor is right is wrong. sent2: there is something such that if it does not hoe waterer then that it is controversial and it is not quintessential is true. sent3: the ptyalith is controversial but it is not quintessential if it does not hoe waterer. sent4: that the ptyalith is controversial but it is not quintessential is not correct if it does hoe waterer. sent5: that the waterer sprouts blackbeetle and is not quintessential is not right if it does not bespangle vagus. sent6: that something does pontificate and is not a Sawan is incorrect if it is not a Sinitic. sent7: there is something such that if it does not hoe waterer then that it is controversial and it is quintessential is incorrect. sent8: there is something such that if it hoes waterer the fact that it is controversial and is not quintessential is not right. sent9: the fact that the fact that something puns Hypericum but it is not quintessential hold does not hold if it is not geographic. sent10: that the ptyalith is controversial and it is quintessential is not true if it does not hoe waterer. sent11: that the ptyalith is a kind of controversial thing that is not quintessential is not true if it does not hoe waterer. sent12: there exists something such that if it is a kind of an eddy then the fact that the fact that it is a watercolor and not vagile is not incorrect does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the bespangling pierid occurs and the saccadicness does not occur.
|
({AA} & ¬{AB})
|
sent1: the misfiring leads to that the bespangling pierid and the non-saccadicness happens. sent2: the fact that the Atlantic happens and the hospitalization occurs does not hold if the clarification does not occur. sent3: the admiration does not occur and the clarification does not occur if the sprouting Shute happens. sent4: the sprouting Shute happens if the restoring happens. sent5: that the iridicness and the Oldness happens does not hold. sent6: the fact that both the bespangling pierid and the saccadicness happens is false. sent7: that the punning refectory does not occur is correct if that the decimalization does not occur but the punning refectory occurs does not hold. sent8: the misfire does not occur. sent9: if the ordeal occurs then the fact that the careening but not the decimalization happens is not correct. sent10: if the fact that that the careening happens and the decimalization does not occur hold does not hold then the punning refectory does not occur. sent11: if the Darwinian does not occur then that the oatenness occurs and the shallow-draftness happens is not true. sent12: that both the sprouting AFP and the resonance occurs is not right. sent13: that the vandalism does not occur results in that both the ordeal and the punning Herman happens. sent14: the restoring occurs. sent15: the fact that the bespangling pierid and the saccadicness occurs does not hold if the fact that the misfire does not occur is not incorrect. sent16: the fact that the ebbing happens but the venture does not occur does not hold if the misfiring occurs. sent17: that the snip does not occur and the inroad does not occur prevents that the vandalism occurs. sent18: if the cholecystectomy does not occur then that the chinking happens and the canine does not occur does not hold. sent19: the misfire happens and the punning Hoenir happens if the punning refectory does not occur. sent20: if that the Atlantic occurs and the hospitalization happens is incorrect the snipping does not occur. sent21: if the misfire does not occur then the fact that the bespangling pierid and the non-saccadicness occurs is wrong. sent22: the fact that that the Atlanticness happens and the sprouting AFP occurs is not wrong is not true if the appeal does not occur.
|
sent1: {A} -> ({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent2: ¬{O} -> ¬({L} & {K}) sent3: {Q} -> (¬{P} & ¬{O}) sent4: {R} -> {Q} sent5: ¬({IK} & {CK}) sent6: ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent7: ¬(¬{D} & {C}) -> ¬{C} sent8: ¬{A} sent9: {F} -> ¬({E} & ¬{D}) sent10: ¬({E} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{C} sent11: ¬{IQ} -> ¬({HC} & {DM}) sent12: ¬({CQ} & {BS}) sent13: ¬{H} -> ({F} & {G}) sent14: {R} sent15: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent16: {A} -> ¬({IB} & ¬{BR}) sent17: (¬{I} & ¬{J}) -> ¬{H} sent18: ¬{CN} -> ¬({GJ} & ¬{DD}) sent19: ¬{C} -> ({A} & {B}) sent20: ¬({L} & {K}) -> ¬{I} sent21: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent22: ¬{FG} -> ¬({L} & {CQ})
|
[
"sent21 & sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent21 & sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the bespangling pierid and the non-saccadicness occurs.
|
({AA} & ¬{AB})
|
[
"sent4 & sent14 -> int1: the sprouting Shute happens.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: the admiration does not occur and the clarification does not occur.; int2 -> int3: the clarification does not occur.; sent2 & int3 -> int4: that the Atlanticness occurs and the hospitalization occurs is wrong.; sent20 & int4 -> int5: the snipping does not occur.;"
] | 14 | 1 | 1 | 20 | 0 | 20 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the bespangling pierid occurs and the saccadicness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the misfiring leads to that the bespangling pierid and the non-saccadicness happens. sent2: the fact that the Atlantic happens and the hospitalization occurs does not hold if the clarification does not occur. sent3: the admiration does not occur and the clarification does not occur if the sprouting Shute happens. sent4: the sprouting Shute happens if the restoring happens. sent5: that the iridicness and the Oldness happens does not hold. sent6: the fact that both the bespangling pierid and the saccadicness happens is false. sent7: that the punning refectory does not occur is correct if that the decimalization does not occur but the punning refectory occurs does not hold. sent8: the misfire does not occur. sent9: if the ordeal occurs then the fact that the careening but not the decimalization happens is not correct. sent10: if the fact that that the careening happens and the decimalization does not occur hold does not hold then the punning refectory does not occur. sent11: if the Darwinian does not occur then that the oatenness occurs and the shallow-draftness happens is not true. sent12: that both the sprouting AFP and the resonance occurs is not right. sent13: that the vandalism does not occur results in that both the ordeal and the punning Herman happens. sent14: the restoring occurs. sent15: the fact that the bespangling pierid and the saccadicness occurs does not hold if the fact that the misfire does not occur is not incorrect. sent16: the fact that the ebbing happens but the venture does not occur does not hold if the misfiring occurs. sent17: that the snip does not occur and the inroad does not occur prevents that the vandalism occurs. sent18: if the cholecystectomy does not occur then that the chinking happens and the canine does not occur does not hold. sent19: the misfire happens and the punning Hoenir happens if the punning refectory does not occur. sent20: if that the Atlantic occurs and the hospitalization happens is incorrect the snipping does not occur. sent21: if the misfire does not occur then the fact that the bespangling pierid and the non-saccadicness occurs is wrong. sent22: the fact that that the Atlanticness happens and the sprouting AFP occurs is not wrong is not true if the appeal does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent21 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the citrus does not pun lesbian but it is intervertebral.
|
(¬{E}{b} & {D}{b})
|
sent1: the citrus does not sprout negativity. sent2: the jump does sprout underground if it does not sprout negativity and does not displease. sent3: the citrus is intervertebral if the jump sprouts underground. sent4: The negativity does not sprout jump. sent5: something is not intervertebral if it does not displease and it does not sprout negativity. sent6: that the citrus does not pun cleanness and does pun lesbian does not hold. sent7: if that the citrus does not pun cleanness but it puns lesbian does not hold then it does not puns lesbian. sent8: the jump does not displease.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{b} sent2: (¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> {C}{a} sent3: {C}{a} -> {D}{b} sent4: ¬{AA}{aa} sent5: (x): (¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{D}x sent6: ¬(¬{F}{b} & {E}{b}) sent7: ¬(¬{F}{b} & {E}{b}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent8: ¬{B}{a}
|
[
"sent7 & sent6 -> int1: the citrus does not pun lesbian.;"
] |
[
"sent7 & sent6 -> int1: ¬{E}{b};"
] |
the fact that the citrus does not pun lesbian but it is intervertebral is not correct.
|
¬(¬{E}{b} & {D}{b})
|
[
"sent5 -> int2: if the jump does not displease and it does not sprout negativity the fact that it is not intervertebral hold.;"
] | 5 | 4 | null | 3 | 0 | 3 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the citrus does not pun lesbian but it is intervertebral. ; $context$ = sent1: the citrus does not sprout negativity. sent2: the jump does sprout underground if it does not sprout negativity and does not displease. sent3: the citrus is intervertebral if the jump sprouts underground. sent4: The negativity does not sprout jump. sent5: something is not intervertebral if it does not displease and it does not sprout negativity. sent6: that the citrus does not pun cleanness and does pun lesbian does not hold. sent7: if that the citrus does not pun cleanness but it puns lesbian does not hold then it does not puns lesbian. sent8: the jump does not displease. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 & sent6 -> int1: the citrus does not pun lesbian.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the allotrope is not a fester but it is a kind of a smear.
|
(¬{C}{c} & {B}{c})
|
sent1: if the antipsychotic does smear the fact that that the allotrope is not a fester and is a smear hold does not hold. sent2: that the fact that the allotrope is a kind of a fester and it smears is not true is not incorrect if the antipsychotic smears. sent3: everything does not fester. sent4: that the allotrope does fester and smears is not true. sent5: the gee-gee does bespangle oxalacetate. sent6: the attire is a postulate. sent7: the antipsychotic does smear if the attire postulates.
|
sent1: {B}{b} -> ¬(¬{C}{c} & {B}{c}) sent2: {B}{b} -> ¬({C}{c} & {B}{c}) sent3: (x): ¬{C}x sent4: ¬({C}{c} & {B}{c}) sent5: {AF}{cf} sent6: {A}{a} sent7: {A}{a} -> {B}{b}
|
[
"sent7 & sent6 -> int1: that the antipsychotic is a smear hold.; int1 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent7 & sent6 -> int1: {B}{b}; int1 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the allotrope is not a fester but it is a smear.
|
(¬{C}{c} & {B}{c})
|
[
"sent3 -> int2: the allotrope is not a kind of a fester.;"
] | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the allotrope is not a fester but it is a kind of a smear. ; $context$ = sent1: if the antipsychotic does smear the fact that that the allotrope is not a fester and is a smear hold does not hold. sent2: that the fact that the allotrope is a kind of a fester and it smears is not true is not incorrect if the antipsychotic smears. sent3: everything does not fester. sent4: that the allotrope does fester and smears is not true. sent5: the gee-gee does bespangle oxalacetate. sent6: the attire is a postulate. sent7: the antipsychotic does smear if the attire postulates. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 & sent6 -> int1: that the antipsychotic is a smear hold.; int1 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the brad is magisterial.
|
{A}{a}
|
sent1: if the masturbator is corneal that it is a kind of non-inextinguishable thing that is not agraphic is not true. sent2: the brad does hoe coprolite. sent3: the brad does pun Cricetidae. sent4: if the brad does not bespangle Hoffmann the seaplane is a kind of non-magisterial thing that hoes lights-out. sent5: the brad is not a salesperson. sent6: the barrette hoes lights-out. sent7: that the brad does not hoe lights-out and it is not a Tennessee does not hold. sent8: the masturbator is inextinguishable if that it is both inextinguishable and non-agraphic does not hold. sent9: the brad is not a laurel-tree and it does not hoe lights-out. sent10: that the brad is not a laurel-tree and does not hoe lights-out is wrong if it is not magisterial.
|
sent1: {G}{c} -> ¬(¬{E}{c} & ¬{F}{c}) sent2: {HS}{a} sent3: {CH}{a} sent4: ¬{B}{a} -> (¬{A}{jj} & {AB}{jj}) sent5: ¬{K}{a} sent6: {AB}{ho} sent7: ¬(¬{AB}{a} & ¬{ED}{a}) sent8: ¬(¬{E}{c} & ¬{F}{c}) -> {E}{c} sent9: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent10: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the brad is not magisterial.; sent10 & assump1 -> int1: that the brad is not a kind of a laurel-tree and does not hoe lights-out is incorrect.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ¬{A}{a}; sent10 & assump1 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); int1 & sent9 -> int2: #F#; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the seaplane does hoe lights-out.
|
{AB}{jj}
|
[] | 8 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the brad is magisterial. ; $context$ = sent1: if the masturbator is corneal that it is a kind of non-inextinguishable thing that is not agraphic is not true. sent2: the brad does hoe coprolite. sent3: the brad does pun Cricetidae. sent4: if the brad does not bespangle Hoffmann the seaplane is a kind of non-magisterial thing that hoes lights-out. sent5: the brad is not a salesperson. sent6: the barrette hoes lights-out. sent7: that the brad does not hoe lights-out and it is not a Tennessee does not hold. sent8: the masturbator is inextinguishable if that it is both inextinguishable and non-agraphic does not hold. sent9: the brad is not a laurel-tree and it does not hoe lights-out. sent10: that the brad is not a laurel-tree and does not hoe lights-out is wrong if it is not magisterial. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the brad is not magisterial.; sent10 & assump1 -> int1: that the brad is not a kind of a laurel-tree and does not hoe lights-out is incorrect.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the toxicness occurs is not false.
|
{D}
|
sent1: the springing occurs. sent2: the heritage does not occur. sent3: the nonalcoholicness does not occur. sent4: the punning cargo does not occur. sent5: the fact that the Mesozoic does not occur is not wrong. sent6: that the toxicness happens is triggered by that the sprouting Paprilus does not occur and the presenting happens. sent7: if the sprouting Paprilus happens the toxicness does not occur. sent8: that both the quackery and the differentness occurs is not false. sent9: the quackery occurs. sent10: the ruggedization occurs. sent11: the systematization does not occur if the sprouting phosphine does not occur and the pileup does not occur. sent12: if both the quackery and the differentness occurs then the SOP does not occur. sent13: the systematization occurs. sent14: the presentness does not occur if the fact that either the crinoid or the non-lossiness or both occurs does not hold. sent15: the stringing happens. sent16: the dried and the pileup happens. sent17: the Levantineness occurs and the premedicalness happens. sent18: that either the crinoidness occurs or the lossiness does not occur or both is false if the systematization does not occur. sent19: the track does not occur if the ritualism does not occur. sent20: the blond occurs if that the sprouting Paprilus occurs is true. sent21: the lumbosacralness does not occur. sent22: the presentness happens. sent23: that both the sparring and the electrocardiographicness happens leads to that the punning oxalacetate does not occur.
|
sent1: {L} sent2: ¬{S} sent3: ¬{BG} sent4: ¬{BT} sent5: ¬{HM} sent6: (¬{A} & {C}) -> {D} sent7: {A} -> ¬{D} sent8: ({AA} & {AB}) sent9: {AA} sent10: {GJ} sent11: (¬{H} & ¬{I}) -> ¬{G} sent12: ({AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent13: {G} sent14: ¬({E} v ¬{F}) -> ¬{C} sent15: {GI} sent16: ({GM} & {I}) sent17: ({GB} & {DR}) sent18: ¬{G} -> ¬({E} v ¬{F}) sent19: ¬{BJ} -> ¬{EM} sent20: {A} -> {HN} sent21: ¬{FO} sent22: {C} sent23: ({DL} & {EE}) -> ¬{HG}
|
[
"sent12 & sent8 -> int1: the SOP does not occur.;"
] |
[
"sent12 & sent8 -> int1: ¬{B};"
] |
the toxicness does not occur.
|
¬{D}
|
[] | 9 | 4 | null | 19 | 0 | 19 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the toxicness occurs is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: the springing occurs. sent2: the heritage does not occur. sent3: the nonalcoholicness does not occur. sent4: the punning cargo does not occur. sent5: the fact that the Mesozoic does not occur is not wrong. sent6: that the toxicness happens is triggered by that the sprouting Paprilus does not occur and the presenting happens. sent7: if the sprouting Paprilus happens the toxicness does not occur. sent8: that both the quackery and the differentness occurs is not false. sent9: the quackery occurs. sent10: the ruggedization occurs. sent11: the systematization does not occur if the sprouting phosphine does not occur and the pileup does not occur. sent12: if both the quackery and the differentness occurs then the SOP does not occur. sent13: the systematization occurs. sent14: the presentness does not occur if the fact that either the crinoid or the non-lossiness or both occurs does not hold. sent15: the stringing happens. sent16: the dried and the pileup happens. sent17: the Levantineness occurs and the premedicalness happens. sent18: that either the crinoidness occurs or the lossiness does not occur or both is false if the systematization does not occur. sent19: the track does not occur if the ritualism does not occur. sent20: the blond occurs if that the sprouting Paprilus occurs is true. sent21: the lumbosacralness does not occur. sent22: the presentness happens. sent23: that both the sparring and the electrocardiographicness happens leads to that the punning oxalacetate does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent12 & sent8 -> int1: the SOP does not occur.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the fact that the animation does not occur and the sprouting firmware does not occur hold is not true.
|
¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB})
|
sent1: the fact that the fact that the rousing does not occur and the roughlegness does not occur does not hold hold. sent2: that the sprouting analgesic and the spondaicness happens is caused by that the decelerating does not occur. sent3: that the depression does not occur and the punning Urosaurus does not occur is wrong. sent4: if the fact that both the breezing and the antrorseness happens is not right the antrorseness does not occur. sent5: the fact that the bespangling fullback does not occur and the sprouting patty does not occur is not correct. sent6: the fact that the punning glipizide does not occur and the makeshift does not occur is not true. sent7: that the sprouting analgesic does not occur causes that the medevac occurs and/or the breezing. sent8: that the animation does not occur but the sprouting firmware happens is not true. sent9: that the medevac does not occur is brought about by that the sprouting analgesic occurs and the excretoriness occurs. sent10: the fact that the bespangling immunopathology does not occur and the fomentation does not occur is not correct. sent11: the fact that the animation does not occur and the sprouting firmware does not occur is false. sent12: the animation does not occur and the sprouting firmware does not occur if the antrorseness happens. sent13: that the sprouting casino does not occur and the amplification does not occur is not right. sent14: the fact that the coloredness does not occur and the decelerating does not occur is not right. sent15: that the recount does not occur and the bespangling Duma does not occur does not hold. sent16: that the animation but not the sprouting firmware happens is not right. sent17: that the baiting does not occur and the punning Melophagus does not occur is not correct. sent18: the fact that that the recounting does not occur and the groping does not occur is not wrong is not true if the antrorseness does not occur. sent19: the fact that the frontal does not occur and the indignity does not occur does not hold. sent20: the fact that the recount does not occur and the hoeing torchlight does not occur is wrong. sent21: the fact that the breeze occurs and the antrorseness happens is wrong if the medevac does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{HO} & ¬{AN}) sent2: ¬{G} -> ({D} & {F}) sent3: ¬(¬{DH} & ¬{DG}) sent4: ¬({C} & {A}) -> ¬{A} sent5: ¬(¬{GC} & ¬{AH}) sent6: ¬(¬{DF} & ¬{II}) sent7: ¬{D} -> ({B} v {C}) sent8: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent9: ({D} & {E}) -> ¬{B} sent10: ¬(¬{DU} & ¬{HL}) sent11: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent12: {A} -> (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent13: ¬(¬{CS} & ¬{CU}) sent14: ¬(¬{JD} & ¬{G}) sent15: ¬(¬{FU} & ¬{FL}) sent16: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent17: ¬(¬{CM} & ¬{IA}) sent18: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{FU} & ¬{BO}) sent19: ¬(¬{EM} & ¬{IJ}) sent20: ¬(¬{FU} & ¬{IS}) sent21: ¬{B} -> ¬({C} & {A})
|
[
"sent11 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent11 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the animation does not occur and the sprouting firmware does not occur.
|
(¬{AA} & ¬{AB})
|
[] | 7 | 1 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 20 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the fact that the animation does not occur and the sprouting firmware does not occur hold is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the fact that the rousing does not occur and the roughlegness does not occur does not hold hold. sent2: that the sprouting analgesic and the spondaicness happens is caused by that the decelerating does not occur. sent3: that the depression does not occur and the punning Urosaurus does not occur is wrong. sent4: if the fact that both the breezing and the antrorseness happens is not right the antrorseness does not occur. sent5: the fact that the bespangling fullback does not occur and the sprouting patty does not occur is not correct. sent6: the fact that the punning glipizide does not occur and the makeshift does not occur is not true. sent7: that the sprouting analgesic does not occur causes that the medevac occurs and/or the breezing. sent8: that the animation does not occur but the sprouting firmware happens is not true. sent9: that the medevac does not occur is brought about by that the sprouting analgesic occurs and the excretoriness occurs. sent10: the fact that the bespangling immunopathology does not occur and the fomentation does not occur is not correct. sent11: the fact that the animation does not occur and the sprouting firmware does not occur is false. sent12: the animation does not occur and the sprouting firmware does not occur if the antrorseness happens. sent13: that the sprouting casino does not occur and the amplification does not occur is not right. sent14: the fact that the coloredness does not occur and the decelerating does not occur is not right. sent15: that the recount does not occur and the bespangling Duma does not occur does not hold. sent16: that the animation but not the sprouting firmware happens is not right. sent17: that the baiting does not occur and the punning Melophagus does not occur is not correct. sent18: the fact that that the recounting does not occur and the groping does not occur is not wrong is not true if the antrorseness does not occur. sent19: the fact that the frontal does not occur and the indignity does not occur does not hold. sent20: the fact that the recount does not occur and the hoeing torchlight does not occur is wrong. sent21: the fact that the breeze occurs and the antrorseness happens is wrong if the medevac does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent11 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the hysteroscopy and the brouhaha occurs does not hold.
|
¬({A} & {C})
|
sent1: the punning nefazodone and the mooning occurs. sent2: if the celibacy and the BW happens then the sideline does not occur. sent3: the sequencing happens. sent4: the sidelining occurs. sent5: that the enolicness does not occur triggers the celibacy or that the BW occurs or both. sent6: if the sideline does not occur then the fact that the fact that both the hysteroscopy and the brouhaha occurs is false is true. sent7: the auxinicness happens. sent8: that the Belgianness occurs is not wrong. sent9: the sunbeam occurs. sent10: that the schizoidness happens is triggered by that the sideline does not occur but the hysteroscopy occurs. sent11: the hassle and the squashing happens. sent12: the brouhaha occurs. sent13: both the hysteroscopy and the sideline happens.
|
sent1: ({U} & {H}) sent2: ({D} & {E}) -> ¬{B} sent3: {EB} sent4: {B} sent5: ¬{F} -> ({D} v {E}) sent6: ¬{B} -> ¬({A} & {C}) sent7: {HB} sent8: {AB} sent9: {GF} sent10: (¬{B} & {A}) -> {EA} sent11: ({BI} & {FF}) sent12: {C} sent13: ({A} & {B})
|
[
"sent13 -> int1: the hysteroscopy happens.; int1 & sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent13 -> int1: {A}; int1 & sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the hysteroscopy and the brouhaha occurs is not right.
|
¬({A} & {C})
|
[] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the hysteroscopy and the brouhaha occurs does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the punning nefazodone and the mooning occurs. sent2: if the celibacy and the BW happens then the sideline does not occur. sent3: the sequencing happens. sent4: the sidelining occurs. sent5: that the enolicness does not occur triggers the celibacy or that the BW occurs or both. sent6: if the sideline does not occur then the fact that the fact that both the hysteroscopy and the brouhaha occurs is false is true. sent7: the auxinicness happens. sent8: that the Belgianness occurs is not wrong. sent9: the sunbeam occurs. sent10: that the schizoidness happens is triggered by that the sideline does not occur but the hysteroscopy occurs. sent11: the hassle and the squashing happens. sent12: the brouhaha occurs. sent13: both the hysteroscopy and the sideline happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent13 -> int1: the hysteroscopy happens.; int1 & sent12 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the teasel is not a vomitory.
|
¬{C}{b}
|
sent1: the fact that the moat is not invertible but it does loot is false. sent2: if something that is a capsule is nonjudgmental then that it is not a kind of a Helicidae is right. sent3: if the fact that something is not cerebral and it is not an enslavement is not correct then it is an enslavement. sent4: if the moat sprouts moat the teasel is an enslavement. sent5: the fact that something is not cerebral and it is not a kind of an enslavement is not right if that it is not a kind of a Helicidae hold. sent6: the teasel is a Bankia. sent7: if the teasel is a Bankia then it is postexilic thing that is not a capsule. sent8: that something is not an enslavement and does sprout moat is incorrect if it is a vomitory. sent9: the moat sprouts moat if the fact that it is not invertible and not a loot is not true. sent10: if something is a Helicidae then it is a kind of a vomitory. sent11: the moat is an enslavement. sent12: the drey is a Bankia and/or it is nonjudgmental if it does not sprout machismo. sent13: that the teasel is not a vomitory but it is a kind of an enslavement is not wrong if the moat sprouts moat. sent14: the Weimaraner is postexilic. sent15: the fact that if the moat does not sprout moat but it is a vomitory then the teasel is a vomitory is not false. sent16: the moat is not an enslavement and is a vomitory if the fact that the teasel does not sprout moat is not correct. sent17: the teasel is cerebral thing that is nonjudgmental if it is not a capsule. sent18: if the teasel is cerebral the moat is a Helicidae. sent19: the moat does not sprout moat but it is a kind of a vomitory if the fact that the Weimaraner is a kind of an enslavement is not wrong. sent20: if the Weimaraner is postexilic it is a kind of a capsule. sent21: that the moat is a kind of non-invertible thing that is not a loot is incorrect.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent2: (x): ({G}x & {F}x) -> ¬{D}x sent3: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{A}x) -> {A}x sent4: {B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent5: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{A}x) sent6: {I}{b} sent7: {I}{b} -> ({H}{b} & ¬{G}{b}) sent8: (x): {C}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & {B}x) sent9: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent10: (x): {D}x -> {C}x sent11: {A}{a} sent12: ¬{J}{d} -> ({I}{d} v {F}{d}) sent13: {B}{a} -> (¬{C}{b} & {A}{b}) sent14: {H}{c} sent15: (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) -> {C}{b} sent16: {B}{b} -> (¬{A}{a} & {C}{a}) sent17: ¬{G}{b} -> ({E}{b} & {F}{b}) sent18: {E}{b} -> {D}{a} sent19: {A}{c} -> (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent20: {H}{c} -> {G}{c} sent21: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})
|
[
"sent9 & sent21 -> int1: that the moat does sprout moat is true.; sent13 & int1 -> int2: the teasel is both not a vomitory and an enslavement.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 & sent21 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent13 & int1 -> int2: (¬{C}{b} & {A}{b}); int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the teasel is a vomitory.
|
{C}{b}
|
[
"sent3 -> int3: the Weimaraner is an enslavement if that it is both not cerebral and not an enslavement is incorrect.; sent5 -> int4: if the Weimaraner is not a Helicidae the fact that it is both not cerebral and not an enslavement does not hold.; sent2 -> int5: the Weimaraner is not a Helicidae if it is both a capsule and nonjudgmental.; sent20 & sent14 -> int6: the Weimaraner is a kind of a capsule.;"
] | 9 | 3 | 3 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the teasel is not a vomitory. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the moat is not invertible but it does loot is false. sent2: if something that is a capsule is nonjudgmental then that it is not a kind of a Helicidae is right. sent3: if the fact that something is not cerebral and it is not an enslavement is not correct then it is an enslavement. sent4: if the moat sprouts moat the teasel is an enslavement. sent5: the fact that something is not cerebral and it is not a kind of an enslavement is not right if that it is not a kind of a Helicidae hold. sent6: the teasel is a Bankia. sent7: if the teasel is a Bankia then it is postexilic thing that is not a capsule. sent8: that something is not an enslavement and does sprout moat is incorrect if it is a vomitory. sent9: the moat sprouts moat if the fact that it is not invertible and not a loot is not true. sent10: if something is a Helicidae then it is a kind of a vomitory. sent11: the moat is an enslavement. sent12: the drey is a Bankia and/or it is nonjudgmental if it does not sprout machismo. sent13: that the teasel is not a vomitory but it is a kind of an enslavement is not wrong if the moat sprouts moat. sent14: the Weimaraner is postexilic. sent15: the fact that if the moat does not sprout moat but it is a vomitory then the teasel is a vomitory is not false. sent16: the moat is not an enslavement and is a vomitory if the fact that the teasel does not sprout moat is not correct. sent17: the teasel is cerebral thing that is nonjudgmental if it is not a capsule. sent18: if the teasel is cerebral the moat is a Helicidae. sent19: the moat does not sprout moat but it is a kind of a vomitory if the fact that the Weimaraner is a kind of an enslavement is not wrong. sent20: if the Weimaraner is postexilic it is a kind of a capsule. sent21: that the moat is a kind of non-invertible thing that is not a loot is incorrect. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 & sent21 -> int1: that the moat does sprout moat is true.; sent13 & int1 -> int2: the teasel is both not a vomitory and an enslavement.; int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the sigmoidoscope does not sprout rifampin.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
sent1: the fact that everything is non-Beethovenian thing that is not a sluicegate is not false. sent2: the fact that that the sigmoidoscope is a kind of a uninsurability that does not sprout rifampin is true does not hold. sent3: the fact that the sigmoidoscope is not Beethovenian but it is a kind of a sluicegate is false. sent4: everything is not a Colombo. sent5: if something does habilitate then it does sprout rifampin. sent6: the sigmoidoscope is a kind of a cardioid if the Jacob does not habilitate but it is a kind of a cardioid. sent7: if the fact that the sigmoidoscope sprouts rifampin is true that it is a kind of non-Beethovenian thing that is a sluicegate is not right. sent8: the fact that the sigmoidoscope is not Beethovenian and it is not a sluicegate is false if it sprouts rifampin. sent9: if the Jacob is not a carrier the sigmoidoscope bespangles Jacob but it is not viscometric. sent10: if that the Jacob is not a Malthusian is not false it is both not a carrier and not glossopharyngeal. sent11: something habilitates and is artless if it is not viscometric. sent12: the sigmoidoscope is not a sluicegate.
|
sent1: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent2: ¬({EK}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent3: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent4: (x): ¬{FR}x sent5: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent6: (¬{B}{b} & {DS}{b}) -> {DS}{a} sent7: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent8: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent9: ¬{F}{b} -> ({E}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent10: ¬{H}{b} -> (¬{F}{b} & ¬{G}{b}) sent11: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({B}x & {C}x) sent12: ¬{AB}{a}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the sigmoidoscope does sprout rifampin.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the sigmoidoscope is non-Beethovenian thing that is not a sluicegate is not true.; sent1 -> int2: the sigmoidoscope is not Beethovenian and it is not a sluicegate.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}{a}; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); sent1 -> int2: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the sigmoidoscope is a cardioid.
|
{DS}{a}
|
[] | 4 | 3 | 3 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the sigmoidoscope does not sprout rifampin. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that everything is non-Beethovenian thing that is not a sluicegate is not false. sent2: the fact that that the sigmoidoscope is a kind of a uninsurability that does not sprout rifampin is true does not hold. sent3: the fact that the sigmoidoscope is not Beethovenian but it is a kind of a sluicegate is false. sent4: everything is not a Colombo. sent5: if something does habilitate then it does sprout rifampin. sent6: the sigmoidoscope is a kind of a cardioid if the Jacob does not habilitate but it is a kind of a cardioid. sent7: if the fact that the sigmoidoscope sprouts rifampin is true that it is a kind of non-Beethovenian thing that is a sluicegate is not right. sent8: the fact that the sigmoidoscope is not Beethovenian and it is not a sluicegate is false if it sprouts rifampin. sent9: if the Jacob is not a carrier the sigmoidoscope bespangles Jacob but it is not viscometric. sent10: if that the Jacob is not a Malthusian is not false it is both not a carrier and not glossopharyngeal. sent11: something habilitates and is artless if it is not viscometric. sent12: the sigmoidoscope is not a sluicegate. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the sigmoidoscope does sprout rifampin.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the sigmoidoscope is non-Beethovenian thing that is not a sluicegate is not true.; sent1 -> int2: the sigmoidoscope is not Beethovenian and it is not a sluicegate.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the padauk does sprout fatback and is nonlinear is not correct.
|
¬({B}{a} & {C}{a})
|
sent1: there exists something such that it is a motorboat. sent2: the padauk is editorial. sent3: if the johnnycake does not sprout prostration and it is not a kind of a inactiveness then the attire is not a inactiveness. sent4: if there is something such that it does motorboat the padauk does sprout fatback and it is nonlinear. sent5: the column is a ultracentrifugation if the goosefoot is not a ultracentrifugation and not a rebus. sent6: if there is something such that it does sprout fatback the padauk is nonlinear. sent7: the padauk is not a motorboat if the attire is not a inactiveness. sent8: if something does not motorboat that it sprouts fatback and it is nonlinear is incorrect. sent9: the padauk is a kind of umbelliferous thing that is a completion. sent10: the fatback is both a Merovingian and not linear if there are computational things.
|
sent1: (Ex): {A}x sent2: {DP}{a} sent3: (¬{E}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent4: (x): {A}x -> ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent5: (¬{G}{e} & ¬{H}{e}) -> {G}{d} sent6: (x): {B}x -> {C}{a} sent7: ¬{D}{b} -> ¬{A}{a} sent8: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}x & {C}x) sent9: ({BE}{a} & {JE}{a}) sent10: (x): {U}x -> ({CF}{id} & {C}{id})
|
[
"sent1 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the padauk does sprout fatback and is nonlinear is incorrect.
|
¬({B}{a} & {C}{a})
|
[
"sent8 -> int1: that the padauk does sprout fatback and is nonlinear is not right if it is not a kind of a motorboat.;"
] | 7 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the padauk does sprout fatback and is nonlinear is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is a motorboat. sent2: the padauk is editorial. sent3: if the johnnycake does not sprout prostration and it is not a kind of a inactiveness then the attire is not a inactiveness. sent4: if there is something such that it does motorboat the padauk does sprout fatback and it is nonlinear. sent5: the column is a ultracentrifugation if the goosefoot is not a ultracentrifugation and not a rebus. sent6: if there is something such that it does sprout fatback the padauk is nonlinear. sent7: the padauk is not a motorboat if the attire is not a inactiveness. sent8: if something does not motorboat that it sprouts fatback and it is nonlinear is incorrect. sent9: the padauk is a kind of umbelliferous thing that is a completion. sent10: the fatback is both a Merovingian and not linear if there are computational things. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the wholesomeness happens.
|
{C}
|
sent1: if the biotiticness or the bespangling Boston or both happens then the wholesomeness does not occur. sent2: the punning osteology occurs. sent3: that that the sprouting Jap does not occur is brought about by that the unsystematicness happens and/or the bespangling Urosaurus is correct. sent4: either the localness happens or the pinning occurs or both. sent5: the fact that the illusion happens does not hold. sent6: the bespangling Boston happens. sent7: the wholesomeness is triggered by the biotiticness. sent8: the bespangling musicality happens. sent9: that the sprouting silverbush does not occur is triggered by the ligation and/or the racialness. sent10: the bespangling size does not occur. sent11: the biotiticness prevents that the wholesomeness happens. sent12: either the avirulentness occurs or the punning endogamy occurs or both. sent13: the blue-collarness does not occur if the aortalness occurs and/or the steeplechase happens. sent14: the punning precipitation happens. sent15: the beagling happens. sent16: the pyrolyticness happens. sent17: the neurologicalness does not occur. sent18: if the sinkableness happens and/or the klondike happens then the steeplechase does not occur. sent19: the indiscretion does not occur.
|
sent1: ({A} v {B}) -> ¬{C} sent2: {EH} sent3: ({BT} v {JD}) -> ¬{IL} sent4: ({DL} v {G}) sent5: ¬{FE} sent6: {B} sent7: {A} -> {C} sent8: {HS} sent9: ({DI} v {CP}) -> ¬{II} sent10: ¬{JF} sent11: {A} -> ¬{C} sent12: ({EJ} v {HR}) sent13: ({FN} v {T}) -> ¬{AN} sent14: {P} sent15: {CE} sent16: {AB} sent17: ¬{IA} sent18: ({GG} v {CG}) -> ¬{T} sent19: ¬{BR}
|
[
"sent6 -> int1: the biotiticness and/or the bespangling Boston occurs.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 -> int1: ({A} v {B}); sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the wholesomeness happens.
|
{C}
|
[] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 17 | 0 | 17 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the wholesomeness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if the biotiticness or the bespangling Boston or both happens then the wholesomeness does not occur. sent2: the punning osteology occurs. sent3: that that the sprouting Jap does not occur is brought about by that the unsystematicness happens and/or the bespangling Urosaurus is correct. sent4: either the localness happens or the pinning occurs or both. sent5: the fact that the illusion happens does not hold. sent6: the bespangling Boston happens. sent7: the wholesomeness is triggered by the biotiticness. sent8: the bespangling musicality happens. sent9: that the sprouting silverbush does not occur is triggered by the ligation and/or the racialness. sent10: the bespangling size does not occur. sent11: the biotiticness prevents that the wholesomeness happens. sent12: either the avirulentness occurs or the punning endogamy occurs or both. sent13: the blue-collarness does not occur if the aortalness occurs and/or the steeplechase happens. sent14: the punning precipitation happens. sent15: the beagling happens. sent16: the pyrolyticness happens. sent17: the neurologicalness does not occur. sent18: if the sinkableness happens and/or the klondike happens then the steeplechase does not occur. sent19: the indiscretion does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 -> int1: the biotiticness and/or the bespangling Boston occurs.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the forebrain is a antinode that is congeneric.
|
({D}{b} & {C}{b})
|
sent1: the buddy is congeneric. sent2: the forebrain is perceptible and sprouts chattel. sent3: if that something is not Hebraic and bespangles pentlandite is not correct then it is not ripe. sent4: the cine-film is a lozenge and it is unseamanlike. sent5: the horsehide does not shear. sent6: the satinwood is a kind of a shear. sent7: that the scrapple is not congeneric is not incorrect. sent8: if the forebrain is not a kind of a shear then the satinwood is a antinode and it shear. sent9: if the ruddle is sufficient then that the satinwood is both not intracerebral and not calyculate does not hold. sent10: that the forebrain is congeneric is not false if the fact that the satinwood is not congeneric is not wrong. sent11: the forebrain is a kind of a Cymatiidae that is not insufficient. sent12: if something does not manipulate it is not a checker. sent13: the forebrain is intracerebral. sent14: that the forebrain is a antinode and it is not non-congeneric if the satinwood is not non-congeneric is right.
|
sent1: {C}{ar} sent2: ({EJ}{b} & {CP}{b}) sent3: (x): ¬(¬{FP}x & {HR}x) -> ¬{J}x sent4: ({AA}{gm} & {ID}{gm}) sent5: ¬{A}{if} sent6: {A}{a} sent7: ¬{C}{hj} sent8: ¬{A}{b} -> ({D}{a} & {A}{a}) sent9: {F}{c} -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) sent10: ¬{C}{a} -> {C}{b} sent11: ({IP}{b} & {F}{b}) sent12: (x): ¬{DB}x -> ¬{CQ}x sent13: {B}{b} sent14: ¬{C}{a} -> ({D}{b} & {C}{b})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the satinwood is not a shear and is intracerebral.; assump1 -> int1: the satinwood does not shear.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the satinwood is both not a shear and intracerebral is false.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: (¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}); assump1 -> int1: ¬{A}{a}; int1 & sent6 -> int2: #F#; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: ¬(¬{A}{a} & {B}{a});"
] |
that the forebrain is a antinode and congeneric is incorrect.
|
¬({D}{b} & {C}{b})
|
[] | 5 | 4 | null | 12 | 0 | 12 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the forebrain is a antinode that is congeneric. ; $context$ = sent1: the buddy is congeneric. sent2: the forebrain is perceptible and sprouts chattel. sent3: if that something is not Hebraic and bespangles pentlandite is not correct then it is not ripe. sent4: the cine-film is a lozenge and it is unseamanlike. sent5: the horsehide does not shear. sent6: the satinwood is a kind of a shear. sent7: that the scrapple is not congeneric is not incorrect. sent8: if the forebrain is not a kind of a shear then the satinwood is a antinode and it shear. sent9: if the ruddle is sufficient then that the satinwood is both not intracerebral and not calyculate does not hold. sent10: that the forebrain is congeneric is not false if the fact that the satinwood is not congeneric is not wrong. sent11: the forebrain is a kind of a Cymatiidae that is not insufficient. sent12: if something does not manipulate it is not a checker. sent13: the forebrain is intracerebral. sent14: that the forebrain is a antinode and it is not non-congeneric if the satinwood is not non-congeneric is right. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the satinwood is not a shear and is intracerebral.; assump1 -> int1: the satinwood does not shear.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the satinwood is both not a shear and intracerebral is false.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the porcupine does sprout dredger.
|
{C}{a}
|
sent1: the afterpiece is not Palestinian. sent2: the porcupine does yellow and it does nutate. sent3: the porcupine does not sprout dredger if the progenitor yellows or sprout dredger or both. sent4: if the swordtail does not sprout communion then the boyfriend nutates and/or it puns ombudsman. sent5: if there is something such that the fact that the fact that it is not a kind of a soloist and it is not a contrast is right is not true then the swordtail does contrast. sent6: that the porcupine does bespangle matchwood hold. sent7: if something is a kind of a termite that does not bespangle longroot it does not sprout communion. sent8: if something does nutate it does sprout dredger. sent9: something is a termite and does not bespangle longroot if it is a contrast. sent10: the porcupine is a polymastigote and puns Nerium. sent11: the fact that the broadloom does sprout dredger is not false. sent12: the hypothalamus nutates. sent13: if something is not a Palestinian then the fact that the sunset is not a soloist and it is not a contrast is incorrect. sent14: something nutates if it does yellow.
|
sent1: ¬{J}{f} sent2: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent3: ({A}{b} v {C}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent4: ¬{E}{d} -> ({B}{c} v {D}{c}) sent5: (x): ¬(¬{I}x & ¬{H}x) -> {H}{d} sent6: {EM}{a} sent7: (x): ({F}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{E}x sent8: (x): {B}x -> {C}x sent9: (x): {H}x -> ({F}x & ¬{G}x) sent10: ({DG}{a} & {CS}{a}) sent11: {C}{jb} sent12: {B}{il} sent13: (x): ¬{J}x -> ¬(¬{I}{e} & ¬{H}{e}) sent14: (x): {A}x -> {B}x
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: the porcupine nutates.; sent8 -> int2: if the porcupine nutates then it sprouts dredger.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent8 -> int2: {B}{a} -> {C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the porcupine does not sprout dredger.
|
¬{C}{a}
|
[
"sent7 -> int3: if the swordtail is a termite but it does not bespangle longroot then the fact that it sprouts communion is not true.; sent9 -> int4: the swordtail is a kind of a termite that does not bespangle longroot if it contrasts.; sent1 -> int5: something is not a Palestinian.; int5 & sent13 -> int6: the fact that the sunset is both not a soloist and not a contrast is not correct.; int6 -> int7: there exists something such that that it is not a soloist and not a contrast is false.; int7 & sent5 -> int8: that the swordtail does contrast hold.; int4 & int8 -> int9: the swordtail is a kind of a termite but it does not bespangle longroot.; int3 & int9 -> int10: the swordtail does not sprout communion.; sent4 & int10 -> int11: the boyfriend nutates or it puns ombudsman or both.;"
] | 10 | 2 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the porcupine does sprout dredger. ; $context$ = sent1: the afterpiece is not Palestinian. sent2: the porcupine does yellow and it does nutate. sent3: the porcupine does not sprout dredger if the progenitor yellows or sprout dredger or both. sent4: if the swordtail does not sprout communion then the boyfriend nutates and/or it puns ombudsman. sent5: if there is something such that the fact that the fact that it is not a kind of a soloist and it is not a contrast is right is not true then the swordtail does contrast. sent6: that the porcupine does bespangle matchwood hold. sent7: if something is a kind of a termite that does not bespangle longroot it does not sprout communion. sent8: if something does nutate it does sprout dredger. sent9: something is a termite and does not bespangle longroot if it is a contrast. sent10: the porcupine is a polymastigote and puns Nerium. sent11: the fact that the broadloom does sprout dredger is not false. sent12: the hypothalamus nutates. sent13: if something is not a Palestinian then the fact that the sunset is not a soloist and it is not a contrast is incorrect. sent14: something nutates if it does yellow. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> int1: the porcupine nutates.; sent8 -> int2: if the porcupine nutates then it sprouts dredger.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the punning Nerium does not occur but the considerateness happens is not true.
|
¬(¬{AA} & {AB})
|
sent1: the fact that the punning Nerium does not occur and the considerateness occurs is not true if the emptying does not occur. sent2: the punning Nerium does not occur but the considerateness occurs.
|
sent1: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent2: (¬{AA} & {AB})
|
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that not the punning Nerium but the considerateness occurs is false.
|
¬(¬{AA} & {AB})
|
[] | 6 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the punning Nerium does not occur but the considerateness happens is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the punning Nerium does not occur and the considerateness occurs is not true if the emptying does not occur. sent2: the punning Nerium does not occur but the considerateness occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the hosier is both a capitalist and a cursed.
|
({A}{a} & {B}{a})
|
sent1: if the catamite does not bespangle hosier it is a kind of a Browning and is capitalist. sent2: something is a drippings. sent3: something is generic if it is a kind of a capitalist. sent4: the germanium does bespangle anemometer and is a cursed. sent5: the hosier is a cursed but not unobvious. sent6: there exists something such that it is a drippings and it does not hoe hemiparasite. sent7: the fact that the empire does not gladden and it is not a Browning is not true. sent8: something is sadistic if that it does not bask and/or it does not sprout overtolerance is wrong. sent9: that the catamite is unobvious but it does not curse does not hold if the hosier is not non-sadistic. sent10: the cowtown is not unobvious if that the confection is non-sadistic thing that sprouts overtolerance is not true. sent11: if the fact that something is unobvious but it is not a kind of a cursed is not correct the fact that it is a kind of a bulb hold. sent12: the catamite does not bespangle hosier. sent13: if that the hosier is a kind of a songbird hold that it either does not bask or does not sprout overtolerance or both is wrong. sent14: something does not hoe hemiparasite. sent15: if that something does not gladden and is not a Browning does not hold then the fact that it is a kind of a Browning is not wrong. sent16: the hosier is not unobvious. sent17: there exists something such that it is a drippings and it hoes hemiparasite. sent18: if something is a Browning the fact that it basks is not false.
|
sent1: ¬{J}{il} -> ({G}{il} & {A}{il}) sent2: (Ex): {AA}x sent3: (x): {A}x -> {AK}x sent4: ({BE}{ad} & {B}{ad}) sent5: ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent6: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent7: ¬(¬{I}{d} & ¬{G}{d}) sent8: (x): ¬(¬{F}x v ¬{E}x) -> {D}x sent9: {D}{a} -> ¬({C}{il} & ¬{B}{il}) sent10: ¬(¬{D}{c} & {E}{c}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent11: (x): ¬({C}x & ¬{B}x) -> {HH}x sent12: ¬{J}{il} sent13: {H}{a} -> ¬(¬{F}{a} v ¬{E}{a}) sent14: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent15: (x): ¬(¬{I}x & ¬{G}x) -> {G}x sent16: ¬{C}{a} sent17: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent18: (x): {G}x -> {F}x
|
[
"sent5 -> int1: the hosier is a cursed.;"
] |
[
"sent5 -> int1: {B}{a};"
] |
that the hosier is both a capitalist and a cursed does not hold.
|
¬({A}{a} & {B}{a})
|
[
"sent18 -> int2: if the empire is a Browning that it does bask is correct.; sent15 -> int3: the empire is a Browning if that it does not gladden and is not a Browning is wrong.; int3 & sent7 -> int4: the empire is a Browning.; int2 & int4 -> int5: the empire does bask.; int5 -> int6: there is something such that it does bask.;"
] | 8 | 2 | null | 16 | 0 | 16 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the hosier is both a capitalist and a cursed. ; $context$ = sent1: if the catamite does not bespangle hosier it is a kind of a Browning and is capitalist. sent2: something is a drippings. sent3: something is generic if it is a kind of a capitalist. sent4: the germanium does bespangle anemometer and is a cursed. sent5: the hosier is a cursed but not unobvious. sent6: there exists something such that it is a drippings and it does not hoe hemiparasite. sent7: the fact that the empire does not gladden and it is not a Browning is not true. sent8: something is sadistic if that it does not bask and/or it does not sprout overtolerance is wrong. sent9: that the catamite is unobvious but it does not curse does not hold if the hosier is not non-sadistic. sent10: the cowtown is not unobvious if that the confection is non-sadistic thing that sprouts overtolerance is not true. sent11: if the fact that something is unobvious but it is not a kind of a cursed is not correct the fact that it is a kind of a bulb hold. sent12: the catamite does not bespangle hosier. sent13: if that the hosier is a kind of a songbird hold that it either does not bask or does not sprout overtolerance or both is wrong. sent14: something does not hoe hemiparasite. sent15: if that something does not gladden and is not a Browning does not hold then the fact that it is a kind of a Browning is not wrong. sent16: the hosier is not unobvious. sent17: there exists something such that it is a drippings and it hoes hemiparasite. sent18: if something is a Browning the fact that it basks is not false. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 -> int1: the hosier is a cursed.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Arkansan does not bespangle percoid but it is a larboard.
|
(¬{G}{b} & {E}{b})
|
sent1: the Arkansan does not bespangle percoid and is a larboard if the battlefield is not a larboard. sent2: if the Arkansan is a etui then the fact that it is not a sightseer is right. sent3: that the afterpiece is a kind of Puranic thing that is a kind of a mesoderm is incorrect if something does hoe Thessalonian. sent4: the fact that the battlefield is both a splat and a sightseer is wrong if the fact that there exists something such that it is not a Karachi is not incorrect. sent5: if a non-sincere thing is an antithesis it is a kind of a splat. sent6: if the battlefield is not a kind of a Blair and/or is not a teak then the Arkansan is a sightseer. sent7: that something does not bespangle percoid and is a larboard is false if it is not a Karachi. sent8: if that the gastroscope is non-profound and hipless is wrong that the Thessalonian is not afloat is not false. sent9: the alleviator does hoe break if there is something such that the fact that it is Puranic and a mesoderm does not hold. sent10: that the battlefield is a splat and it is a kind of a sightseer is wrong. sent11: if the alleviator is a coloring then either the battlefield is not a Blair or it is not a teak or both. sent12: the battlefield is not a larboard if that it is sincere is right. sent13: the Arkansan is a larboard. sent14: if the Thessalonian is non-afloat the fact that the Arkansan is not sincere but an antithesis is not false. sent15: the fact that the battlefield splats and is not a sightseer is wrong if something is not a Karachi. sent16: something is not a Karachi. sent17: there is something such that it hoes Thessalonian. sent18: something is an anesthetic if it does hoe break. sent19: if something that is a kind of a sightseer is a kind of a splat then it is not a kind of a Karachi. sent20: the alleviator is a coloring if it is an anesthetic.
|
sent1: ¬{E}{a} -> (¬{G}{b} & {E}{b}) sent2: {IJ}{b} -> ¬{C}{b} sent3: (x): {R}x -> ¬({O}{e} & {N}{e}) sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent5: (x): (¬{D}x & {F}x) -> {B}x sent6: (¬{I}{a} v ¬{H}{a}) -> {C}{b} sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{G}x & {E}x) sent8: ¬(¬{P}{f} & {Q}{f}) -> ¬{L}{d} sent9: (x): ¬({O}x & {N}x) -> {M}{c} sent10: ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent11: {J}{c} -> (¬{I}{a} v ¬{H}{a}) sent12: {D}{a} -> ¬{E}{a} sent13: {E}{b} sent14: ¬{L}{d} -> (¬{D}{b} & {F}{b}) sent15: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent16: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent17: (Ex): {R}x sent18: (x): {M}x -> {K}x sent19: (x): ({C}x & {B}x) -> ¬{A}x sent20: {K}{c} -> {J}{c}
|
[
"sent16 & sent15 -> int1: that the battlefield does splat but it is not a sightseer is not right.;"
] |
[
"sent16 & sent15 -> int1: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a});"
] |
that the fact that the Arkansan does not bespangle percoid but it is a larboard is not right hold.
|
¬(¬{G}{b} & {E}{b})
|
[
"sent7 -> int2: if the Arkansan is not a kind of a Karachi then the fact that it does not bespangle percoid and it is a kind of a larboard does not hold.; sent19 -> int3: if the Arkansan is both a sightseer and a splat it is not a Karachi.; sent18 -> int4: the alleviator is a kind of an anesthetic if it does hoe break.; sent17 & sent3 -> int5: the fact that the afterpiece is Puranic and it is a kind of a mesoderm is wrong.; int5 -> int6: there is something such that that it is Puranic and is a mesoderm does not hold.; int6 & sent9 -> int7: the alleviator hoes break.; int4 & int7 -> int8: the alleviator is anesthetic.; sent20 & int8 -> int9: the alleviator colors.; sent11 & int9 -> int10: the battlefield is not a Blair and/or it is not a kind of a teak.; sent6 & int10 -> int11: the Arkansan is a sightseer.; sent5 -> int12: the Arkansan is a kind of a splat if it is not sincere and it is a kind of an antithesis.;"
] | 10 | 4 | null | 16 | 0 | 16 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the Arkansan does not bespangle percoid but it is a larboard. ; $context$ = sent1: the Arkansan does not bespangle percoid and is a larboard if the battlefield is not a larboard. sent2: if the Arkansan is a etui then the fact that it is not a sightseer is right. sent3: that the afterpiece is a kind of Puranic thing that is a kind of a mesoderm is incorrect if something does hoe Thessalonian. sent4: the fact that the battlefield is both a splat and a sightseer is wrong if the fact that there exists something such that it is not a Karachi is not incorrect. sent5: if a non-sincere thing is an antithesis it is a kind of a splat. sent6: if the battlefield is not a kind of a Blair and/or is not a teak then the Arkansan is a sightseer. sent7: that something does not bespangle percoid and is a larboard is false if it is not a Karachi. sent8: if that the gastroscope is non-profound and hipless is wrong that the Thessalonian is not afloat is not false. sent9: the alleviator does hoe break if there is something such that the fact that it is Puranic and a mesoderm does not hold. sent10: that the battlefield is a splat and it is a kind of a sightseer is wrong. sent11: if the alleviator is a coloring then either the battlefield is not a Blair or it is not a teak or both. sent12: the battlefield is not a larboard if that it is sincere is right. sent13: the Arkansan is a larboard. sent14: if the Thessalonian is non-afloat the fact that the Arkansan is not sincere but an antithesis is not false. sent15: the fact that the battlefield splats and is not a sightseer is wrong if something is not a Karachi. sent16: something is not a Karachi. sent17: there is something such that it hoes Thessalonian. sent18: something is an anesthetic if it does hoe break. sent19: if something that is a kind of a sightseer is a kind of a splat then it is not a kind of a Karachi. sent20: the alleviator is a coloring if it is an anesthetic. ; $proof$ =
|
sent16 & sent15 -> int1: that the battlefield does splat but it is not a sightseer is not right.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the chalcedony is a wild.
|
{B}{c}
|
sent1: the libertine is not birefringent if the apogamy is not birefringent and it does not bespangle galactocele. sent2: the saprophyte is not Wordsworthian. sent3: the libertine bespangles Latinism. sent4: something is a kind of non-birefringent thing that does not bespangle galactocele if it does not bespangle demonstrative. sent5: if something that does not sprout ratepayer puns exaltation then the chalcedony is a wild. sent6: The Latinism bespangles libertine. sent7: the fact that something is not a concha and it is thoughtful is not right if it does not pun Agene. sent8: that the saprophyte is not a kind of a annihilator and is not a translation does not hold if that it is not Wordsworthian hold. sent9: if the libertine is not birefringent it is a bricklayer and does not bespangle Latinism. sent10: if the libertine does bespangle Latinism the apogamy does not sprout ratepayer but it does pun exaltation. sent11: the generation does not pun Agene if that the saprophyte is both not a annihilator and not a translation is not right.
|
sent1: (¬{D}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent2: ¬{L}{e} sent3: {A}{a} sent4: (x): ¬{F}x -> (¬{D}x & ¬{E}x) sent5: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}{c} sent6: {AC}{aa} sent7: (x): ¬{I}x -> ¬(¬{H}x & ¬{G}x) sent8: ¬{L}{e} -> ¬(¬{K}{e} & ¬{J}{e}) sent9: ¬{D}{a} -> ({C}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent10: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent11: ¬(¬{K}{e} & ¬{J}{e}) -> ¬{I}{d}
|
[
"sent10 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the apogamy does not sprout ratepayer but it puns exaltation is not false.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that it does not sprout ratepayer and it puns exaltation.; int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent10 & sent3 -> int1: (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x); int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the chalcedony is not a kind of a wild is right.
|
¬{B}{c}
|
[
"sent4 -> int3: if the apogamy does not bespangle demonstrative then it is not birefringent and it does not bespangle galactocele.; sent7 -> int4: that the generation is not a kind of a concha and it is not thoughtless is wrong if it does not pun Agene.; sent8 & sent2 -> int5: the fact that the saprophyte is not a kind of a annihilator and it is not a kind of a translation does not hold.; sent11 & int5 -> int6: the fact that the generation does not pun Agene is true.; int4 & int6 -> int7: that the generation is not a concha and it is not thoughtless is not correct.; int7 -> int8: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a concha and it is not thoughtless is not correct.;"
] | 10 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the chalcedony is a wild. ; $context$ = sent1: the libertine is not birefringent if the apogamy is not birefringent and it does not bespangle galactocele. sent2: the saprophyte is not Wordsworthian. sent3: the libertine bespangles Latinism. sent4: something is a kind of non-birefringent thing that does not bespangle galactocele if it does not bespangle demonstrative. sent5: if something that does not sprout ratepayer puns exaltation then the chalcedony is a wild. sent6: The Latinism bespangles libertine. sent7: the fact that something is not a concha and it is thoughtful is not right if it does not pun Agene. sent8: that the saprophyte is not a kind of a annihilator and is not a translation does not hold if that it is not Wordsworthian hold. sent9: if the libertine is not birefringent it is a bricklayer and does not bespangle Latinism. sent10: if the libertine does bespangle Latinism the apogamy does not sprout ratepayer but it does pun exaltation. sent11: the generation does not pun Agene if that the saprophyte is both not a annihilator and not a translation is not right. ; $proof$ =
|
sent10 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the apogamy does not sprout ratepayer but it puns exaltation is not false.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that it does not sprout ratepayer and it puns exaltation.; int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there is something such that that it sprouts hulking and it does not sprout coccidium is false is incorrect.
|
¬((Ex): ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x))
|
sent1: if there is something such that the fact that it sprouts pseudoscience and it is a kind of a Elmont is wrong the establishment is unlikely. sent2: the fact that the bluegrass does sprout coccidium and it is unlikely is false. sent3: there exists something such that that it does sprout pseudoscience and is a kind of a Elmont is not correct. sent4: there exists something such that it does pun cirrus and is a renovation. sent5: that the establishment is not mores but it is a flagellate is false. sent6: if something does bespangle falsity then that it is a kind of likely thing that does not sprout coccidium is not right. sent7: something is a kind of a prattler if it is a kind of non-flagellate thing that does not sprout Baal. sent8: something does sprout hulking if that it is not unlikely and it does not sprout coccidium does not hold. sent9: if the fact that the establishment is not mores and is a flagellate is not correct the maul is not flagellate. sent10: if something is a prattler then it does bespangle falsity. sent11: something is not non-chromatinic but it does not pun phenomenon. sent12: the fact that the bluegrass sprouts hulking but it does not sprout coccidium is wrong if the fact that the establishment is unlikely is not incorrect. sent13: that the bluegrass does sprout hulking but it is not unlikely does not hold. sent14: there is something such that that it does sprout coccidium and it is unlikely does not hold.
|
sent1: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent2: ¬({C}{b} & {A}{b}) sent3: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent4: (Ex): ({CU}x & {HD}x) sent5: ¬(¬{I}{a} & {F}{a}) sent6: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{C}x) sent7: (x): (¬{F}x & ¬{G}x) -> {E}x sent8: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{C}x) -> {B}x sent9: ¬(¬{I}{a} & {F}{a}) -> ¬{F}{dh} sent10: (x): {E}x -> {D}x sent11: (Ex): ({S}x & ¬{CG}x) sent12: {A}{a} -> ¬({B}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent13: ¬({B}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent14: (Ex): ¬({C}x & {A}x)
|
[
"sent3 & sent1 -> int1: the establishment is unlikely.; sent12 & int1 -> int2: that the bluegrass sprouts hulking but it does not sprout coccidium is wrong.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent1 -> int1: {A}{a}; sent12 & int1 -> int2: ¬({B}{b} & ¬{C}{b}); int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the maul does sprout hulking.
|
{B}{dh}
|
[
"sent8 -> int3: if that the fact that the maul is a kind of likely thing that does not sprout coccidium does not hold hold then it sprouts hulking.; sent6 -> int4: if the fact that the maul does bespangle falsity hold the fact that it is not unlikely and it does not sprout coccidium is not correct.; sent10 -> int5: the maul bespangles falsity if it is a prattler.; sent7 -> int6: if the maul is not a flagellate and does not sprout Baal that it is a kind of a prattler is true.; sent9 & sent5 -> int7: the maul is not flagellate.;"
] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that that it sprouts hulking and it does not sprout coccidium is false is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that the fact that it sprouts pseudoscience and it is a kind of a Elmont is wrong the establishment is unlikely. sent2: the fact that the bluegrass does sprout coccidium and it is unlikely is false. sent3: there exists something such that that it does sprout pseudoscience and is a kind of a Elmont is not correct. sent4: there exists something such that it does pun cirrus and is a renovation. sent5: that the establishment is not mores but it is a flagellate is false. sent6: if something does bespangle falsity then that it is a kind of likely thing that does not sprout coccidium is not right. sent7: something is a kind of a prattler if it is a kind of non-flagellate thing that does not sprout Baal. sent8: something does sprout hulking if that it is not unlikely and it does not sprout coccidium does not hold. sent9: if the fact that the establishment is not mores and is a flagellate is not correct the maul is not flagellate. sent10: if something is a prattler then it does bespangle falsity. sent11: something is not non-chromatinic but it does not pun phenomenon. sent12: the fact that the bluegrass sprouts hulking but it does not sprout coccidium is wrong if the fact that the establishment is unlikely is not incorrect. sent13: that the bluegrass does sprout hulking but it is not unlikely does not hold. sent14: there is something such that that it does sprout coccidium and it is unlikely does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent1 -> int1: the establishment is unlikely.; sent12 & int1 -> int2: that the bluegrass sprouts hulking but it does not sprout coccidium is wrong.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there exists something such that if it is not a perineum it does sprout bat and it is not croupy does not hold.
|
¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x))
|
sent1: there is something such that if it does not hoe roadbook then it is both hydroxy and not unservile. sent2: something is liberal and is not croupy if it does not pun cedar. sent3: the cedar is both Andorran and a loupe if it is not croupy. sent4: there is something such that if it is not a platform it is a nervousness. sent5: the cocker sprouts bat and is not croupy if it is not a perineum.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬{DN}x -> ({GF}x & ¬{CP}x) sent2: (x): ¬{FE}x -> ({DJ}x & ¬{AB}x) sent3: ¬{AB}{fj} -> ({II}{fj} & {BI}{fj}) sent4: (Ex): ¬{IG}x -> {GA}x sent5: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})
|
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
if the roadbook does not pun cedar it is a kind of a liberal and it is not croupy.
|
¬{FE}{bb} -> ({DJ}{bb} & ¬{AB}{bb})
|
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it is not a perineum it does sprout bat and it is not croupy does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it does not hoe roadbook then it is both hydroxy and not unservile. sent2: something is liberal and is not croupy if it does not pun cedar. sent3: the cedar is both Andorran and a loupe if it is not croupy. sent4: there is something such that if it is not a platform it is a nervousness. sent5: the cocker sprouts bat and is not croupy if it is not a perineum. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it is not a kabob then it does pun soda and is a EE.
|
(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x)
|
sent1: if the storyteller is not a kabob then it is a EE. sent2: something does pun soda and it is a EE if that it is not a kabob is true. sent3: there is something such that if it is a kabob then it does pun soda and it is a EE. sent4: something is a EE and it is a accountantship if it is not expiatory. sent5: something is medieval and it is a destructibility if it is sharp.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{aa} -> {AB}{aa} sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent4: (x): ¬{EM}x -> ({AB}x & {I}x) sent5: (x): {FN}x -> ({BD}x & {GH}x)
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: the storyteller puns soda and it is a EE if it is not a kabob.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the wave is a EE and a accountantship if it is not expiatory.
|
¬{EM}{fq} -> ({AB}{fq} & {I}{fq})
|
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is not a kabob then it does pun soda and is a EE. ; $context$ = sent1: if the storyteller is not a kabob then it is a EE. sent2: something does pun soda and it is a EE if that it is not a kabob is true. sent3: there is something such that if it is a kabob then it does pun soda and it is a EE. sent4: something is a EE and it is a accountantship if it is not expiatory. sent5: something is medieval and it is a destructibility if it is sharp. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> int1: the storyteller puns soda and it is a EE if it is not a kabob.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the uvealness and the thundershower occurs.
|
({C} & {B})
|
sent1: if the fact that the punning Carbondale does not occur is correct then that both the uvealness and the thundershower occurs is not correct. sent2: the banging occurs and/or the mousing does not occur if the punning antifungal does not occur. sent3: the thundershower happens if the punning Carbondale happens. sent4: that the punning antifungal does not occur is brought about by the hands. sent5: the uvealness occurs if the u-turn happens. sent6: if the sprouting fascist occurs then the publishing happens. sent7: that the u-turn happens but the punning Carbondale does not occur is triggered by that the flick happens. sent8: the u-turn occurs. sent9: that the bang happens leads to that both the non-semanticness and the non-deductiveness happens. sent10: the discordantness occurs. sent11: the reversible does not occur. sent12: the squirting happens. sent13: if the Mercurialness occurs the hearts happens. sent14: the non-reversibleness brings about that the wish and/or the nay occurs. sent15: if the fact that the wishing happens hold the punning ladder-back does not occur. sent16: if the pumping happens the cirrus happens. sent17: the punning Carbondale occurs. sent18: if the nay occurs the fact that the punning ladder-back does not occur is correct. sent19: the flicking but not the vesicularness occurs if the semanticness occurs. sent20: the bang occurs if the bang occurs or the mousing does not occur or both. sent21: the punching happens. sent22: the vesicularness and/or that the flicking does not occur is triggered by that the semanticness does not occur. sent23: that the hands and the bespangling inhibitor happens is caused by that the punning ladder-back does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} & {B}) sent2: ¬{K} -> ({I} v ¬{J}) sent3: {A} -> {B} sent4: {L} -> ¬{K} sent5: {D} -> {C} sent6: {FK} -> {JD} sent7: {E} -> ({D} & ¬{A}) sent8: {D} sent9: {I} -> (¬{G} & ¬{H}) sent10: {DM} sent11: ¬{Q} sent12: {GU} sent13: {HE} -> {AP} sent14: ¬{Q} -> ({O} v {P}) sent15: {O} -> ¬{N} sent16: {HF} -> {GB} sent17: {A} sent18: {P} -> ¬{N} sent19: {G} -> ({E} & ¬{F}) sent20: ({I} v ¬{J}) -> {I} sent21: {CB} sent22: ¬{G} -> ({F} v ¬{E}) sent23: ¬{N} -> ({L} & {M})
|
[
"sent3 & sent17 -> int1: the thundershower occurs.; sent5 & sent8 -> int2: the uvealness happens.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent17 -> int1: {B}; sent5 & sent8 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the sprouting dinginess occurs.
|
{JB}
|
[
"sent14 & sent11 -> int3: the wishing and/or the nay occurs.; int3 & sent15 & sent18 -> int4: the punning ladder-back does not occur.; sent23 & int4 -> int5: the hands occurs and the bespangling inhibitor happens.; int5 -> int6: the handing occurs.; sent4 & int6 -> int7: the punning antifungal does not occur.; sent2 & int7 -> int8: the bang happens and/or the mouse does not occur.; sent20 & int8 -> int9: the banging occurs.; sent9 & int9 -> int10: the semanticness does not occur and the deductiveness does not occur.; int10 -> int11: the semanticness does not occur.; sent22 & int11 -> int12: either the vesicularness happens or the flicking does not occur or both.;"
] | 15 | 2 | 2 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the uvealness and the thundershower occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the punning Carbondale does not occur is correct then that both the uvealness and the thundershower occurs is not correct. sent2: the banging occurs and/or the mousing does not occur if the punning antifungal does not occur. sent3: the thundershower happens if the punning Carbondale happens. sent4: that the punning antifungal does not occur is brought about by the hands. sent5: the uvealness occurs if the u-turn happens. sent6: if the sprouting fascist occurs then the publishing happens. sent7: that the u-turn happens but the punning Carbondale does not occur is triggered by that the flick happens. sent8: the u-turn occurs. sent9: that the bang happens leads to that both the non-semanticness and the non-deductiveness happens. sent10: the discordantness occurs. sent11: the reversible does not occur. sent12: the squirting happens. sent13: if the Mercurialness occurs the hearts happens. sent14: the non-reversibleness brings about that the wish and/or the nay occurs. sent15: if the fact that the wishing happens hold the punning ladder-back does not occur. sent16: if the pumping happens the cirrus happens. sent17: the punning Carbondale occurs. sent18: if the nay occurs the fact that the punning ladder-back does not occur is correct. sent19: the flicking but not the vesicularness occurs if the semanticness occurs. sent20: the bang occurs if the bang occurs or the mousing does not occur or both. sent21: the punching happens. sent22: the vesicularness and/or that the flicking does not occur is triggered by that the semanticness does not occur. sent23: that the hands and the bespangling inhibitor happens is caused by that the punning ladder-back does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent17 -> int1: the thundershower occurs.; sent5 & sent8 -> int2: the uvealness happens.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there exists something such that if it is non-Namibian then it is not chronological and/or does not beware is not true.
|
¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x))
|
sent1: the nudnik is not a Namibian or it is orthopedics or both if it does not exterminate. sent2: if something is not a bored either it is not bisectional or it does not rise or both. sent3: the nudnik is not chronological and/or does not beware if it is not a Namibian. sent4: there is something such that if it is not Namibian either it is not chronological or it bewares or both.
|
sent1: ¬{AE}{aa} -> (¬{A}{aa} v {R}{aa}) sent2: (x): ¬{BS}x -> (¬{IH}x v ¬{FC}x) sent3: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent4: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x v {AB}x)
|
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there exists something such that if it is not a bored either it is not bisectional or it is not a rise or both.
|
(Ex): ¬{BS}x -> (¬{IH}x v ¬{FC}x)
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: the fact that the anoa is either not bisectional or not a rise or both hold if it does not bore.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it is non-Namibian then it is not chronological and/or does not beware is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the nudnik is not a Namibian or it is orthopedics or both if it does not exterminate. sent2: if something is not a bored either it is not bisectional or it does not rise or both. sent3: the nudnik is not chronological and/or does not beware if it is not a Namibian. sent4: there is something such that if it is not Namibian either it is not chronological or it bewares or both. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the contraband accepts.
|
{C}{b}
|
sent1: something is a kind of a ceruse if it is odorless. sent2: if the schlockmeister is a ceruse the contraband accepts. sent3: something does not accept if the fact that it accept and is not odorless does not hold. sent4: the schlockmeister is a ceruse and it is odorless.
|
sent1: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent2: {A}{a} -> {C}{b} sent3: (x): ¬({C}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{C}x sent4: ({A}{a} & {B}{a})
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: the schlockmeister is a ceruse.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> int1: {A}{a}; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the contraband does not accept.
|
¬{C}{b}
|
[
"sent3 -> int2: the contraband does not accept if the fact that it does accept and is not odorless is not true.;"
] | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the contraband accepts. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a kind of a ceruse if it is odorless. sent2: if the schlockmeister is a ceruse the contraband accepts. sent3: something does not accept if the fact that it accept and is not odorless does not hold. sent4: the schlockmeister is a ceruse and it is odorless. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> int1: the schlockmeister is a ceruse.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the smack is hydrostatics.
|
{C}{b}
|
sent1: the allotrope sprouts allotrope and/or is a wetland. sent2: The allotrope does sprout allotrope. sent3: that something does sprout allotrope but it is not asynchronous is not right if it is not a Byzantine. sent4: if there exists something such that either it is a greatcoat or it does sprout allotrope or both then the smack is hydrostatics. sent5: the smack is planktonic. sent6: something does pun catananche and/or is armorial. sent7: the smack is hydrostatics if there is something such that it is a greatcoat. sent8: the allotrope does sprout allotrope if the fact that something is hydrostatics and/or it is a greatcoat hold. sent9: the brazier bespangles lamasery if it sprouts Jaffar. sent10: the smack is a capitalist. sent11: if the brazier is immodest then that the nitrobacteria does not bespangle brazier but it is a Byzantine does not hold. sent12: if that something does not bespangle brazier and is a kind of a Byzantine is not right it is not a kind of a Byzantine. sent13: if the brazier does bespangle lamasery then it is not a kind of a footfault and it is immodest. sent14: the fact that the allotrope is hydrostatics but it is not a greatcoat does not hold if the Tanzanian does not sprout allotrope. sent15: if there exists something such that it does sprout allotrope or is a greatcoat or both the allotrope is hydrostatics. sent16: the allotrope does sprout allotrope. sent17: the brazier does sprout Jaffar.
|
sent1: ({B}{a} v {AG}{a}) sent2: {AA}{aa} sent3: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{D}x) sent4: (x): ({A}x v {B}x) -> {C}{b} sent5: {JD}{b} sent6: (Ex): ({ET}x v {BI}x) sent7: (x): {A}x -> {C}{b} sent8: (x): ({C}x v {A}x) -> {B}{a} sent9: {J}{e} -> {I}{e} sent10: {EA}{b} sent11: {F}{e} -> ¬(¬{G}{d} & {E}{d}) sent12: (x): ¬(¬{G}x & {E}x) -> ¬{E}x sent13: {I}{e} -> (¬{H}{e} & {F}{e}) sent14: ¬{B}{c} -> ¬({C}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent15: (x): ({B}x v {A}x) -> {C}{a} sent16: {B}{a} sent17: {J}{e}
|
[
"sent16 -> int1: the allotrope is a kind of a greatcoat and/or it does sprout allotrope.; int1 -> int2: that something is a greatcoat and/or it does sprout allotrope is true.; int2 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent16 -> int1: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): ({A}x v {B}x); int2 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the smack is non-hydrostatics.
|
¬{C}{b}
|
[
"sent3 -> int3: if the fact that the nitrobacteria is a Byzantine is not correct then the fact that it sprouts allotrope and is not asynchronous does not hold.; sent12 -> int4: the nitrobacteria is not a Byzantine if the fact that it does not bespangle brazier and it is a kind of a Byzantine does not hold.; sent9 & sent17 -> int5: the brazier does bespangle lamasery.; sent13 & int5 -> int6: the brazier is not a footfault but it is not non-immodest.; int6 -> int7: the brazier is immodest.; sent11 & int7 -> int8: that the nitrobacteria does not bespangle brazier and is Byzantine is incorrect.; int4 & int8 -> int9: the nitrobacteria is not Byzantine.; int3 & int9 -> int10: that the nitrobacteria does sprout allotrope but it is not asynchronous is false.; int10 -> int11: there is something such that that it sprouts allotrope and it is not asynchronous is not right.;"
] | 11 | 3 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the smack is hydrostatics. ; $context$ = sent1: the allotrope sprouts allotrope and/or is a wetland. sent2: The allotrope does sprout allotrope. sent3: that something does sprout allotrope but it is not asynchronous is not right if it is not a Byzantine. sent4: if there exists something such that either it is a greatcoat or it does sprout allotrope or both then the smack is hydrostatics. sent5: the smack is planktonic. sent6: something does pun catananche and/or is armorial. sent7: the smack is hydrostatics if there is something such that it is a greatcoat. sent8: the allotrope does sprout allotrope if the fact that something is hydrostatics and/or it is a greatcoat hold. sent9: the brazier bespangles lamasery if it sprouts Jaffar. sent10: the smack is a capitalist. sent11: if the brazier is immodest then that the nitrobacteria does not bespangle brazier but it is a Byzantine does not hold. sent12: if that something does not bespangle brazier and is a kind of a Byzantine is not right it is not a kind of a Byzantine. sent13: if the brazier does bespangle lamasery then it is not a kind of a footfault and it is immodest. sent14: the fact that the allotrope is hydrostatics but it is not a greatcoat does not hold if the Tanzanian does not sprout allotrope. sent15: if there exists something such that it does sprout allotrope or is a greatcoat or both the allotrope is hydrostatics. sent16: the allotrope does sprout allotrope. sent17: the brazier does sprout Jaffar. ; $proof$ =
|
sent16 -> int1: the allotrope is a kind of a greatcoat and/or it does sprout allotrope.; int1 -> int2: that something is a greatcoat and/or it does sprout allotrope is true.; int2 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the bespangling Statehouse does not occur but the heedfulness occurs is not correct.
|
¬(¬{AA} & {AB})
|
sent1: if the blackjack does not occur then both the gluttony and the onomasticsness happens. sent2: if the gluttony happens the bespangling Statehouse does not occur but the heedfulness happens. sent3: the fact that the onomasticsness occurs but the blackjack does not occur is not correct. sent4: that the onomasticsness happens if the bespangling Statehouse does not occur but the heedfulness occurs is not incorrect. sent5: if that the conjunction and the non-Mancunianness happens is incorrect then the fact that the blackjack does not occur hold.
|
sent1: ¬{C} -> ({A} & {B}) sent2: {A} -> (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent3: ¬({B} & ¬{C}) sent4: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent5: ¬({D} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{C}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that not the bespangling Statehouse but the heedfulness occurs.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the onomasticsness occurs.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: (¬{AA} & {AB}); sent4 & assump1 -> int1: {B};"
] |
the bespangling Statehouse does not occur and the heedfulness occurs.
|
(¬{AA} & {AB})
|
[] | 8 | 3 | null | 3 | 0 | 3 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the bespangling Statehouse does not occur but the heedfulness occurs is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the blackjack does not occur then both the gluttony and the onomasticsness happens. sent2: if the gluttony happens the bespangling Statehouse does not occur but the heedfulness happens. sent3: the fact that the onomasticsness occurs but the blackjack does not occur is not correct. sent4: that the onomasticsness happens if the bespangling Statehouse does not occur but the heedfulness occurs is not incorrect. sent5: if that the conjunction and the non-Mancunianness happens is incorrect then the fact that the blackjack does not occur hold. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that not the bespangling Statehouse but the heedfulness occurs.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the onomasticsness occurs.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the whipstitch does not pun clavicle and is not a pitfall.
|
(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})
|
sent1: something that does not sprout ammunition puns clavicle and frames. sent2: if the roan does not bespangle ortygan it is not neuralgic and is not interfacial. sent3: the fact that the whipstitch does not sprout ammunition and it is not interfacial is wrong if the oxcart is not neuralgic. sent4: if the roan is not neuralgic and is not interfacial then that the oxcart does not sprout ammunition is not incorrect. sent5: the whipstitch does not sprout ammunition if the fact that it does not pun clavicle and is not a pitfall is wrong. sent6: that something is not a kind of a dicynodont and is not a goldenseal does not hold if it is a frame. sent7: if there exists something such that the fact that it does not sprout ammunition and it is a frame does not hold the whipstitch sprout ammunition.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({AA}x & {A}x) sent2: ¬{E}{c} -> (¬{D}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) sent3: ¬{D}{b} -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent4: (¬{D}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent5: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent6: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{EC}x & ¬{CT}x) sent7: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & {A}x) -> {B}{a}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the whipstitch does not pun clavicle and is not a kind of a pitfall is not right.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the whipstitch does not sprout ammunition.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); sent5 & assump1 -> int1: ¬{B}{a};"
] |
that the acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene is both not a dicynodont and not a goldenseal is not right.
|
¬(¬{EC}{cr} & ¬{CT}{cr})
|
[
"sent6 -> int2: that the acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene is not a kind of a dicynodont and it is not a goldenseal is not right if the fact that it frames is not false.;"
] | 6 | 3 | null | 5 | 0 | 5 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the whipstitch does not pun clavicle and is not a pitfall. ; $context$ = sent1: something that does not sprout ammunition puns clavicle and frames. sent2: if the roan does not bespangle ortygan it is not neuralgic and is not interfacial. sent3: the fact that the whipstitch does not sprout ammunition and it is not interfacial is wrong if the oxcart is not neuralgic. sent4: if the roan is not neuralgic and is not interfacial then that the oxcart does not sprout ammunition is not incorrect. sent5: the whipstitch does not sprout ammunition if the fact that it does not pun clavicle and is not a pitfall is wrong. sent6: that something is not a kind of a dicynodont and is not a goldenseal does not hold if it is a frame. sent7: if there exists something such that the fact that it does not sprout ammunition and it is a frame does not hold the whipstitch sprout ammunition. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the whipstitch does not pun clavicle and is not a kind of a pitfall is not right.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the whipstitch does not sprout ammunition.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it is not a yurt but inefficient then that it is not a ruse is true.
|
(Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
sent1: there is something such that if it is not a yurt and not efficient then it is a kind of a ruse. sent2: something that is not mediatory and does not bespangle Cimex is not diatomic. sent3: the fact that the Orangeman is not the ruse if the Orangeman is not a kind of a yurt and is not efficient is not wrong. sent4: there is something such that if it does remonstrate and is not quiet it is not unpardonable. sent5: the Orangeman is a ruse if it is not a yurt and not efficient. sent6: if the diva is both not a clown and not non-astigmatic then it is not a Rutledge. sent7: there exists something such that if it is both communal and not a sheepshead it does not sprout unhealthiness.
|
sent1: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent2: (x): (¬{GK}x & ¬{IE}x) -> ¬{HG}x sent3: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent4: (Ex): ({HP}x & ¬{BR}x) -> ¬{DJ}x sent5: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent6: (¬{JH}{ip} & {GB}{ip}) -> ¬{AU}{ip} sent7: (Ex): ({ER}x & ¬{DE}x) -> ¬{AG}x
|
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there exists something such that if it is not mediatory and it does not bespangle Cimex then it is not diatomic.
|
(Ex): (¬{GK}x & ¬{IE}x) -> ¬{HG}x
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: if the enologist is non-mediatory thing that does not bespangle Cimex then it is not diatomic.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 6 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is not a yurt but inefficient then that it is not a ruse is true. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is not a yurt and not efficient then it is a kind of a ruse. sent2: something that is not mediatory and does not bespangle Cimex is not diatomic. sent3: the fact that the Orangeman is not the ruse if the Orangeman is not a kind of a yurt and is not efficient is not wrong. sent4: there is something such that if it does remonstrate and is not quiet it is not unpardonable. sent5: the Orangeman is a ruse if it is not a yurt and not efficient. sent6: if the diva is both not a clown and not non-astigmatic then it is not a Rutledge. sent7: there exists something such that if it is both communal and not a sheepshead it does not sprout unhealthiness. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the esthetician is not paleontological.
|
¬{B}{c}
|
sent1: the fact that the esthetician is paleontological does not hold if the stabber does not hoe prostration and it does not avalanche. sent2: the fumitory is a degradation. sent3: the stabber does not hoe prostration and is not a kind of an avalanche if the fumitory is a degradation.
|
sent1: (¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{c} sent2: {A}{a} sent3: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b})
|
[
"sent3 & sent2 -> int1: the stabber does not hoe prostration and it is not an avalanche.; int1 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent2 -> int1: (¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}); int1 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the esthetician is not paleontological. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the esthetician is paleontological does not hold if the stabber does not hoe prostration and it does not avalanche. sent2: the fumitory is a degradation. sent3: the stabber does not hoe prostration and is not a kind of an avalanche if the fumitory is a degradation. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent2 -> int1: the stabber does not hoe prostration and it is not an avalanche.; int1 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the hotel-casino does not hoe ultracentrifugation.
|
¬{D}{b}
|
sent1: if the DISA does bespangle ladder-back then it is a kind of a capriciousness. sent2: if the hotel-casino is not a wilding but it is a fucoid it is not a shapelessness. sent3: the leaf-miner is not a kind of a surfacing. sent4: the fact that the hotel-casino does not hoe ultracentrifugation is true if it is not a kind of a shapelessness and it is a kind of a wilding. sent5: the hotel-casino is not gastroesophageal but it does bespangle operationalism. sent6: the ladder-back is not a kind of a shapelessness. sent7: something that is not a fucoid is not gingival and hoes ultracentrifugation. sent8: the hotel-casino is a kind of a wilding. sent9: the fact that the hotel-casino is a wilding hold if the DISA is a shapelessness. sent10: the leaf-miner does pun Father but it is not a remainder if it is not a surfacing. sent11: the fact that the DISA is a fucoid is true. sent12: the DISA is a fucoid and it is a shapelessness. sent13: something is wilding and a capriciousness if it does not bespangle ladder-back. sent14: the fact that the DISA is not a wilding and it is not a kind of a shapelessness is false if it is a capriciousness. sent15: if that something is a wilding is correct either it is not a fucoid or it is not a kind of a shapelessness or both.
|
sent1: {F}{a} -> {E}{a} sent2: (¬{C}{b} & {A}{b}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent3: ¬{I}{c} sent4: (¬{B}{b} & {C}{b}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent5: (¬{EK}{b} & {FL}{b}) sent6: ¬{B}{jj} sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{FG}x & {D}x) sent8: {C}{b} sent9: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent10: ¬{I}{c} -> ({G}{c} & ¬{H}{c}) sent11: {A}{a} sent12: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent13: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({C}x & {E}x) sent14: {E}{a} -> ¬(¬{C}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent15: (x): {C}x -> (¬{A}x v ¬{B}x)
|
[
"sent12 -> int1: the DISA is a shapelessness.;"
] |
[
"sent12 -> int1: {B}{a};"
] |
the DISA is not gingival but it does hoe ultracentrifugation.
|
(¬{FG}{a} & {D}{a})
|
[
"sent7 -> int2: the DISA is not gingival and does hoe ultracentrifugation if it is not a fucoid.;"
] | 6 | 3 | null | 13 | 0 | 13 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the hotel-casino does not hoe ultracentrifugation. ; $context$ = sent1: if the DISA does bespangle ladder-back then it is a kind of a capriciousness. sent2: if the hotel-casino is not a wilding but it is a fucoid it is not a shapelessness. sent3: the leaf-miner is not a kind of a surfacing. sent4: the fact that the hotel-casino does not hoe ultracentrifugation is true if it is not a kind of a shapelessness and it is a kind of a wilding. sent5: the hotel-casino is not gastroesophageal but it does bespangle operationalism. sent6: the ladder-back is not a kind of a shapelessness. sent7: something that is not a fucoid is not gingival and hoes ultracentrifugation. sent8: the hotel-casino is a kind of a wilding. sent9: the fact that the hotel-casino is a wilding hold if the DISA is a shapelessness. sent10: the leaf-miner does pun Father but it is not a remainder if it is not a surfacing. sent11: the fact that the DISA is a fucoid is true. sent12: the DISA is a fucoid and it is a shapelessness. sent13: something is wilding and a capriciousness if it does not bespangle ladder-back. sent14: the fact that the DISA is not a wilding and it is not a kind of a shapelessness is false if it is a capriciousness. sent15: if that something is a wilding is correct either it is not a fucoid or it is not a kind of a shapelessness or both. ; $proof$ =
|
sent12 -> int1: the DISA is a shapelessness.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if it is not a sharpness then the fact that it is not nondisposable and it is not horary is not true.
|
(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
sent1: that something is not nondisposable and it is not horary does not hold if it is not a sharpness. sent2: if the fatback is not a sharpness the fact that it is not nondisposable but horary is false. sent3: if something is non-Manchurian it is non-arbitrative and is not a tuckahoe. sent4: if something is not a kind of a sharpness then that it is a kind of disposable thing that is horary is wrong. sent5: that something is not arbitrative and does not transgress is false if it does not sprout Platanus. sent6: that something is a kind of non-nondisposable thing that is not horary is false if it is a kind of a sharpness. sent7: there is something such that if it is a sharpness the fact that it is not nondisposable and it is not horary is not correct. sent8: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not superhuman hold it does not transitivize and it does not pun history. sent9: there exists something such that if it is not a sharpness the fact that it is not nondisposable and it is horary does not hold. sent10: if the fatback is not a sharpness the fact that it is nondisposable but not horary is not correct. sent11: there exists something such that if it is not a renter then it does not pun contributor and is not a proclivity. sent12: if something is not a sharpness then it is not nondisposable and it is not horary. sent13: if the fatback is not carotid it is not a sharpness and not domestic. sent14: if the fatback is not a kind of a Tantrist then that it is not a fiberscope and not nondisposable does not hold. sent15: if something is not a kind of a Vancouver then that it is a kind of a pelisse and it is not nonharmonic is not correct. sent16: if the fatback is a kind of a sharpness the fact that it is both not nondisposable and not horary is not right. sent17: that the fatback is pneumococcal and does not sprout bummer does not hold if it is not nondisposable.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent2: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: (x): ¬{EH}x -> (¬{DN}x & ¬{GM}x) sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent5: (x): ¬{IL}x -> ¬(¬{DN}x & ¬{DP}x) sent6: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent7: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent8: (Ex): ¬{DB}x -> (¬{ES}x & ¬{HM}x) sent9: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent10: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent11: (Ex): ¬{IS}x -> (¬{EN}x & ¬{IT}x) sent12: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent13: ¬{BF}{aa} -> (¬{A}{aa} & ¬{AM}{aa}) sent14: ¬{GN}{aa} -> ¬(¬{IC}{aa} & ¬{AA}{aa}) sent15: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬({HQ}x & ¬{DM}x) sent16: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent17: ¬{AA}{aa} -> ¬({CA}{aa} & ¬{DO}{aa})
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: the fact that the fatback is not nondisposable and is not horary is false if it is not a kind of a sharpness.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there exists something such that if it does not sprout Platanus then the fact that it is not arbitrative and it does not transgress is not true.
|
(Ex): ¬{IL}x -> ¬(¬{DN}x & ¬{DP}x)
|
[
"sent5 -> int2: that the facial is not arbitrative and it does not transgress does not hold if it does not sprout Platanus.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 2 | 2 | 16 | 0 | 16 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is not a sharpness then the fact that it is not nondisposable and it is not horary is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is not nondisposable and it is not horary does not hold if it is not a sharpness. sent2: if the fatback is not a sharpness the fact that it is not nondisposable but horary is false. sent3: if something is non-Manchurian it is non-arbitrative and is not a tuckahoe. sent4: if something is not a kind of a sharpness then that it is a kind of disposable thing that is horary is wrong. sent5: that something is not arbitrative and does not transgress is false if it does not sprout Platanus. sent6: that something is a kind of non-nondisposable thing that is not horary is false if it is a kind of a sharpness. sent7: there is something such that if it is a sharpness the fact that it is not nondisposable and it is not horary is not correct. sent8: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not superhuman hold it does not transitivize and it does not pun history. sent9: there exists something such that if it is not a sharpness the fact that it is not nondisposable and it is horary does not hold. sent10: if the fatback is not a sharpness the fact that it is nondisposable but not horary is not correct. sent11: there exists something such that if it is not a renter then it does not pun contributor and is not a proclivity. sent12: if something is not a sharpness then it is not nondisposable and it is not horary. sent13: if the fatback is not carotid it is not a sharpness and not domestic. sent14: if the fatback is not a kind of a Tantrist then that it is not a fiberscope and not nondisposable does not hold. sent15: if something is not a kind of a Vancouver then that it is a kind of a pelisse and it is not nonharmonic is not correct. sent16: if the fatback is a kind of a sharpness the fact that it is both not nondisposable and not horary is not right. sent17: that the fatback is pneumococcal and does not sprout bummer does not hold if it is not nondisposable. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: the fact that the fatback is not nondisposable and is not horary is false if it is not a kind of a sharpness.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the sulfate is not consistent but it is non-androgenic is not right.
|
¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})
|
sent1: the histaminase is a perch. sent2: that the sulfate is inconsistent and it is androgenic is false. sent3: if the skunk is a summer it is a perch that does not pun balderdash. sent4: if the fact that the sulfate is both inconsistent and androgenic hold the histaminase is not a kind of a perch. sent5: the sulfate is not androgenic.
|
sent1: {B}{b} sent2: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent3: {A}{g} -> ({B}{g} & ¬{CS}{g}) sent4: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent5: ¬{AB}{a}
|
[] |
[] |
the skunk is a perch and does not pun balderdash.
|
({B}{g} & ¬{CS}{g})
|
[] | 5 | 3 | null | 4 | 0 | 4 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the sulfate is not consistent but it is non-androgenic is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the histaminase is a perch. sent2: that the sulfate is inconsistent and it is androgenic is false. sent3: if the skunk is a summer it is a perch that does not pun balderdash. sent4: if the fact that the sulfate is both inconsistent and androgenic hold the histaminase is not a kind of a perch. sent5: the sulfate is not androgenic. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the milestone does not occur is not wrong.
|
¬{D}
|
sent1: that the Skinnerianness happens is prevented by the bloodbath. sent2: either the lyricing or the humanitarianness or both prevents the boskopoidness. sent3: the milestone does not occur if either the courting or the regicide or both happens. sent4: the milestone does not occur if the regicide occurs. sent5: that the courting occurs is not incorrect if the punning cargo happens.
|
sent1: {AO} -> ¬{CF} sent2: ({DB} v {JH}) -> ¬{AN} sent3: ({B} v {C}) -> ¬{D} sent4: {C} -> ¬{D} sent5: {A} -> {B}
|
[] |
[] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | null | 3 | 0 | 3 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = that the milestone does not occur is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: that the Skinnerianness happens is prevented by the bloodbath. sent2: either the lyricing or the humanitarianness or both prevents the boskopoidness. sent3: the milestone does not occur if either the courting or the regicide or both happens. sent4: the milestone does not occur if the regicide occurs. sent5: that the courting occurs is not incorrect if the punning cargo happens. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.