version
stringclasses 1
value | hypothesis
stringlengths 11
215
| hypothesis_formula
stringlengths 3
39
| context
stringlengths 0
2.9k
| context_formula
stringlengths 0
905
| proofs
list | proofs_formula
list | negative_hypothesis
stringlengths 15
193
⌀ | negative_hypothesis_formula
stringlengths 3
37
⌀ | negative_proofs
list | negative_original_tree_depth
int64 0
25
⌀ | original_tree_depth
int64 1
4
| depth
int64 0
3
⌀ | num_formula_distractors
int64 0
22
| num_translation_distractors
int64 0
0
| num_all_distractors
int64 0
22
| proof_label
stringclasses 3
values | negative_proof_label
stringclasses 2
values | world_assump_label
stringclasses 3
values | negative_world_assump_label
stringclasses 2
values | prompt_serial
stringlengths 89
3.09k
| proof_serial
stringlengths 11
654
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DeductionInstance
|
the depreciation does not occur.
|
¬{C}
|
sent1: the dioeciousness happens and the incriminating stripper occurs. sent2: both the undergrowing and the incriminating Sokoro happens. sent3: the fact that not the depreciation but the incriminating Kimberley occurs is not right if the ruddling Burnham does not occur. sent4: the fact that the depreciation does not occur is true if the ruddling Burnham and the incriminating Kimberley occurs. sent5: the extrapolating occurs. sent6: the unknowableness happens. sent7: the incriminating Kimberley occurs. sent8: if that not the Celtic but the sparring spironolactone occurs is false then the ruddling Burnham does not occur. sent9: the shrouding flagpole happens and the whooshing happens. sent10: the overhandness happens. sent11: the phlebectomy occurs. sent12: if that the retaliation happens is not false the fact that the Celticness does not occur but the sparring spironolactone occurs does not hold. sent13: that the incriminating LSD happens is prevented by that both the joylessness and the sparring reflector occurs. sent14: if that not the depreciation but the incriminating Kimberley occurs is not correct the fact that the depreciation happens is correct. sent15: the retaliation and the pneumonicness happens if the narrowing does not occur. sent16: the ruddling Burnham happens. sent17: the sparring spironolactone occurs. sent18: the slinking occurs.
|
sent1: ({GF} & {GT}) sent2: ({BO} & {DJ}) sent3: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{C} & {B}) sent4: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent5: {FN} sent6: {FE} sent7: {B} sent8: ¬(¬{E} & {D}) -> ¬{A} sent9: ({IU} & {HK}) sent10: {IN} sent11: {DR} sent12: {F} -> ¬(¬{E} & {D}) sent13: ({HI} & {CN}) -> ¬{CI} sent14: ¬(¬{C} & {B}) -> {C} sent15: ¬{H} -> ({F} & {G}) sent16: {A} sent17: {D} sent18: {GH}
|
[
"sent16 & sent7 -> int1: both the ruddling Burnham and the incriminating Kimberley occurs.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent16 & sent7 -> int1: ({A} & {B}); sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the depreciation happens hold.
|
{C}
|
[] | 10 | 2 | 2 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the depreciation does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the dioeciousness happens and the incriminating stripper occurs. sent2: both the undergrowing and the incriminating Sokoro happens. sent3: the fact that not the depreciation but the incriminating Kimberley occurs is not right if the ruddling Burnham does not occur. sent4: the fact that the depreciation does not occur is true if the ruddling Burnham and the incriminating Kimberley occurs. sent5: the extrapolating occurs. sent6: the unknowableness happens. sent7: the incriminating Kimberley occurs. sent8: if that not the Celtic but the sparring spironolactone occurs is false then the ruddling Burnham does not occur. sent9: the shrouding flagpole happens and the whooshing happens. sent10: the overhandness happens. sent11: the phlebectomy occurs. sent12: if that the retaliation happens is not false the fact that the Celticness does not occur but the sparring spironolactone occurs does not hold. sent13: that the incriminating LSD happens is prevented by that both the joylessness and the sparring reflector occurs. sent14: if that not the depreciation but the incriminating Kimberley occurs is not correct the fact that the depreciation happens is correct. sent15: the retaliation and the pneumonicness happens if the narrowing does not occur. sent16: the ruddling Burnham happens. sent17: the sparring spironolactone occurs. sent18: the slinking occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent16 & sent7 -> int1: both the ruddling Burnham and the incriminating Kimberley occurs.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the weatherman is a cingulum.
|
{A}{a}
|
sent1: something is a chichipe if it is a cingulum. sent2: the fact that the phosphocreatine is not a chichipe and not fossil is incorrect. sent3: that the phosphocreatine is not a kind of a chichipe and is a fossil is not true. sent4: the fact that something is non-fossil and it is not a chichipe does not hold if it is Monacan. sent5: the six is a cingulum if that it is not a fossil and it is not a cingulum is not right. sent6: that the phosphocreatine is a kind of a chichipe but it is not fossil is not true. sent7: that the weatherman is a kind of the fossil if the weatherman is a kind of a cingulum is true. sent8: the cero is not a cingulum. sent9: if that that something is both non-fossil and not a chichipe is right is false it is a kind of a cingulum. sent10: the fact that the weatherman is not fossil hold if that the phosphocreatine is not a chichipe and it is not a fossil is not right.
|
sent1: (x): {A}x -> {C}x sent2: ¬(¬{C}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent3: ¬(¬{C}{b} & {B}{b}) sent4: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) sent5: ¬(¬{B}{dh} & ¬{A}{dh}) -> {A}{dh} sent6: ¬({C}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent7: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent8: ¬{A}{et} sent9: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) -> {A}x sent10: ¬(¬{C}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the weatherman is a cingulum.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the weatherman is a kind of a fossil is not wrong.; sent10 & sent2 -> int2: the weatherman is not a kind of a fossil.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}{a}; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent10 & sent2 -> int2: ¬{B}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the weatherman is a cingulum.
|
{A}{a}
|
[
"sent9 -> int4: if the fact that the weatherman is not a fossil and it is not a chichipe does not hold it is a cingulum.; sent4 -> int5: that the weatherman is both not fossil and not a chichipe is not correct if the fact that it is Monacan is correct.;"
] | 5 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the weatherman is a cingulum. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a chichipe if it is a cingulum. sent2: the fact that the phosphocreatine is not a chichipe and not fossil is incorrect. sent3: that the phosphocreatine is not a kind of a chichipe and is a fossil is not true. sent4: the fact that something is non-fossil and it is not a chichipe does not hold if it is Monacan. sent5: the six is a cingulum if that it is not a fossil and it is not a cingulum is not right. sent6: that the phosphocreatine is a kind of a chichipe but it is not fossil is not true. sent7: that the weatherman is a kind of the fossil if the weatherman is a kind of a cingulum is true. sent8: the cero is not a cingulum. sent9: if that that something is both non-fossil and not a chichipe is right is false it is a kind of a cingulum. sent10: the fact that the weatherman is not fossil hold if that the phosphocreatine is not a chichipe and it is not a fossil is not right. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the weatherman is a cingulum.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the weatherman is a kind of a fossil is not wrong.; sent10 & sent2 -> int2: the weatherman is not a kind of a fossil.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the toboggan happens.
|
{D}
|
sent1: the incriminating paranoid does not occur and the vegetation does not occur if the shrouding exordium happens. sent2: the incriminating buoy is brought about by that the taps does not occur. sent3: if the taps happens the shrouding proturan occurs. sent4: if the thunderstorm occurs the incriminating libido occurs or the banding does not occur or both. sent5: that the enactment does not occur and the shrouding proturan does not occur is brought about by that the incriminating affluent does not occur. sent6: if the shrouding proturan occurs the tobogganing occurs. sent7: that the pinch but not the incriminating affluent occurs is brought about by that the vegetation does not occur. sent8: the miracle and the taps occurs. sent9: the thunderstorm happens.
|
sent1: {J} -> (¬{I} & ¬{H}) sent2: ¬{B} -> {AM} sent3: {B} -> {C} sent4: {M} -> ({L} v ¬{K}) sent5: ¬{F} -> (¬{E} & ¬{C}) sent6: {C} -> {D} sent7: ¬{H} -> ({G} & ¬{F}) sent8: ({A} & {B}) sent9: {M}
|
[
"sent8 -> int1: the taps happens.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the shrouding proturan occurs.; int2 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 -> int1: {B}; int1 & sent3 -> int2: {C}; int2 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the tobogganing does not occur.
|
¬{D}
|
[
"sent4 & sent9 -> int3: the incriminating libido occurs or the banding does not occur or both.;"
] | 10 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 6 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the toboggan happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the incriminating paranoid does not occur and the vegetation does not occur if the shrouding exordium happens. sent2: the incriminating buoy is brought about by that the taps does not occur. sent3: if the taps happens the shrouding proturan occurs. sent4: if the thunderstorm occurs the incriminating libido occurs or the banding does not occur or both. sent5: that the enactment does not occur and the shrouding proturan does not occur is brought about by that the incriminating affluent does not occur. sent6: if the shrouding proturan occurs the tobogganing occurs. sent7: that the pinch but not the incriminating affluent occurs is brought about by that the vegetation does not occur. sent8: the miracle and the taps occurs. sent9: the thunderstorm happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 -> int1: the taps happens.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the shrouding proturan occurs.; int2 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the presentist incriminates ninety.
|
{A}{a}
|
sent1: the presentist does incriminate ninety if there is something such that the fact that it is not a utilization or it is a string or both is false. sent2: there exists nothing that is not a utilization or does string or both.
|
sent1: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent2: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x)
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: the fact that the steelmaker is either not a utilization or a string or both is not right.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that that either it is not a kind of a utilization or it is a string or both is not correct.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x); int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the presentist incriminates ninety. ; $context$ = sent1: the presentist does incriminate ninety if there is something such that the fact that it is not a utilization or it is a string or both is false. sent2: there exists nothing that is not a utilization or does string or both. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> int1: the fact that the steelmaker is either not a utilization or a string or both is not right.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that that either it is not a kind of a utilization or it is a string or both is not correct.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there exists something such that if it is not cash-and-carry it does not spar encore and it does not incriminate levorotation is wrong.
|
¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x))
|
sent1: if the jersey is not cash-and-carry it does not spar encore. sent2: there exists something such that if it is not cash-and-carry it does not spar encore. sent3: if the jersey is not cash-and-carry then it does not spar encore and it does not incriminate levorotation. sent4: there exists something such that if it is cash-and-carry it does not spar encore and it does not incriminate levorotation. sent5: if the jersey is not cash-and-carry then it does not spar encore and does incriminate levorotation. sent6: there exists something such that if it is not cash-and-carry it spars encore and it does not incriminate levorotation. sent7: the jersey does not spar encore and it does not incriminate levorotation if it is cash-and-carry. sent8: there is something such that if it is not cash-and-carry then it does not spar encore and it incriminates levorotation. sent9: there is something such that if the fact that it is non-cash-and-carry is true it does not incriminate levorotation.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬{AA}{aa} sent2: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬{AA}x sent3: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent4: (Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent5: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent6: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent7: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent8: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent9: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬{AB}x
|
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it is not cash-and-carry it does not spar encore and it does not incriminate levorotation is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the jersey is not cash-and-carry it does not spar encore. sent2: there exists something such that if it is not cash-and-carry it does not spar encore. sent3: if the jersey is not cash-and-carry then it does not spar encore and it does not incriminate levorotation. sent4: there exists something such that if it is cash-and-carry it does not spar encore and it does not incriminate levorotation. sent5: if the jersey is not cash-and-carry then it does not spar encore and does incriminate levorotation. sent6: there exists something such that if it is not cash-and-carry it spars encore and it does not incriminate levorotation. sent7: the jersey does not spar encore and it does not incriminate levorotation if it is cash-and-carry. sent8: there is something such that if it is not cash-and-carry then it does not spar encore and it incriminates levorotation. sent9: there is something such that if the fact that it is non-cash-and-carry is true it does not incriminate levorotation. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the regionalness does not occur.
|
¬{E}
|
sent1: if the maltreatment does not occur and the shrouding harmonium does not occur then the regionalness happens. sent2: if the ruddling Paleocene does not occur then the emotionalness does not occur and the shrouding keratinization does not occur. sent3: if the familialness does not occur then that the shrouding beth happens and the bovineness occurs is wrong. sent4: if the maltreatment does not occur then both the crosscheck and the shrouding harmonium occurs. sent5: both the shrouding Maryland and the vegetalness happens if the emotionalness does not occur. sent6: if the shrouding Maryland occurs then the maltreatment does not occur and the shrouding harmonium does not occur. sent7: if that the vegetalness does not occur hold the regionalness does not occur. sent8: if that the shrouding beth and the bovineness occurs is not right the ruddling Paleocene does not occur. sent9: both the shrouding harmonium and the maltreatment happens.
|
sent1: (¬{B} & ¬{A}) -> {E} sent2: ¬{H} -> (¬{F} & ¬{G}) sent3: ¬{K} -> ¬({J} & {I}) sent4: ¬{B} -> ({BP} & {A}) sent5: ¬{F} -> ({C} & {D}) sent6: {C} -> (¬{B} & ¬{A}) sent7: ¬{D} -> ¬{E} sent8: ¬({J} & {I}) -> ¬{H} sent9: ({A} & {B})
|
[
"sent9 -> int1: the maltreatment happens.; int1 -> int2: the maltreatment and/or the shrouding Maryland occurs.;"
] |
[
"sent9 -> int1: {B}; int1 -> int2: ({B} v {C});"
] |
the regionalness occurs.
|
{E}
|
[] | 11 | 4 | null | 7 | 0 | 7 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the regionalness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the maltreatment does not occur and the shrouding harmonium does not occur then the regionalness happens. sent2: if the ruddling Paleocene does not occur then the emotionalness does not occur and the shrouding keratinization does not occur. sent3: if the familialness does not occur then that the shrouding beth happens and the bovineness occurs is wrong. sent4: if the maltreatment does not occur then both the crosscheck and the shrouding harmonium occurs. sent5: both the shrouding Maryland and the vegetalness happens if the emotionalness does not occur. sent6: if the shrouding Maryland occurs then the maltreatment does not occur and the shrouding harmonium does not occur. sent7: if that the vegetalness does not occur hold the regionalness does not occur. sent8: if that the shrouding beth and the bovineness occurs is not right the ruddling Paleocene does not occur. sent9: both the shrouding harmonium and the maltreatment happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 -> int1: the maltreatment happens.; int1 -> int2: the maltreatment and/or the shrouding Maryland occurs.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if it is not weak it is a wellpoint and it is not a kind of a quibbler.
|
(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
sent1: if the atropine is not weak then it does not quibble. sent2: something is a kind of a localization but it is not a Caucasus if it is a Tahitian. sent3: if that the atropine is not non-weak hold then the fact that it is a wellpoint and it is not a kind of a quibbler is true. sent4: if something is not weak that it is not a quibbler is not wrong. sent5: there exists something such that if it is icterogenic then it homologizes and it is not augitic. sent6: something that is not nihilistic is a kind of a quibbler that does not sicken.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬{AB}{aa} sent2: (x): {ES}x -> ({BO}x & ¬{AD}x) sent3: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{AB}x sent5: (Ex): {GU}x -> ({C}x & ¬{IP}x) sent6: (x): ¬{BB}x -> ({AB}x & ¬{BE}x)
|
[] |
[] |
if that the atropine is not nihilistic hold it is a quibbler and it does not sicken.
|
¬{BB}{aa} -> ({AB}{aa} & ¬{BE}{aa})
|
[
"sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 2 | null | 6 | 0 | 6 |
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is not weak it is a wellpoint and it is not a kind of a quibbler. ; $context$ = sent1: if the atropine is not weak then it does not quibble. sent2: something is a kind of a localization but it is not a Caucasus if it is a Tahitian. sent3: if that the atropine is not non-weak hold then the fact that it is a wellpoint and it is not a kind of a quibbler is true. sent4: if something is not weak that it is not a quibbler is not wrong. sent5: there exists something such that if it is icterogenic then it homologizes and it is not augitic. sent6: something that is not nihilistic is a kind of a quibbler that does not sicken. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the jobber does not shroud keratinization.
|
¬{D}{c}
|
sent1: the homo is unwomanly if the keratinization does shroud homo. sent2: there is something such that it is a subgenus. sent3: that the keratinization is not a subgenus is not incorrect if it is not eastern. sent4: the fact that the homo is a plop but not non-chaffy is not true if the buckskins does not ruddle marbles. sent5: that the keratinization does shroud homo is not wrong. sent6: if the fact that something is not abnormal and it does not incriminate Tien-pao is false then it does not ruddle marbles. sent7: something shrouds keratinization if it does not shroud homo. sent8: That the homo does shroud keratinization is not wrong. sent9: the homo shrouds keratinization if the jobber is a subgenus. sent10: the fact that something is both unwomanly and eastern is not wrong. sent11: the homo is a kind of a subgenus if that it is eastern is true. sent12: if that the homo does plop and it is chaffy does not hold then the keratinization is not eastern. sent13: there exists something such that it ruddles Lamaism. sent14: the homo is eastern. sent15: there are unwomanly things.
|
sent1: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent2: (Ex): {C}x sent3: ¬{E}{a} -> ¬{C}{a} sent4: ¬{H}{d} -> ¬({G}{b} & {F}{b}) sent5: {A}{a} sent6: (x): ¬(¬{I}x & ¬{J}x) -> ¬{H}x sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> {D}x sent8: {AA}{aa} sent9: {C}{c} -> {D}{b} sent10: (Ex): ({B}x & {E}x) sent11: {E}{b} -> {C}{b} sent12: ¬({G}{b} & {F}{b}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent13: (Ex): {K}x sent14: {E}{b} sent15: (Ex): {B}x
|
[
"sent1 & sent5 -> int1: the homo is unwomanly.; sent11 & sent14 -> int2: that the homo is a subgenus is correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the homo is a subgenus and is unwomanly.; int3 -> int4: something is a kind of a subgenus and it is unwomanly.;"
] |
[
"sent1 & sent5 -> int1: {B}{b}; sent11 & sent14 -> int2: {C}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({C}{b} & {B}{b}); int3 -> int4: (Ex): ({C}x & {B}x);"
] |
the jobber does shroud keratinization.
|
{D}{c}
|
[
"sent7 -> int5: if the jobber does not shroud homo then it shrouds keratinization.; sent6 -> int6: if the fact that the buckskins is not abnormal and does not incriminate Tien-pao does not hold it does not ruddle marbles.;"
] | 9 | 4 | null | 11 | 0 | 11 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the jobber does not shroud keratinization. ; $context$ = sent1: the homo is unwomanly if the keratinization does shroud homo. sent2: there is something such that it is a subgenus. sent3: that the keratinization is not a subgenus is not incorrect if it is not eastern. sent4: the fact that the homo is a plop but not non-chaffy is not true if the buckskins does not ruddle marbles. sent5: that the keratinization does shroud homo is not wrong. sent6: if the fact that something is not abnormal and it does not incriminate Tien-pao is false then it does not ruddle marbles. sent7: something shrouds keratinization if it does not shroud homo. sent8: That the homo does shroud keratinization is not wrong. sent9: the homo shrouds keratinization if the jobber is a subgenus. sent10: the fact that something is both unwomanly and eastern is not wrong. sent11: the homo is a kind of a subgenus if that it is eastern is true. sent12: if that the homo does plop and it is chaffy does not hold then the keratinization is not eastern. sent13: there exists something such that it ruddles Lamaism. sent14: the homo is eastern. sent15: there are unwomanly things. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 & sent5 -> int1: the homo is unwomanly.; sent11 & sent14 -> int2: that the homo is a subgenus is correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the homo is a subgenus and is unwomanly.; int3 -> int4: something is a kind of a subgenus and it is unwomanly.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there exists something such that if that it is open-hearth and is not non-tectonic does not hold then it is not a boards does not hold.
|
¬((Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x)
|
sent1: if that the spellbinder is open-hearth and is tectonic does not hold it does not board. sent2: the spellbinder is not tectonic if it is a kind of biaxial thing that is aerodynamic. sent3: if the spellbinder is mature and a boards then it is not social. sent4: if that something does snap and it spars interpretation is not correct it is not aciculate.
|
sent1: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent2: ({AU}{aa} & {HJ}{aa}) -> ¬{AB}{aa} sent3: ({CR}{aa} & {B}{aa}) -> ¬{JF}{aa} sent4: (x): ¬({AD}x & {BG}x) -> ¬{FQ}x
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that there exists something such that if that it snaps and it spars interpretation is wrong it is not aciculate hold.
|
(Ex): ¬({AD}x & {BG}x) -> ¬{FQ}x
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: if the fact that the fact that the teletypewriter is a snap and it spars interpretation is not right is true then it is not aciculate.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if that it is open-hearth and is not non-tectonic does not hold then it is not a boards does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the spellbinder is open-hearth and is tectonic does not hold it does not board. sent2: the spellbinder is not tectonic if it is a kind of biaxial thing that is aerodynamic. sent3: if the spellbinder is mature and a boards then it is not social. sent4: if that something does snap and it spars interpretation is not correct it is not aciculate. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the Excellency is not a Lemnaceae and is not a grudge is wrong.
|
¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a})
|
sent1: if something is not a Seneca it is not a Lemnaceae and does not grudge. sent2: if something is not a kind of a Seneca the fact that it is not a immotility and is not a kind of a bluepoint does not hold. sent3: the fact that that the pub is not north but an honorific is false if the foothold is not a escalader is not false. sent4: the verticillium is not a kind of a Seneca. sent5: that the verticillium is not trustworthy is right. sent6: the fact that if there is something such that it is not a grudge then the fact that the verticillium is a kind of a Seneca but it is not a Lemnaceae is not true is not wrong. sent7: something that is not a kind of a Mindanao is not a escalader and is a kind of a crackdown.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{GS}x & ¬{IR}x) sent3: ¬{F}{c} -> ¬(¬{D}{b} & {E}{b}) sent4: ¬{A}{aa} sent5: ¬{CD}{aa} sent6: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({A}{aa} & ¬{B}{aa}) sent7: (x): ¬{H}x -> (¬{F}x & {G}x)
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: there is something such that it is not a Seneca.;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> int1: (Ex): ¬{A}x;"
] |
the fact that the Excellency is not a kind of a immotility and is not a kind of a bluepoint does not hold.
|
¬(¬{GS}{a} & ¬{IR}{a})
|
[
"sent2 -> int2: that the Excellency is both not a immotility and not a bluepoint does not hold if the fact that it is not a kind of a Seneca hold.;"
] | 4 | 2 | null | 6 | 0 | 6 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the Excellency is not a Lemnaceae and is not a grudge is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not a Seneca it is not a Lemnaceae and does not grudge. sent2: if something is not a kind of a Seneca the fact that it is not a immotility and is not a kind of a bluepoint does not hold. sent3: the fact that that the pub is not north but an honorific is false if the foothold is not a escalader is not false. sent4: the verticillium is not a kind of a Seneca. sent5: that the verticillium is not trustworthy is right. sent6: the fact that if there is something such that it is not a grudge then the fact that the verticillium is a kind of a Seneca but it is not a Lemnaceae is not true is not wrong. sent7: something that is not a kind of a Mindanao is not a escalader and is a kind of a crackdown. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> int1: there is something such that it is not a Seneca.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the spot does not shroud drove.
|
¬{C}{a}
|
sent1: the peptone is not a Hippoboscidae if the schoolgirl does not incriminate colorimeter but it is a Hippoboscidae. sent2: the nine-spot is pentangular and does not incriminate panelist if the peptone is not a Hippoboscidae. sent3: something is a Hippoboscidae if it is a castigation and is a Bunche. sent4: if the fact that something does not shroud raftered and is a kind of a storyline is not true then the fact that it does shroud raftered is not false. sent5: The panelist incriminates elastin. sent6: if something is not accessible it incriminates Polyborus and is exoteric. sent7: if something is not a kind of a castigation and does incriminate panelist it does shroud drove. sent8: the fact that the schoolgirl does not shroud raftered but it is a storyline does not hold if the maulstick is a searobin. sent9: if the nine-spot is pentangular and does not incriminate panelist the hacker incriminate panelist. sent10: the elastin is a Hippoboscidae if it is a kind of a castigation that is a Bunche. sent11: the elastin is not a castigation. sent12: the elastin incriminates panelist. sent13: if something that does incriminate Polyborus shrouds raftered then it is not a deal. sent14: something is a kind of a Hippoboscidae if it is not a kind of a castigation and is a Bunche. sent15: the laager is not a kind of a RHD. sent16: the Death does shroud drove if the hacker does shroud drove. sent17: if the laager is not a RHD the maulstick is diatonic and it is a searobin. sent18: everything is inaccessible and hydrostatic. sent19: if the elastin is a Hippoboscidae that incriminates panelist the spot does not shroud drove. sent20: that something does not incriminate colorimeter but it is a Hippoboscidae if it is not a kind of a deal is not incorrect.
|
sent1: (¬{F}{e} & {B}{e}) -> ¬{B}{d} sent2: ¬{B}{d} -> ({D}{c} & ¬{A}{c}) sent3: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent4: (x): ¬(¬{G}x & {I}x) -> {G}x sent5: {AC}{ab} sent6: (x): ¬{N}x -> ({H}x & {L}x) sent7: (x): (¬{AA}x & {A}x) -> {C}x sent8: {J}{f} -> ¬(¬{G}{e} & {I}{e}) sent9: ({D}{c} & ¬{A}{c}) -> {A}{b} sent10: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent11: ¬{AA}{aa} sent12: {A}{aa} sent13: (x): ({H}x & {G}x) -> ¬{E}x sent14: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent15: ¬{M}{g} sent16: {C}{b} -> {C}{ik} sent17: ¬{M}{g} -> ({K}{f} & {J}{f}) sent18: (x): (¬{N}x & {O}x) sent19: ({B}{aa} & {A}{aa}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent20: (x): ¬{E}x -> (¬{F}x & {B}x)
|
[
"sent14 -> int1: if the elastin is not a castigation but it is a Bunche then it is a Hippoboscidae.;"
] |
[
"sent14 -> int1: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa};"
] |
the Death shrouds drove and it is telluric.
|
({C}{ik} & {GJ}{ik})
|
[] | 4 | 4 | null | 17 | 0 | 17 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the spot does not shroud drove. ; $context$ = sent1: the peptone is not a Hippoboscidae if the schoolgirl does not incriminate colorimeter but it is a Hippoboscidae. sent2: the nine-spot is pentangular and does not incriminate panelist if the peptone is not a Hippoboscidae. sent3: something is a Hippoboscidae if it is a castigation and is a Bunche. sent4: if the fact that something does not shroud raftered and is a kind of a storyline is not true then the fact that it does shroud raftered is not false. sent5: The panelist incriminates elastin. sent6: if something is not accessible it incriminates Polyborus and is exoteric. sent7: if something is not a kind of a castigation and does incriminate panelist it does shroud drove. sent8: the fact that the schoolgirl does not shroud raftered but it is a storyline does not hold if the maulstick is a searobin. sent9: if the nine-spot is pentangular and does not incriminate panelist the hacker incriminate panelist. sent10: the elastin is a Hippoboscidae if it is a kind of a castigation that is a Bunche. sent11: the elastin is not a castigation. sent12: the elastin incriminates panelist. sent13: if something that does incriminate Polyborus shrouds raftered then it is not a deal. sent14: something is a kind of a Hippoboscidae if it is not a kind of a castigation and is a Bunche. sent15: the laager is not a kind of a RHD. sent16: the Death does shroud drove if the hacker does shroud drove. sent17: if the laager is not a RHD the maulstick is diatonic and it is a searobin. sent18: everything is inaccessible and hydrostatic. sent19: if the elastin is a Hippoboscidae that incriminates panelist the spot does not shroud drove. sent20: that something does not incriminate colorimeter but it is a Hippoboscidae if it is not a kind of a deal is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =
|
sent14 -> int1: if the elastin is not a castigation but it is a Bunche then it is a Hippoboscidae.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the troposphere shrouds pastry is right.
|
{D}{a}
|
sent1: the grocery spars fore-topmast. sent2: if that the paragonite is a delivery is not incorrect the hypnotist does incriminate oilstove. sent3: the partaker does ruddle scarlet. sent4: the troposphere does not ruddle scarlet. sent5: if something edges that it does spar fore-topmast hold. sent6: the troposphere does not ruddle scarlet and does edge. sent7: the fact that the pontifical does not spar fore-topmast is not wrong if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a lymphokine. sent8: if the troposphere does not ruddle remuda then it is not a lymphokine and not a mushroom. sent9: the troposphere is Erasmian if it is a Myroxylon. sent10: if the oilstove does not ruddle remuda the rofecoxib is not a lymphokine and is not a mushroom. sent11: if that the chlorophyll does block and does not ruddle remuda does not hold then the oilstove does not ruddle remuda. sent12: that the troposphere shrouds pastry is true if it spars fore-topmast. sent13: if something is not a lymphokine and it is not a mushroom then it spars fore-topmast. sent14: that the troposphere is not an anti is not incorrect. sent15: the notepaper does ruddle scarlet. sent16: the paragonite is a delivery if that it does not incriminate Eustachio and is not a kind of a delivery is not true. sent17: the pontifical does shroud pastry if it ruddles scarlet. sent18: either the troposphere is not an edged or it ruddles scarlet or both if the rofecoxib does spar fore-topmast. sent19: that something does not shroud pastry is true if it is not an edged and/or does ruddle scarlet.
|
sent1: {C}{gg} sent2: {J}{f} -> {I}{e} sent3: {A}{fh} sent4: ¬{A}{a} sent5: (x): {B}x -> {C}x sent6: (¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent7: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬{C}{ij} sent8: ¬{G}{a} -> (¬{E}{a} & ¬{F}{a}) sent9: {ES}{a} -> {GS}{a} sent10: ¬{G}{c} -> (¬{E}{b} & ¬{F}{b}) sent11: ¬({H}{d} & ¬{G}{d}) -> ¬{G}{c} sent12: {C}{a} -> {D}{a} sent13: (x): (¬{E}x & ¬{F}x) -> {C}x sent14: ¬{CJ}{a} sent15: {A}{cs} sent16: ¬(¬{L}{f} & ¬{J}{f}) -> {J}{f} sent17: {A}{ij} -> {D}{ij} sent18: {C}{b} -> (¬{B}{a} v {A}{a}) sent19: (x): (¬{B}x v {A}x) -> ¬{D}x
|
[
"sent6 -> int1: the troposphere is a kind of an edged.; sent5 -> int2: the troposphere does spar fore-topmast if it is an edged.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the troposphere does spar fore-topmast hold.; int3 & sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent5 -> int2: {B}{a} -> {C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {C}{a}; int3 & sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the pontifical does shroud pastry.
|
{D}{ij}
|
[] | 7 | 3 | 3 | 16 | 0 | 16 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the troposphere shrouds pastry is right. ; $context$ = sent1: the grocery spars fore-topmast. sent2: if that the paragonite is a delivery is not incorrect the hypnotist does incriminate oilstove. sent3: the partaker does ruddle scarlet. sent4: the troposphere does not ruddle scarlet. sent5: if something edges that it does spar fore-topmast hold. sent6: the troposphere does not ruddle scarlet and does edge. sent7: the fact that the pontifical does not spar fore-topmast is not wrong if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a lymphokine. sent8: if the troposphere does not ruddle remuda then it is not a lymphokine and not a mushroom. sent9: the troposphere is Erasmian if it is a Myroxylon. sent10: if the oilstove does not ruddle remuda the rofecoxib is not a lymphokine and is not a mushroom. sent11: if that the chlorophyll does block and does not ruddle remuda does not hold then the oilstove does not ruddle remuda. sent12: that the troposphere shrouds pastry is true if it spars fore-topmast. sent13: if something is not a lymphokine and it is not a mushroom then it spars fore-topmast. sent14: that the troposphere is not an anti is not incorrect. sent15: the notepaper does ruddle scarlet. sent16: the paragonite is a delivery if that it does not incriminate Eustachio and is not a kind of a delivery is not true. sent17: the pontifical does shroud pastry if it ruddles scarlet. sent18: either the troposphere is not an edged or it ruddles scarlet or both if the rofecoxib does spar fore-topmast. sent19: that something does not shroud pastry is true if it is not an edged and/or does ruddle scarlet. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 -> int1: the troposphere is a kind of an edged.; sent5 -> int2: the troposphere does spar fore-topmast if it is an edged.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the troposphere does spar fore-topmast hold.; int3 & sent12 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it does not warm it is prescriptive and does not shroud mire.
|
(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
sent1: there exists something such that if it is not warming then it does not shroud mire. sent2: there exists something such that if it is not warming then it is prescriptive and it does shroud mire. sent3: something is an aftermath but it is not a thrash if it does not shroud mire. sent4: the biont is a kind of prescriptive thing that does not shroud mire if it warms. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not warming then it is prescriptive. sent6: the biont is gastroesophageal but not a spiv if it does not warm. sent7: if the biont is not unilateral the fact that it does not warm is not incorrect. sent8: the biont is a kind of prescriptive thing that does not shroud mire if it does not warm. sent9: there is something such that if it warms then it is prescriptive and it does not shroud mire. sent10: if the aperitif is not lacustrine it does not shroud mire.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬{AB}x sent2: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: (x): ¬{AB}x -> ({DQ}x & ¬{ET}x) sent4: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent5: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> {AA}x sent6: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({FS}{aa} & ¬{DI}{aa}) sent7: ¬{CS}{aa} -> ¬{A}{aa} sent8: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent9: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent10: ¬{BM}{n} -> ¬{AB}{n}
|
[
"sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the pentode is an aftermath but it is not a thrash if it does not shroud mire.
|
¬{AB}{hj} -> ({DQ}{hj} & ¬{ET}{hj})
|
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it does not warm it is prescriptive and does not shroud mire. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it is not warming then it does not shroud mire. sent2: there exists something such that if it is not warming then it is prescriptive and it does shroud mire. sent3: something is an aftermath but it is not a thrash if it does not shroud mire. sent4: the biont is a kind of prescriptive thing that does not shroud mire if it warms. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not warming then it is prescriptive. sent6: the biont is gastroesophageal but not a spiv if it does not warm. sent7: if the biont is not unilateral the fact that it does not warm is not incorrect. sent8: the biont is a kind of prescriptive thing that does not shroud mire if it does not warm. sent9: there is something such that if it warms then it is prescriptive and it does not shroud mire. sent10: if the aperitif is not lacustrine it does not shroud mire. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if it either is a kind of a Aberdeen or is a kind of a Gauguin or both it is not a kind of a Romans.
|
(Ex): ({AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
sent1: the kanzu is not a Romans if either it is a Aberdeen or it is a Gauguin or both. sent2: if the kanzu is fruitful and/or it is a kind of a Romans it is not a ticking. sent3: something is not a perambulation if it is a self-flagellation and/or is a kind of a loofah. sent4: the maulstick is angiomatous if it is either spatiotemporal or a Aberdeen or both.
|
sent1: ({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent2: ({R}{aa} v {B}{aa}) -> ¬{GM}{aa} sent3: (x): ({IG}x v {AK}x) -> ¬{DT}x sent4: ({EO}{er} v {AA}{er}) -> {JJ}{er}
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there exists something such that if it is a kind of a self-flagellation or it is a loofah or both it is not a perambulation.
|
(Ex): ({IG}x v {AK}x) -> ¬{DT}x
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: if either the pontifical is a kind of a self-flagellation or it is a loofah or both it is not a perambulation.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it either is a kind of a Aberdeen or is a kind of a Gauguin or both it is not a kind of a Romans. ; $context$ = sent1: the kanzu is not a Romans if either it is a Aberdeen or it is a Gauguin or both. sent2: if the kanzu is fruitful and/or it is a kind of a Romans it is not a ticking. sent3: something is not a perambulation if it is a self-flagellation and/or is a kind of a loofah. sent4: the maulstick is angiomatous if it is either spatiotemporal or a Aberdeen or both. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it is a kind of strange a thatch it is not tolerable.
|
(Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
sent1: if the sexton is strange and a thatch then it is not tolerable. sent2: there is something such that if it is strange and it thatches then it is tolerable. sent3: there exists something such that if it is a willet that is Spanish then it is not nectar-rich.
|
sent1: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent2: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent3: (Ex): ({U}x & {IC}x) -> ¬{AD}x
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is a kind of strange a thatch it is not tolerable. ; $context$ = sent1: if the sexton is strange and a thatch then it is not tolerable. sent2: there is something such that if it is strange and it thatches then it is tolerable. sent3: there exists something such that if it is a willet that is Spanish then it is not nectar-rich. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the olecranon is not unpresidential.
|
¬{C}{b}
|
sent1: the Weimaraner does incriminate waxycap. sent2: something is unpresidential thing that does spar gutter if it does not incriminate waxycap. sent3: that the oilstove does incriminate waxycap is not false. sent4: The gutter does spar Weimaraner. sent5: if the Weimaraner spars gutter and it does incriminate waxycap the olecranon is not unpresidential. sent6: The waxycap does incriminate Weimaraner.
|
sent1: {B}{a} sent2: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({C}x & {A}x) sent3: {B}{an} sent4: {AA}{aa} sent5: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent6: {AB}{ab}
|
[] |
[] |
the olecranon is unpresidential.
|
{C}{b}
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: if the olecranon does not incriminate waxycap then it is unpresidential thing that does spar gutter.;"
] | 5 | 2 | null | 4 | 0 | 4 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the olecranon is not unpresidential. ; $context$ = sent1: the Weimaraner does incriminate waxycap. sent2: something is unpresidential thing that does spar gutter if it does not incriminate waxycap. sent3: that the oilstove does incriminate waxycap is not false. sent4: The gutter does spar Weimaraner. sent5: if the Weimaraner spars gutter and it does incriminate waxycap the olecranon is not unpresidential. sent6: The waxycap does incriminate Weimaraner. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the anole does ruddle adolescent.
|
{A}{c}
|
sent1: if the Carolingian does not ruddle adolescent and is inactive then the anole is fishy. sent2: the Carolingian is not fishy. sent3: if the Carolingian is a kind of non-fishy thing that is inactive then the adolescent is a bun. sent4: if the adolescent is fishy the Carolingian is a bun. sent5: something does not ruddle adolescent if that it is a bun but not a smoothbark does not hold. sent6: the anole is not a description and is not non-downstage. sent7: if the adolescent is a bun the anole ruddles adolescent. sent8: that the Carolingian does not ruddle adolescent is right if the fact that the adolescent does ruddle adolescent and is a bun is not true. sent9: that the anole is both a bun and not a smoothbark is false if it is a cockroach. sent10: if the Carolingian is a bun the adolescent is fishy. sent11: the anole is inactive. sent12: the adolescent is a bun if the Carolingian is fishy and it is inactive. sent13: the anole is fishy.
|
sent1: (¬{A}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {AA}{c} sent2: ¬{AA}{a} sent3: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent4: {AA}{b} -> {B}{a} sent5: (x): ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{A}x sent6: (¬{AG}{c} & {JC}{c}) sent7: {B}{b} -> {A}{c} sent8: ¬({A}{b} & {B}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent9: {D}{c} -> ¬({B}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) sent10: {B}{a} -> {AA}{b} sent11: {AB}{c} sent12: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent13: {AA}{c}
|
[] |
[] |
the enchantress is inactive.
|
{AB}{gp}
|
[] | 5 | 2 | null | 11 | 0 | 11 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the anole does ruddle adolescent. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Carolingian does not ruddle adolescent and is inactive then the anole is fishy. sent2: the Carolingian is not fishy. sent3: if the Carolingian is a kind of non-fishy thing that is inactive then the adolescent is a bun. sent4: if the adolescent is fishy the Carolingian is a bun. sent5: something does not ruddle adolescent if that it is a bun but not a smoothbark does not hold. sent6: the anole is not a description and is not non-downstage. sent7: if the adolescent is a bun the anole ruddles adolescent. sent8: that the Carolingian does not ruddle adolescent is right if the fact that the adolescent does ruddle adolescent and is a bun is not true. sent9: that the anole is both a bun and not a smoothbark is false if it is a cockroach. sent10: if the Carolingian is a bun the adolescent is fishy. sent11: the anole is inactive. sent12: the adolescent is a bun if the Carolingian is fishy and it is inactive. sent13: the anole is fishy. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the electroplate is not rabbinical.
|
¬{C}{b}
|
sent1: the invitation does not incriminate fingernail. sent2: the electroplate is Aeolian but it is not rabbinical if the invitation is a prostatectomy. sent3: the enginery is not a Rastafarian. sent4: that the electroplate is not a kind of a Aeolian is not wrong. sent5: if the fact that something is both not rabbinical and not a history is not true the fact that it is rabbinical is correct. sent6: the hydrophyte does not incriminate theremin. sent7: the electroplate is not a kind of a prostatectomy if the invitation is not a Aeolian but it is a Rastafarian. sent8: something is not operational and/or is a history if it does not spar gharry. sent9: the invitation does not incriminate theremin. sent10: the putrefaction is non-exothermic. sent11: if the invitation does not incriminate theremin and is Rastafarian the electroplate is not a prostatectomy. sent12: the invitation does not incriminate theremin but it is a kind of a Rastafarian. sent13: the invitation does not incriminate theremin but it is a Aeolian. sent14: if the putrefaction is operational that it is not rabbinical and it is not a history does not hold. sent15: something is non-monoclinic and is non-Rastafarian if it is not Aeolian. sent16: something is not a kind of a Aeolian and it is not a prostatectomy if it is rabbinical. sent17: if that something ruddles Lamaism and does not spar gharry is wrong it is operational. sent18: something is rabbinical if it is not a prostatectomy and is not a kind of a Aeolian. sent19: the electroplate is not a prostatectomy if the invitation incriminates theremin and is a Rastafarian. sent20: the fact that something ruddles Lamaism but it does not spar gharry is wrong if it is not exothermic.
|
sent1: ¬{FQ}{a} sent2: {B}{a} -> ({A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent3: ¬{AB}{dt} sent4: ¬{A}{b} sent5: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{E}x) -> {C}x sent6: ¬{AA}{di} sent7: (¬{A}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent8: (x): ¬{F}x -> (¬{D}x v {E}x) sent9: ¬{AA}{a} sent10: ¬{H}{il} sent11: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent12: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent13: (¬{AA}{a} & {A}{a}) sent14: {D}{il} -> ¬(¬{C}{il} & ¬{E}{il}) sent15: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{HD}x & ¬{AB}x) sent16: (x): {C}x -> (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) sent17: (x): ¬({G}x & ¬{F}x) -> {D}x sent18: (x): (¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) -> {C}x sent19: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent20: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬({G}x & ¬{F}x)
|
[
"sent11 & sent12 -> int1: the electroplate is not a prostatectomy.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the electroplate is not a prostatectomy and is not a Aeolian.; sent18 -> int3: if the electroplate is not a prostatectomy and it is not a Aeolian it is rabbinical.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent11 & sent12 -> int1: ¬{B}{b}; int1 & sent4 -> int2: (¬{B}{b} & ¬{A}{b}); sent18 -> int3: (¬{B}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) -> {C}{b}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the putrefaction is a kind of non-monoclinic thing that is not a kind of a Rastafarian is not wrong.
|
(¬{HD}{il} & ¬{AB}{il})
|
[
"sent15 -> int4: the putrefaction is non-monoclinic and non-Rastafarian if that it is not Aeolian is not false.; sent16 -> int5: the fact that the putrefaction is not Aeolian and it is not a kind of a prostatectomy is true if it is rabbinical.; sent5 -> int6: that the putrefaction is rabbinical is right if that it is not rabbinical and it is not a history is incorrect.; sent17 -> int7: the putrefaction is operational if that it ruddles Lamaism and does not spar gharry is false.; sent20 -> int8: if the fact that the putrefaction is not exothermic is right the fact that it ruddles Lamaism and does not spar gharry is not right.; int8 & sent10 -> int9: the fact that the putrefaction ruddles Lamaism and does not spar gharry does not hold.; int7 & int9 -> int10: the putrefaction is operational.; sent14 & int10 -> int11: the fact that the putrefaction is not rabbinical and it is not a kind of a history does not hold.; int6 & int11 -> int12: the putrefaction is rabbinical.; int5 & int12 -> int13: the putrefaction is not a Aeolian and it is not a prostatectomy.; int13 -> int14: the putrefaction is non-Aeolian.; int4 & int14 -> hypothesis;"
] | 8 | 3 | 3 | 16 | 0 | 16 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the electroplate is not rabbinical. ; $context$ = sent1: the invitation does not incriminate fingernail. sent2: the electroplate is Aeolian but it is not rabbinical if the invitation is a prostatectomy. sent3: the enginery is not a Rastafarian. sent4: that the electroplate is not a kind of a Aeolian is not wrong. sent5: if the fact that something is both not rabbinical and not a history is not true the fact that it is rabbinical is correct. sent6: the hydrophyte does not incriminate theremin. sent7: the electroplate is not a kind of a prostatectomy if the invitation is not a Aeolian but it is a Rastafarian. sent8: something is not operational and/or is a history if it does not spar gharry. sent9: the invitation does not incriminate theremin. sent10: the putrefaction is non-exothermic. sent11: if the invitation does not incriminate theremin and is Rastafarian the electroplate is not a prostatectomy. sent12: the invitation does not incriminate theremin but it is a kind of a Rastafarian. sent13: the invitation does not incriminate theremin but it is a Aeolian. sent14: if the putrefaction is operational that it is not rabbinical and it is not a history does not hold. sent15: something is non-monoclinic and is non-Rastafarian if it is not Aeolian. sent16: something is not a kind of a Aeolian and it is not a prostatectomy if it is rabbinical. sent17: if that something ruddles Lamaism and does not spar gharry is wrong it is operational. sent18: something is rabbinical if it is not a prostatectomy and is not a kind of a Aeolian. sent19: the electroplate is not a prostatectomy if the invitation incriminates theremin and is a Rastafarian. sent20: the fact that something ruddles Lamaism but it does not spar gharry is wrong if it is not exothermic. ; $proof$ =
|
sent11 & sent12 -> int1: the electroplate is not a prostatectomy.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the electroplate is not a prostatectomy and is not a Aeolian.; sent18 -> int3: if the electroplate is not a prostatectomy and it is not a Aeolian it is rabbinical.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that that the cosmetician is a kind of a profiteer but it is not a holism is true does not hold.
|
¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})
|
sent1: if the fact that something is not a Fergon is true then the fact that it does profiteer and is not a holism is not right. sent2: the fact that the fact that the cosmetician is a profiteer and it is a holism is true is not true. sent3: that something is a profiteer that is a kind of a holism is not correct if it is not a kind of a Fergon. sent4: if that the fact that the fact that the cosmetician is a Tongan and it is a Fergon hold is not true is true it is not a kind of a Fergon. sent5: the fact that the cosmetician is a profiteer and it is a holism is incorrect if it is not a Fergon. sent6: everything does shroud edged and does not incriminate Weld. sent7: the fact that something does spar Clay or it does not spar crouton or both is not right if it is a kind of a Hinayanism. sent8: the commissioner is not a kind of a tablemate if there is something such that that it does spar Clay or it does not spar crouton or both is not true. sent9: the fact that the cosmetician is a Tongan and it is a kind of a Fergon is not right. sent10: the turner is not a kind of a connivance if that the Weld is a kind of a connivance that does spar crouton is not correct. sent11: that the cosmetician is Tongan but it does not incriminate keratinization is false. sent12: if the keratinization spars Clay but it is not a Hinayanism it is not a kind of a tablemate. sent13: if there is something such that either it is a connivance or it is a kind of a Tongan or both the antiparticle is not a kind of a Fergon. sent14: the trowel is not non-bilious and it is a kind of a Tongan if there exists something such that it is not a tablemate. sent15: the fact that the cosmetician does incriminate mantel and does not ossify is false if it does not spar pyrrhotite. sent16: the tobramycin is not a holism. sent17: the fact that the Weld is a connivance and spars crouton is not right. sent18: if the keratinization is not a tablemate then that the biscuit is not non-bilious and not non-Tongan is incorrect. sent19: if that the biscuit is bilious and it is Tongan is not correct then the commissioner is not a kind of a Tongan. sent20: that the cosmetician is a holism does not hold if the fact that the fact that the trowel is a Tongan and it is a holism is false hold. sent21: something is a kind of a Hinayanism if it shrouds edged and it does not incriminate Weld.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent2: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent4: ¬({B}{aa} & {A}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent5: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent6: (x): ({J}x & ¬{I}x) sent7: (x): {H}x -> ¬({G}x v ¬{F}x) sent8: (x): ¬({G}x v ¬{F}x) -> ¬{E}{b} sent9: ¬({B}{aa} & {A}{aa}) sent10: ¬({C}{e} & {F}{e}) -> ¬{C}{c} sent11: ¬({B}{aa} & ¬{HS}{aa}) sent12: ({G}{f} & ¬{H}{f}) -> ¬{E}{f} sent13: (x): ({C}x v {B}x) -> ¬{A}{gq} sent14: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({D}{a} & {B}{a}) sent15: ¬{BE}{aa} -> ¬({JF}{aa} & ¬{DB}{aa}) sent16: ¬{AB}{du} sent17: ¬({C}{e} & {F}{e}) sent18: ¬{E}{f} -> ¬({D}{d} & {B}{d}) sent19: ¬({D}{d} & {B}{d}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent20: ¬({B}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{AB}{aa} sent21: (x): ({J}x & ¬{I}x) -> {H}x
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: the fact that the cosmetician is a profiteer and not a holism does not hold if it is not a Fergon.; sent4 & sent9 -> int2: the cosmetician is not a Fergon.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); sent4 & sent9 -> int2: ¬{A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the cosmetician profiteers and is not a kind of a holism.
|
({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})
|
[
"sent10 & sent17 -> int3: the turner is not a connivance.; int3 -> int4: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a connivance.;"
] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that that the cosmetician is a kind of a profiteer but it is not a holism is true does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something is not a Fergon is true then the fact that it does profiteer and is not a holism is not right. sent2: the fact that the fact that the cosmetician is a profiteer and it is a holism is true is not true. sent3: that something is a profiteer that is a kind of a holism is not correct if it is not a kind of a Fergon. sent4: if that the fact that the fact that the cosmetician is a Tongan and it is a Fergon hold is not true is true it is not a kind of a Fergon. sent5: the fact that the cosmetician is a profiteer and it is a holism is incorrect if it is not a Fergon. sent6: everything does shroud edged and does not incriminate Weld. sent7: the fact that something does spar Clay or it does not spar crouton or both is not right if it is a kind of a Hinayanism. sent8: the commissioner is not a kind of a tablemate if there is something such that that it does spar Clay or it does not spar crouton or both is not true. sent9: the fact that the cosmetician is a Tongan and it is a kind of a Fergon is not right. sent10: the turner is not a kind of a connivance if that the Weld is a kind of a connivance that does spar crouton is not correct. sent11: that the cosmetician is Tongan but it does not incriminate keratinization is false. sent12: if the keratinization spars Clay but it is not a Hinayanism it is not a kind of a tablemate. sent13: if there is something such that either it is a connivance or it is a kind of a Tongan or both the antiparticle is not a kind of a Fergon. sent14: the trowel is not non-bilious and it is a kind of a Tongan if there exists something such that it is not a tablemate. sent15: the fact that the cosmetician does incriminate mantel and does not ossify is false if it does not spar pyrrhotite. sent16: the tobramycin is not a holism. sent17: the fact that the Weld is a connivance and spars crouton is not right. sent18: if the keratinization is not a tablemate then that the biscuit is not non-bilious and not non-Tongan is incorrect. sent19: if that the biscuit is bilious and it is Tongan is not correct then the commissioner is not a kind of a Tongan. sent20: that the cosmetician is a holism does not hold if the fact that the fact that the trowel is a Tongan and it is a holism is false hold. sent21: something is a kind of a Hinayanism if it shrouds edged and it does not incriminate Weld. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: the fact that the cosmetician is a profiteer and not a holism does not hold if it is not a Fergon.; sent4 & sent9 -> int2: the cosmetician is not a Fergon.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the solitaire does not occur and the entericness does not occur.
|
(¬{E} & ¬{D})
|
sent1: the nocturnalness does not occur. sent2: if the incriminating bilingualism does not occur then the fact that the initiation happens but the Waterloo does not occur is not right. sent3: that the impropriety does not occur and the hierarchicalness does not occur is wrong if the ruddling Bartlesville does not occur. sent4: the flash does not occur if the bottom-upness happens. sent5: the entericness does not occur. sent6: the Waterloo happens. sent7: the sunbeam happens. sent8: the entericness does not occur if the initiation does not occur. sent9: that both the Nepalese and the Waterloo happens prevents the initiation. sent10: the non-ichorousness or the wholesomeness or both prevents that the sparring chlorite happens. sent11: the unwholesomeness does not occur if that the impropriety does not occur and the hierarchicalness does not occur is not correct. sent12: the bottom-upness happens and the glabellarness occurs if the sparring chlorite does not occur. sent13: if the flashing does not occur the incriminating bilingualism does not occur. sent14: the incriminating myelinization occurs and the daisylikeness occurs. sent15: the fact that the Nepalese occurs is not wrong. sent16: if the refunding does not occur then the ruddling sunlamp happens and the ruddling Bartlesville does not occur. sent17: if that the Nepaleseness does not occur hold that the fact that the solitaire does not occur and the entericness does not occur is correct is not correct.
|
sent1: ¬{EU} sent2: ¬{F} -> ¬({C} & ¬{B}) sent3: ¬{O} -> ¬(¬{N} & ¬{M}) sent4: {H} -> ¬{G} sent5: ¬{D} sent6: {B} sent7: {DU} sent8: ¬{C} -> ¬{D} sent9: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent10: (¬{K} v ¬{L}) -> ¬{J} sent11: ¬(¬{N} & ¬{M}) -> ¬{L} sent12: ¬{J} -> ({H} & {I}) sent13: ¬{G} -> ¬{F} sent14: ({EN} & {EH}) sent15: {A} sent16: ¬{Q} -> ({P} & ¬{O}) sent17: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{E} & ¬{D})
|
[
"sent15 & sent6 -> int1: the Nepaleseness and the Waterloo happens.; sent9 & int1 -> int2: that the initiation does not occur is true.;"
] |
[
"sent15 & sent6 -> int1: ({A} & {B}); sent9 & int1 -> int2: ¬{C};"
] |
that that the solitaire does not occur and the entericness does not occur is right is not correct.
|
¬(¬{E} & ¬{D})
|
[] | 14 | 3 | null | 14 | 0 | 14 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the solitaire does not occur and the entericness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the nocturnalness does not occur. sent2: if the incriminating bilingualism does not occur then the fact that the initiation happens but the Waterloo does not occur is not right. sent3: that the impropriety does not occur and the hierarchicalness does not occur is wrong if the ruddling Bartlesville does not occur. sent4: the flash does not occur if the bottom-upness happens. sent5: the entericness does not occur. sent6: the Waterloo happens. sent7: the sunbeam happens. sent8: the entericness does not occur if the initiation does not occur. sent9: that both the Nepalese and the Waterloo happens prevents the initiation. sent10: the non-ichorousness or the wholesomeness or both prevents that the sparring chlorite happens. sent11: the unwholesomeness does not occur if that the impropriety does not occur and the hierarchicalness does not occur is not correct. sent12: the bottom-upness happens and the glabellarness occurs if the sparring chlorite does not occur. sent13: if the flashing does not occur the incriminating bilingualism does not occur. sent14: the incriminating myelinization occurs and the daisylikeness occurs. sent15: the fact that the Nepalese occurs is not wrong. sent16: if the refunding does not occur then the ruddling sunlamp happens and the ruddling Bartlesville does not occur. sent17: if that the Nepaleseness does not occur hold that the fact that the solitaire does not occur and the entericness does not occur is correct is not correct. ; $proof$ =
|
sent15 & sent6 -> int1: the Nepaleseness and the Waterloo happens.; sent9 & int1 -> int2: that the initiation does not occur is true.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if it is gymnosophical then the fact that it is not single-lane and it is not a kind of a Javanese is false.
|
(Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
sent1: the fact that the migrant is not single-lane and it is not a Javanese is not correct if it is gymnosophical.
|
sent1: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is gymnosophical then the fact that it is not single-lane and it is not a kind of a Javanese is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the migrant is not single-lane and it is not a Javanese is not correct if it is gymnosophical. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the entrepreneur does not shroud Carrere is right.
|
¬{B}{a}
|
sent1: something does not uncoil and is not Luxembourgian if it hollos. sent2: the entrepreneur does not hollo if that it is a RISC that does incriminate pastry is wrong. sent3: the perturbation does shroud Carrere. sent4: the entrepreneur shrouds Carrere if the mattock does lean. sent5: the neuroblast does shroud Carrere. sent6: if the entrepreneur does not hollo then the vagrant does shroud Carrere and is Luxembourgian. sent7: if something is lean then it is a kind of a hardbacked. sent8: the iceberg is fistulous thing that does shroud Carrere. sent9: if something does lean then that it does not uncoil is correct. sent10: if the fact that the withdrawer is not a chlorothiazide but it extrapolates hold the balminess does not extrapolates. sent11: the entrepreneur uncoils. sent12: the iceberg is Luxembourgian and it leans. sent13: the iceberg is Luxembourgian. sent14: the withdrawer is not a chlorothiazide and extrapolates if the niobite is a filtration. sent15: the niobite is a filtration. sent16: if the iceberg does not uncoil the entrepreneur does not shroud Carrere. sent17: that the lilac does not hollo and does incriminate pastry is not true if the balminess is not a RISC. sent18: if that something spars sackbut and is a kind of a RISC is incorrect that it is not a RISC is right. sent19: if something that does not uncoil is not Luxembourgian then it does lean. sent20: that the entrepreneur is not lean hold. sent21: the vagrant does shroud phyle and it does uncoil. sent22: if something does not extrapolate that it does spar sackbut and is a RISC is not correct.
|
sent1: (x): {E}x -> (¬{C}x & ¬{D}x) sent2: ¬({G}{a} & {F}{a}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent3: {B}{co} sent4: {A}{b} -> {B}{a} sent5: {B}{gl} sent6: ¬{E}{a} -> ({B}{gq} & {D}{gq}) sent7: (x): {A}x -> {GS}x sent8: ({T}{aa} & {B}{aa}) sent9: (x): {A}x -> ¬{C}x sent10: (¬{J}{e} & {H}{e}) -> ¬{H}{d} sent11: {C}{a} sent12: ({D}{aa} & {A}{aa}) sent13: {D}{aa} sent14: {K}{f} -> (¬{J}{e} & {H}{e}) sent15: {K}{f} sent16: ¬{C}{aa} -> ¬{B}{a} sent17: ¬{G}{d} -> ¬(¬{E}{c} & {F}{c}) sent18: (x): ¬({I}x & {G}x) -> ¬{G}x sent19: (x): (¬{C}x & ¬{D}x) -> {A}x sent20: ¬{A}{a} sent21: ({GT}{gq} & {C}{gq}) sent22: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬({I}x & {G}x)
|
[
"sent9 -> int1: if the iceberg does lean then it does not uncoil.; sent12 -> int2: the fact that the iceberg is lean is not incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the iceberg does not uncoil.; int3 & sent16 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 -> int1: {A}{aa} -> ¬{C}{aa}; sent12 -> int2: {A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬{C}{aa}; int3 & sent16 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the vagrant does shroud phyle and it is a kind of a hardbacked.
|
({GT}{gq} & {GS}{gq})
|
[
"sent21 -> int4: the vagrant shrouds phyle.; sent7 -> int5: if the vagrant does lean it is a hardbacked.;"
] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the entrepreneur does not shroud Carrere is right. ; $context$ = sent1: something does not uncoil and is not Luxembourgian if it hollos. sent2: the entrepreneur does not hollo if that it is a RISC that does incriminate pastry is wrong. sent3: the perturbation does shroud Carrere. sent4: the entrepreneur shrouds Carrere if the mattock does lean. sent5: the neuroblast does shroud Carrere. sent6: if the entrepreneur does not hollo then the vagrant does shroud Carrere and is Luxembourgian. sent7: if something is lean then it is a kind of a hardbacked. sent8: the iceberg is fistulous thing that does shroud Carrere. sent9: if something does lean then that it does not uncoil is correct. sent10: if the fact that the withdrawer is not a chlorothiazide but it extrapolates hold the balminess does not extrapolates. sent11: the entrepreneur uncoils. sent12: the iceberg is Luxembourgian and it leans. sent13: the iceberg is Luxembourgian. sent14: the withdrawer is not a chlorothiazide and extrapolates if the niobite is a filtration. sent15: the niobite is a filtration. sent16: if the iceberg does not uncoil the entrepreneur does not shroud Carrere. sent17: that the lilac does not hollo and does incriminate pastry is not true if the balminess is not a RISC. sent18: if that something spars sackbut and is a kind of a RISC is incorrect that it is not a RISC is right. sent19: if something that does not uncoil is not Luxembourgian then it does lean. sent20: that the entrepreneur is not lean hold. sent21: the vagrant does shroud phyle and it does uncoil. sent22: if something does not extrapolate that it does spar sackbut and is a RISC is not correct. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 -> int1: if the iceberg does lean then it does not uncoil.; sent12 -> int2: the fact that the iceberg is lean is not incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the iceberg does not uncoil.; int3 & sent16 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it does not constitute it is not technophilic and does not stag.
|
(Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
sent1: if the adolescent is not a nemertean then it is non-off thing that does not constitute. sent2: the adolescent is technophilic but it does not stag if it does not constitute. sent3: there exists something such that if it constitutes it is not technophilic and it is not a stag. sent4: if something does not constitute then it is both not technophilic and not a stag. sent5: there exists something such that if it does not shroud Communion it does not incriminate O and does not ruddle adolescent. sent6: the fact that if the adolescent constitutes the adolescent is non-technophilic thing that does not stag is not false. sent7: if the adolescent does not constitute then it does not stag. sent8: if that the adolescent does not spar certitude hold it does not spar passenger and does not abscond. sent9: the fibrinogen is not a Thermidor and does not incriminate fibrinogen if it is not uninjectable. sent10: if something does not constitute the fact that it is not a kind of a stag is true. sent11: there is something such that if it does not constitute it is both technophilic and not a stag. sent12: there is something such that if that it does not constitute is not false then that it is not a stag is true. sent13: something that constitutes is both not technophilic and not a stag. sent14: if something does not constitute then it is technophilic thing that is not a stag.
|
sent1: ¬{EH}{aa} -> (¬{GA}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa}) sent2: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent3: (Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent5: (Ex): ¬{EN}x -> (¬{AM}x & ¬{DM}x) sent6: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent7: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬{AB}{aa} sent8: ¬{DB}{aa} -> (¬{BM}{aa} & ¬{HN}{aa}) sent9: ¬{DG}{df} -> (¬{BF}{df} & ¬{EM}{df}) sent10: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{AB}x sent11: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent12: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬{AB}x sent13: (x): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent14: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: the adolescent is both not technophilic and not a stag if it does not constitute.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it does not constitute it is not technophilic and does not stag. ; $context$ = sent1: if the adolescent is not a nemertean then it is non-off thing that does not constitute. sent2: the adolescent is technophilic but it does not stag if it does not constitute. sent3: there exists something such that if it constitutes it is not technophilic and it is not a stag. sent4: if something does not constitute then it is both not technophilic and not a stag. sent5: there exists something such that if it does not shroud Communion it does not incriminate O and does not ruddle adolescent. sent6: the fact that if the adolescent constitutes the adolescent is non-technophilic thing that does not stag is not false. sent7: if the adolescent does not constitute then it does not stag. sent8: if that the adolescent does not spar certitude hold it does not spar passenger and does not abscond. sent9: the fibrinogen is not a Thermidor and does not incriminate fibrinogen if it is not uninjectable. sent10: if something does not constitute the fact that it is not a kind of a stag is true. sent11: there is something such that if it does not constitute it is both technophilic and not a stag. sent12: there is something such that if that it does not constitute is not false then that it is not a stag is true. sent13: something that constitutes is both not technophilic and not a stag. sent14: if something does not constitute then it is technophilic thing that is not a stag. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> int1: the adolescent is both not technophilic and not a stag if it does not constitute.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that not the sparring cultism but the carpellariness occurs does not hold.
|
¬(¬{AA} & {AB})
|
sent1: the radiographicness happens if the reflectiveness does not occur. sent2: the radiographicness does not occur if that not the sparring cultism but the carpellariness happens does not hold. sent3: that the sparring SCID does not occur and/or the reflectiveness does not occur is true. sent4: if the sparring SCID does not occur then the radiographicness occurs. sent5: if the fact that the reflectiveness occurs hold that not the sparring cultism but the carpellariness occurs is false.
|
sent1: ¬{A} -> {B} sent2: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent3: (¬{C} v ¬{A}) sent4: ¬{C} -> {B} sent5: {A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & {AB})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that not the sparring cultism but the carpellariness happens is wrong.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the radiographicness does not occur.; sent3 & sent4 & sent1 -> int2: the radiographicness happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}); sent2 & assump1 -> int1: ¬{B}; sent3 & sent4 & sent1 -> int2: {B}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that not the sparring cultism but the carpellariness occurs is incorrect.
|
¬(¬{AA} & {AB})
|
[] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that not the sparring cultism but the carpellariness occurs does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the radiographicness happens if the reflectiveness does not occur. sent2: the radiographicness does not occur if that not the sparring cultism but the carpellariness happens does not hold. sent3: that the sparring SCID does not occur and/or the reflectiveness does not occur is true. sent4: if the sparring SCID does not occur then the radiographicness occurs. sent5: if the fact that the reflectiveness occurs hold that not the sparring cultism but the carpellariness occurs is false. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that not the sparring cultism but the carpellariness happens is wrong.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the radiographicness does not occur.; sent3 & sent4 & sent1 -> int2: the radiographicness happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the sensitization does not incriminate agent-in-place.
|
¬{B}{c}
|
sent1: if the fact that the lekvar does incriminate agent-in-place is not wrong the fact that the sensitization is telephonic and it incriminates anthropophagy is not true. sent2: the wallpaper is telephonic. sent3: if the lekvar incriminates anthropophagy then the sensitization incriminates agent-in-place. sent4: the wallpaper incriminates agent-in-place. sent5: that that the lekvar cohabits and does incriminate anthropophagy is not right is not false. sent6: if the wallpaper is telephonic then the fact that the lekvar cohabits but it does not incriminate anthropophagy is false. sent7: the fact that the sensitization does incriminate agent-in-place if that the lekvar cohabits but it does not incriminate anthropophagy is incorrect is not wrong.
|
sent1: {B}{b} -> ¬({A}{c} & {AB}{c}) sent2: {A}{a} sent3: {AB}{b} -> {B}{c} sent4: {B}{a} sent5: ¬({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent6: {A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent7: ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) -> {B}{c}
|
[
"sent6 & sent2 -> int1: the fact that the lekvar does cohabit but it does not incriminate anthropophagy is incorrect.; int1 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 & sent2 -> int1: ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}); int1 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the sensitization does not incriminate agent-in-place. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the lekvar does incriminate agent-in-place is not wrong the fact that the sensitization is telephonic and it incriminates anthropophagy is not true. sent2: the wallpaper is telephonic. sent3: if the lekvar incriminates anthropophagy then the sensitization incriminates agent-in-place. sent4: the wallpaper incriminates agent-in-place. sent5: that that the lekvar cohabits and does incriminate anthropophagy is not right is not false. sent6: if the wallpaper is telephonic then the fact that the lekvar cohabits but it does not incriminate anthropophagy is false. sent7: the fact that the sensitization does incriminate agent-in-place if that the lekvar cohabits but it does not incriminate anthropophagy is incorrect is not wrong. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 & sent2 -> int1: the fact that the lekvar does cohabit but it does not incriminate anthropophagy is incorrect.; int1 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that something is a salpinx and/or it is uric does not hold.
|
¬((Ex): ({C}x v {B}x))
|
sent1: there is something such that it does shroud skylight. sent2: if something is apogean but it is not a kind of a hypotenuse it is not a kind of a salpinx. sent3: if something is not a kind of a bloodleaf and/or does not ruddle bicycling then it does not ruddle bicycling. sent4: if that something is not unawares and not uric is wrong it is unawares. sent5: the Catawba is uric if it is unawares. sent6: if there exists something such that the fact that it does shroud skylight is correct then the skylight is apogean thing that is not a hypotenuse. sent7: the pellet is not a bloodleaf. sent8: the Catawba is unawares. sent9: something is a kind of a salpinx and/or it is unawares. sent10: if the skylight is not a cloud-cuckoo-land and it is not a salpinx the Catawba is not a kind of a salpinx. sent11: the primate is unawares. sent12: if there exists something such that it does not ruddle bicycling and/or is not a antinode then the skylight is not a kind of a cloud-cuckoo-land. sent13: the granter is a kind of a Sison. sent14: that the bass is not unawares and it is not uric is incorrect if the Catawba is not a kind of a salpinx.
|
sent1: (Ex): {I}x sent2: (x): ({H}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{C}x sent3: (x): (¬{J}x v ¬{F}x) -> ¬{F}x sent4: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) -> {A}x sent5: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent6: (x): {I}x -> ({H}{b} & ¬{G}{b}) sent7: ¬{J}{c} sent8: {A}{a} sent9: (Ex): ({C}x v {A}x) sent10: (¬{E}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent11: {A}{iq} sent12: (x): (¬{F}x v ¬{D}x) -> ¬{E}{b} sent13: {DK}{fr} sent14: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬(¬{A}{ha} & ¬{B}{ha})
|
[
"sent5 & sent8 -> int1: the Catawba is uric.; int1 -> int2: the Catawba is a salpinx and/or is uric.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 & sent8 -> int1: {B}{a}; int1 -> int2: ({C}{a} v {B}{a}); int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the bass is unawares.
|
{A}{ha}
|
[
"sent4 -> int3: the bass is unawares if that it is not unawares and not uric is not correct.; sent3 -> int4: the pellet does not ruddle bicycling if either it is not a kind of a bloodleaf or it does not ruddle bicycling or both.; sent7 -> int5: the pellet is not a bloodleaf and/or it does not ruddle bicycling.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the pellet does not ruddle bicycling.; int6 -> int7: the pellet does not ruddle bicycling and/or it is not a antinode.; int7 -> int8: something does not ruddle bicycling and/or it is not a antinode.; int8 & sent12 -> int9: the skylight is not a cloud-cuckoo-land.; sent2 -> int10: the skylight is not a kind of a salpinx if it is apogean and it is not a hypotenuse.; sent1 & sent6 -> int11: the skylight is both apogean and not a hypotenuse.; int10 & int11 -> int12: the skylight is not a salpinx.; int9 & int12 -> int13: the skylight is not a cloud-cuckoo-land and it is not a kind of a salpinx.; sent10 & int13 -> int14: the Catawba is not a salpinx.; sent14 & int14 -> int15: that the bass is not unawares and it is not uric is not right.; int3 & int15 -> hypothesis;"
] | 9 | 3 | 3 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = that something is a salpinx and/or it is uric does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it does shroud skylight. sent2: if something is apogean but it is not a kind of a hypotenuse it is not a kind of a salpinx. sent3: if something is not a kind of a bloodleaf and/or does not ruddle bicycling then it does not ruddle bicycling. sent4: if that something is not unawares and not uric is wrong it is unawares. sent5: the Catawba is uric if it is unawares. sent6: if there exists something such that the fact that it does shroud skylight is correct then the skylight is apogean thing that is not a hypotenuse. sent7: the pellet is not a bloodleaf. sent8: the Catawba is unawares. sent9: something is a kind of a salpinx and/or it is unawares. sent10: if the skylight is not a cloud-cuckoo-land and it is not a salpinx the Catawba is not a kind of a salpinx. sent11: the primate is unawares. sent12: if there exists something such that it does not ruddle bicycling and/or is not a antinode then the skylight is not a kind of a cloud-cuckoo-land. sent13: the granter is a kind of a Sison. sent14: that the bass is not unawares and it is not uric is incorrect if the Catawba is not a kind of a salpinx. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 & sent8 -> int1: the Catawba is uric.; int1 -> int2: the Catawba is a salpinx and/or is uric.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the meretriciousness does not occur is prevented by that the Rabelaisianness happens.
|
{B} -> {C}
|
sent1: the assortment does not occur. sent2: not the incriminating Ofo but the sizing happens if the Burundi occurs. sent3: if the Burundi does not occur but the Rabelaisianness occurs then the meretriciousness occurs. sent4: if the squirting occurs the non-tomentoseness and the non-meretriciousness happens. sent5: the fact that the Burundiness does not occur hold.
|
sent1: ¬{GF} sent2: {A} -> (¬{JB} & {IF}) sent3: (¬{A} & {B}) -> {C} sent4: {E} -> (¬{D} & ¬{C}) sent5: ¬{A}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Rabelaisianness happens.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the non-Burundiness and the Rabelaisianness happens.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: the meretriciousness happens.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {B}; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: (¬{A} & {B}); sent3 & int1 -> int2: {C}; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
not the incriminating Ofo but the sizing occurs.
|
(¬{JB} & {IF})
|
[] | 7 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the meretriciousness does not occur is prevented by that the Rabelaisianness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the assortment does not occur. sent2: not the incriminating Ofo but the sizing happens if the Burundi occurs. sent3: if the Burundi does not occur but the Rabelaisianness occurs then the meretriciousness occurs. sent4: if the squirting occurs the non-tomentoseness and the non-meretriciousness happens. sent5: the fact that the Burundiness does not occur hold. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Rabelaisianness happens.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the non-Burundiness and the Rabelaisianness happens.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: the meretriciousness happens.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the base is a Heaven but it does not spar mess.
|
({C}{aa} & ¬{D}{aa})
|
sent1: if the Lanai does not spar mess that it does incriminate crested and is a kind of a Heaven does not hold. sent2: the base is not a perpendicular. sent3: that the coriander does not penetrate and spars Corydalus is not correct if that the Sphinx is not anencephalic hold. sent4: the Sphinx is not anencephalic if the fact that it is allophonic and is permissible is not true. sent5: if the base does not shroud archbishopric then it is a consumptive. sent6: the base does not spar hotfoot if it is a kind of Austrian thing that does not spar mess. sent7: the base does not spar mess if it is prokaryotic and it is a perpendicular. sent8: if the fact that something does not penetrate but it spars Corydalus is not true it is prokaryotic. sent9: the base is a kind of a Heaven if it is a kind of a sima. sent10: if the coriander is prokaryotic then the fact that the Lanai incriminates crested and/or it is not perpendicular does not hold. sent11: the fact that something is allophonic and is permissible is not true if it is not a sponginess. sent12: the base is prokaryotic but it is not a perpendicular. sent13: the fact that the margrave is prokaryotic is not wrong. sent14: if the base is a sima it is a Godard. sent15: the egghead is a Heaven but it is not acidotic. sent16: the base is a kind of a sima or it does not incriminate crested or both. sent17: either the Lady does spar coriander or it does not incriminate crested or both. sent18: that the base ruddles Theseus or it is not a Dasyproctidae or both is true. sent19: something is not a sponginess if it is not nasty. sent20: that something is a Heaven but it does not spar mess is wrong if it is a sima. sent21: the Sphinx is not nasty. sent22: if something does not incriminate crested then it is allophonic thing that is not a sima. sent23: if the base is prokaryotic and not a perpendicular it does not spar mess.
|
sent1: ¬{D}{a} -> ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent2: ¬{E}{aa} sent3: ¬{I}{c} -> ¬(¬{G}{b} & {H}{b}) sent4: ¬({J}{c} & {K}{c}) -> ¬{I}{c} sent5: ¬{JF}{aa} -> {CP}{aa} sent6: ({S}{aa} & ¬{D}{aa}) -> ¬{HG}{aa} sent7: ({F}{aa} & {E}{aa}) -> ¬{D}{aa} sent8: (x): ¬(¬{G}x & {H}x) -> {F}x sent9: {A}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent10: {F}{b} -> ¬({B}{a} v ¬{E}{a}) sent11: (x): ¬{L}x -> ¬({J}x & {K}x) sent12: ({F}{aa} & ¬{E}{aa}) sent13: {F}{jj} sent14: {A}{aa} -> {GQ}{aa} sent15: ({C}{fh} & ¬{JJ}{fh}) sent16: ({A}{aa} v ¬{B}{aa}) sent17: ({GL}{cq} v ¬{B}{cq}) sent18: ({FP}{aa} v ¬{BP}{aa}) sent19: (x): ¬{M}x -> ¬{L}x sent20: (x): {A}x -> ¬({C}x & ¬{D}x) sent21: ¬{M}{c} sent22: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({J}x & ¬{A}x) sent23: ({F}{aa} & ¬{E}{aa}) -> ¬{D}{aa}
|
[
"sent23 & sent12 -> int1: that the base does not spar mess is not false.;"
] |
[
"sent23 & sent12 -> int1: ¬{D}{aa};"
] |
either the mess is allophonic or it is not isotropic or both.
|
({J}{cc} v ¬{HN}{cc})
|
[
"sent22 -> int2: the mess is a kind of allophonic thing that is not a kind of a sima if it does not incriminate crested.;"
] | 6 | 3 | null | 19 | 0 | 19 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the base is a Heaven but it does not spar mess. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Lanai does not spar mess that it does incriminate crested and is a kind of a Heaven does not hold. sent2: the base is not a perpendicular. sent3: that the coriander does not penetrate and spars Corydalus is not correct if that the Sphinx is not anencephalic hold. sent4: the Sphinx is not anencephalic if the fact that it is allophonic and is permissible is not true. sent5: if the base does not shroud archbishopric then it is a consumptive. sent6: the base does not spar hotfoot if it is a kind of Austrian thing that does not spar mess. sent7: the base does not spar mess if it is prokaryotic and it is a perpendicular. sent8: if the fact that something does not penetrate but it spars Corydalus is not true it is prokaryotic. sent9: the base is a kind of a Heaven if it is a kind of a sima. sent10: if the coriander is prokaryotic then the fact that the Lanai incriminates crested and/or it is not perpendicular does not hold. sent11: the fact that something is allophonic and is permissible is not true if it is not a sponginess. sent12: the base is prokaryotic but it is not a perpendicular. sent13: the fact that the margrave is prokaryotic is not wrong. sent14: if the base is a sima it is a Godard. sent15: the egghead is a Heaven but it is not acidotic. sent16: the base is a kind of a sima or it does not incriminate crested or both. sent17: either the Lady does spar coriander or it does not incriminate crested or both. sent18: that the base ruddles Theseus or it is not a Dasyproctidae or both is true. sent19: something is not a sponginess if it is not nasty. sent20: that something is a Heaven but it does not spar mess is wrong if it is a sima. sent21: the Sphinx is not nasty. sent22: if something does not incriminate crested then it is allophonic thing that is not a sima. sent23: if the base is prokaryotic and not a perpendicular it does not spar mess. ; $proof$ =
|
sent23 & sent12 -> int1: that the base does not spar mess is not false.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the alendronate is not voluntary.
|
¬{C}{b}
|
sent1: the perpendicular is nonsteroidal. sent2: the perpendicular is either nonsteroidal or not a voluntary or both if there exists something such that it is nonsteroidal. sent3: the alendronate does not spar Amaethon. sent4: the perpendicular is an advanced and it is a kind of a voluntary. sent5: that the brittlebush does spar ICC is not false. sent6: there exists nothing such that it is nonsteroidal and it is not insoluble. sent7: the alendronate is not a kind of a voluntary if the perpendicular spars ICC. sent8: the alendronate is nonsteroidal but it does not shroud Eyck if it is insoluble. sent9: the alendronate is insoluble. sent10: the perpendicular does spar ICC and it is nonsteroidal.
|
sent1: {B}{a} sent2: (x): {B}x -> ({B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) sent3: ¬{AO}{b} sent4: ({AK}{a} & {C}{a}) sent5: {A}{im} sent6: (x): ¬({B}x & ¬{E}x) sent7: {A}{a} -> ¬{C}{b} sent8: {E}{b} -> ({B}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent9: {E}{b} sent10: ({A}{a} & {B}{a})
|
[
"sent10 -> int1: the perpendicular spars ICC.; int1 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent10 -> int1: {A}{a}; int1 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the wiggler does organize and it is a kind of an advanced.
|
({GC}{o} & {AK}{o})
|
[
"sent8 & sent9 -> int2: the alendronate is nonsteroidal thing that does not shroud Eyck.; int2 -> int3: the alendronate is nonsteroidal.; int3 -> int4: something is nonsteroidal.; int4 & sent2 -> int5: the perpendicular is nonsteroidal and/or it is not a voluntary.;"
] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the alendronate is not voluntary. ; $context$ = sent1: the perpendicular is nonsteroidal. sent2: the perpendicular is either nonsteroidal or not a voluntary or both if there exists something such that it is nonsteroidal. sent3: the alendronate does not spar Amaethon. sent4: the perpendicular is an advanced and it is a kind of a voluntary. sent5: that the brittlebush does spar ICC is not false. sent6: there exists nothing such that it is nonsteroidal and it is not insoluble. sent7: the alendronate is not a kind of a voluntary if the perpendicular spars ICC. sent8: the alendronate is nonsteroidal but it does not shroud Eyck if it is insoluble. sent9: the alendronate is insoluble. sent10: the perpendicular does spar ICC and it is nonsteroidal. ; $proof$ =
|
sent10 -> int1: the perpendicular spars ICC.; int1 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the extra is not a kind of a socialism.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
sent1: if that either something does not shroud Ostraciidae or it is surficial or both does not hold it is amphoric. sent2: if the bottom does not spar foreshank and shrouds burg the shrublet is not a kind of a seafood. sent3: the fact that the foreshank is not alchemic and it is not archival is false. sent4: the fact that something is both not a rush and a handlebar is not right if it is not a seafood. sent5: the foreshank is not figurative and not a then. sent6: if the extra is a socialism then the bore is not alchemic and it is not forceless. sent7: something spars foghorn and is onomastics if it is not accessional. sent8: if the extra is a kind of a socialism the bore is not forceless. sent9: the knitter is topological if there exists something such that the fact that the fact that it is not a rush and it is a handlebar is right is incorrect. sent10: that the foreshank is alchemic but it is not archival is incorrect. sent11: the extra is a socialism if the bore is not archival and/or it is not a Glaswegian. sent12: the foreshank is not accessional if there is something such that it is amphoric. sent13: there exists something such that the fact that it is both not non-alchemic and not archival is not right. sent14: the fact that something does not shroud Ostraciidae and/or it is surficial does not hold if it is topological. sent15: if something is a socialism then it does not spar referendum and is not forceless. sent16: there is something such that it is not archival and is not a kind of a socialism. sent17: the bottom does not spar foreshank but it shrouds burg.
|
sent1: (x): ¬(¬{I}x v {H}x) -> {G}x sent2: (¬{N}{f} & {O}{f}) -> ¬{M}{e} sent3: ¬(¬{AA}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) sent4: (x): ¬{M}x -> ¬(¬{L}x & {K}x) sent5: (¬{CQ}{c} & ¬{IE}{c}) sent6: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent7: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({D}x & {E}x) sent8: {A}{a} -> ¬{AB}{b} sent9: (x): ¬(¬{L}x & {K}x) -> {J}{d} sent10: ¬({AA}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) sent11: (¬{C}{b} v ¬{B}{b}) -> {A}{a} sent12: (x): {G}x -> ¬{F}{c} sent13: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{C}x) sent14: (x): {J}x -> ¬(¬{I}x v {H}x) sent15: (x): {A}x -> (¬{HI}x & ¬{AB}x) sent16: (Ex): (¬{C}x & ¬{A}x) sent17: (¬{N}{f} & {O}{f})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the extra is a kind of a socialism.; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: the bore is both not alchemic and not forceless.; int1 -> int2: the bore is not alchemic.; sent3 -> int3: there exists something such that that it is not alchemic and is not archival is not right.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}{a}; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: (¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}); int1 -> int2: ¬{AA}{b}; sent3 -> int3: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{C}x);"
] |
the metacarpus does not spar referendum and is not forceless.
|
(¬{HI}{gb} & ¬{AB}{gb})
|
[
"sent15 -> int4: if the metacarpus is a socialism then it does not spar referendum and is not forceless.;"
] | 4 | 4 | null | 15 | 0 | 15 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the extra is not a kind of a socialism. ; $context$ = sent1: if that either something does not shroud Ostraciidae or it is surficial or both does not hold it is amphoric. sent2: if the bottom does not spar foreshank and shrouds burg the shrublet is not a kind of a seafood. sent3: the fact that the foreshank is not alchemic and it is not archival is false. sent4: the fact that something is both not a rush and a handlebar is not right if it is not a seafood. sent5: the foreshank is not figurative and not a then. sent6: if the extra is a socialism then the bore is not alchemic and it is not forceless. sent7: something spars foghorn and is onomastics if it is not accessional. sent8: if the extra is a kind of a socialism the bore is not forceless. sent9: the knitter is topological if there exists something such that the fact that the fact that it is not a rush and it is a handlebar is right is incorrect. sent10: that the foreshank is alchemic but it is not archival is incorrect. sent11: the extra is a socialism if the bore is not archival and/or it is not a Glaswegian. sent12: the foreshank is not accessional if there is something such that it is amphoric. sent13: there exists something such that the fact that it is both not non-alchemic and not archival is not right. sent14: the fact that something does not shroud Ostraciidae and/or it is surficial does not hold if it is topological. sent15: if something is a socialism then it does not spar referendum and is not forceless. sent16: there is something such that it is not archival and is not a kind of a socialism. sent17: the bottom does not spar foreshank but it shrouds burg. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the extra is a kind of a socialism.; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: the bore is both not alchemic and not forceless.; int1 -> int2: the bore is not alchemic.; sent3 -> int3: there exists something such that that it is not alchemic and is not archival is not right.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the quarterly is not a worktable and is not unairworthy.
|
(¬{B}{a} & ¬{A}{a})
|
sent1: there exists something such that that it is syllabic and is unswept is wrong. sent2: the quarterly is not year-round and does not incriminate intercept. sent3: if there is something such that the fact that it is syllabic is not incorrect then the quarterly is not unairworthy. sent4: the quarterly does not spar patroness. sent5: if there is something such that that it is not syllabic and is unswept does not hold the quarterly is not unairworthy. sent6: if the kapuka is not a kind of a Simon then that it spars hail and glasses is wrong. sent7: there are nonsyllabic and unswept things. sent8: if the fact that something spars hail and glasses is wrong then that it does not spars hail is not wrong. sent9: there is something such that that it is non-syllabic thing that is unswept is false. sent10: that something is not a kind of a worktable and it is not unairworthy is wrong if it is loyal. sent11: something that is a bark is loyal. sent12: if the kapuka does not spar hail then the quarterly is a kind of a bark that is multilingual. sent13: everything is not a worktable.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent2: (¬{BP}{a} & ¬{FE}{a}) sent3: (x): {AA}x -> ¬{A}{a} sent4: ¬{IM}{a} sent5: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent6: ¬{H}{b} -> ¬({F}{b} & {G}{b}) sent7: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent8: (x): ¬({F}x & {G}x) -> ¬{F}x sent9: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent10: (x): {C}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) sent11: (x): {D}x -> {C}x sent12: ¬{F}{b} -> ({D}{a} & {E}{a}) sent13: (x): ¬{B}x
|
[
"sent9 & sent5 -> int1: the quarterly is not unairworthy.; sent13 -> int2: the quarterly is not a worktable.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 & sent5 -> int1: ¬{A}{a}; sent13 -> int2: ¬{B}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the quarterly is both not a worktable and not unairworthy is wrong.
|
¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{A}{a})
|
[
"sent10 -> int3: if that the quarterly is loyal hold that it is both not a worktable and not unairworthy is not right.; sent11 -> int4: if the quarterly is a bark it is loyal.; sent8 -> int5: the kapuka does not spar hail if that the fact that it does spar hail and does glass is not wrong does not hold.;"
] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the quarterly is not a worktable and is not unairworthy. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that that it is syllabic and is unswept is wrong. sent2: the quarterly is not year-round and does not incriminate intercept. sent3: if there is something such that the fact that it is syllabic is not incorrect then the quarterly is not unairworthy. sent4: the quarterly does not spar patroness. sent5: if there is something such that that it is not syllabic and is unswept does not hold the quarterly is not unairworthy. sent6: if the kapuka is not a kind of a Simon then that it spars hail and glasses is wrong. sent7: there are nonsyllabic and unswept things. sent8: if the fact that something spars hail and glasses is wrong then that it does not spars hail is not wrong. sent9: there is something such that that it is non-syllabic thing that is unswept is false. sent10: that something is not a kind of a worktable and it is not unairworthy is wrong if it is loyal. sent11: something that is a bark is loyal. sent12: if the kapuka does not spar hail then the quarterly is a kind of a bark that is multilingual. sent13: everything is not a worktable. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 & sent5 -> int1: the quarterly is not unairworthy.; sent13 -> int2: the quarterly is not a worktable.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there are shallow-draft and non-juvenile things does not hold.
|
¬((Ex): ({B}x & ¬{C}x))
|
sent1: there exists something such that it is both not non-shallow-draft and juvenile. sent2: something is a kind of an embroiderer. sent3: the hake is shallow-draft. sent4: if something is a kind of an embroiderer the hake is shallow-draft and is not a juvenile. sent5: the saltwort is shallow-draft and does not incriminate Odobenidae if something is passionless. sent6: the hake is shallow-draft if there exists something such that it is an embroiderer. sent7: something is not juvenile.
|
sent1: (Ex): ({B}x & {C}x) sent2: (Ex): {A}x sent3: {B}{a} sent4: (x): {A}x -> ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent5: (x): {HN}x -> ({B}{j} & ¬{ER}{j}) sent6: (x): {A}x -> {B}{a} sent7: (Ex): ¬{C}x
|
[
"sent2 & sent4 -> int1: the hake is shallow-draft and is not a kind of a juvenile.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent4 -> int1: ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = that there are shallow-draft and non-juvenile things does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is both not non-shallow-draft and juvenile. sent2: something is a kind of an embroiderer. sent3: the hake is shallow-draft. sent4: if something is a kind of an embroiderer the hake is shallow-draft and is not a juvenile. sent5: the saltwort is shallow-draft and does not incriminate Odobenidae if something is passionless. sent6: the hake is shallow-draft if there exists something such that it is an embroiderer. sent7: something is not juvenile. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent4 -> int1: the hake is shallow-draft and is not a kind of a juvenile.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the scrag is a rock'n'roll and not auxinic.
|
({B}{d} & ¬{C}{d})
|
sent1: the fact that the filovirus is not inedible is not false. sent2: the scrag is auxinic but it does not shroud boudoir if the fact that the filovirus is auxinic is right. sent3: if the Kali is a rock'n'roll then the scrag is a kind of a rock'n'roll that is not auxinic. sent4: the Kali is a rock'n'roll if the filovirus is inedible and it does shroud boudoir. sent5: if the filovirus is not inedible and shrouds boudoir the Kali is a rock'n'roll. sent6: the scrag is not auxinic if the Kali is a rock'n'roll. sent7: if the printer is not cogitative then the filovirus is not inedible. sent8: if something is cogitative that that it is a rock'n'roll and not auxinic hold is not true. sent9: the scrag is not auxinic. sent10: the printer is not cogitative. sent11: something that is cogitative is both not a coin and inedible.
|
sent1: ¬{AA}{b} sent2: {C}{b} -> ({C}{d} & ¬{AB}{d}) sent3: {B}{c} -> ({B}{d} & ¬{C}{d}) sent4: ({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) -> {B}{c} sent5: (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) -> {B}{c} sent6: {B}{c} -> ¬{C}{d} sent7: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{AA}{b} sent8: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x) sent9: ¬{C}{d} sent10: ¬{A}{a} sent11: (x): {A}x -> (¬{EO}x & {AA}x)
|
[] |
[] |
the Male is not a coin but inedible.
|
(¬{EO}{ek} & {AA}{ek})
|
[
"sent11 -> int1: if the Male is cogitative then it is not a kind of a coin and it is inedible.;"
] | 5 | 3 | null | 8 | 0 | 8 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the scrag is a rock'n'roll and not auxinic. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the filovirus is not inedible is not false. sent2: the scrag is auxinic but it does not shroud boudoir if the fact that the filovirus is auxinic is right. sent3: if the Kali is a rock'n'roll then the scrag is a kind of a rock'n'roll that is not auxinic. sent4: the Kali is a rock'n'roll if the filovirus is inedible and it does shroud boudoir. sent5: if the filovirus is not inedible and shrouds boudoir the Kali is a rock'n'roll. sent6: the scrag is not auxinic if the Kali is a rock'n'roll. sent7: if the printer is not cogitative then the filovirus is not inedible. sent8: if something is cogitative that that it is a rock'n'roll and not auxinic hold is not true. sent9: the scrag is not auxinic. sent10: the printer is not cogitative. sent11: something that is cogitative is both not a coin and inedible. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the prothrombin is non-Saharan and is not a kind of a self-reproach is not right.
|
¬(¬{F}{b} & ¬{E}{b})
|
sent1: the biscuit is a kind of a self-reproach. sent2: that the prothrombin is both not a Saharan and a self-reproach does not hold. sent3: that the prothrombin is a Saharan but it is not a self-reproach does not hold. sent4: the biscuit is a kind of a searobin if there exists something such that it is not a winnow. sent5: something that is either not ungrateful or a Cecidomyidae or both is not continental. sent6: there exists something such that it does winnow. sent7: if the biscuit is continental then the fact that the prothrombin is non-Saharan thing that is a self-reproach does not hold. sent8: the fact that the prothrombin does not shroud ropewalk and it does not shroud misogynist is incorrect. sent9: if something is a ringtail then it is continental. sent10: something is not Saharan and not a self-reproach if it is not a winnow. sent11: the biscuit is a winnow and northern. sent12: if the biscuit is continental that that the prothrombin is non-Saharan and is not a self-reproach is not false is incorrect. sent13: the fact that the prothrombin is Saharan thing that is not a self-reproach is wrong if the biscuit is continental. sent14: there is something such that that it does not winnow is true. sent15: the biscuit is a searobin.
|
sent1: {E}{a} sent2: ¬(¬{F}{b} & {E}{b}) sent3: ¬({F}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> {B}{a} sent5: (x): (¬{H}x v {G}x) -> ¬{D}x sent6: (Ex): {A}x sent7: {D}{a} -> ¬(¬{F}{b} & {E}{b}) sent8: ¬(¬{IC}{b} & ¬{EM}{b}) sent9: (x): {C}x -> {D}x sent10: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{F}x & ¬{E}x) sent11: ({A}{a} & {JK}{a}) sent12: {D}{a} -> ¬(¬{F}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) sent13: {D}{a} -> ¬({F}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) sent14: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent15: {B}{a}
|
[
"sent9 -> int1: if that the biscuit is a ringtail is right the fact that it is continental is not wrong.;"
] |
[
"sent9 -> int1: {C}{a} -> {D}{a};"
] |
the prothrombin is not Saharan and is not a kind of a self-reproach.
|
(¬{F}{b} & ¬{E}{b})
|
[
"sent10 -> int2: the prothrombin is not a Saharan and is not a self-reproach if it is not a winnow.; sent5 -> int3: that the leather is not continental is not false if it is not ungrateful and/or it is a kind of a Cecidomyidae.;"
] | 6 | 4 | null | 12 | 0 | 12 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the prothrombin is non-Saharan and is not a kind of a self-reproach is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the biscuit is a kind of a self-reproach. sent2: that the prothrombin is both not a Saharan and a self-reproach does not hold. sent3: that the prothrombin is a Saharan but it is not a self-reproach does not hold. sent4: the biscuit is a kind of a searobin if there exists something such that it is not a winnow. sent5: something that is either not ungrateful or a Cecidomyidae or both is not continental. sent6: there exists something such that it does winnow. sent7: if the biscuit is continental then the fact that the prothrombin is non-Saharan thing that is a self-reproach does not hold. sent8: the fact that the prothrombin does not shroud ropewalk and it does not shroud misogynist is incorrect. sent9: if something is a ringtail then it is continental. sent10: something is not Saharan and not a self-reproach if it is not a winnow. sent11: the biscuit is a winnow and northern. sent12: if the biscuit is continental that that the prothrombin is non-Saharan and is not a self-reproach is not false is incorrect. sent13: the fact that the prothrombin is Saharan thing that is not a self-reproach is wrong if the biscuit is continental. sent14: there is something such that that it does not winnow is true. sent15: the biscuit is a searobin. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 -> int1: if that the biscuit is a ringtail is right the fact that it is continental is not wrong.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the incriminating wheeled does not occur.
|
¬{A}
|
sent1: that the catarrhine and the non-nonclassicalness happens triggers that the PM does not occur. sent2: the non-myocardialness is brought about by that the exoneration does not occur and the violableness does not occur. sent3: that the combining and the non-digestiveness occurs results in the standing. sent4: the sparring sol occurs and/or the transportation happens if the myocardialness does not occur. sent5: the noninstitutionalness occurs and the sparring bareboating does not occur. sent6: the democraticness does not occur if that the invasiveness happens and/or the mesoblasticness does not occur is false. sent7: that the PM does not occur triggers that the Rhodesianness and the Ramadan occurs. sent8: if the fact that the profit does not occur is correct that the invasiveness happens or the mesoblasticness does not occur or both does not hold. sent9: if the Rhodesianness occurs the rendezvous does not occur. sent10: the non-mesoblasticness is caused by that the incriminating wheeled and the democraticness happens. sent11: both the ordering and the shrouding sparer occurs if the rendezvous does not occur. sent12: that the incriminating wheeled happens is triggered by the undemocraticness. sent13: the violableness does not occur. sent14: the non-indexicalness or that the standing occurs or both triggers that the profit does not occur. sent15: that the invasiveness occurs hold. sent16: if the ordering happens the combining and the non-digestiveness occurs. sent17: the exoneration does not occur. sent18: if the sparring bareboating does not occur then both the catarrhine and the emancipation occurs. sent19: the rapping does not occur. sent20: the democraticness happens.
|
sent1: ({P} & ¬{Q}) -> ¬{O} sent2: (¬{AD} & ¬{AC}) -> ¬{AA} sent3: ({H} & ¬{I}) -> {F} sent4: ¬{AA} -> ({T} v {U}) sent5: ({AB} & ¬{S}) sent6: ¬({D} v ¬{C}) -> ¬{B} sent7: ¬{O} -> ({M} & {N}) sent8: ¬{E} -> ¬({D} v ¬{C}) sent9: {M} -> ¬{L} sent10: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent11: ¬{L} -> ({J} & {K}) sent12: ¬{B} -> {A} sent13: ¬{AC} sent14: (¬{G} v {F}) -> ¬{E} sent15: {D} sent16: {J} -> ({H} & ¬{I}) sent17: ¬{AD} sent18: ¬{S} -> ({P} & {R}) sent19: ¬{DP} sent20: {B}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the incriminating wheeled occurs.; assump1 & sent20 -> int1: both the incriminating wheeled and the democraticness happens.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: the mesoblasticness does not occur.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}; assump1 & sent20 -> int1: ({A} & {B}); int1 & sent10 -> int2: ¬{C};"
] |
the incriminating wheeled occurs.
|
{A}
|
[
"sent5 -> int3: the sparring bareboating does not occur.; sent18 & int3 -> int4: the catarrhineness happens and the emancipation occurs.; int4 -> int5: the fact that the catarrhineness happens is not incorrect.; sent17 & sent13 -> int6: that the exoneration does not occur and the violableness does not occur is not false.; sent2 & int6 -> int7: the myocardialness does not occur.; sent4 & int7 -> int8: the sparring sol occurs and/or the transportation occurs.;"
] | 18 | 4 | null | 18 | 0 | 18 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the incriminating wheeled does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the catarrhine and the non-nonclassicalness happens triggers that the PM does not occur. sent2: the non-myocardialness is brought about by that the exoneration does not occur and the violableness does not occur. sent3: that the combining and the non-digestiveness occurs results in the standing. sent4: the sparring sol occurs and/or the transportation happens if the myocardialness does not occur. sent5: the noninstitutionalness occurs and the sparring bareboating does not occur. sent6: the democraticness does not occur if that the invasiveness happens and/or the mesoblasticness does not occur is false. sent7: that the PM does not occur triggers that the Rhodesianness and the Ramadan occurs. sent8: if the fact that the profit does not occur is correct that the invasiveness happens or the mesoblasticness does not occur or both does not hold. sent9: if the Rhodesianness occurs the rendezvous does not occur. sent10: the non-mesoblasticness is caused by that the incriminating wheeled and the democraticness happens. sent11: both the ordering and the shrouding sparer occurs if the rendezvous does not occur. sent12: that the incriminating wheeled happens is triggered by the undemocraticness. sent13: the violableness does not occur. sent14: the non-indexicalness or that the standing occurs or both triggers that the profit does not occur. sent15: that the invasiveness occurs hold. sent16: if the ordering happens the combining and the non-digestiveness occurs. sent17: the exoneration does not occur. sent18: if the sparring bareboating does not occur then both the catarrhine and the emancipation occurs. sent19: the rapping does not occur. sent20: the democraticness happens. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the incriminating wheeled occurs.; assump1 & sent20 -> int1: both the incriminating wheeled and the democraticness happens.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: the mesoblasticness does not occur.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the singlet is not an incrustation.
|
¬{B}{a}
|
sent1: there is something such that it is feverish. sent2: if the penne is not an essence the singlet is not an incrustation. sent3: there is something such that it is a kind of a Ndebele. sent4: the penne is not denotative if there is something such that it is feverish. sent5: if the adolescent does not spar amphibolite the fact that it does ruddle bilingualism and does habituate is incorrect. sent6: if the penne is not a kind of an incrustation the singlet is not a kind of an essence. sent7: there exists something such that it relocates. sent8: the fact that something is an essence and it does habituate is not right if it is not denotative. sent9: if the fact that the penne is an essence and it does habituate is not correct the singlet is not an incrustation. sent10: if something does not habituate the fact that it is both denotative and an incrustation is false. sent11: that the singlet is an incrustation and it is a kind of an essence is not right if it does not habituate.
|
sent1: (Ex): {C}x sent2: ¬{AA}{aa} -> ¬{B}{a} sent3: (Ex): {S}x sent4: (x): {C}x -> ¬{A}{aa} sent5: ¬{AU}{cm} -> ¬({FB}{cm} & {AB}{cm}) sent6: ¬{B}{aa} -> ¬{AA}{a} sent7: (Ex): {JA}x sent8: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent9: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent10: (x): ¬{AB}x -> ¬({A}x & {B}x) sent11: ¬{AB}{a} -> ¬({B}{a} & {AA}{a})
|
[
"sent8 -> int1: that the penne is a kind of an essence and it habituates is not right if it is non-denotative.; sent1 & sent4 -> int2: the penne is not denotative.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the penne is an essence and it habituates is not correct.; int3 & sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); sent1 & sent4 -> int2: ¬{A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int3 & sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the singlet is not an incrustation. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is feverish. sent2: if the penne is not an essence the singlet is not an incrustation. sent3: there is something such that it is a kind of a Ndebele. sent4: the penne is not denotative if there is something such that it is feverish. sent5: if the adolescent does not spar amphibolite the fact that it does ruddle bilingualism and does habituate is incorrect. sent6: if the penne is not a kind of an incrustation the singlet is not a kind of an essence. sent7: there exists something such that it relocates. sent8: the fact that something is an essence and it does habituate is not right if it is not denotative. sent9: if the fact that the penne is an essence and it does habituate is not correct the singlet is not an incrustation. sent10: if something does not habituate the fact that it is both denotative and an incrustation is false. sent11: that the singlet is an incrustation and it is a kind of an essence is not right if it does not habituate. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 -> int1: that the penne is a kind of an essence and it habituates is not right if it is non-denotative.; sent1 & sent4 -> int2: the penne is not denotative.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the penne is an essence and it habituates is not correct.; int3 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that that not the sedating abrogator but the manageableness occurs hold is incorrect.
|
¬(¬{D} & {E})
|
sent1: that the protestantness occurs is triggered by that the venesection happens. sent2: the condition happens and/or the venesection occurs. sent3: if the protestantness occurs that the sedating abrogator does not occur but the manageableness occurs does not hold. sent4: the protestantness happens if the conditioning occurs.
|
sent1: {B} -> {C} sent2: ({A} v {B}) sent3: {C} -> ¬(¬{D} & {E}) sent4: {A} -> {C}
|
[
"sent2 & sent4 & sent1 -> int1: the fact that the protestantness occurs is right.; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent4 & sent1 -> int1: {C}; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that that not the sedating abrogator but the manageableness occurs hold is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: that the protestantness occurs is triggered by that the venesection happens. sent2: the condition happens and/or the venesection occurs. sent3: if the protestantness occurs that the sedating abrogator does not occur but the manageableness occurs does not hold. sent4: the protestantness happens if the conditioning occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent4 & sent1 -> int1: the fact that the protestantness occurs is right.; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it is bridal then it is not an orbit and/or it mortises leakiness.
|
(Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x v {AB}x)
|
sent1: if the papilla is a bridal then it is a kind of an orbit and/or mortises leakiness. sent2: if the fact that the coalbin does mortise leakiness is not false then either it is not an endocrinology or it does mortise Decatur or both. sent3: something either is not a kind of an orbit or does mortise leakiness or both if it is a bridal.
|
sent1: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent2: {AB}{ga} -> (¬{IT}{ga} v {BJ}{ga}) sent3: (x): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x v {AB}x)
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: if the papilla is a kind of a bridal it is not a kind of an orbit and/or it mortises leakiness.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> int1: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is bridal then it is not an orbit and/or it mortises leakiness. ; $context$ = sent1: if the papilla is a bridal then it is a kind of an orbit and/or mortises leakiness. sent2: if the fact that the coalbin does mortise leakiness is not false then either it is not an endocrinology or it does mortise Decatur or both. sent3: something either is not a kind of an orbit or does mortise leakiness or both if it is a bridal. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> int1: if the papilla is a kind of a bridal it is not a kind of an orbit and/or it mortises leakiness.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the love-in-a-mist is a extropy that does not reorder parity.
|
({E}{b} & ¬{F}{b})
|
sent1: if that the picot is not mucosal is true that it is nonradioactive thing that mortises alembic is incorrect. sent2: the fact that the Rebel is not a kind of a extropy is correct if the fact that the ladybug does solarize is true. sent3: if that the love-in-a-mist is not mucosal and is not a pant is not right then the picot is not mucosal. sent4: the fact that the Rebel does not aspirate engorgement and reorders parity is not true if it is not a extropy. sent5: there exists something such that the fact that it is mucosal is not incorrect. sent6: if there exists something such that the fact that it does not pant and it does sedate apse is not right that the love-in-a-mist does not aspirate engorgement is true. sent7: something is a extropy that does not reorder parity if that it does not aspirate engorgement is not incorrect. sent8: something does sedate apse if it does aspirate engorgement. sent9: the level aspirates engorgement if there is something such that that it does not aspirates engorgement and it reorders parity is not right. sent10: the ladybug does solarize and is a Strand.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{HT}{a} & {IP}{a}) sent2: {G}{e} -> ¬{E}{d} sent3: ¬(¬{A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent4: ¬{E}{d} -> ¬(¬{D}{d} & {F}{d}) sent5: (Ex): {A}x sent6: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & {C}x) -> ¬{D}{b} sent7: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({E}x & ¬{F}x) sent8: (x): {D}x -> {C}x sent9: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {F}x) -> {D}{c} sent10: ({G}{e} & {H}{e})
|
[
"sent7 -> int1: if the fact that the love-in-a-mist does not aspirate engorgement is not wrong then it is a extropy and does not reorder parity.;"
] |
[
"sent7 -> int1: ¬{D}{b} -> ({E}{b} & ¬{F}{b});"
] |
there exists something such that the fact that it is non-radioactive thing that mortises alembic does not hold.
|
(Ex): ¬(¬{HT}x & {IP}x)
|
[
"sent8 -> int2: if the level does aspirate engorgement the fact that it sedates apse is right.; sent10 -> int3: the ladybug does solarize.; sent2 & int3 -> int4: the Rebel is not a extropy.; sent4 & int4 -> int5: that the Rebel does not aspirate engorgement but it does reorder parity is not right.; int5 -> int6: there exists something such that that it does not aspirate engorgement and it does reorder parity is incorrect.; int6 & sent9 -> int7: the level does aspirate engorgement.; int2 & int7 -> int8: that the level does sedate apse hold.; int8 -> int9: something sedates apse.;"
] | 11 | 4 | null | 7 | 0 | 7 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the love-in-a-mist is a extropy that does not reorder parity. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the picot is not mucosal is true that it is nonradioactive thing that mortises alembic is incorrect. sent2: the fact that the Rebel is not a kind of a extropy is correct if the fact that the ladybug does solarize is true. sent3: if that the love-in-a-mist is not mucosal and is not a pant is not right then the picot is not mucosal. sent4: the fact that the Rebel does not aspirate engorgement and reorders parity is not true if it is not a extropy. sent5: there exists something such that the fact that it is mucosal is not incorrect. sent6: if there exists something such that the fact that it does not pant and it does sedate apse is not right that the love-in-a-mist does not aspirate engorgement is true. sent7: something is a extropy that does not reorder parity if that it does not aspirate engorgement is not incorrect. sent8: something does sedate apse if it does aspirate engorgement. sent9: the level aspirates engorgement if there is something such that that it does not aspirates engorgement and it reorders parity is not right. sent10: the ladybug does solarize and is a Strand. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 -> int1: if the fact that the love-in-a-mist does not aspirate engorgement is not wrong then it is a extropy and does not reorder parity.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the bioelectricity is a German.
|
{C}{b}
|
sent1: the bioelectricity is non-German if that the abridger does sedate Lexington is not incorrect. sent2: something is not a kind of a Gresham if it is both a yenta and not a leverage. sent3: the abridger sedates Lexington if it does sedate sugarcane. sent4: if something sedates sugarcane it is not non-German. sent5: The sugarcane sedates abridger. sent6: something sedates Lexington and it does sedate sugarcane if it is not a Gresham. sent7: the abridger sedates sugarcane.
|
sent1: {B}{a} -> ¬{C}{b} sent2: (x): ({F}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{D}x sent3: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent4: (x): {A}x -> {C}x sent5: {AA}{aa} sent6: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) sent7: {A}{a}
|
[
"sent3 & sent7 -> int1: the abridger does sedate Lexington.; int1 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent7 -> int1: {B}{a}; int1 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the bioelectricity is a kind of a German.
|
{C}{b}
|
[
"sent4 -> int2: the bioelectricity is German if it does sedate sugarcane.; sent6 -> int3: if the abridger is not a kind of a Gresham then it does sedate Lexington and sedates sugarcane.; sent2 -> int4: the abridger is not a Gresham if it is a kind of a yenta and is not a leverage.;"
] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the bioelectricity is a German. ; $context$ = sent1: the bioelectricity is non-German if that the abridger does sedate Lexington is not incorrect. sent2: something is not a kind of a Gresham if it is both a yenta and not a leverage. sent3: the abridger sedates Lexington if it does sedate sugarcane. sent4: if something sedates sugarcane it is not non-German. sent5: The sugarcane sedates abridger. sent6: something sedates Lexington and it does sedate sugarcane if it is not a Gresham. sent7: the abridger sedates sugarcane. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent7 -> int1: the abridger does sedate Lexington.; int1 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the overcompensation is a backhand.
|
{A}{a}
|
sent1: if there exists something such that it is pentangular then that the twiner starves and does not sedate damsel does not hold. sent2: the overcompensation is a kind of a mortality. sent3: the overcompensation does backhand. sent4: the overcompensation is exodontic. sent5: the spittoon is backhand. sent6: something is not a dogged and not a Sarnoff if it does starve. sent7: the fact that the ballpark backhands is not wrong. sent8: the cockhorse is true-false and pentangular. sent9: the rickey does not reorder biweekly and is a dogged if there exists something such that that it is a Sarnoff hold. sent10: that the overcompensation is not a backhand but it reorders biweekly does not hold if there is something such that that it is not a dogged is right. sent11: the rickey starves if that it does not starves and is not pentangular is not right. sent12: the plowman backhands. sent13: the fact that the rickey does not starve and is not pentangular does not hold if it does not mortise Dionysus. sent14: if the fact that the twiner does starve but it does not sedate damsel is not true the sapphirine starve. sent15: if the sapphirine does mortise Dionysus but it is not a Sarnoff the ballpark is a Sarnoff. sent16: if something does starve it mortises Dionysus and it is not a Sarnoff.
|
sent1: (x): {G}x -> ¬({E}{e} & ¬{H}{e}) sent2: {DN}{a} sent3: {A}{a} sent4: {R}{a} sent5: {A}{eb} sent6: (x): {E}x -> (¬{C}x & ¬{D}x) sent7: {A}{c} sent8: ({I}{f} & {G}{f}) sent9: (x): {D}x -> (¬{B}{b} & {C}{b}) sent10: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent11: ¬(¬{E}{b} & ¬{G}{b}) -> {E}{b} sent12: {A}{aj} sent13: ¬{F}{b} -> ¬(¬{E}{b} & ¬{G}{b}) sent14: ¬({E}{e} & ¬{H}{e}) -> {E}{d} sent15: ({F}{d} & ¬{D}{d}) -> {D}{c} sent16: (x): {E}x -> ({F}x & ¬{D}x)
|
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the overcompensation is not a backhand.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
[
"sent16 -> int1: the sapphirine mortises Dionysus but it is not a Sarnoff if it starves.; sent8 -> int2: the cockhorse is pentangular.; int2 -> int3: there is something such that it is pentangular.; int3 & sent1 -> int4: the fact that the twiner does starve and does not sedate damsel is wrong.; sent14 & int4 -> int5: the sapphirine starves.; int1 & int5 -> int6: the sapphirine mortises Dionysus but it is not a kind of a Sarnoff.; sent15 & int6 -> int7: the ballpark is a kind of a Sarnoff.; int7 -> int8: there is something such that it is a Sarnoff.; int8 & sent9 -> int9: the rickey does not reorder biweekly and is a dogged.; int9 -> int10: there exists something such that it does not reorder biweekly and it is a dogged.;"
] | 10 | 1 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the overcompensation is a backhand. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that it is pentangular then that the twiner starves and does not sedate damsel does not hold. sent2: the overcompensation is a kind of a mortality. sent3: the overcompensation does backhand. sent4: the overcompensation is exodontic. sent5: the spittoon is backhand. sent6: something is not a dogged and not a Sarnoff if it does starve. sent7: the fact that the ballpark backhands is not wrong. sent8: the cockhorse is true-false and pentangular. sent9: the rickey does not reorder biweekly and is a dogged if there exists something such that that it is a Sarnoff hold. sent10: that the overcompensation is not a backhand but it reorders biweekly does not hold if there is something such that that it is not a dogged is right. sent11: the rickey starves if that it does not starves and is not pentangular is not right. sent12: the plowman backhands. sent13: the fact that the rickey does not starve and is not pentangular does not hold if it does not mortise Dionysus. sent14: if the fact that the twiner does starve but it does not sedate damsel is not true the sapphirine starve. sent15: if the sapphirine does mortise Dionysus but it is not a Sarnoff the ballpark is a Sarnoff. sent16: if something does starve it mortises Dionysus and it is not a Sarnoff. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the seafront is a canvasback.
|
{A}{aa}
|
sent1: if something either is not away or is actinomycetal or both it does not reorder Galician. sent2: that something that is not a quintillion is not away and/or is actinomycetal is right. sent3: the seafront does not subside and/or it is a abrogator. sent4: either everything does not sedate Cyprinodontidae or it does subside or both. sent5: the Job is a canvasback. sent6: something is a kind of a canvasback if it subsides. sent7: the fact that the seafront is a kind of a lessor is right. sent8: the fact that the seafront is a canvasback is correct if it subsides. sent9: the seafront is not a canvasback if the fact that the besom sedates posseman and is a kind of a canvasback is incorrect. sent10: if something does not reorder Galician the fact that it does sedate posseman and is a kind of a canvasback is false. sent11: the besom is not a kind of a quintillion and does not reorder besom if it is auxinic. sent12: either everything is not a underboss or it is a badinage or both.
|
sent1: (x): (¬{D}x v {E}x) -> ¬{B}x sent2: (x): ¬{F}x -> (¬{D}x v {E}x) sent3: (¬{AB}{aa} v {HC}{aa}) sent4: (x): (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) sent5: {A}{bs} sent6: (x): {AB}x -> {A}x sent7: {CB}{aa} sent8: {AB}{aa} -> {A}{aa} sent9: ¬({C}{a} & {A}{a}) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent10: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({C}x & {A}x) sent11: {H}{a} -> (¬{F}{a} & ¬{G}{a}) sent12: (x): (¬{HL}x v {FK}x)
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: the seafront does not sedate Cyprinodontidae and/or it subsides.;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> int1: (¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa});"
] |
the seafront is not a kind of a canvasback.
|
¬{A}{aa}
|
[
"sent10 -> int2: that the besom does sedate posseman and it is a kind of a canvasback is not correct if it does not reorder Galician.; sent1 -> int3: if the besom is not away and/or it is actinomycetal then it does not reorder Galician.; sent2 -> int4: either the besom is not away or it is actinomycetal or both if it is not a quintillion.;"
] | 7 | 2 | null | 11 | 0 | 11 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the seafront is a canvasback. ; $context$ = sent1: if something either is not away or is actinomycetal or both it does not reorder Galician. sent2: that something that is not a quintillion is not away and/or is actinomycetal is right. sent3: the seafront does not subside and/or it is a abrogator. sent4: either everything does not sedate Cyprinodontidae or it does subside or both. sent5: the Job is a canvasback. sent6: something is a kind of a canvasback if it subsides. sent7: the fact that the seafront is a kind of a lessor is right. sent8: the fact that the seafront is a canvasback is correct if it subsides. sent9: the seafront is not a canvasback if the fact that the besom sedates posseman and is a kind of a canvasback is incorrect. sent10: if something does not reorder Galician the fact that it does sedate posseman and is a kind of a canvasback is false. sent11: the besom is not a kind of a quintillion and does not reorder besom if it is auxinic. sent12: either everything is not a underboss or it is a badinage or both. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> int1: the seafront does not sedate Cyprinodontidae and/or it subsides.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the bryozoan is crystalline or it is Siberian or both.
|
({AA}{b} v {AB}{b})
|
sent1: that something is crystalline and/or Siberian is incorrect if it is not insoluble. sent2: the bryozoan either is crystalline or is a Siberian or both if the mirror is not insoluble. sent3: the mirror is not insoluble. sent4: that if the authorizer does not sedate mirror the mirror is a genuineness and it is a kind of a fender-bender is not false. sent5: the fact that the companion is a Blake and it does sedate mirror is not true.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x v {AB}x) sent2: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{b} v {AB}{b}) sent3: ¬{A}{a} sent4: ¬{D}{c} -> ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent5: ¬({E}{d} & {D}{d})
|
[
"sent2 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the bryozoan is crystalline and/or it is Siberian is not true.
|
¬({AA}{b} v {AB}{b})
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: if the bryozoan is not insoluble then that it is crystalline and/or Siberian does not hold.; sent5 -> int2: there is something such that that it is a Blake that sedates mirror is not right.;"
] | 7 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the bryozoan is crystalline or it is Siberian or both. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is crystalline and/or Siberian is incorrect if it is not insoluble. sent2: the bryozoan either is crystalline or is a Siberian or both if the mirror is not insoluble. sent3: the mirror is not insoluble. sent4: that if the authorizer does not sedate mirror the mirror is a genuineness and it is a kind of a fender-bender is not false. sent5: the fact that the companion is a Blake and it does sedate mirror is not true. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the gnarling does not occur.
|
¬{B}
|
sent1: not the wardership but the diazoness happens if the lauding occurs. sent2: the diazoness happens if that the lauding occurs is not wrong. sent3: the lauding does not occur if that the deforestation does not occur and the lauding happens is incorrect. sent4: the lauding happens. sent5: the obeying happens if that the obeying does not occur and the gnarling does not occur is not right. sent6: that the obeying does not occur and the gnarling does not occur is false if the lauding does not occur. sent7: if the mortising Lygaeidae happens then that the deforestation does not occur and the lauding occurs does not hold. sent8: both the mortising Lygaeidae and the galacticness occurs if the fact that the incorporation does not occur hold. sent9: the diazoness occurs. sent10: the gnarling does not occur if the wardership does not occur but the diazoness happens.
|
sent1: {A} -> (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent2: {A} -> {AB} sent3: ¬(¬{C} & {A}) -> ¬{A} sent4: {A} sent5: ¬(¬{AI} & ¬{B}) -> {AI} sent6: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{AI} & ¬{B}) sent7: {D} -> ¬(¬{C} & {A}) sent8: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) sent9: {AB} sent10: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B}
|
[
"sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the wardership does not occur and the diazoness occurs.; sent10 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 & sent4 -> int1: (¬{AA} & {AB}); sent10 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the obeying happens.
|
{AI}
|
[] | 10 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the gnarling does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: not the wardership but the diazoness happens if the lauding occurs. sent2: the diazoness happens if that the lauding occurs is not wrong. sent3: the lauding does not occur if that the deforestation does not occur and the lauding happens is incorrect. sent4: the lauding happens. sent5: the obeying happens if that the obeying does not occur and the gnarling does not occur is not right. sent6: that the obeying does not occur and the gnarling does not occur is false if the lauding does not occur. sent7: if the mortising Lygaeidae happens then that the deforestation does not occur and the lauding occurs does not hold. sent8: both the mortising Lygaeidae and the galacticness occurs if the fact that the incorporation does not occur hold. sent9: the diazoness occurs. sent10: the gnarling does not occur if the wardership does not occur but the diazoness happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the wardership does not occur and the diazoness occurs.; sent10 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the annulus is not a spat but a sawfly is not right.
|
¬(¬{C}{c} & {D}{c})
|
sent1: there is something such that it is unchaste and it is not a spat. sent2: that the shipside does not spit and is a ornithopod is false. sent3: there exists something such that it is unchaste thing that is not a ornithopod. sent4: there is something such that it is a kind of a spat that is not a kind of a ornithopod. sent5: there is something such that it is a ground. sent6: that the steep is both not grapelike and a spat does not hold. sent7: if something that grinds does not reorder egality the shipside is a kind of a ornithopod. sent8: if the lymphokine is unchaste then that that the annulus is not a spat and is a sawfly is not false is not true. sent9: that the annulus is a kind of a spat and it is a sawfly does not hold if the lymphokine is unchaste. sent10: the lymphokine is unchaste if the shipside is a ornithopod. sent11: there is something such that it does not reorder egality. sent12: something is a kind of a spat that is not unchaste. sent13: if there is something such that it is a spat that is not a sawfly the annulus is unchaste. sent14: the annulus is careful. sent15: there exists something such that it is a ornithopod and it is not a kind of a spat. sent16: the annulus is a kind of a ornithopod. sent17: that the lymphokine is chaste but it is a sawfly is wrong. sent18: something grinds and it reorders egality. sent19: the fact that something is both a ornithopod and not coherent is not correct if it is not unchaste. sent20: something is a ground but it does not reorder egality. sent21: the fact that the annulus does spit and is a sawfly does not hold.
|
sent1: (Ex): ({B}x & ¬{C}x) sent2: ¬(¬{C}{a} & {A}{a}) sent3: (Ex): ({B}x & ¬{A}x) sent4: (Ex): ({C}x & ¬{A}x) sent5: (Ex): {AA}x sent6: ¬(¬{HO}{do} & {C}{do}) sent7: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent8: {B}{b} -> ¬(¬{C}{c} & {D}{c}) sent9: {B}{b} -> ¬({C}{c} & {D}{c}) sent10: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent11: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent12: (Ex): ({C}x & ¬{B}x) sent13: (x): ({C}x & ¬{D}x) -> {B}{c} sent14: {CF}{c} sent15: (Ex): ({A}x & ¬{C}x) sent16: {A}{c} sent17: ¬(¬{B}{b} & {D}{b}) sent18: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent19: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({A}x & ¬{E}x) sent20: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent21: ¬({C}{c} & {D}{c})
|
[
"sent20 & sent7 -> int1: the shipside is a ornithopod.; sent10 & int1 -> int2: the lymphokine is unchaste.; sent8 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent20 & sent7 -> int1: {A}{a}; sent10 & int1 -> int2: {B}{b}; sent8 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the annulus is not a spat but it is a sawfly.
|
(¬{C}{c} & {D}{c})
|
[
"sent19 -> int3: the fact that if the fact that the shipside is not unchaste is not false the fact that the shipside is both a ornithopod and not coherent does not hold is not incorrect.;"
] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 17 | 0 | 17 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the annulus is not a spat but a sawfly is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is unchaste and it is not a spat. sent2: that the shipside does not spit and is a ornithopod is false. sent3: there exists something such that it is unchaste thing that is not a ornithopod. sent4: there is something such that it is a kind of a spat that is not a kind of a ornithopod. sent5: there is something such that it is a ground. sent6: that the steep is both not grapelike and a spat does not hold. sent7: if something that grinds does not reorder egality the shipside is a kind of a ornithopod. sent8: if the lymphokine is unchaste then that that the annulus is not a spat and is a sawfly is not false is not true. sent9: that the annulus is a kind of a spat and it is a sawfly does not hold if the lymphokine is unchaste. sent10: the lymphokine is unchaste if the shipside is a ornithopod. sent11: there is something such that it does not reorder egality. sent12: something is a kind of a spat that is not unchaste. sent13: if there is something such that it is a spat that is not a sawfly the annulus is unchaste. sent14: the annulus is careful. sent15: there exists something such that it is a ornithopod and it is not a kind of a spat. sent16: the annulus is a kind of a ornithopod. sent17: that the lymphokine is chaste but it is a sawfly is wrong. sent18: something grinds and it reorders egality. sent19: the fact that something is both a ornithopod and not coherent is not correct if it is not unchaste. sent20: something is a ground but it does not reorder egality. sent21: the fact that the annulus does spit and is a sawfly does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent20 & sent7 -> int1: the shipside is a ornithopod.; sent10 & int1 -> int2: the lymphokine is unchaste.; sent8 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Skinner does not reorder Skinner and it does not sedate Lubavitch.
|
(¬{B}{b} & ¬{C}{b})
|
sent1: the fact that the Skinner does not reorder Skinner and does not sedate Lubavitch is not right if there is something such that it does not reorder alkane. sent2: the acrocarp does not reorder alkane if there exists something such that the fact that it does sedate supernumerary and it is a kind of a Elul is not correct. sent3: there exists something such that that it sedates supernumerary and it is a Elul is wrong.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent2: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent3: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x)
|
[
"sent3 & sent2 -> int1: the fact that the acrocarp does not reorder alkane is right.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that it does not reorder alkane.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent2 -> int1: ¬{A}{a}; int1 -> int2: (Ex): ¬{A}x; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the Skinner does not reorder Skinner and it does not sedate Lubavitch. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the Skinner does not reorder Skinner and does not sedate Lubavitch is not right if there is something such that it does not reorder alkane. sent2: the acrocarp does not reorder alkane if there exists something such that the fact that it does sedate supernumerary and it is a kind of a Elul is not correct. sent3: there exists something such that that it sedates supernumerary and it is a Elul is wrong. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent2 -> int1: the fact that the acrocarp does not reorder alkane is right.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that it does not reorder alkane.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the crunch but not the reordering barrelfish happens.
|
({D} & ¬{C})
|
sent1: that the corrupting happens brings about that the crunching happens but the reordering barrelfish does not occur. sent2: that both the crunching and the reordering barrelfish occurs is not true if the proprietariness does not occur. sent3: the fact that the superposition occurs and the joyride occurs does not hold if the percolation does not occur. sent4: if the geophysicalness does not occur then the fact that not the myringoplasty but the slant happens is incorrect. sent5: the non-bicylindricalness is triggered by that the cortege does not occur and/or that the sedating compassion occurs. sent6: the freemail and the sedating Colubridae happens. sent7: if that the non-laxness and the mortising flexure occurs is false then the details does not occur. sent8: if that not the hepaticness but the sumo occurs is wrong that the elaboration does not occur hold. sent9: the Turkishness does not occur if the fact that the inauspiciousness does not occur but the cession occurs is incorrect. sent10: the corrupting occurs but the proprietariness does not occur if the bicylindricalness does not occur. sent11: the corrupting does not occur. sent12: that the Hebrideanness happens if the freemail happens hold. sent13: if the proprietariness does not occur then the fact that the crunch happens but the reordering barrelfish does not occur is wrong. sent14: if the fact that the subversion does not occur and the reordering inhibitor happens is wrong then the proprietariness does not occur. sent15: if the Hebrideanness happens and the idyll occurs the cortege does not occur. sent16: that that both the oppression and the mortising bourtree happens is correct is not right. sent17: that the details happens and the smallerness happens does not hold. sent18: the sedating Bangladesh does not occur. sent19: if the fact that the solanaceousness does not occur is correct that the creativeness and the aspirating Qibla occurs is not right. sent20: that not the subversion but the reordering inhibitor happens is false if the corrupting does not occur. sent21: the fact that the inflecting and the intrapulmonariness happens is not true if the invertibleness does not occur.
|
sent1: {A} -> ({D} & ¬{C}) sent2: ¬{B} -> ¬({D} & {C}) sent3: ¬{AJ} -> ¬({JG} & {BC}) sent4: ¬{CD} -> ¬(¬{IG} & {GF}) sent5: (¬{G} v {F}) -> ¬{E} sent6: ({J} & {M}) sent7: ¬(¬{BU} & {ES}) -> ¬{EL} sent8: ¬(¬{AO} & {AU}) -> ¬{IN} sent9: ¬(¬{GK} & {HE}) -> ¬{IM} sent10: ¬{E} -> ({A} & ¬{B}) sent11: ¬{A} sent12: {J} -> {I} sent13: ¬{B} -> ¬({D} & ¬{C}) sent14: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent15: ({I} & {H}) -> ¬{G} sent16: ¬({IS} & {GM}) sent17: ¬({EL} & {HF}) sent18: ¬{CB} sent19: ¬{GC} -> ¬({GT} & {BI}) sent20: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent21: ¬{AE} -> ¬({AF} & {HI})
|
[
"sent20 & sent11 -> int1: that the subversion does not occur but the reordering inhibitor occurs does not hold.; sent14 & int1 -> int2: the proprietariness does not occur.; sent13 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent20 & sent11 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}); sent14 & int1 -> int2: ¬{B}; sent13 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the crunch happens but the reordering barrelfish does not occur.
|
({D} & ¬{C})
|
[
"sent6 -> int3: the freemail occurs.; sent12 & int3 -> int4: the Hebrideanness happens.;"
] | 9 | 3 | 3 | 17 | 0 | 17 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the crunch but not the reordering barrelfish happens. ; $context$ = sent1: that the corrupting happens brings about that the crunching happens but the reordering barrelfish does not occur. sent2: that both the crunching and the reordering barrelfish occurs is not true if the proprietariness does not occur. sent3: the fact that the superposition occurs and the joyride occurs does not hold if the percolation does not occur. sent4: if the geophysicalness does not occur then the fact that not the myringoplasty but the slant happens is incorrect. sent5: the non-bicylindricalness is triggered by that the cortege does not occur and/or that the sedating compassion occurs. sent6: the freemail and the sedating Colubridae happens. sent7: if that the non-laxness and the mortising flexure occurs is false then the details does not occur. sent8: if that not the hepaticness but the sumo occurs is wrong that the elaboration does not occur hold. sent9: the Turkishness does not occur if the fact that the inauspiciousness does not occur but the cession occurs is incorrect. sent10: the corrupting occurs but the proprietariness does not occur if the bicylindricalness does not occur. sent11: the corrupting does not occur. sent12: that the Hebrideanness happens if the freemail happens hold. sent13: if the proprietariness does not occur then the fact that the crunch happens but the reordering barrelfish does not occur is wrong. sent14: if the fact that the subversion does not occur and the reordering inhibitor happens is wrong then the proprietariness does not occur. sent15: if the Hebrideanness happens and the idyll occurs the cortege does not occur. sent16: that that both the oppression and the mortising bourtree happens is correct is not right. sent17: that the details happens and the smallerness happens does not hold. sent18: the sedating Bangladesh does not occur. sent19: if the fact that the solanaceousness does not occur is correct that the creativeness and the aspirating Qibla occurs is not right. sent20: that not the subversion but the reordering inhibitor happens is false if the corrupting does not occur. sent21: the fact that the inflecting and the intrapulmonariness happens is not true if the invertibleness does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent20 & sent11 -> int1: that the subversion does not occur but the reordering inhibitor occurs does not hold.; sent14 & int1 -> int2: the proprietariness does not occur.; sent13 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the agriculturist is not a plunk.
|
¬{B}{b}
|
sent1: the beekeeper is not a kind of a hyoid. sent2: if something is non-generational then it is not a plunk. sent3: the prince's-feather is not a kind of a plunk. sent4: if something is a kind of a sounding it is Athenian thing that is not branchial. sent5: if the fact that the beekeeper reorders beekeeper and is not a Athenian is incorrect the fact that the agriculturist does not reorders beekeeper is correct. sent6: the agriculturist is not a group and is a plunk if the fact that it does not reorder beekeeper is right. sent7: that if the agriculturist is not a plunk the fact that the beekeeper is generational and it groups is false hold. sent8: something is not a plunk if the fact that it is generational and it is basilican is not right. sent9: the agriculturist is not archiepiscopal. sent10: that the agriculturist is generational and it is a group is incorrect if the beekeeper is not a plunk. sent11: if that the agriculturist is generational and it is basilican is not correct that the fact that it does group is true is incorrect. sent12: something is a plunk and it does group if it does not reorder beekeeper. sent13: the fact that the beekeeper is generational and it groups is wrong. sent14: if the agriculturist is not generational it is not a plunk. sent15: if the beekeeper is not a group then the fact that the agriculturist is generational and it is basilican is not right. sent16: if the agriculturist is not a kind of a group that the beekeeper is both generational and basilican is not true. sent17: the beekeeper is not a plunk. sent18: that the fact that the beekeeper does group and is a kind of a plunk is not false does not hold. sent19: the beekeeper is not a kind of a group. sent20: that the agriculturist is a group and a plunk is not right. sent21: that the nicad is not a plunk is not incorrect.
|
sent1: ¬{CE}{a} sent2: (x): ¬{AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent3: ¬{B}{fs} sent4: (x): {F}x -> ({D}x & ¬{E}x) sent5: ¬({C}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent6: ¬{C}{b} -> (¬{A}{b} & {B}{b}) sent7: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬({AA}{a} & {A}{a}) sent8: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent9: ¬{IF}{b} sent10: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬({AA}{b} & {A}{b}) sent11: ¬({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) -> ¬{A}{b} sent12: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) sent13: ¬({AA}{a} & {A}{a}) sent14: ¬{AA}{b} -> ¬{B}{b} sent15: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent16: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent17: ¬{B}{a} sent18: ¬({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent19: ¬{A}{a} sent20: ¬({A}{b} & {B}{b}) sent21: ¬{B}{ar}
|
[
"sent15 & sent19 -> int1: the fact that the agriculturist is generational and basilican is not correct.; sent8 -> int2: if that the fact that the agriculturist is generational and it is basilican is not correct is not incorrect then it is not a plunk.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent15 & sent19 -> int1: ¬({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}); sent8 -> int2: ¬({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{b}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the agriculturist is a plunk.
|
{B}{b}
|
[
"sent12 -> int3: if the agriculturist does not reorder beekeeper then it is both a plunk and a group.;"
] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the agriculturist is not a plunk. ; $context$ = sent1: the beekeeper is not a kind of a hyoid. sent2: if something is non-generational then it is not a plunk. sent3: the prince's-feather is not a kind of a plunk. sent4: if something is a kind of a sounding it is Athenian thing that is not branchial. sent5: if the fact that the beekeeper reorders beekeeper and is not a Athenian is incorrect the fact that the agriculturist does not reorders beekeeper is correct. sent6: the agriculturist is not a group and is a plunk if the fact that it does not reorder beekeeper is right. sent7: that if the agriculturist is not a plunk the fact that the beekeeper is generational and it groups is false hold. sent8: something is not a plunk if the fact that it is generational and it is basilican is not right. sent9: the agriculturist is not archiepiscopal. sent10: that the agriculturist is generational and it is a group is incorrect if the beekeeper is not a plunk. sent11: if that the agriculturist is generational and it is basilican is not correct that the fact that it does group is true is incorrect. sent12: something is a plunk and it does group if it does not reorder beekeeper. sent13: the fact that the beekeeper is generational and it groups is wrong. sent14: if the agriculturist is not generational it is not a plunk. sent15: if the beekeeper is not a group then the fact that the agriculturist is generational and it is basilican is not right. sent16: if the agriculturist is not a kind of a group that the beekeeper is both generational and basilican is not true. sent17: the beekeeper is not a plunk. sent18: that the fact that the beekeeper does group and is a kind of a plunk is not false does not hold. sent19: the beekeeper is not a kind of a group. sent20: that the agriculturist is a group and a plunk is not right. sent21: that the nicad is not a plunk is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =
|
sent15 & sent19 -> int1: the fact that the agriculturist is generational and basilican is not correct.; sent8 -> int2: if that the fact that the agriculturist is generational and it is basilican is not correct is not incorrect then it is not a plunk.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that that it is not a kind of a society and does not sedate quinacrine is not true.
|
(Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
sent1: that the milkcap is not abactinal and it is not a six-spot does not hold. sent2: that the loggerhead does not sedate Anchorage but it is hierarchical is not correct if it is a kind of a rockfish. sent3: if the chromate does piffle then the fact that it does not bare and it is not a society is not right. sent4: if the chromate is helpful that it does not flee and it is a ultramicroscope is not right. sent5: the bathtub bounces. sent6: that the chromate is a society that does not sedate quinacrine is wrong. sent7: something is not abactinal and does not sedate quinacrine. sent8: the chromate is abactinal. sent9: that the chromate tenders is not false. sent10: the chromate does sedate twenty-five. sent11: if something is Satanic and it jackknifes it is not abactinal. sent12: there exists something such that it does not sedate quinacrine and is not abactinal. sent13: that the chromate is not a society and does sedate quinacrine is not right. sent14: if something does bounce the fact that the ipecac is a kind of Satanic a ichthyolatry is not incorrect. sent15: that the chromate is not a Persia and not non-saurian is false if it is a Pokomo. sent16: that the chromate is not a society and it does not sedate quinacrine does not hold if it is abactinal. sent17: there exists something such that it is not a fecula and it is not a viricide. sent18: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a society that does not sedate quinacrine is not true. sent19: if the redshank is a dirham the fact that it is non-seminal thing that is not a kind of a society is incorrect. sent20: that the chromate does not sedate Algol and does not mortise guru is not true if the ipecac is not abactinal. sent21: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a society and does sedate quinacrine is not correct. sent22: if the chromate is abactinal that it is a society and it does not sedate quinacrine is incorrect.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{A}{cb} & ¬{GQ}{cb}) sent2: {CE}{hg} -> ¬(¬{IF}{hg} & {FO}{hg}) sent3: {HE}{a} -> ¬(¬{HB}{a} & ¬{AA}{a}) sent4: {FM}{a} -> ¬(¬{BK}{a} & {GN}{a}) sent5: {E}{c} sent6: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent7: (Ex): (¬{A}x & ¬{AB}x) sent8: {A}{a} sent9: {R}{a} sent10: {CS}{a} sent11: (x): ({B}x & {C}x) -> ¬{A}x sent12: (Ex): (¬{AB}x & ¬{A}x) sent13: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent14: (x): {E}x -> ({B}{b} & {D}{b}) sent15: {AJ}{a} -> ¬(¬{HC}{a} & {J}{a}) sent16: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent17: (Ex): (¬{AH}x & ¬{CI}x) sent18: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent19: {GE}{fm} -> ¬(¬{BD}{fm} & ¬{AA}{fm}) sent20: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬(¬{JB}{a} & ¬{BQ}{a}) sent21: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent22: {A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})
|
[
"sent16 & sent8 -> int1: the fact that the chromate is not a society and it does not sedate quinacrine is not correct.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent16 & sent8 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there is something such that the fact that it does not sedate Algol and does not mortise guru is false.
|
(Ex): ¬(¬{JB}x & ¬{BQ}x)
|
[
"sent11 -> int2: the ipecac is not abactinal if it is Satanic and it does jackknife.; sent5 -> int3: there is something such that it bounces.; int3 & sent14 -> int4: the ipecac is a kind of Satanic thing that is a kind of a ichthyolatry.; int4 -> int5: the fact that the ipecac is Satanic is true.;"
] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 20 | 0 | 20 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that that it is not a kind of a society and does not sedate quinacrine is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: that the milkcap is not abactinal and it is not a six-spot does not hold. sent2: that the loggerhead does not sedate Anchorage but it is hierarchical is not correct if it is a kind of a rockfish. sent3: if the chromate does piffle then the fact that it does not bare and it is not a society is not right. sent4: if the chromate is helpful that it does not flee and it is a ultramicroscope is not right. sent5: the bathtub bounces. sent6: that the chromate is a society that does not sedate quinacrine is wrong. sent7: something is not abactinal and does not sedate quinacrine. sent8: the chromate is abactinal. sent9: that the chromate tenders is not false. sent10: the chromate does sedate twenty-five. sent11: if something is Satanic and it jackknifes it is not abactinal. sent12: there exists something such that it does not sedate quinacrine and is not abactinal. sent13: that the chromate is not a society and does sedate quinacrine is not right. sent14: if something does bounce the fact that the ipecac is a kind of Satanic a ichthyolatry is not incorrect. sent15: that the chromate is not a Persia and not non-saurian is false if it is a Pokomo. sent16: that the chromate is not a society and it does not sedate quinacrine does not hold if it is abactinal. sent17: there exists something such that it is not a fecula and it is not a viricide. sent18: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a society that does not sedate quinacrine is not true. sent19: if the redshank is a dirham the fact that it is non-seminal thing that is not a kind of a society is incorrect. sent20: that the chromate does not sedate Algol and does not mortise guru is not true if the ipecac is not abactinal. sent21: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a society and does sedate quinacrine is not correct. sent22: if the chromate is abactinal that it is a society and it does not sedate quinacrine is incorrect. ; $proof$ =
|
sent16 & sent8 -> int1: the fact that the chromate is not a society and it does not sedate quinacrine is not correct.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the articularness does not occur.
|
¬{C}
|
sent1: if the mortising chatter occurs and the reordering wrap occurs then the articularness does not occur. sent2: the reordering wrap occurs.
|
sent1: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent2: {B}
|
[] |
[] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | null | 0 | 0 | 0 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the articularness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the mortising chatter occurs and the reordering wrap occurs then the articularness does not occur. sent2: the reordering wrap occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the fugu is not a eelworm and/or it is aphaeretic is correct.
|
(¬{C}{b} v {B}{b})
|
sent1: the fact that either the liar is implicational or it is morbilliform or both is incorrect. sent2: if there is something such that that it is implicational and/or it is morbilliform does not hold then the bayberry is extramural.
|
sent1: ¬({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent2: (x): ¬({AA}x v {AB}x) -> {A}{a}
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: there is something such that the fact that the fact that it is implicational or morbilliform or both hold is not right.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the bayberry is extramural.;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: (Ex): ¬({AA}x v {AB}x); int1 & sent2 -> int2: {A}{a};"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | null | 0 | 0 | 0 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = that the fugu is not a eelworm and/or it is aphaeretic is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that either the liar is implicational or it is morbilliform or both is incorrect. sent2: if there is something such that that it is implicational and/or it is morbilliform does not hold then the bayberry is extramural. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: there is something such that the fact that the fact that it is implicational or morbilliform or both hold is not right.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the bayberry is extramural.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Methuselah is not a harvestman.
|
¬{C}{a}
|
sent1: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a acatalectic and it is a kind of a Scholastic is incorrect. sent2: that the amphetamine is not a acatalectic but it is a Scholastic is not correct. sent3: the fact that the pothunter is not a kind of a lightning and is an orient is wrong if it is a clunch. sent4: the Methuselah is not a kind of a androgen if there exists something such that that it is not a acatalectic but a Scholastic is not right. sent5: that the dissenter is not a kind of a androgen is true. sent6: something does not aspirate mnemonics but it is a kind of a vestibule if it is not a kind of an orient. sent7: something does not orient if that it is both not a lightning and an orient is not true. sent8: the Methuselah is non-acatalectic if it is a androgen and not a harvestman. sent9: the Methuselah is not a kind of a Scholastic if it does mortise roc and is not rational. sent10: if the undesirable is not a androgen the Methuselah is a androgen. sent11: there is something such that that it does not mortise femtochemistry and is sadistic is not true. sent12: if that the Methuselah is a vestibule and is not a androgen is not false it is not a harvestman. sent13: if something is not a vestibule then it is not a kind of a androgen. sent14: if something is a androgen it is a kind of a harvestman. sent15: the amphetamine is a harvestman if the Methuselah is a harvestman. sent16: something is not a acatalectic and is a kind of a vestibule.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent2: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: {G}{c} -> ¬(¬{F}{c} & {E}{c}) sent4: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent5: ¬{A}{cp} sent6: (x): ¬{E}x -> (¬{D}x & {B}x) sent7: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & {E}x) -> ¬{E}x sent8: ({A}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{AA}{a} sent9: ({IS}{a} & ¬{DJ}{a}) -> ¬{AB}{a} sent10: ¬{A}{b} -> {A}{a} sent11: (Ex): ¬(¬{BU}x & {EB}x) sent12: ({B}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent13: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{A}x sent14: (x): {A}x -> {C}x sent15: {C}{a} -> {C}{aa} sent16: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {B}x)
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: there exists something such that that it is not acatalectic and it is a Scholastic is not correct.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the Methuselah is not a androgen.;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> int1: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x); int1 & sent4 -> int2: ¬{A}{a};"
] |
the amphetamine is not a androgen.
|
¬{A}{aa}
|
[
"sent13 -> int3: if the amphetamine is not a vestibule it is not a kind of a androgen.;"
] | 5 | 4 | null | 13 | 0 | 13 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the Methuselah is not a harvestman. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a acatalectic and it is a kind of a Scholastic is incorrect. sent2: that the amphetamine is not a acatalectic but it is a Scholastic is not correct. sent3: the fact that the pothunter is not a kind of a lightning and is an orient is wrong if it is a clunch. sent4: the Methuselah is not a kind of a androgen if there exists something such that that it is not a acatalectic but a Scholastic is not right. sent5: that the dissenter is not a kind of a androgen is true. sent6: something does not aspirate mnemonics but it is a kind of a vestibule if it is not a kind of an orient. sent7: something does not orient if that it is both not a lightning and an orient is not true. sent8: the Methuselah is non-acatalectic if it is a androgen and not a harvestman. sent9: the Methuselah is not a kind of a Scholastic if it does mortise roc and is not rational. sent10: if the undesirable is not a androgen the Methuselah is a androgen. sent11: there is something such that that it does not mortise femtochemistry and is sadistic is not true. sent12: if that the Methuselah is a vestibule and is not a androgen is not false it is not a harvestman. sent13: if something is not a vestibule then it is not a kind of a androgen. sent14: if something is a androgen it is a kind of a harvestman. sent15: the amphetamine is a harvestman if the Methuselah is a harvestman. sent16: something is not a acatalectic and is a kind of a vestibule. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> int1: there exists something such that that it is not acatalectic and it is a Scholastic is not correct.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the Methuselah is not a androgen.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there exists something such that if it is not a Ardisia it marshals and it is unrestrictive is not true.
|
¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x))
|
sent1: the dress sedates DO and it is a antonym if it does sedate watchtower. sent2: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a kinescope is not false it is a prurience. sent3: if the dress is a Ardisia it is a novocaine and mortises drawing. sent4: there is something such that if it is not a Korchnoi then the fact that it is able is not false. sent5: the dress is a kind of a marshal and it is unrestrictive if it is not a Ardisia. sent6: if something does not accept then it is both recoverable and a edacity.
|
sent1: {CM}{aa} -> ({IM}{aa} & {IG}{aa}) sent2: (Ex): ¬{FP}x -> {EA}x sent3: {A}{aa} -> ({H}{aa} & {HK}{aa}) sent4: (Ex): ¬{N}x -> {BS}x sent5: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent6: (x): ¬{AQ}x -> ({CS}x & {IA}x)
|
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
if the trifle does not accept then it is recoverable and a edacity.
|
¬{AQ}{dc} -> ({CS}{dc} & {IA}{dc})
|
[
"sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it is not a Ardisia it marshals and it is unrestrictive is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the dress sedates DO and it is a antonym if it does sedate watchtower. sent2: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a kinescope is not false it is a prurience. sent3: if the dress is a Ardisia it is a novocaine and mortises drawing. sent4: there is something such that if it is not a Korchnoi then the fact that it is able is not false. sent5: the dress is a kind of a marshal and it is unrestrictive if it is not a Ardisia. sent6: if something does not accept then it is both recoverable and a edacity. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the elocutionist reorders parfait.
|
{C}{c}
|
sent1: if the renin bottoms then the elocutionist reorders parfait. sent2: if that something is not isopteran but it is a lacteal is wrong it amounts. sent3: that the elocutionist is bottomed thing that is not flowerless does not hold if the renin is a blucher. sent4: if something is staphylococcal then it is not a modeling and it is not meaty. sent5: if the Soubise is a kind of an associate then the fact that the cherub is an associate is right. sent6: the Guarani is tensile if something is a chiropractor that is not a depersonalization. sent7: if that something is pilosebaceous or it is not a kind of a blucher or both is wrong the fact that it is not flowerless is not wrong. sent8: the fact that something is not isopteran and is a lacteal does not hold if it is tensile. sent9: something is a blucher and is pilosebaceous if it is not meaty. sent10: something that is a stern is not grammatical and is not staphylococcal. sent11: the elocutionist does not reorder parfait if the renin does not reorder parfait and is not a kind of a bottomed. sent12: if the cherub is an associate then it is a chiropractor and is not a depersonalization. sent13: if the fact that the caddis-fly is not a August hold that it is not a yellow or not a topolatry or both is incorrect. sent14: if there is something such that that it is not a yellow and/or it is not a topolatry does not hold then that the Soubise associates is right. sent15: the elocutionist does reorder parfait if that the renin is flowerless is correct. sent16: if the Wampanoag is meaty that either the renin is pilosebaceous or it is not a blucher or both is not correct. sent17: the auto-changer does reorder parfait. sent18: if the renin does not reorder parfait then the Adam does bottom and it is flowerless. sent19: the caddis-fly is not a August if the eyeshadow is both a August and not a Jurassic. sent20: if the Guarani is a kind of an amount then the fact that the Wampanoag is grammatical but it is not a stern does not hold. sent21: the eyeshadow is a August but it is not Jurassic. sent22: the renin reorders parfait. sent23: the renin is either not non-bottomed or not flowering or both.
|
sent1: {A}{a} -> {C}{c} sent2: (x): ¬(¬{M}x & {L}x) -> {K}x sent3: {D}{a} -> ¬({A}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) sent4: (x): {H}x -> (¬{G}x & ¬{F}x) sent5: {Q}{f} -> {Q}{e} sent6: (x): ({O}x & ¬{P}x) -> {N}{d} sent7: (x): ¬({E}x v ¬{D}x) -> ¬{B}x sent8: (x): {N}x -> ¬(¬{M}x & {L}x) sent9: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({D}x & {E}x) sent10: (x): {J}x -> (¬{I}x & ¬{H}x) sent11: (¬{C}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> ¬{C}{c} sent12: {Q}{e} -> ({O}{e} & ¬{P}{e}) sent13: ¬{T}{g} -> ¬(¬{S}{g} v ¬{R}{g}) sent14: (x): ¬(¬{S}x v ¬{R}x) -> {Q}{f} sent15: {B}{a} -> {C}{c} sent16: {F}{b} -> ¬({E}{a} v ¬{D}{a}) sent17: {C}{et} sent18: ¬{C}{a} -> ({A}{gt} & {B}{gt}) sent19: ({T}{h} & ¬{U}{h}) -> ¬{T}{g} sent20: {K}{d} -> ¬({I}{b} & ¬{J}{b}) sent21: ({T}{h} & ¬{U}{h}) sent22: {C}{a} sent23: ({A}{a} v {B}{a})
|
[
"sent23 & sent1 & sent15 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent23 & sent1 & sent15 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the elocutionist does not reorder parfait.
|
¬{C}{c}
|
[
"sent9 -> int1: if the renin is not meaty that it is a blucher and is pilosebaceous is correct.; sent4 -> int2: the renin is both not a modeling and not meaty if it is staphylococcal.; sent2 -> int3: the Guarani amounts if that it is non-isopteran a lacteal does not hold.; sent8 -> int4: if the Guarani is tensile then the fact that it is a kind of non-isopteran thing that is a kind of a lacteal does not hold.; sent19 & sent21 -> int5: that the caddis-fly is not a kind of a August is true.; sent13 & int5 -> int6: the fact that the caddis-fly does not yellow and/or is not a kind of a topolatry is not correct.; int6 -> int7: there is something such that the fact that it is not a yellow and/or it is not a topolatry is not correct.; int7 & sent14 -> int8: that the Soubise is a kind of an associate is not wrong.; sent5 & int8 -> int9: the cherub is an associate.; sent12 & int9 -> int10: the cherub is both a chiropractor and not a depersonalization.; int10 -> int11: there is something such that it is a chiropractor and is not a depersonalization.; int11 & sent6 -> int12: the Guarani is not non-tensile.; int4 & int12 -> int13: the fact that the Guarani is not isopteran but a lacteal does not hold.; int3 & int13 -> int14: the Guarani is a kind of an amount.; sent20 & int14 -> int15: that the Wampanoag is grammatical but it is not a stern does not hold.; int15 -> int16: there exists something such that the fact that the fact that it is grammatical and it is not a kind of a stern hold is wrong.;"
] | 19 | 1 | 1 | 20 | 0 | 20 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the elocutionist reorders parfait. ; $context$ = sent1: if the renin bottoms then the elocutionist reorders parfait. sent2: if that something is not isopteran but it is a lacteal is wrong it amounts. sent3: that the elocutionist is bottomed thing that is not flowerless does not hold if the renin is a blucher. sent4: if something is staphylococcal then it is not a modeling and it is not meaty. sent5: if the Soubise is a kind of an associate then the fact that the cherub is an associate is right. sent6: the Guarani is tensile if something is a chiropractor that is not a depersonalization. sent7: if that something is pilosebaceous or it is not a kind of a blucher or both is wrong the fact that it is not flowerless is not wrong. sent8: the fact that something is not isopteran and is a lacteal does not hold if it is tensile. sent9: something is a blucher and is pilosebaceous if it is not meaty. sent10: something that is a stern is not grammatical and is not staphylococcal. sent11: the elocutionist does not reorder parfait if the renin does not reorder parfait and is not a kind of a bottomed. sent12: if the cherub is an associate then it is a chiropractor and is not a depersonalization. sent13: if the fact that the caddis-fly is not a August hold that it is not a yellow or not a topolatry or both is incorrect. sent14: if there is something such that that it is not a yellow and/or it is not a topolatry does not hold then that the Soubise associates is right. sent15: the elocutionist does reorder parfait if that the renin is flowerless is correct. sent16: if the Wampanoag is meaty that either the renin is pilosebaceous or it is not a blucher or both is not correct. sent17: the auto-changer does reorder parfait. sent18: if the renin does not reorder parfait then the Adam does bottom and it is flowerless. sent19: the caddis-fly is not a August if the eyeshadow is both a August and not a Jurassic. sent20: if the Guarani is a kind of an amount then the fact that the Wampanoag is grammatical but it is not a stern does not hold. sent21: the eyeshadow is a August but it is not Jurassic. sent22: the renin reorders parfait. sent23: the renin is either not non-bottomed or not flowering or both. ; $proof$ =
|
sent23 & sent1 & sent15 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the courbaril is inactive.
|
{A}{a}
|
sent1: the kaolinite is a kind of a highway. sent2: the fact that the fact that the courbaril is inactive thing that is bacteriological is not incorrect is false. sent3: there is something such that that it is a kind of bacteriological thing that is inactive does not hold. sent4: the fact that the kaolinite is inactive and it is bacteriological is false. sent5: that the kaolinite reorders Pediculus and is fetal is not true. sent6: if the fact that there is something such that that it reorders Pediculus and it is inactive is not correct is not wrong then the courbaril is bacteriological. sent7: the courbaril is inactive if there is something such that it is not bacteriological. sent8: there is nothing that does reorder Pediculus and is bacteriological. sent9: the arrowsmith is a phenomenon. sent10: if the jackrabbit is toneless then the ceresin is a seaward. sent11: there is nothing that is both bacteriological and inactive. sent12: that the rattler is Aberdonian and it is a revocation does not hold if the courbaril is not inactive. sent13: the fact that there is nothing such that it is Aberdonian thing that accedes hold. sent14: if the hostage is both operational and not non-Scythian the courbaril is not operational.
|
sent1: {JD}{aa} sent2: ¬({A}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent3: (Ex): ¬({AB}x & {A}x) sent4: ¬({A}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent5: ¬({AA}{aa} & {J}{aa}) sent6: (x): ¬({AA}x & {A}x) -> {AB}{a} sent7: (x): ¬{AB}x -> {A}{a} sent8: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent9: {GL}{dp} sent10: {E}{d} -> {D}{c} sent11: (x): ¬({AB}x & {A}x) sent12: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({FM}{fq} & {CA}{fq}) sent13: (x): ¬({FM}x & {AC}x) sent14: (¬{A}{b} & {B}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a}
|
[
"sent8 -> int1: that the kaolinite does reorder Pediculus and it is bacteriological does not hold.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that that it reorders Pediculus and it is bacteriological does not hold.;"
] |
[
"sent8 -> int1: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x);"
] |
the fact that the rattler is a kind of Aberdonian thing that is a revocation is wrong.
|
¬({FM}{fq} & {CA}{fq})
|
[] | 6 | 3 | null | 13 | 0 | 13 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the courbaril is inactive. ; $context$ = sent1: the kaolinite is a kind of a highway. sent2: the fact that the fact that the courbaril is inactive thing that is bacteriological is not incorrect is false. sent3: there is something such that that it is a kind of bacteriological thing that is inactive does not hold. sent4: the fact that the kaolinite is inactive and it is bacteriological is false. sent5: that the kaolinite reorders Pediculus and is fetal is not true. sent6: if the fact that there is something such that that it reorders Pediculus and it is inactive is not correct is not wrong then the courbaril is bacteriological. sent7: the courbaril is inactive if there is something such that it is not bacteriological. sent8: there is nothing that does reorder Pediculus and is bacteriological. sent9: the arrowsmith is a phenomenon. sent10: if the jackrabbit is toneless then the ceresin is a seaward. sent11: there is nothing that is both bacteriological and inactive. sent12: that the rattler is Aberdonian and it is a revocation does not hold if the courbaril is not inactive. sent13: the fact that there is nothing such that it is Aberdonian thing that accedes hold. sent14: if the hostage is both operational and not non-Scythian the courbaril is not operational. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 -> int1: that the kaolinite does reorder Pediculus and it is bacteriological does not hold.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that that it reorders Pediculus and it is bacteriological does not hold.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the SNP does not occur.
|
¬{A}
|
sent1: the SNP happens.
|
sent1: {A}
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the SNP does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the SNP happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the schnook does not aspirate D-day is not wrong.
|
¬{D}{a}
|
sent1: if that something is not a kind of a naphtha but it is a histiocyte is not true then it is not a histiocyte. sent2: if the fact that something is not a seckel and/or it is not a histiocyte is not true then it does not aspirate D-day. sent3: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a calamint and it is not statutory does not hold. sent4: the acarus does not reorder cupflower if there is something such that it does not sedate crocolite. sent5: if the schnook does mount then it mortises amphetamine. sent6: the refinery does not mortise Ploceidae if there is something such that it sedates bedbug and does not reorder cupflower. sent7: something does not sedate crocolite. sent8: the fact that something is not an outrageousness is true if the fact that it is not monetary and/or it is Tasmanian is incorrect. sent9: if the amphetamine is not a histiocyte then the bedbug is not anastigmatic and does not aspirate D-day. sent10: if the acarus sedates acarus it sedates bedbug. sent11: the Python is a Plesianthropus. sent12: something does not aspirate D-day if the fact that it is a seckel and/or not a histiocyte does not hold. sent13: the fact that if the Python is a Plesianthropus then the acarus does sedate acarus is true. sent14: the compress is not a seckel if that the refinery is a seckel that is not non-geometric is not right. sent15: if that the schnook is a seckel or it is not a histiocyte or both is not right it does not aspirate D-day. sent16: if something does not mortise Ploceidae then that it is both a seckel and geometric is not correct. sent17: the schnook aspirates D-day if the bedbug does not aspirates D-day. sent18: that the figeater is not anastigmatic is correct. sent19: the schnook is anastigmatic if there is something such that that that it is both not a calamint and not statutory is not false does not hold.
|
sent1: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & {B}x) -> ¬{B}x sent2: (x): ¬(¬{C}x v ¬{B}x) -> ¬{D}x sent3: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent4: (x): ¬{L}x -> ¬{H}{f} sent5: {IL}{a} -> {IB}{a} sent6: (x): ({I}x & ¬{H}x) -> ¬{F}{e} sent7: (Ex): ¬{L}x sent8: (x): ¬(¬{GR}x v {CQ}x) -> ¬{HL}x sent9: ¬{B}{c} -> (¬{A}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent10: {J}{f} -> {I}{f} sent11: {K}{g} sent12: (x): ¬({C}x v ¬{B}x) -> ¬{D}x sent13: {K}{g} -> {J}{f} sent14: ¬({C}{e} & {G}{e}) -> ¬{C}{d} sent15: ¬({C}{a} v ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent16: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬({C}x & {G}x) sent17: ¬{D}{b} -> {D}{a} sent18: ¬{A}{t} sent19: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a}
|
[
"sent3 & sent19 -> int1: the schnook is anastigmatic.; sent2 -> int2: if the fact that the schnook is not a seckel or it is not a kind of a histiocyte or both is not correct it does not aspirate D-day.;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent19 -> int1: {A}{a}; sent2 -> int2: ¬(¬{C}{a} v ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a};"
] |
the schnook aspirates D-day.
|
{D}{a}
|
[
"sent1 -> int3: the amphetamine is not a histiocyte if that it is not a kind of a naphtha and it is a histiocyte is wrong.; sent16 -> int4: the fact that the refinery is a seckel but not non-geometric is incorrect if the fact that it does not mortise Ploceidae is not false.; sent13 & sent11 -> int5: the acarus does sedate acarus.; sent10 & int5 -> int6: the acarus does sedate bedbug.; sent7 & sent4 -> int7: the acarus does not reorder cupflower.; int6 & int7 -> int8: the acarus does sedate bedbug and does not reorder cupflower.; int8 -> int9: something does sedate bedbug but it does not reorder cupflower.; int9 & sent6 -> int10: the refinery does not mortise Ploceidae.; int4 & int10 -> int11: that the refinery is a seckel and it is geometric is incorrect.; sent14 & int11 -> int12: the compress is not a kind of a seckel.; int12 -> int13: there is something such that that it is not a kind of a seckel is not false.;"
] | 13 | 3 | null | 16 | 0 | 16 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the schnook does not aspirate D-day is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something is not a kind of a naphtha but it is a histiocyte is not true then it is not a histiocyte. sent2: if the fact that something is not a seckel and/or it is not a histiocyte is not true then it does not aspirate D-day. sent3: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a calamint and it is not statutory does not hold. sent4: the acarus does not reorder cupflower if there is something such that it does not sedate crocolite. sent5: if the schnook does mount then it mortises amphetamine. sent6: the refinery does not mortise Ploceidae if there is something such that it sedates bedbug and does not reorder cupflower. sent7: something does not sedate crocolite. sent8: the fact that something is not an outrageousness is true if the fact that it is not monetary and/or it is Tasmanian is incorrect. sent9: if the amphetamine is not a histiocyte then the bedbug is not anastigmatic and does not aspirate D-day. sent10: if the acarus sedates acarus it sedates bedbug. sent11: the Python is a Plesianthropus. sent12: something does not aspirate D-day if the fact that it is a seckel and/or not a histiocyte does not hold. sent13: the fact that if the Python is a Plesianthropus then the acarus does sedate acarus is true. sent14: the compress is not a seckel if that the refinery is a seckel that is not non-geometric is not right. sent15: if that the schnook is a seckel or it is not a histiocyte or both is not right it does not aspirate D-day. sent16: if something does not mortise Ploceidae then that it is both a seckel and geometric is not correct. sent17: the schnook aspirates D-day if the bedbug does not aspirates D-day. sent18: that the figeater is not anastigmatic is correct. sent19: the schnook is anastigmatic if there is something such that that that it is both not a calamint and not statutory is not false does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent19 -> int1: the schnook is anastigmatic.; sent2 -> int2: if the fact that the schnook is not a seckel or it is not a kind of a histiocyte or both is not correct it does not aspirate D-day.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the plumcot is collegiate.
|
{D}{c}
|
sent1: if the cruet-stand is not unwholesome and it is not a Aengus it is not a kind of a gurgle. sent2: if the cruet-stand is not a gurgle then the lumberyard is an epistle and/or it does reorder campstool. sent3: if something reorders campstool then it is not an epistle and it is a kind of a gurgle. sent4: the cruet-stand is not unwholesome and is not a Aengus. sent5: if the lumberyard does reorder campstool then the plumcot is collegiate.
|
sent1: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent2: ¬{B}{a} -> ({A}{b} v {C}{b}) sent3: (x): {C}x -> (¬{A}x & {B}x) sent4: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent5: {C}{b} -> {D}{c}
|
[
"sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the cruet-stand is not a kind of a gurgle.; sent2 & int1 -> int2: the lumberyard is a kind of an epistle or it does reorder campstool or both.;"
] |
[
"sent1 & sent4 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; sent2 & int1 -> int2: ({A}{b} v {C}{b});"
] |
the plumcot is not collegiate.
|
¬{D}{c}
|
[
"sent3 -> int3: if the cruet-stand reorders campstool then it is not an epistle but a gurgle.;"
] | 5 | 3 | null | 1 | 0 | 1 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the plumcot is collegiate. ; $context$ = sent1: if the cruet-stand is not unwholesome and it is not a Aengus it is not a kind of a gurgle. sent2: if the cruet-stand is not a gurgle then the lumberyard is an epistle and/or it does reorder campstool. sent3: if something reorders campstool then it is not an epistle and it is a kind of a gurgle. sent4: the cruet-stand is not unwholesome and is not a Aengus. sent5: if the lumberyard does reorder campstool then the plumcot is collegiate. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the cruet-stand is not a kind of a gurgle.; sent2 & int1 -> int2: the lumberyard is a kind of an epistle or it does reorder campstool or both.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if it chocks and it is not a kind of a ununquadium then it is non-organicistic.
|
(Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
sent1: if something is a kind of a chock but it is not a ununquadium it is organicistic. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a Norman and it is not a kind of a tattle then it does not reorder Peromyscus. sent3: something that does chock and is not a ununquadium is not organicistic. sent4: if the Meany is a chock and is a kind of a ununquadium it is not organicistic. sent5: there is something such that if it is unscientific and is not a woodgrain that it does not reorder London hold. sent6: the fact that the Meany is organicistic is true if it is a chock and it is not a ununquadium. sent7: something is not Afghani if it dogmatizes and is not a lashing. sent8: if something mortises femtochemistry and is meteoritic that it is not gluttonous is not wrong. sent9: if a cardinal thing is not testaceous then it is not a Galium.
|
sent1: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent2: (Ex): ({IU}x & ¬{ID}x) -> ¬{IK}x sent3: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent4: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent5: (Ex): ({BO}x & ¬{M}x) -> ¬{K}x sent6: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent7: (x): ({GI}x & ¬{DQ}x) -> ¬{IF}x sent8: (x): ({BM}x & {DA}x) -> ¬{BU}x sent9: (x): ({BT}x & ¬{EL}x) -> ¬{EG}x
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: if the Meany chocks but it is not a ununquadium then it is not organicistic.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it chocks and it is not a kind of a ununquadium then it is non-organicistic. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a kind of a chock but it is not a ununquadium it is organicistic. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a Norman and it is not a kind of a tattle then it does not reorder Peromyscus. sent3: something that does chock and is not a ununquadium is not organicistic. sent4: if the Meany is a chock and is a kind of a ununquadium it is not organicistic. sent5: there is something such that if it is unscientific and is not a woodgrain that it does not reorder London hold. sent6: the fact that the Meany is organicistic is true if it is a chock and it is not a ununquadium. sent7: something is not Afghani if it dogmatizes and is not a lashing. sent8: if something mortises femtochemistry and is meteoritic that it is not gluttonous is not wrong. sent9: if a cardinal thing is not testaceous then it is not a Galium. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> int1: if the Meany chocks but it is not a ununquadium then it is not organicistic.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the mulatto does not concert.
|
¬{E}{c}
|
sent1: if that that something is not effortless but it concerts is correct is not correct it does not sedate shadflower. sent2: if the figure does sedate shadflower and it is anemophilous it is a Mon. sent3: the Vedist is not a kind of a Mon. sent4: the sousaphone is a Recife and/or is effortless. sent5: if the figure is not a concert then the mulatto is a kind of a Mon and does not concert. sent6: something that sedates shadflower is not anemophilous and/or is a kind of a Mon. sent7: if the fact that the sousaphone is not anemophilous hold the figure is not anemophilous. sent8: the mulatto is not a nitrobenzene. sent9: if something is a nitrobenzene that the sousaphone is not anemophilous is right. sent10: if the sousaphone is not anemophilous the figure sedates shadflower and is not anemophilous. sent11: that the bargainer is not a nitrobenzene and is anemophilous is not true if there exists something such that that it does not sedate shadflower is not incorrect. sent12: the figure is a Mon if it sedates shadflower and is not anemophilous. sent13: there is something such that it is a nitrobenzene. sent14: the figure is not anemophilous. sent15: the mulatto is not anemophilous if the sousaphone is not anemophilous or it is a Mon or both.
|
sent1: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & {E}x) -> ¬{D}x sent2: ({D}{b} & {B}{b}) -> {C}{b} sent3: ¬{C}{hb} sent4: ({G}{a} v {F}{a}) sent5: ¬{E}{b} -> ({C}{c} & ¬{E}{c}) sent6: (x): {D}x -> (¬{B}x v {C}x) sent7: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent8: ¬{A}{c} sent9: (x): {A}x -> ¬{B}{a} sent10: ¬{B}{a} -> ({D}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent11: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬(¬{A}{jh} & {B}{jh}) sent12: ({D}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> {C}{b} sent13: (Ex): {A}x sent14: ¬{B}{b} sent15: (¬{B}{a} v {C}{a}) -> ¬{B}{c}
|
[
"sent13 & sent9 -> int1: the sousaphone is not anemophilous.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: the figure does sedate shadflower and is not anemophilous.; int2 & sent12 -> int3: the figure is a kind of a Mon.;"
] |
[
"sent13 & sent9 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; int1 & sent10 -> int2: ({D}{b} & ¬{B}{b}); int2 & sent12 -> int3: {C}{b};"
] |
the bargainer is not a Mon.
|
¬{C}{jh}
|
[
"sent1 -> int4: if that that the figure is effortful and a concert is incorrect is not incorrect then it does not sedate shadflower.;"
] | 7 | 4 | null | 11 | 0 | 11 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the mulatto does not concert. ; $context$ = sent1: if that that something is not effortless but it concerts is correct is not correct it does not sedate shadflower. sent2: if the figure does sedate shadflower and it is anemophilous it is a Mon. sent3: the Vedist is not a kind of a Mon. sent4: the sousaphone is a Recife and/or is effortless. sent5: if the figure is not a concert then the mulatto is a kind of a Mon and does not concert. sent6: something that sedates shadflower is not anemophilous and/or is a kind of a Mon. sent7: if the fact that the sousaphone is not anemophilous hold the figure is not anemophilous. sent8: the mulatto is not a nitrobenzene. sent9: if something is a nitrobenzene that the sousaphone is not anemophilous is right. sent10: if the sousaphone is not anemophilous the figure sedates shadflower and is not anemophilous. sent11: that the bargainer is not a nitrobenzene and is anemophilous is not true if there exists something such that that it does not sedate shadflower is not incorrect. sent12: the figure is a Mon if it sedates shadflower and is not anemophilous. sent13: there is something such that it is a nitrobenzene. sent14: the figure is not anemophilous. sent15: the mulatto is not anemophilous if the sousaphone is not anemophilous or it is a Mon or both. ; $proof$ =
|
sent13 & sent9 -> int1: the sousaphone is not anemophilous.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: the figure does sedate shadflower and is not anemophilous.; int2 & sent12 -> int3: the figure is a kind of a Mon.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the testimonialness occurs.
|
{B}
|
sent1: that the testimonialness does not occur is prevented by that the redoubling does not occur and the granulation does not occur. sent2: the redoubling does not occur. sent3: if the duster does not occur then the redoubling does not occur and the granulation does not occur.
|
sent1: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent2: ¬{AA} sent3: ¬{A} -> (¬{AA} & ¬{AB})
|
[] |
[] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | null | 1 | 0 | 1 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the testimonialness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that the testimonialness does not occur is prevented by that the redoubling does not occur and the granulation does not occur. sent2: the redoubling does not occur. sent3: if the duster does not occur then the redoubling does not occur and the granulation does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the aglet is both not a agateware and a Donar.
|
(¬{B}{b} & {C}{b})
|
sent1: the hazard is not unfrozen if something that is not a kind of a Ploceidae is not a biliousness. sent2: the means is not a kind of a Ploceidae and it is not a biliousness. sent3: that something is unfrozen is correct if that it is an exclusive and it is not a kind of a Donar is not true. sent4: that something is not a agateware but it is a Donar is not true if it is not unfrozen. sent5: if something does not sedate cutback it is a cruet and/or it does not reorder locking. sent6: there is something such that it is not a Ploceidae and it is a kind of a biliousness. sent7: the commonwealth is not a agateware and it does not sustain if it is unfrozen. sent8: the aglet is not a agateware but a Donar if that the hazard is not unfrozen is not incorrect. sent9: everything does not sedate cutback. sent10: something is not a corsair if either it is a cruet or it does not reorder locking or both.
|
sent1: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent2: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent3: (x): ¬({D}x & ¬{C}x) -> {A}x sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & {C}x) sent5: (x): ¬{H}x -> ({F}x v ¬{G}x) sent6: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent7: {A}{ft} -> (¬{B}{ft} & ¬{CQ}{ft}) sent8: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{B}{b} & {C}{b}) sent9: (x): ¬{H}x sent10: (x): ({F}x v ¬{G}x) -> ¬{E}x
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: there exists something such that it is not a Ploceidae and it is not a biliousness.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the hazard is not unfrozen.; sent8 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> int1: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x); int1 & sent1 -> int2: ¬{A}{a}; sent8 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the commonwealth is not a kind of a agateware and does not sustain.
|
(¬{B}{ft} & ¬{CQ}{ft})
|
[
"sent3 -> int3: the commonwealth is unfrozen if that it is an exclusive and it is not a Donar is wrong.; sent10 -> int4: if the commonwealth is a cruet and/or it does not reorder locking then it is not a corsair.; sent9 -> int5: the hazard does not sedate cutback.; sent5 -> int6: the hazard is a cruet and/or does not reorder locking if the fact that it does not sedate cutback hold.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the hazard is a kind of a cruet or it does not reorder locking or both.; int7 -> int8: everything is a cruet and/or it does not reorder locking.; int8 -> int9: the commonwealth is a cruet or does not reorder locking or both.; int4 & int9 -> int10: that the commonwealth is not a corsair is not incorrect.;"
] | 8 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the aglet is both not a agateware and a Donar. ; $context$ = sent1: the hazard is not unfrozen if something that is not a kind of a Ploceidae is not a biliousness. sent2: the means is not a kind of a Ploceidae and it is not a biliousness. sent3: that something is unfrozen is correct if that it is an exclusive and it is not a kind of a Donar is not true. sent4: that something is not a agateware but it is a Donar is not true if it is not unfrozen. sent5: if something does not sedate cutback it is a cruet and/or it does not reorder locking. sent6: there is something such that it is not a Ploceidae and it is a kind of a biliousness. sent7: the commonwealth is not a agateware and it does not sustain if it is unfrozen. sent8: the aglet is not a agateware but a Donar if that the hazard is not unfrozen is not incorrect. sent9: everything does not sedate cutback. sent10: something is not a corsair if either it is a cruet or it does not reorder locking or both. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> int1: there exists something such that it is not a Ploceidae and it is not a biliousness.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the hazard is not unfrozen.; sent8 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the silverberry is not esophageal.
|
¬{D}{c}
|
sent1: the fact that the fives does not reorder flybridge is not false if the baste does not mortise keloid and is not felicitous. sent2: if the fact that the arginine is both a welt and not a fistmele is not correct then the jewel is not a kind of an aesthetics. sent3: if something reorders Holocene then it is esophageal. sent4: if something does not reorder flybridge then that it is not a surgeon and not a Trondheim is wrong. sent5: something is not esophageal if it is a slattern. sent6: the blueberry reorders silverberry or it does reorder Fargo or both. sent7: if the silverberry is a slattern it is not esophageal. sent8: if that either something does reorder silverberry or it reorders Fargo or both is true then the baste is infelicitous. sent9: that something is not esophageal if the fact that it reorders Holocene and is not a kind of a slattern is wrong is correct. sent10: that the arginine is a kind of a welt that is not a fistmele is false. sent11: that the silverberry reorders Holocene and is a slattern does not hold. sent12: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a addend then the arginine is aesthetics and it is a slattern. sent13: there exists something such that it does mortise rad. sent14: if that the fives is not a Trondheim and it is not a surgeon is not true the silverberry is not a surgeon. sent15: the picot is not esophageal if that the arginine is aesthetics and reorders Holocene does not hold. sent16: that the arginine is aesthetics thing that does reorder Holocene is wrong if the jewel is not a kind of a slattern. sent17: that that the silverberry is a kind of a slattern but it is not a addend is wrong hold if it is not a surgeon. sent18: the baste does not mortise keloid if that it is not handless and it mortise keloid does not hold. sent19: if the jewel is not a kind of an aesthetics that the silverberry reorders Holocene and it is a slattern is incorrect. sent20: if the arginine does not welt then the jewel is not an aesthetics. sent21: the jewel is not a kind of a addend if there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a surgeon and is not a Trondheim is not right. sent22: the fact that the silverberry does reorder Holocene but it is not a slattern does not hold if the jewel is not aesthetics. sent23: that the bow is tortious and is not a kind of a purdah is wrong. sent24: the fact that the baste is not handless but it mortises keloid is not true if there is something such that it does mortise rad.
|
sent1: (¬{I}{e} & ¬{J}{e}) -> ¬{H}{d} sent2: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent3: (x): {A}x -> {D}x sent4: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{G}x) sent5: (x): {C}x -> ¬{D}x sent6: ({K}{f} v {L}{f}) sent7: {C}{c} -> ¬{D}{c} sent8: (x): ({K}x v {L}x) -> ¬{J}{e} sent9: (x): ¬({A}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{D}x sent10: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent11: ¬({A}{c} & {C}{c}) sent12: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent13: (Ex): {N}x sent14: ¬(¬{G}{d} & ¬{F}{d}) -> ¬{F}{c} sent15: ¬({B}{a} & {A}{a}) -> ¬{D}{en} sent16: ¬{C}{b} -> ¬({B}{a} & {A}{a}) sent17: ¬{F}{c} -> ¬({C}{c} & ¬{E}{c}) sent18: ¬(¬{M}{e} & {I}{e}) -> ¬{I}{e} sent19: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬({A}{c} & {C}{c}) sent20: ¬{AA}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent21: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{E}{b} sent22: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬({A}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) sent23: ¬({GS}{gn} & ¬{JC}{gn}) sent24: (x): {N}x -> ¬(¬{M}{e} & {I}{e})
|
[
"sent2 & sent10 -> int1: the jewel is not an aesthetics.; int1 & sent22 -> int2: that the silverberry reorders Holocene but it is not a slattern is false.; sent9 -> int3: the silverberry is not esophageal if the fact that it does reorder Holocene and is not a kind of a slattern does not hold.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent10 -> int1: ¬{B}{b}; int1 & sent22 -> int2: ¬({A}{c} & ¬{C}{c}); sent9 -> int3: ¬({A}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) -> ¬{D}{c}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the picot is not esophageal hold.
|
¬{D}{en}
|
[] | 9 | 3 | 3 | 20 | 0 | 20 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the silverberry is not esophageal. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the fives does not reorder flybridge is not false if the baste does not mortise keloid and is not felicitous. sent2: if the fact that the arginine is both a welt and not a fistmele is not correct then the jewel is not a kind of an aesthetics. sent3: if something reorders Holocene then it is esophageal. sent4: if something does not reorder flybridge then that it is not a surgeon and not a Trondheim is wrong. sent5: something is not esophageal if it is a slattern. sent6: the blueberry reorders silverberry or it does reorder Fargo or both. sent7: if the silverberry is a slattern it is not esophageal. sent8: if that either something does reorder silverberry or it reorders Fargo or both is true then the baste is infelicitous. sent9: that something is not esophageal if the fact that it reorders Holocene and is not a kind of a slattern is wrong is correct. sent10: that the arginine is a kind of a welt that is not a fistmele is false. sent11: that the silverberry reorders Holocene and is a slattern does not hold. sent12: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a addend then the arginine is aesthetics and it is a slattern. sent13: there exists something such that it does mortise rad. sent14: if that the fives is not a Trondheim and it is not a surgeon is not true the silverberry is not a surgeon. sent15: the picot is not esophageal if that the arginine is aesthetics and reorders Holocene does not hold. sent16: that the arginine is aesthetics thing that does reorder Holocene is wrong if the jewel is not a kind of a slattern. sent17: that that the silverberry is a kind of a slattern but it is not a addend is wrong hold if it is not a surgeon. sent18: the baste does not mortise keloid if that it is not handless and it mortise keloid does not hold. sent19: if the jewel is not a kind of an aesthetics that the silverberry reorders Holocene and it is a slattern is incorrect. sent20: if the arginine does not welt then the jewel is not an aesthetics. sent21: the jewel is not a kind of a addend if there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a surgeon and is not a Trondheim is not right. sent22: the fact that the silverberry does reorder Holocene but it is not a slattern does not hold if the jewel is not aesthetics. sent23: that the bow is tortious and is not a kind of a purdah is wrong. sent24: the fact that the baste is not handless but it mortises keloid is not true if there is something such that it does mortise rad. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent10 -> int1: the jewel is not an aesthetics.; int1 & sent22 -> int2: that the silverberry reorders Holocene but it is not a slattern is false.; sent9 -> int3: the silverberry is not esophageal if the fact that it does reorder Holocene and is not a kind of a slattern does not hold.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it is not a invalidator or it is impermissible or both then it does not mortise hydrate.
|
(Ex): (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
sent1: there is something such that if it is impermissible then it does not mortise hydrate. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a CRP and/or not nonexempt it is not a monolingual. sent3: something is not unairworthy if that it mortises conglomeration is true. sent4: if the milkcap is not a Paget and/or it explores then that it is a kind of a Senhor is not wrong. sent5: something does not mortise hydrate if it is a invalidator and/or it is impermissible. sent6: something is not fossorial if it does not reorder alkapton and/or it is vigesimal. sent7: that there is something such that if either it does not reorder panhandle or it is a trisaccharide or both that it is a center is not wrong hold.
|
sent1: (Ex): {AB}x -> ¬{B}x sent2: (Ex): ({HA}x v {DL}x) -> ¬{CR}x sent3: (x): {S}x -> ¬{ES}x sent4: (¬{JI}{aa} v {HN}{aa}) -> {HQ}{aa} sent5: (x): ({AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent6: (x): (¬{GF}x v {AD}x) -> ¬{BC}x sent7: (Ex): (¬{CN}x v {DH}x) -> {ET}x
|
[] |
[] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | null | 7 | 0 | 7 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is not a invalidator or it is impermissible or both then it does not mortise hydrate. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is impermissible then it does not mortise hydrate. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a CRP and/or not nonexempt it is not a monolingual. sent3: something is not unairworthy if that it mortises conglomeration is true. sent4: if the milkcap is not a Paget and/or it explores then that it is a kind of a Senhor is not wrong. sent5: something does not mortise hydrate if it is a invalidator and/or it is impermissible. sent6: something is not fossorial if it does not reorder alkapton and/or it is vigesimal. sent7: that there is something such that if either it does not reorder panhandle or it is a trisaccharide or both that it is a center is not wrong hold. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there exists something such that if it is not non-amphoric or it is not a thirteenth or both it is pyrographic is false.
|
¬((Ex): ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x)
|
sent1: there is something such that if it is either a musket or not a searcher or both then it sedates Daucus. sent2: there is something such that if it is not a aquaplane that it is unchristian is right. sent3: if the republication is amphoric or it is not a thirteenth or both it is pyrographic.
|
sent1: (Ex): ({FE}x v ¬{IA}x) -> {AR}x sent2: (Ex): ¬{BR}x -> {DU}x sent3: ({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}
|
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it is not non-amphoric or it is not a thirteenth or both it is pyrographic is false. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is either a musket or not a searcher or both then it sedates Daucus. sent2: there is something such that if it is not a aquaplane that it is unchristian is right. sent3: if the republication is amphoric or it is not a thirteenth or both it is pyrographic. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the spanking does not occur.
|
¬{B}
|
sent1: if the foliation occurs both the non-cloudyness and the non-diocesanness occurs. sent2: that the spanking occurs is brought about by the Capetian. sent3: the fact that the sedating Lygaeidae does not occur and the hospice happens does not hold if the diocesanness does not occur. sent4: that the mortising porphyry occurs is not right if the fact that the arthrography and the aspirating Pennisetum occurs is wrong. sent5: that the arthrography and the aspirating Pennisetum happens is false if the church does not occur. sent6: the Capetian happens. sent7: the lymphangiography happens if the fact that the mortising changed but not the rhizoidalness happens is false. sent8: the fact that that both the mortising changed and the non-rhizoidalness occurs is not incorrect is incorrect if that the extenuation does not occur is not incorrect. sent9: if the biosystematicsness happens the reordering Holocene occurs. sent10: if the mortising porphyry does not occur not the spanking but the Capetianness occurs. sent11: that the drawing does not occur and the sedating hutch does not occur is caused by that the lymphangiography occurs. sent12: if the cautiousness occurs the fact that the altricialness occurs is right. sent13: if the fact that not the sedating Lygaeidae but the hospice happens does not hold the churching does not occur. sent14: the foliation and the interiorness happens if the sedating hutch does not occur.
|
sent1: {K} -> (¬{J} & ¬{I}) sent2: {A} -> {B} sent3: ¬{I} -> ¬(¬{H} & {G}) sent4: ¬({E} & {D}) -> ¬{C} sent5: ¬{F} -> ¬({E} & {D}) sent6: {A} sent7: ¬({Q} & ¬{P}) -> {O} sent8: ¬{R} -> ¬({Q} & ¬{P}) sent9: {GR} -> {CG} sent10: ¬{C} -> (¬{B} & {A}) sent11: {O} -> (¬{N} & ¬{M}) sent12: {ED} -> {EN} sent13: ¬(¬{H} & {G}) -> ¬{F} sent14: ¬{M} -> ({K} & {L})
|
[
"sent2 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the spanking does not occur.
|
¬{B}
|
[] | 15 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the spanking does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the foliation occurs both the non-cloudyness and the non-diocesanness occurs. sent2: that the spanking occurs is brought about by the Capetian. sent3: the fact that the sedating Lygaeidae does not occur and the hospice happens does not hold if the diocesanness does not occur. sent4: that the mortising porphyry occurs is not right if the fact that the arthrography and the aspirating Pennisetum occurs is wrong. sent5: that the arthrography and the aspirating Pennisetum happens is false if the church does not occur. sent6: the Capetian happens. sent7: the lymphangiography happens if the fact that the mortising changed but not the rhizoidalness happens is false. sent8: the fact that that both the mortising changed and the non-rhizoidalness occurs is not incorrect is incorrect if that the extenuation does not occur is not incorrect. sent9: if the biosystematicsness happens the reordering Holocene occurs. sent10: if the mortising porphyry does not occur not the spanking but the Capetianness occurs. sent11: that the drawing does not occur and the sedating hutch does not occur is caused by that the lymphangiography occurs. sent12: if the cautiousness occurs the fact that the altricialness occurs is right. sent13: if the fact that not the sedating Lygaeidae but the hospice happens does not hold the churching does not occur. sent14: the foliation and the interiorness happens if the sedating hutch does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there exists something such that if it does sedate sorting then that it is a abrogator and it is not a delegate is false is false.
|
¬((Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x))
|
sent1: the fact that the fact that the cunnilingus is a abrogator and does not delegate hold does not hold if it sedates sorting. sent2: if the cunnilingus does sedate sorting then it is a abrogator and it is not a delegate. sent3: there exists something such that if it sedates sorting then that it is a kind of a abrogator and it does delegate does not hold. sent4: there is something such that if it does sedate sorting then it is a abrogator and is not a delegate. sent5: if the Phallus does sedate sorting then that it is a kind of despotic thing that is not a dracontium is wrong. sent6: the fact that the cunnilingus is both a abrogator and a delegate is not true if it sedates sorting.
|
sent1: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent2: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent3: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent4: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent5: {A}{be} -> ¬({FQ}{be} & ¬{GP}{be}) sent6: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if it does sedate sorting then that it is a abrogator and it is not a delegate is false is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the fact that the cunnilingus is a abrogator and does not delegate hold does not hold if it sedates sorting. sent2: if the cunnilingus does sedate sorting then it is a abrogator and it is not a delegate. sent3: there exists something such that if it sedates sorting then that it is a kind of a abrogator and it does delegate does not hold. sent4: there is something such that if it does sedate sorting then it is a abrogator and is not a delegate. sent5: if the Phallus does sedate sorting then that it is a kind of despotic thing that is not a dracontium is wrong. sent6: the fact that the cunnilingus is both a abrogator and a delegate is not true if it sedates sorting. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
if the unwomanliness happens the amplitude does not occur.
|
{A} -> ¬{C}
|
sent1: the fact that the fact that the deanery but not the reordering matron occurs is not right hold. sent2: that the amplitude happens is prevented by that the destruction and the unwomanliness occurs. sent3: the reduplication occurs and the prowling occurs. sent4: the fact that the homing happens but the aspirating instruction does not occur is not correct. sent5: the mortising cemetery occurs. sent6: the mortising lather does not occur. sent7: the Post occurs and the migratoriness occurs. sent8: the sneak happens. sent9: that the mortising pollster does not occur is prevented by that the Tyroleanness happens and the evasion occurs. sent10: the mortising Carapidae occurs. sent11: if the strangeness happens the perpetration does not occur. sent12: if the reordering matron occurs then the destruction occurs. sent13: the fact that that the surgery but not the one-and-one happens does not hold is true. sent14: the fact that the baricness does not occur is correct if the compound happens and the dip occurs. sent15: the poling happens if the uncutness and the tanning occurs. sent16: that both the one-and-one and the Tyrolean happens is not correct. sent17: that the ferrimagnetism happens prevents that the quadrupedalness does not occur. sent18: both the allowancing and the analyticness occurs.
|
sent1: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent2: ({B} & {A}) -> ¬{C} sent3: ({E} & {ED}) sent4: ¬({IG} & ¬{JB}) sent5: {AS} sent6: ¬{EO} sent7: ({ER} & {JA}) sent8: {AD} sent9: ({CF} & {ES}) -> {DA} sent10: {FE} sent11: {CT} -> ¬{FD} sent12: {AB} -> {B} sent13: ¬({HI} & ¬{DO}) sent14: ({FN} & {GE}) -> ¬{BA} sent15: ({IE} & {DC}) -> {AP} sent16: ¬({DO} & {CF}) sent17: {DD} -> {IJ} sent18: ({HQ} & {EH})
|
[] |
[] |
the prowling and the compoundness occurs.
|
({ED} & {FN})
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: the prowl occurs.;"
] | 5 | 4 | null | 16 | 0 | 16 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = if the unwomanliness happens the amplitude does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the fact that the deanery but not the reordering matron occurs is not right hold. sent2: that the amplitude happens is prevented by that the destruction and the unwomanliness occurs. sent3: the reduplication occurs and the prowling occurs. sent4: the fact that the homing happens but the aspirating instruction does not occur is not correct. sent5: the mortising cemetery occurs. sent6: the mortising lather does not occur. sent7: the Post occurs and the migratoriness occurs. sent8: the sneak happens. sent9: that the mortising pollster does not occur is prevented by that the Tyroleanness happens and the evasion occurs. sent10: the mortising Carapidae occurs. sent11: if the strangeness happens the perpetration does not occur. sent12: if the reordering matron occurs then the destruction occurs. sent13: the fact that that the surgery but not the one-and-one happens does not hold is true. sent14: the fact that the baricness does not occur is correct if the compound happens and the dip occurs. sent15: the poling happens if the uncutness and the tanning occurs. sent16: that both the one-and-one and the Tyrolean happens is not correct. sent17: that the ferrimagnetism happens prevents that the quadrupedalness does not occur. sent18: both the allowancing and the analyticness occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that something does mortise stipe and is a Edison is not right.
|
¬((Ex): ({B}x & {A}x))
|
sent1: the blockbuster is a Edison if that that the acinus does mortise badness but it does not mortise stipe is right is wrong. sent2: if the acinus does not mortise stipe and is a Bubulcus then the blockbuster is a Bubulcus. sent3: that the blockbuster mortises badness and is not a Ambystoma is wrong. sent4: if that something is not a Ilex and is relevant does not hold it is a Ilex. sent5: the auricle is a Ilex if it does mortise DO and does not mortise reluctance. sent6: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a Ilex then that the blockbuster is not a Ilex but relevant does not hold. sent7: if the argonon is a extremeness the stria is a extremeness. sent8: the acinus does mortise stipe if the blockbuster is a Edison. sent9: the acinus does mortise stipe if the fact that the blockbuster does mortise badness and is not a Ambystoma is not correct. sent10: if the fact that the blockbuster is both a Ambystoma and not relevant is incorrect then the acinus mortises badness. sent11: the auricle mortises DO and does not mortise reluctance. sent12: the acinus is not a Edison if the stria is not a Chippendale but it is a extremeness. sent13: the acinus is a kind of a Edison and it is relevant. sent14: the blockbuster does parley. sent15: the stria is not a Chippendale. sent16: the lie is a kind of a drusen and it is relevant.
|
sent1: ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> {A}{a} sent2: (¬{B}{b} & {JF}{b}) -> {JF}{a} sent3: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent4: (x): ¬(¬{HG}x & {C}x) -> {HG}x sent5: ({E}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) -> {HG}{c} sent6: (x): {HG}x -> ¬(¬{HG}{a} & {C}{a}) sent7: {F}{e} -> {F}{d} sent8: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent9: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent10: ¬({AB}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {AA}{b} sent11: ({E}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) sent12: (¬{G}{d} & {F}{d}) -> ¬{A}{b} sent13: ({A}{b} & {C}{b}) sent14: {FT}{a} sent15: ¬{G}{d} sent16: ({GK}{au} & {C}{au})
|
[
"sent9 & sent3 -> int1: the acinus does mortise stipe.; sent13 -> int2: the acinus is a Edison.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the acinus mortises stipe and is a Edison.; int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 & sent3 -> int1: {B}{b}; sent13 -> int2: {A}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({B}{b} & {A}{b}); int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
something is a Bubulcus and is a Ilex.
|
(Ex): ({JF}x & {HG}x)
|
[
"sent4 -> int4: if that the blockbuster is not a Ilex and is relevant is false it is a Ilex.; sent5 & sent11 -> int5: the auricle is a Ilex.; int5 -> int6: there is something such that it is a kind of a Ilex.; int6 & sent6 -> int7: that the blockbuster is not a kind of a Ilex but it is relevant does not hold.; int4 & int7 -> int8: the blockbuster is a Ilex.;"
] | 7 | 3 | 3 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that something does mortise stipe and is a Edison is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the blockbuster is a Edison if that that the acinus does mortise badness but it does not mortise stipe is right is wrong. sent2: if the acinus does not mortise stipe and is a Bubulcus then the blockbuster is a Bubulcus. sent3: that the blockbuster mortises badness and is not a Ambystoma is wrong. sent4: if that something is not a Ilex and is relevant does not hold it is a Ilex. sent5: the auricle is a Ilex if it does mortise DO and does not mortise reluctance. sent6: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a Ilex then that the blockbuster is not a Ilex but relevant does not hold. sent7: if the argonon is a extremeness the stria is a extremeness. sent8: the acinus does mortise stipe if the blockbuster is a Edison. sent9: the acinus does mortise stipe if the fact that the blockbuster does mortise badness and is not a Ambystoma is not correct. sent10: if the fact that the blockbuster is both a Ambystoma and not relevant is incorrect then the acinus mortises badness. sent11: the auricle mortises DO and does not mortise reluctance. sent12: the acinus is not a Edison if the stria is not a Chippendale but it is a extremeness. sent13: the acinus is a kind of a Edison and it is relevant. sent14: the blockbuster does parley. sent15: the stria is not a Chippendale. sent16: the lie is a kind of a drusen and it is relevant. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 & sent3 -> int1: the acinus does mortise stipe.; sent13 -> int2: the acinus is a Edison.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the acinus mortises stipe and is a Edison.; int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the bray but not the aspirating Dasyurus occurs.
|
({F} & ¬{E})
|
sent1: the supervention does not occur. sent2: if the march does not occur that the braying but not the aspirating Dasyurus happens is false. sent3: if the mortising lumbermill happens then the mortising Hellenism does not occur and the lubrication does not occur. sent4: the braying happens. sent5: if the pyrecticness happens then the lentenness does not occur but the embrowning happens. sent6: if the fact that the divulgence but not the catholicness occurs does not hold then the divulgence does not occur. sent7: that both the non-Turkishness and the non-staccatoness occurs is triggered by that the mortising arched does not occur. sent8: the mortising Hellenism occurs. sent9: if the Kwanzaa does not occur that the sedating propertied happens and the auto-da-fe does not occur is not right. sent10: if the discontinuance does not occur the regicide happens and the forgetting occurs. sent11: if both the march and the mortising Hellenism happens the lubrication does not occur. sent12: both the thermodynamicness and the sedating fire-on-the-mountain occurs. sent13: the thermodynamicness occurs. sent14: if the mortising Hellenism does not occur the fact that the march and the non-thermodynamicness occurs is not correct. sent15: the discontinuance does not occur if the lentenness does not occur but the embrowning occurs. sent16: if the move occurs and the euphoricness does not occur the mortising arched does not occur. sent17: that the divulgence happens and the catholicness does not occur is not right if the staccatoness does not occur. sent18: the sedating indecision happens and the Kwanzaa does not occur if the divulgence does not occur. sent19: that the march occurs and the thermodynamicness happens is not false. sent20: if that the sedating propertied but not the auto-da-fe occurs does not hold the mortising lumbermill occurs. sent21: the moving happens but the euphoricness does not occur if the regicide happens.
|
sent1: ¬{IG} sent2: ¬{A} -> ¬({F} & ¬{E}) sent3: {G} -> (¬{C} & ¬{D}) sent4: {F} sent5: {AC} -> (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent6: ¬({L} & ¬{M}) -> ¬{L} sent7: ¬{P} -> (¬{O} & ¬{N}) sent8: {C} sent9: ¬{J} -> ¬({H} & ¬{I}) sent10: ¬{U} -> ({S} & {T}) sent11: ({A} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent12: ({B} & {CJ}) sent13: {B} sent14: ¬{C} -> ¬({A} & ¬{B}) sent15: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{U} sent16: ({R} & ¬{Q}) -> ¬{P} sent17: ¬{N} -> ¬({L} & ¬{M}) sent18: ¬{L} -> ({K} & ¬{J}) sent19: ({A} & {B}) sent20: ¬({H} & ¬{I}) -> {G} sent21: {S} -> ({R} & ¬{Q})
|
[
"sent19 -> int1: the march occurs.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: both the marching and the mortising Hellenism occurs.; int2 & sent11 -> int3: the lubrication does not occur.;"
] |
[
"sent19 -> int1: {A}; int1 & sent8 -> int2: ({A} & {C}); int2 & sent11 -> int3: ¬{D};"
] |
the sedating fire-on-the-mountain and the conge happens.
|
({CJ} & {JD})
|
[
"sent12 -> int4: the sedating fire-on-the-mountain occurs.;"
] | 5 | 4 | null | 18 | 0 | 18 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the bray but not the aspirating Dasyurus occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the supervention does not occur. sent2: if the march does not occur that the braying but not the aspirating Dasyurus happens is false. sent3: if the mortising lumbermill happens then the mortising Hellenism does not occur and the lubrication does not occur. sent4: the braying happens. sent5: if the pyrecticness happens then the lentenness does not occur but the embrowning happens. sent6: if the fact that the divulgence but not the catholicness occurs does not hold then the divulgence does not occur. sent7: that both the non-Turkishness and the non-staccatoness occurs is triggered by that the mortising arched does not occur. sent8: the mortising Hellenism occurs. sent9: if the Kwanzaa does not occur that the sedating propertied happens and the auto-da-fe does not occur is not right. sent10: if the discontinuance does not occur the regicide happens and the forgetting occurs. sent11: if both the march and the mortising Hellenism happens the lubrication does not occur. sent12: both the thermodynamicness and the sedating fire-on-the-mountain occurs. sent13: the thermodynamicness occurs. sent14: if the mortising Hellenism does not occur the fact that the march and the non-thermodynamicness occurs is not correct. sent15: the discontinuance does not occur if the lentenness does not occur but the embrowning occurs. sent16: if the move occurs and the euphoricness does not occur the mortising arched does not occur. sent17: that the divulgence happens and the catholicness does not occur is not right if the staccatoness does not occur. sent18: the sedating indecision happens and the Kwanzaa does not occur if the divulgence does not occur. sent19: that the march occurs and the thermodynamicness happens is not false. sent20: if that the sedating propertied but not the auto-da-fe occurs does not hold the mortising lumbermill occurs. sent21: the moving happens but the euphoricness does not occur if the regicide happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent19 -> int1: the march occurs.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: both the marching and the mortising Hellenism occurs.; int2 & sent11 -> int3: the lubrication does not occur.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the elegiacness does not occur hold.
|
¬{A}
|
sent1: the ordinance happens if the radial-pliness happens. sent2: the loading occurs. sent3: the publishing does not occur and the aecialness does not occur. sent4: the luck happens if the fact that both the non-elegiacness and the reordering Vendemiaire happens is not correct. sent5: the neuropsychologicalness happens. sent6: both the elegiacness and the reordering Vendemiaire happens. sent7: that the lapping does not occur triggers that both the radial-pliness and the exclusive occurs. sent8: the reordering Vendemiaire occurs. sent9: that the publishing does not occur and the aecialness does not occur prevents that the lapping occurs.
|
sent1: {D} -> {J} sent2: {HT} sent3: (¬{I} & ¬{K}) sent4: ¬(¬{A} & {B}) -> {IM} sent5: {FC} sent6: ({A} & {B}) sent7: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) sent8: {B} sent9: (¬{I} & ¬{K}) -> ¬{F}
|
[
"sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
both the ordinance and the luck happens.
|
({J} & {IM})
|
[
"sent9 & sent3 -> int1: the lapping does not occur.; sent7 & int1 -> int2: the radial-pliness happens and the exclusive occurs.; int2 -> int3: the radial-pliness occurs.; sent1 & int3 -> int4: the ordinance occurs.;"
] | 6 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the elegiacness does not occur hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the ordinance happens if the radial-pliness happens. sent2: the loading occurs. sent3: the publishing does not occur and the aecialness does not occur. sent4: the luck happens if the fact that both the non-elegiacness and the reordering Vendemiaire happens is not correct. sent5: the neuropsychologicalness happens. sent6: both the elegiacness and the reordering Vendemiaire happens. sent7: that the lapping does not occur triggers that both the radial-pliness and the exclusive occurs. sent8: the reordering Vendemiaire occurs. sent9: that the publishing does not occur and the aecialness does not occur prevents that the lapping occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the ciliate is a semidarkness or it is not a protozoology or both is not true.
|
¬({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a})
|
sent1: everything is a kind of an outhouse that is exilic. sent2: the beekeeper is not planetal if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a hydralazine and/or it is not oligarchic is false. sent3: if that the natural is not unpalatable and it does not reorder fife is false then the beekeeper does not reorder fife. sent4: there is something such that that it is a hydralazine and/or is not oligarchic is wrong. sent5: the ciliate is a semidarkness and/or it is not a kind of a protozoology. sent6: if the anxiolytic is not opening the ciliate is a syndactyly. sent7: something is impenetrable if it is a syndactyly. sent8: either the ciliate is a semidarkness or it is a protozoology or both. sent9: the ciliate does reorder beekeeper and/or it is not large-capitalization. sent10: if the natural is an outhouse the fact that it is not unpalatable and it does not reorder fife is wrong. sent11: the imp is a kind of a protozoology and/or is intelligent if the fact that the ciliate is impenetrable hold. sent12: that something is a semidarkness and/or it is not a protozoology does not hold if it is impenetrable.
|
sent1: (x): ({I}x & {J}x) sent2: (x): ¬({H}x v ¬{G}x) -> ¬{D}{c} sent3: ¬(¬{F}{d} & ¬{E}{d}) -> ¬{E}{c} sent4: (Ex): ¬({H}x v ¬{G}x) sent5: ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent6: ¬{C}{b} -> {B}{a} sent7: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent8: ({AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent9: ({CK}{a} v ¬{GP}{a}) sent10: {I}{d} -> ¬(¬{F}{d} & ¬{E}{d}) sent11: {A}{a} -> ({AB}{ft} v ¬{DL}{ft}) sent12: (x): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x v ¬{AB}x)
|
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the ciliate is a semidarkness or is not a protozoology or both is wrong.
|
¬({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a})
|
[
"sent12 -> int1: the fact that the ciliate either is a semidarkness or is not a protozoology or both is not right if it is impenetrable.; sent7 -> int2: the ciliate is impenetrable if it is a syndactyly.; sent4 & sent2 -> int3: the beekeeper is not planetal.; sent1 -> int4: the natural is an outhouse and it is exilic.; int4 -> int5: the natural is a kind of an outhouse.; sent10 & int5 -> int6: that the natural is a kind of palatable thing that does not reorder fife is not right.; sent3 & int6 -> int7: the beekeeper does not reorder fife.; int3 & int7 -> int8: the beekeeper is non-planetal and it does not reorder fife.; int8 -> int9: something is not planetal and it does not reorder fife.;"
] | 10 | 1 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the ciliate is a semidarkness or it is not a protozoology or both is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: everything is a kind of an outhouse that is exilic. sent2: the beekeeper is not planetal if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a hydralazine and/or it is not oligarchic is false. sent3: if that the natural is not unpalatable and it does not reorder fife is false then the beekeeper does not reorder fife. sent4: there is something such that that it is a hydralazine and/or is not oligarchic is wrong. sent5: the ciliate is a semidarkness and/or it is not a kind of a protozoology. sent6: if the anxiolytic is not opening the ciliate is a syndactyly. sent7: something is impenetrable if it is a syndactyly. sent8: either the ciliate is a semidarkness or it is a protozoology or both. sent9: the ciliate does reorder beekeeper and/or it is not large-capitalization. sent10: if the natural is an outhouse the fact that it is not unpalatable and it does not reorder fife is wrong. sent11: the imp is a kind of a protozoology and/or is intelligent if the fact that the ciliate is impenetrable hold. sent12: that something is a semidarkness and/or it is not a protozoology does not hold if it is impenetrable. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there is something such that if it is not fewer and is not a Mauritius then it is not a conglomeration is not true.
|
¬((Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x)
|
sent1: there exists something such that if it is not a sill and does not fray it is not visible. sent2: there is something such that if it does not sedate evolutionist and it does not sedate centennial then it does not delay. sent3: if a non-lithomantic thing is not a drawing then it is not a Crocodylidae. sent4: something is not blastogenetic if it is not a Spain and is not a tie. sent5: if the wassailer is not fewer but it is a Mauritius that it is not a conglomeration is correct. sent6: the fact that there exists something such that if it is fewer and is not a Mauritius then it is not a kind of a conglomeration is not incorrect. sent7: the wassailer is not a conglomeration if it does not aspirate Crocodylidae and is not comparable. sent8: if the wassailer is not fewer and it is not a Mauritius then that it is a conglomeration is true. sent9: that if the wassailer is fewer but not the Mauritius the wassailer is not a conglomeration is not wrong. sent10: if something is not fewer and it is not a Mauritius then the fact that it is a conglomeration is not false. sent11: if a non-fewer thing is not a kind of a Mauritius then it is not a conglomeration. sent12: there is something such that if the fact that it is non-fewer thing that is not a Mauritius hold then it is a conglomeration. sent13: if something that is not a Changtzu does not aspirate wassailer it does not chime. sent14: the wassailer does not aspirate polymorphism if it is a kind of non-fewer thing that does not sedate evolutionist. sent15: that there is something such that if it does not reorder moved and it is not a revocation it is not a letterpress is not false. sent16: there is something such that if it is non-fewer thing that is a kind of a Mauritius then it is not a conglomeration. sent17: if something does not frazzle and it is not a kind of a stern it is not stiff. sent18: if something is not fewer but it is a kind of a Mauritius then it is not a kind of a conglomeration. sent19: if something does not sedate lesbianism and is not spousal it is not sociological. sent20: if something is a kind of fewer thing that is not a Mauritius it is not a conglomeration.
|
sent1: (Ex): (¬{IR}x & ¬{FM}x) -> ¬{AG}x sent2: (Ex): (¬{CO}x & ¬{FO}x) -> ¬{CI}x sent3: (x): (¬{IF}x & ¬{JC}x) -> ¬{DN}x sent4: (x): (¬{EE}x & ¬{BL}x) -> ¬{FG}x sent5: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent6: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent7: (¬{BC}{aa} & ¬{BN}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent8: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent9: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent10: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent11: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent12: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent13: (x): (¬{CL}x & ¬{JH}x) -> ¬{DK}x sent14: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{CO}{aa}) -> ¬{GB}{aa} sent15: (Ex): (¬{Q}x & ¬{IS}x) -> ¬{P}x sent16: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent17: (x): (¬{HU}x & ¬{H}x) -> ¬{ER}x sent18: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent19: (x): (¬{BG}x & ¬{HQ}x) -> ¬{FL}x sent20: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
[
"sent11 -> int1: that the wassailer is not a conglomeration is correct if it is not fewer and it is not a Mauritius.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent11 -> int1: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if it is not fewer and is not a Mauritius then it is not a conglomeration is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it is not a sill and does not fray it is not visible. sent2: there is something such that if it does not sedate evolutionist and it does not sedate centennial then it does not delay. sent3: if a non-lithomantic thing is not a drawing then it is not a Crocodylidae. sent4: something is not blastogenetic if it is not a Spain and is not a tie. sent5: if the wassailer is not fewer but it is a Mauritius that it is not a conglomeration is correct. sent6: the fact that there exists something such that if it is fewer and is not a Mauritius then it is not a kind of a conglomeration is not incorrect. sent7: the wassailer is not a conglomeration if it does not aspirate Crocodylidae and is not comparable. sent8: if the wassailer is not fewer and it is not a Mauritius then that it is a conglomeration is true. sent9: that if the wassailer is fewer but not the Mauritius the wassailer is not a conglomeration is not wrong. sent10: if something is not fewer and it is not a Mauritius then the fact that it is a conglomeration is not false. sent11: if a non-fewer thing is not a kind of a Mauritius then it is not a conglomeration. sent12: there is something such that if the fact that it is non-fewer thing that is not a Mauritius hold then it is a conglomeration. sent13: if something that is not a Changtzu does not aspirate wassailer it does not chime. sent14: the wassailer does not aspirate polymorphism if it is a kind of non-fewer thing that does not sedate evolutionist. sent15: that there is something such that if it does not reorder moved and it is not a revocation it is not a letterpress is not false. sent16: there is something such that if it is non-fewer thing that is a kind of a Mauritius then it is not a conglomeration. sent17: if something does not frazzle and it is not a kind of a stern it is not stiff. sent18: if something is not fewer but it is a kind of a Mauritius then it is not a kind of a conglomeration. sent19: if something does not sedate lesbianism and is not spousal it is not sociological. sent20: if something is a kind of fewer thing that is not a Mauritius it is not a conglomeration. ; $proof$ =
|
sent11 -> int1: that the wassailer is not a conglomeration is correct if it is not fewer and it is not a Mauritius.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the tick is not a repose.
|
¬{C}{b}
|
sent1: the tick is a kind of a paw if the latrine is a Chelifer. sent2: the latrine is a Chelifer if it does not reorder nosepiece. sent3: the fact that the latrine reorders nosepiece but it is not uninformative is not right. sent4: if something is a paw then it does not repose. sent5: the latrine aspirates Transcaucasia. sent6: the Goth is not a Chelifer. sent7: that the tick is a paw but it is not a Chelifer is incorrect. sent8: if the tick is uninformative the latrine is a repose. sent9: something does paw if it is not a kind of a repose and it is a Chelifer. sent10: the tick is uninformative if the latrine is a kind of a paw. sent11: the fact that that the latrine reorders nosepiece and it does repose is not wrong does not hold. sent12: the latrine is a kind of a Chelifer if the fact that it reorders nosepiece and is informative does not hold.
|
sent1: {B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent2: ¬{AA}{a} -> {B}{a} sent3: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent4: (x): {A}x -> ¬{C}x sent5: {E}{a} sent6: ¬{B}{t} sent7: ¬({A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent8: {AB}{b} -> {C}{a} sent9: (x): (¬{C}x & {B}x) -> {A}x sent10: {A}{a} -> {AB}{b} sent11: ¬({AA}{a} & {C}{a}) sent12: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{a}
|
[
"sent12 & sent3 -> int1: the latrine is a Chelifer.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the tick paws.; sent4 -> int3: if the tick is a kind of a paw then it is not a kind of a repose.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent12 & sent3 -> int1: {B}{a}; int1 & sent1 -> int2: {A}{b}; sent4 -> int3: {A}{b} -> ¬{C}{b}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the draft does paw.
|
{A}{fb}
|
[
"sent9 -> int4: if the draft is not a repose but it is a Chelifer it is a kind of a paw.;"
] | 4 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the tick is not a repose. ; $context$ = sent1: the tick is a kind of a paw if the latrine is a Chelifer. sent2: the latrine is a Chelifer if it does not reorder nosepiece. sent3: the fact that the latrine reorders nosepiece but it is not uninformative is not right. sent4: if something is a paw then it does not repose. sent5: the latrine aspirates Transcaucasia. sent6: the Goth is not a Chelifer. sent7: that the tick is a paw but it is not a Chelifer is incorrect. sent8: if the tick is uninformative the latrine is a repose. sent9: something does paw if it is not a kind of a repose and it is a Chelifer. sent10: the tick is uninformative if the latrine is a kind of a paw. sent11: the fact that that the latrine reorders nosepiece and it does repose is not wrong does not hold. sent12: the latrine is a kind of a Chelifer if the fact that it reorders nosepiece and is informative does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent12 & sent3 -> int1: the latrine is a Chelifer.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the tick paws.; sent4 -> int3: if the tick is a kind of a paw then it is not a kind of a repose.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the aerator does not mortise hatchel.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
sent1: the mill-girl is permissible. sent2: if the aerator does not mortise pellucidness then the mill-girl is impermissible. sent3: the fact that the aerator mortises hatchel is correct if the mill-girl is not bolographic. sent4: if the mill-girl is a kind of a Delicious the fact that the fact that either it does not mortise pellucidness or it is impermissible or both is not wrong is false. sent5: something is not bolographic if that it does not mortise pellucidness or is impermissible or both is incorrect. sent6: the earth does not mortise hatchel and/or is not bolographic if the slingshot is a Delicious. sent7: the skink aspirates counterblast if that the he does aspirates counterblast and is not a thievishness does not hold. sent8: if something aspirates counterblast then it is a Tanzanian. sent9: if something is not licit then the fact that it does aspirate counterblast and it is not a thievishness does not hold. sent10: the mill-girl is a Delicious. sent11: if the medium is interdepartmental the he is not licit but it is a downrightness. sent12: if the skink is a kind of a Tanzanian that the slingshot is a Delicious is not false.
|
sent1: ¬{AB}{aa} sent2: ¬{AA}{a} -> {AB}{aa} sent3: ¬{B}{aa} -> {A}{a} sent4: {C}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent5: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent6: {C}{c} -> (¬{A}{b} v ¬{B}{b}) sent7: ¬({E}{e} & ¬{G}{e}) -> {E}{d} sent8: (x): {E}x -> {D}x sent9: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬({E}x & ¬{G}x) sent10: {C}{aa} sent11: {I}{f} -> (¬{F}{e} & {H}{e}) sent12: {D}{d} -> {C}{c}
|
[
"sent5 -> int1: if that the mill-girl does not mortise pellucidness or is impermissible or both is false it is not bolographic.; sent4 & sent10 -> int2: the fact that the mill-girl does not mortise pellucidness or it is impermissible or both is not correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the mill-girl is non-bolographic.; int3 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; sent4 & sent10 -> int2: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬{B}{aa}; int3 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the aerator does not mortise hatchel.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
[
"sent8 -> int4: the skink is a Tanzanian if it aspirates counterblast.; sent9 -> int5: if the he is not licit the fact that it aspirates counterblast and it is not a thievishness does not hold.;"
] | 9 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the aerator does not mortise hatchel. ; $context$ = sent1: the mill-girl is permissible. sent2: if the aerator does not mortise pellucidness then the mill-girl is impermissible. sent3: the fact that the aerator mortises hatchel is correct if the mill-girl is not bolographic. sent4: if the mill-girl is a kind of a Delicious the fact that the fact that either it does not mortise pellucidness or it is impermissible or both is not wrong is false. sent5: something is not bolographic if that it does not mortise pellucidness or is impermissible or both is incorrect. sent6: the earth does not mortise hatchel and/or is not bolographic if the slingshot is a Delicious. sent7: the skink aspirates counterblast if that the he does aspirates counterblast and is not a thievishness does not hold. sent8: if something aspirates counterblast then it is a Tanzanian. sent9: if something is not licit then the fact that it does aspirate counterblast and it is not a thievishness does not hold. sent10: the mill-girl is a Delicious. sent11: if the medium is interdepartmental the he is not licit but it is a downrightness. sent12: if the skink is a kind of a Tanzanian that the slingshot is a Delicious is not false. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 -> int1: if that the mill-girl does not mortise pellucidness or is impermissible or both is false it is not bolographic.; sent4 & sent10 -> int2: the fact that the mill-girl does not mortise pellucidness or it is impermissible or both is not correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the mill-girl is non-bolographic.; int3 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the coloradillo is not a Woodhull.
|
¬{D}{b}
|
sent1: the coloradillo is not a Woodhull if the Costanoan is a Woodhull but it does not reorder biochemist. sent2: if that the grab does not reorder Costanoan hold the Costanoan is a Woodhull and does not reorder biochemist. sent3: that the biochemist is not a Nervi and is not invitational is wrong if it is not a Ephesians. sent4: if the Costanoan reorders Costanoan then the coloradillo trademarks. sent5: something is a Woodhull if it is a trademarked. sent6: if the Costanoan reorders biochemist it does reorder Costanoan. sent7: the biochemist is invitational if the fact that it is not a Nervi and is not invitational is not right. sent8: The biochemist reorders Costanoan. sent9: the grab does not reorder Costanoan if the oxeye does reorder Costanoan. sent10: the Costanoan reorders biochemist.
|
sent1: ({D}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent2: ¬{B}{c} -> ({D}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent3: ¬{F}{e} -> ¬(¬{G}{e} & ¬{E}{e}) sent4: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent5: (x): {C}x -> {D}x sent6: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent7: ¬(¬{G}{e} & ¬{E}{e}) -> {E}{e} sent8: {AA}{aa} sent9: {B}{d} -> ¬{B}{c} sent10: {A}{a}
|
[
"sent6 & sent10 -> int1: the Costanoan reorders Costanoan.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the coloradillo does trademark.; sent5 -> int3: the coloradillo is a Woodhull if it is a kind of a trademarked.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 & sent10 -> int1: {B}{a}; int1 & sent4 -> int2: {C}{b}; sent5 -> int3: {C}{b} -> {D}{b}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the coloradillo is not a kind of a Woodhull.
|
¬{D}{b}
|
[] | 10 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 6 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the coloradillo is not a Woodhull. ; $context$ = sent1: the coloradillo is not a Woodhull if the Costanoan is a Woodhull but it does not reorder biochemist. sent2: if that the grab does not reorder Costanoan hold the Costanoan is a Woodhull and does not reorder biochemist. sent3: that the biochemist is not a Nervi and is not invitational is wrong if it is not a Ephesians. sent4: if the Costanoan reorders Costanoan then the coloradillo trademarks. sent5: something is a Woodhull if it is a trademarked. sent6: if the Costanoan reorders biochemist it does reorder Costanoan. sent7: the biochemist is invitational if the fact that it is not a Nervi and is not invitational is not right. sent8: The biochemist reorders Costanoan. sent9: the grab does not reorder Costanoan if the oxeye does reorder Costanoan. sent10: the Costanoan reorders biochemist. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 & sent10 -> int1: the Costanoan reorders Costanoan.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the coloradillo does trademark.; sent5 -> int3: the coloradillo is a Woodhull if it is a kind of a trademarked.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
both the nonprofit and the popping occurs.
|
({A} & {B})
|
sent1: that the rumination and the popping occurs is not right if the fact that the concurring does not occur is not wrong. sent2: if the popping does not occur then the nonprofit occurs and the questionableness happens. sent3: if not the meridionalness but the concurring occurs the rumination does not occur. sent4: the popping happens. sent5: the fact that both the nonprofit and the pop occurs is not right if the rumination does not occur. sent6: the popping does not occur if the fact that the rumination and the popping happens does not hold. sent7: the nonprofit occurs.
|
sent1: ¬{D} -> ¬({C} & {B}) sent2: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {DK}) sent3: (¬{E} & {D}) -> ¬{C} sent4: {B} sent5: ¬{C} -> ¬({A} & {B}) sent6: ¬({C} & {B}) -> ¬{B} sent7: {A}
|
[
"sent7 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent7 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the questionableness happens.
|
{DK}
|
[] | 8 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = both the nonprofit and the popping occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that the rumination and the popping occurs is not right if the fact that the concurring does not occur is not wrong. sent2: if the popping does not occur then the nonprofit occurs and the questionableness happens. sent3: if not the meridionalness but the concurring occurs the rumination does not occur. sent4: the popping happens. sent5: the fact that both the nonprofit and the pop occurs is not right if the rumination does not occur. sent6: the popping does not occur if the fact that the rumination and the popping happens does not hold. sent7: the nonprofit occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the chebab is not a kind of a Gabon is correct.
|
¬{B}{b}
|
sent1: the amethyst is a Gabon. sent2: the chebab is a aigrette and is a Gabon if that the amethyst is not a wetter is not wrong. sent3: the compress is not a Gabon. sent4: the chebab is not a kind of a Gabon if the amethyst is a aigrette. sent5: that that either something is not a wetter or it is not a kind of a Gabon or both is true is not true if it does sedate Qibla. sent6: the amethyst is a aigrette. sent7: something that is a kind of a wariness is a smudge and supportive. sent8: if something is a smudge then it does sedate Qibla. sent9: if something is a harmonic the amethyst is a wariness. sent10: there is something such that it is a harmonic.
|
sent1: {B}{a} sent2: ¬{C}{a} -> ({A}{b} & {B}{b}) sent3: ¬{B}{fp} sent4: {A}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent5: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{C}x v ¬{B}x) sent6: {A}{a} sent7: (x): {G}x -> ({E}x & ¬{F}x) sent8: (x): {E}x -> {D}x sent9: (x): {H}x -> {G}{a} sent10: (Ex): {H}x
|
[
"sent4 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the twayblade is not a aigrette.
|
¬{A}{n}
|
[
"sent5 -> int1: that the amethyst is not a wetter and/or it is not a Gabon is false if it sedates Qibla.; sent8 -> int2: the amethyst does sedate Qibla if it is a smudge.; sent7 -> int3: the amethyst is a smudge and is not unsupportive if it is a wariness.; sent10 & sent9 -> int4: the amethyst is a kind of a wariness.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the amethyst is both a smudge and not unsupportive.; int5 -> int6: the amethyst is a smudge.; int2 & int6 -> int7: the amethyst does sedate Qibla.; int1 & int7 -> int8: that either the amethyst is not a wetter or it is not a Gabon or both is incorrect.; int8 -> int9: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a wetter and/or it is not a Gabon does not hold.;"
] | 7 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the chebab is not a kind of a Gabon is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the amethyst is a Gabon. sent2: the chebab is a aigrette and is a Gabon if that the amethyst is not a wetter is not wrong. sent3: the compress is not a Gabon. sent4: the chebab is not a kind of a Gabon if the amethyst is a aigrette. sent5: that that either something is not a wetter or it is not a kind of a Gabon or both is true is not true if it does sedate Qibla. sent6: the amethyst is a aigrette. sent7: something that is a kind of a wariness is a smudge and supportive. sent8: if something is a smudge then it does sedate Qibla. sent9: if something is a harmonic the amethyst is a wariness. sent10: there is something such that it is a harmonic. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Presbyterian is not analogous but it is Chadian.
|
(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})
|
sent1: if the Presbyterian is not a kind of a crag it is not analogous and it is a Chadian. sent2: the Presbyterian is not a crag.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent2: ¬{A}{a}
|
[
"sent1 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the Presbyterian is not analogous but it is Chadian. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Presbyterian is not a kind of a crag it is not analogous and it is a Chadian. sent2: the Presbyterian is not a crag. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there is something such that if the fact that it is not a obscurantism and it is not a Glaswegian does not hold it is not Hispaniolan does not hold.
|
¬((Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x)
|
sent1: something is not Hispaniolan if the fact that it is not a kind of a obscurantism and is not a Glaswegian does not hold. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a spat the fact that it does not reorder territory is right. sent3: something is not a kind of a chiropractic if that it is not a Glaswegian and it does not aspirate Hubel is not right. sent4: there exists something such that if that it is not a obscurantism and not Glaswegian does not hold it is Hispaniolan. sent5: if something is a kind of a obscurantism then it is not Hispaniolan.
|
sent1: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent2: (Ex): {J}x -> ¬{GB}x sent3: (x): ¬(¬{AB}x & ¬{P}x) -> ¬{C}x sent4: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent5: (x): {AA}x -> ¬{B}x
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: if the fact that the cliff-brake is not a obscurantism and is not Glaswegian does not hold that it is not Hispaniolan is not false.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
if the fact that the territory is not Glaswegian and it does not aspirate Hubel does not hold then it is not a chiropractic.
|
¬(¬{AB}{jb} & ¬{P}{jb}) -> ¬{C}{jb}
|
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if the fact that it is not a obscurantism and it is not a Glaswegian does not hold it is not Hispaniolan does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not Hispaniolan if the fact that it is not a kind of a obscurantism and is not a Glaswegian does not hold. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a spat the fact that it does not reorder territory is right. sent3: something is not a kind of a chiropractic if that it is not a Glaswegian and it does not aspirate Hubel is not right. sent4: there exists something such that if that it is not a obscurantism and not Glaswegian does not hold it is Hispaniolan. sent5: if something is a kind of a obscurantism then it is not Hispaniolan. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: if the fact that the cliff-brake is not a obscurantism and is not Glaswegian does not hold that it is not Hispaniolan is not false.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the appointee is not preventable.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
sent1: if the appointee is preventable the fact that the chandler is both not a atopy and a Ptilocrinus is not right. sent2: something is cataclinal if it is a radical. sent3: if the toddler is not phylogenetic then the nave is a trombiculid and is nasty. sent4: that something is unpreventable and is cytoarchitectural is not correct if it is a trombiculid. sent5: the fact that the chandler is not a Ptilocrinus but it is preventable is not correct if the appointee is a kind of a atopy. sent6: the toddler is not phylogenetic if the fact that the capitalist is not phonetics but it reorders prowl does not hold. sent7: the fact that the chipotle is phonetics if the gibberellin is cataclinal is not wrong. sent8: that the chandler is a atopy and it is preventable does not hold. sent9: the fact that the capitalist is non-phonetics thing that reorders prowl is not right if something is non-phonetics. sent10: if the fact that something is not a kind of a radical and does reorder Burbage is incorrect it is a radical. sent11: something is a trombiculid if it does not smooch and/or is a trombiculid. sent12: something is preventable if the fact that it is not preventable but cytoarchitectural is not correct. sent13: that the gibberellin is a kind of non-radical thing that does reorder Burbage is not correct. sent14: the appointee is preventable if the chandler is preventable. sent15: that the appointee is a Ptilocrinus and preventable does not hold. sent16: the fact that the chandler is not a atopy but it is a Ptilocrinus is right. sent17: if the chandler is preventable that the appointee is a atopy and it is a Ptilocrinus does not hold.
|
sent1: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent2: (x): {J}x -> {I}x sent3: ¬{F}{d} -> ({B}{c} & {D}{c}) sent4: (x): {B}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & {C}x) sent5: {AA}{a} -> ¬(¬{AB}{b} & {A}{b}) sent6: ¬(¬{G}{e} & {H}{e}) -> ¬{F}{d} sent7: {I}{g} -> {G}{f} sent8: ¬({AA}{b} & {A}{b}) sent9: (x): {G}x -> ¬(¬{G}{e} & {H}{e}) sent10: (x): ¬(¬{J}x & {K}x) -> {J}x sent11: (x): (¬{E}x v {B}x) -> {B}x sent12: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & {C}x) -> {A}x sent13: ¬(¬{J}{g} & {K}{g}) sent14: {A}{b} -> {A}{a} sent15: ¬({AB}{a} & {A}{a}) sent16: (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent17: {A}{b} -> ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the appointee is preventable.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the chandler is both not a atopy and a Ptilocrinus is wrong.; int1 & sent16 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}{a}; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}); int1 & sent16 -> int2: #F#; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the appointee is not unpreventable.
|
{A}{a}
|
[
"sent12 -> int3: if that the chandler is unpreventable but it is cytoarchitectural is not correct it is not unpreventable.; sent4 -> int4: the fact that the chandler is not preventable but it is cytoarchitectural is not true if it is a kind of a trombiculid.; sent11 -> int5: if either the chandler does not smooch or it is a trombiculid or both it is a trombiculid.; sent2 -> int6: if the gibberellin is a radical it is cataclinal.; sent10 -> int7: the gibberellin is a kind of a radical if the fact that it is not a kind of a radical and reorders Burbage does not hold.; int7 & sent13 -> int8: the gibberellin is a kind of a radical.; int6 & int8 -> int9: the gibberellin is cataclinal.; sent7 & int9 -> int10: the chipotle is phonetics.; int10 -> int11: there are phonetics things.; int11 & sent9 -> int12: the fact that the capitalist is not phonetics and reorders prowl is false.; sent6 & int12 -> int13: the toddler is not phylogenetic.; sent3 & int13 -> int14: the nave is a trombiculid and is nasty.; int14 -> int15: the nave is a kind of a trombiculid.; int15 -> int16: something is a trombiculid.;"
] | 15 | 3 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the appointee is not preventable. ; $context$ = sent1: if the appointee is preventable the fact that the chandler is both not a atopy and a Ptilocrinus is not right. sent2: something is cataclinal if it is a radical. sent3: if the toddler is not phylogenetic then the nave is a trombiculid and is nasty. sent4: that something is unpreventable and is cytoarchitectural is not correct if it is a trombiculid. sent5: the fact that the chandler is not a Ptilocrinus but it is preventable is not correct if the appointee is a kind of a atopy. sent6: the toddler is not phylogenetic if the fact that the capitalist is not phonetics but it reorders prowl does not hold. sent7: the fact that the chipotle is phonetics if the gibberellin is cataclinal is not wrong. sent8: that the chandler is a atopy and it is preventable does not hold. sent9: the fact that the capitalist is non-phonetics thing that reorders prowl is not right if something is non-phonetics. sent10: if the fact that something is not a kind of a radical and does reorder Burbage is incorrect it is a radical. sent11: something is a trombiculid if it does not smooch and/or is a trombiculid. sent12: something is preventable if the fact that it is not preventable but cytoarchitectural is not correct. sent13: that the gibberellin is a kind of non-radical thing that does reorder Burbage is not correct. sent14: the appointee is preventable if the chandler is preventable. sent15: that the appointee is a Ptilocrinus and preventable does not hold. sent16: the fact that the chandler is not a atopy but it is a Ptilocrinus is right. sent17: if the chandler is preventable that the appointee is a atopy and it is a Ptilocrinus does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the appointee is preventable.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the chandler is both not a atopy and a Ptilocrinus is wrong.; int1 & sent16 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the sedating changed does not occur.
|
¬{B}
|
sent1: the sedating changed does not occur if the mortising riddle does not occur. sent2: the Chianness does not occur if the fact that the reordering blacklist and the fete occurs is wrong. sent3: the fact that the mortising riddle and the purchase happens is incorrect. sent4: if that the mortising riddle and the purchase happens is incorrect then the sedating changed does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬{AA} -> ¬{B} sent2: ¬({HE} & {CP}) -> ¬{FQ} sent3: ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent4: ¬({AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B}
|
[
"sent4 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the sedating changed does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the sedating changed does not occur if the mortising riddle does not occur. sent2: the Chianness does not occur if the fact that the reordering blacklist and the fete occurs is wrong. sent3: the fact that the mortising riddle and the purchase happens is incorrect. sent4: if that the mortising riddle and the purchase happens is incorrect then the sedating changed does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the sedating Meccano happens.
|
{A}
|
sent1: the fact that the mend does not occur is not true if the congruentness does not occur. sent2: if the fact that both the elfinness and the sedating Meccano happens is false then the sedating Meccano does not occur. sent3: the sedating Meccano does not occur and the mending does not occur if the elfinness does not occur. sent4: the congruentness and/or the speeding happens. sent5: that the mortising voter does not occur is brought about by that the fertileness and the non-uppercaseness occurs. sent6: that the mortising voter does not occur yields that either the cawing does not occur or the balk does not occur or both. sent7: the apomicticness does not occur and/or the nightlife occurs. sent8: the elfinness does not occur if the crustaceousness does not occur. sent9: that both the crustaceousness and the caw occurs prevents that the mend happens. sent10: if either the incongruentness or the speeding or both happens the mending happens. sent11: if the mend happens that the sedating Meccano occurs hold. sent12: if the mend does not occur then the fact that the elfinness occurs and the sedating Meccano happens does not hold.
|
sent1: ¬{AA} -> {B} sent2: ¬({C} & {A}) -> ¬{A} sent3: ¬{C} -> (¬{A} & ¬{B}) sent4: ({AA} v {AB}) sent5: ({H} & ¬{I}) -> ¬{G} sent6: ¬{G} -> (¬{E} v ¬{F}) sent7: (¬{BU} v {EC}) sent8: ¬{D} -> ¬{C} sent9: ({D} & {E}) -> ¬{B} sent10: (¬{AA} v {AB}) -> {B} sent11: {B} -> {A} sent12: ¬{B} -> ¬({C} & {A})
|
[] |
[] |
the sedating Meccano does not occur.
|
¬{A}
|
[] | 9 | 2 | null | 10 | 0 | 10 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the sedating Meccano happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the mend does not occur is not true if the congruentness does not occur. sent2: if the fact that both the elfinness and the sedating Meccano happens is false then the sedating Meccano does not occur. sent3: the sedating Meccano does not occur and the mending does not occur if the elfinness does not occur. sent4: the congruentness and/or the speeding happens. sent5: that the mortising voter does not occur is brought about by that the fertileness and the non-uppercaseness occurs. sent6: that the mortising voter does not occur yields that either the cawing does not occur or the balk does not occur or both. sent7: the apomicticness does not occur and/or the nightlife occurs. sent8: the elfinness does not occur if the crustaceousness does not occur. sent9: that both the crustaceousness and the caw occurs prevents that the mend happens. sent10: if either the incongruentness or the speeding or both happens the mending happens. sent11: if the mend happens that the sedating Meccano occurs hold. sent12: if the mend does not occur then the fact that the elfinness occurs and the sedating Meccano happens does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the roadrunner is Romanian.
|
{B}{aa}
|
sent1: if something is fictional that it is a crocolite and it is not a kind of a Gospel is not true. sent2: if that the roadrunner does sedate lifer and it is hairless is wrong it does not reorder wrap. sent3: the roadrunner is not a kind of a Romanian if it does not rough. sent4: if the dancer gnaws it is prolusory. sent5: if something is prolusory then it is fictional. sent6: the cooker does not mortise gimbal but it is a unnaturalness if the wrap is not a recitalist. sent7: the wrap is not a recitalist if the lifer is a recitalist and/or not a syllogism. sent8: there is nothing such that it is a kind of rough thing that is hairless. sent9: something is not a kind of a Romanian if the fact that it does rough and it is hairless is wrong. sent10: the dancer does gnaw. sent11: if the fact that something is a kind of a striker and it reorders Murrumbidgee does not hold then it is not a kind of a gladiator. sent12: the lifer is a recitalist and/or is not a kind of a syllogism if the ladyfinger is a kind of a Gospel. sent13: that the roadrunner is a Romanian and it does reorder Jupiter is not true.
|
sent1: (x): {H}x -> ¬({G}x & ¬{F}x) sent2: ¬({AU}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{BA}{aa} sent3: ¬{AA}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent4: {J}{e} -> {I}{e} sent5: (x): {I}x -> {H}x sent6: ¬{D}{b} -> (¬{A}{a} & {C}{a}) sent7: ({D}{c} v ¬{E}{c}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent8: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent9: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent10: {J}{e} sent11: (x): ¬({FI}x & {HR}x) -> ¬{ED}x sent12: {F}{d} -> ({D}{c} v ¬{E}{c}) sent13: ¬({B}{aa} & {DN}{aa})
|
[
"sent9 -> int1: that the roadrunner is not a Romanian hold if that it is a rough and it is hairless is not correct.; sent8 -> int2: that the roadrunner is a kind of rough thing that is hairless is not true.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 -> int1: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; sent8 -> int2: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the roadrunner is a kind of a Romanian.
|
{B}{aa}
|
[
"sent1 -> int3: if the dancer is fictional then the fact that it is both a crocolite and not a Gospel is incorrect.; sent5 -> int4: if the dancer is not non-prolusory it is fictional.; sent4 & sent10 -> int5: the dancer is prolusory.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the dancer is fictional.; int3 & int6 -> int7: the fact that the dancer is a crocolite but it is not a kind of a Gospel is not true.; int7 -> int8: there exists something such that the fact that it is a crocolite and is not a Gospel does not hold.;"
] | 10 | 2 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the roadrunner is Romanian. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is fictional that it is a crocolite and it is not a kind of a Gospel is not true. sent2: if that the roadrunner does sedate lifer and it is hairless is wrong it does not reorder wrap. sent3: the roadrunner is not a kind of a Romanian if it does not rough. sent4: if the dancer gnaws it is prolusory. sent5: if something is prolusory then it is fictional. sent6: the cooker does not mortise gimbal but it is a unnaturalness if the wrap is not a recitalist. sent7: the wrap is not a recitalist if the lifer is a recitalist and/or not a syllogism. sent8: there is nothing such that it is a kind of rough thing that is hairless. sent9: something is not a kind of a Romanian if the fact that it does rough and it is hairless is wrong. sent10: the dancer does gnaw. sent11: if the fact that something is a kind of a striker and it reorders Murrumbidgee does not hold then it is not a kind of a gladiator. sent12: the lifer is a recitalist and/or is not a kind of a syllogism if the ladyfinger is a kind of a Gospel. sent13: that the roadrunner is a Romanian and it does reorder Jupiter is not true. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 -> int1: that the roadrunner is not a Romanian hold if that it is a rough and it is hairless is not correct.; sent8 -> int2: that the roadrunner is a kind of rough thing that is hairless is not true.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the disintegration and the aspirating invigilation occurs is not correct.
|
¬({B} & {C})
|
sent1: the reordering peoples occurs. sent2: if the bistroicness does not occur then that the disintegration occurs and the aspirating invigilation happens does not hold. sent3: the sedating statice occurs. sent4: that the bistroicness happens but the disintegration does not occur prevents that the decline does not occur. sent5: if the bistroicness occurs then the fact that the disintegration occurs is right. sent6: the counterattraction is brought about by that the prying happens. sent7: the sniffing happens and the beeping happens. sent8: the non-Englishness results in that the grasslessness but not the reeking occurs. sent9: the short happens. sent10: the mortising syllogism occurs and the declining happens. sent11: that the grasslessness occurs prevents the non-impetiginousness. sent12: the bistroicness does not occur if the fact that both the bistroicness and the clonalness occurs is not right. sent13: that the reordering peoples does not occur and the grudging does not occur is brought about by that the impetiginousness occurs. sent14: if the reordering peoples does not occur then that both the bistroicness and the clonalness happens does not hold. sent15: the sunray occurs. sent16: if that the reordering peoples does not occur or the clonalness occurs or both is wrong the aspirating invigilation does not occur. sent17: the heliocentricness happens. sent18: both the reordering peoples and the aspirating invigilation happens. sent19: the bistroicness happens.
|
sent1: {D} sent2: ¬{A} -> ¬({B} & {C}) sent3: {IR} sent4: ({A} & ¬{B}) -> {DL} sent5: {A} -> {B} sent6: {Q} -> {GQ} sent7: ({AS} & {BR}) sent8: ¬{J} -> ({H} & ¬{I}) sent9: {BS} sent10: ({JH} & {DL}) sent11: {H} -> {G} sent12: ¬({A} & {E}) -> ¬{A} sent13: {G} -> (¬{D} & ¬{F}) sent14: ¬{D} -> ¬({A} & {E}) sent15: {IA} sent16: ¬(¬{D} v {E}) -> ¬{C} sent17: {EG} sent18: ({D} & {C}) sent19: {A}
|
[
"sent5 & sent19 -> int1: the disintegration occurs.; sent18 -> int2: the aspirating invigilation occurs.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 & sent19 -> int1: {B}; sent18 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the disintegration occurs and the aspirating invigilation happens is incorrect.
|
¬({B} & {C})
|
[] | 11 | 2 | 2 | 16 | 0 | 16 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the disintegration and the aspirating invigilation occurs is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the reordering peoples occurs. sent2: if the bistroicness does not occur then that the disintegration occurs and the aspirating invigilation happens does not hold. sent3: the sedating statice occurs. sent4: that the bistroicness happens but the disintegration does not occur prevents that the decline does not occur. sent5: if the bistroicness occurs then the fact that the disintegration occurs is right. sent6: the counterattraction is brought about by that the prying happens. sent7: the sniffing happens and the beeping happens. sent8: the non-Englishness results in that the grasslessness but not the reeking occurs. sent9: the short happens. sent10: the mortising syllogism occurs and the declining happens. sent11: that the grasslessness occurs prevents the non-impetiginousness. sent12: the bistroicness does not occur if the fact that both the bistroicness and the clonalness occurs is not right. sent13: that the reordering peoples does not occur and the grudging does not occur is brought about by that the impetiginousness occurs. sent14: if the reordering peoples does not occur then that both the bistroicness and the clonalness happens does not hold. sent15: the sunray occurs. sent16: if that the reordering peoples does not occur or the clonalness occurs or both is wrong the aspirating invigilation does not occur. sent17: the heliocentricness happens. sent18: both the reordering peoples and the aspirating invigilation happens. sent19: the bistroicness happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 & sent19 -> int1: the disintegration occurs.; sent18 -> int2: the aspirating invigilation occurs.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the stairhead is a plowwright and/or it is not organismal is not correct.
|
¬({B}{a} v ¬{AB}{a})
|
sent1: the mirror is a supplejack. sent2: if something does not interpolate then it is a tortuosity and organismal. sent3: the fact that the cannon is both a historicalness and a ultramicroscope is true if it is not avionic. sent4: something is both avionic and not tramontane if it does mortise robber. sent5: if the mirror is a supplejack then it does mortise robber. sent6: if something is a crowd then it is non-organismal thing that does not interpolate. sent7: the stairhead is not a kind of a plowwright. sent8: if the minicar is organismal then the fact that the stairhead is a plowwright and/or it is not organismal does not hold. sent9: something that is avionic is not a crowd. sent10: the minicar is a kind of a tortuosity. sent11: either the minicar crowds or it is avionic or both.
|
sent1: {G}{b} sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: ¬{D}{ji} -> ({EU}{ji} & {IQ}{ji}) sent4: (x): {F}x -> ({D}x & ¬{E}x) sent5: {G}{b} -> {F}{b} sent6: (x): {C}x -> (¬{AB}x & ¬{A}x) sent7: ¬{B}{a} sent8: {AB}{aa} -> ¬({B}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent9: (x): {D}x -> ¬{C}x sent10: {AA}{aa} sent11: ({C}{aa} v {D}{aa})
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: if the minicar does not interpolate then it is a tortuosity and it is organismal.;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa});"
] |
the milcher does not interpolate.
|
¬{A}{is}
|
[
"sent9 -> int2: if the fact that the milcher is avionic is not false it is not a crowd.;"
] | 4 | 4 | null | 8 | 0 | 8 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the stairhead is a plowwright and/or it is not organismal is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the mirror is a supplejack. sent2: if something does not interpolate then it is a tortuosity and organismal. sent3: the fact that the cannon is both a historicalness and a ultramicroscope is true if it is not avionic. sent4: something is both avionic and not tramontane if it does mortise robber. sent5: if the mirror is a supplejack then it does mortise robber. sent6: if something is a crowd then it is non-organismal thing that does not interpolate. sent7: the stairhead is not a kind of a plowwright. sent8: if the minicar is organismal then the fact that the stairhead is a plowwright and/or it is not organismal does not hold. sent9: something that is avionic is not a crowd. sent10: the minicar is a kind of a tortuosity. sent11: either the minicar crowds or it is avionic or both. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> int1: if the minicar does not interpolate then it is a tortuosity and it is organismal.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the paramedic is a IC is not incorrect.
|
{A}{a}
|
sent1: that the gasteromycete is a nowhere and attends is wrong. sent2: that the lyceum mortises delinquency hold if it is a kind of a thymosin. sent3: the fact that the South is a shoehorn hold. sent4: something is a IC if it is inflationary. sent5: the paramedic is not a thymosin or it is a shoehorn or both. sent6: either the paramedic is not a kind of a thymosin or it is not a kind of a shoehorn or both. sent7: if the silicon is not a kind of a laager then the intron is not a laager. sent8: the paramedic attends. sent9: if the intron is a laager the paramedic is not a IC but it is inflationary. sent10: the paramedic is inflationary if it is either not a thymosin or not a shoehorn or both. sent11: if the intron is not a laager then that the paramedic is a IC but it is not inflationary is false. sent12: the paramedic is inflationary if it is not a shoehorn. sent13: if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a nowhere and it does attend does not hold the antiknock mortises Interior. sent14: that the intron is a laager hold if the silicon either is not logogrammatic or is not a Fasciolidae or both. sent15: something is a shoehorn if it is a IC.
|
sent1: ¬({H}{f} & {I}{f}) sent2: {AA}{hm} -> {EC}{hm} sent3: {AB}{gp} sent4: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent5: (¬{AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent6: (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent7: ¬{C}{c} -> ¬{C}{b} sent8: {I}{a} sent9: {C}{b} -> (¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent10: (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent11: ¬{C}{b} -> ¬({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent12: ¬{AB}{a} -> {B}{a} sent13: (x): ¬({H}x & {I}x) -> {G}{e} sent14: (¬{D}{c} v ¬{E}{c}) -> {C}{b} sent15: (x): {A}x -> {AB}x
|
[
"sent10 & sent6 -> int1: the paramedic is inflationary.; sent4 -> int2: the paramedic is a IC if that it is inflationary is true.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent10 & sent6 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent4 -> int2: {B}{a} -> {A}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the liberal is a kind of a thymosin.
|
{AA}{dt}
|
[] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the paramedic is a IC is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: that the gasteromycete is a nowhere and attends is wrong. sent2: that the lyceum mortises delinquency hold if it is a kind of a thymosin. sent3: the fact that the South is a shoehorn hold. sent4: something is a IC if it is inflationary. sent5: the paramedic is not a thymosin or it is a shoehorn or both. sent6: either the paramedic is not a kind of a thymosin or it is not a kind of a shoehorn or both. sent7: if the silicon is not a kind of a laager then the intron is not a laager. sent8: the paramedic attends. sent9: if the intron is a laager the paramedic is not a IC but it is inflationary. sent10: the paramedic is inflationary if it is either not a thymosin or not a shoehorn or both. sent11: if the intron is not a laager then that the paramedic is a IC but it is not inflationary is false. sent12: the paramedic is inflationary if it is not a shoehorn. sent13: if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a nowhere and it does attend does not hold the antiknock mortises Interior. sent14: that the intron is a laager hold if the silicon either is not logogrammatic or is not a Fasciolidae or both. sent15: something is a shoehorn if it is a IC. ; $proof$ =
|
sent10 & sent6 -> int1: the paramedic is inflationary.; sent4 -> int2: the paramedic is a IC if that it is inflationary is true.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the epicanthus is a cleared is right.
|
{E}{d}
|
sent1: the hemline is not monocarpic if the fact that the epicanthus is both not cleared and a portcullis is wrong. sent2: if that the hemline is non-monocarpic but it is a Lutheran is false the epicanthus is not cleared. sent3: the fact that the heliport is a consciousness that aspirates Campeche is incorrect if there exists something such that it does not aspirates Campeche. sent4: the silverberry is monocarpic. sent5: if something does not mortise snake then the fact that it is a Lutheran and it is not monocarpic is wrong. sent6: the fact that the hemline is monocarpic and is a Lutheran is wrong if the heliport is amniotic. sent7: if the heliport is amniotic then that the hemline is non-monocarpic a Lutheran does not hold. sent8: the hemline does not aspirate Campeche and is not lacustrine. sent9: that the hemline is both not cleared and monocarpic is false. sent10: that the hemline is monocarpic and is a Lutheran is incorrect. sent11: something is a cleared if it is amniotic. sent12: either something is amniotic or it is a kind of a portcullis or both if it is not a Lutheran. sent13: the epicanthus is not Lutheran if there exists something such that that it is not Lutheran but non-monocarpic is false. sent14: that the silverberry is non-monocarpic a Korchnoi is not true. sent15: if the hemline is monocarpic the epicanthus is not a cleared. sent16: if that the heliport is a consciousness and it aspirates Campeche is false then the silverberry does not mortise snake. sent17: the silverberry is a portcullis. sent18: if the silverberry is a portcullis then the heliport is amniotic.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{E}{d} & {A}{d}) -> ¬{D}{c} sent2: ¬(¬{D}{c} & {C}{c}) -> ¬{E}{d} sent3: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬({G}{b} & {H}{b}) sent4: {D}{a} sent5: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬({C}x & ¬{D}x) sent6: {B}{b} -> ¬({D}{c} & {C}{c}) sent7: {B}{b} -> ¬(¬{D}{c} & {C}{c}) sent8: (¬{H}{c} & ¬{I}{c}) sent9: ¬(¬{E}{c} & {D}{c}) sent10: ¬({D}{c} & {C}{c}) sent11: (x): {B}x -> {E}x sent12: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x v {A}x) sent13: (x): ¬({C}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{C}{d} sent14: ¬(¬{D}{a} & {DD}{a}) sent15: {D}{c} -> ¬{E}{d} sent16: ¬({G}{b} & {H}{b}) -> ¬{F}{a} sent17: {A}{a} sent18: {A}{a} -> {B}{b}
|
[
"sent18 & sent17 -> int1: the heliport is amniotic.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: the fact that the hemline is non-monocarpic but it is a Lutheran does not hold.; int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent18 & sent17 -> int1: {B}{b}; int1 & sent7 -> int2: ¬(¬{D}{c} & {C}{c}); int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the epicanthus clears.
|
{E}{d}
|
[
"sent12 -> int3: the epicanthus is amniotic and/or a portcullis if the fact that it is not a Lutheran is not false.; sent5 -> int4: if the silverberry does not mortise snake the fact that it is Lutheran and it is non-monocarpic is not correct.; sent8 -> int5: the hemline does not aspirate Campeche.; int5 -> int6: there exists something such that it does not aspirate Campeche.; int6 & sent3 -> int7: that the heliport is a consciousness that does aspirate Campeche is not right.; sent16 & int7 -> int8: the silverberry does not mortise snake.; int4 & int8 -> int9: the fact that the silverberry is Lutheran but it is not monocarpic does not hold.; int9 -> int10: the fact that there exists something such that the fact that it is a Lutheran and is non-monocarpic does not hold is not incorrect.; int10 & sent13 -> int11: the epicanthus is not Lutheran.; int3 & int11 -> int12: either the epicanthus is amniotic or it is a kind of a portcullis or both.; sent11 -> int13: the epicanthus is a cleared if it is not non-amniotic.;"
] | 9 | 3 | 3 | 14 | 0 | 14 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the epicanthus is a cleared is right. ; $context$ = sent1: the hemline is not monocarpic if the fact that the epicanthus is both not cleared and a portcullis is wrong. sent2: if that the hemline is non-monocarpic but it is a Lutheran is false the epicanthus is not cleared. sent3: the fact that the heliport is a consciousness that aspirates Campeche is incorrect if there exists something such that it does not aspirates Campeche. sent4: the silverberry is monocarpic. sent5: if something does not mortise snake then the fact that it is a Lutheran and it is not monocarpic is wrong. sent6: the fact that the hemline is monocarpic and is a Lutheran is wrong if the heliport is amniotic. sent7: if the heliport is amniotic then that the hemline is non-monocarpic a Lutheran does not hold. sent8: the hemline does not aspirate Campeche and is not lacustrine. sent9: that the hemline is both not cleared and monocarpic is false. sent10: that the hemline is monocarpic and is a Lutheran is incorrect. sent11: something is a cleared if it is amniotic. sent12: either something is amniotic or it is a kind of a portcullis or both if it is not a Lutheran. sent13: the epicanthus is not Lutheran if there exists something such that that it is not Lutheran but non-monocarpic is false. sent14: that the silverberry is non-monocarpic a Korchnoi is not true. sent15: if the hemline is monocarpic the epicanthus is not a cleared. sent16: if that the heliport is a consciousness and it aspirates Campeche is false then the silverberry does not mortise snake. sent17: the silverberry is a portcullis. sent18: if the silverberry is a portcullis then the heliport is amniotic. ; $proof$ =
|
sent18 & sent17 -> int1: the heliport is amniotic.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: the fact that the hemline is non-monocarpic but it is a Lutheran does not hold.; int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the slingback is episcopal.
|
{B}{aa}
|
sent1: something is episcopal if it does ban. sent2: if the fact that the slingback is both not a stemma and ascosporic is not true then it is episcopal. sent3: that that that the slingback is both a ban and a dragging is true is wrong is right. sent4: something is episcopal if that the fact that it is not a ban and it does drag is not false is incorrect. sent5: that the slingback is episcopal is right if it is a ban. sent6: that the slingback is both not a ban and a dragging is not correct. sent7: if there is something such that that it is not christian and is a kind of a dining-hall does not hold the slingback is not episcopal.
|
sent1: (x): {AA}x -> {B}x sent2: ¬(¬{GI}{aa} & {JF}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent3: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent4: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent5: {AA}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent6: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent7: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & {C}x) -> ¬{B}{aa}
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: the slingback is episcopal if that it is not a kind of a ban and it is a kind of a dragging does not hold.; int1 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; int1 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the slingback is not episcopal.
|
¬{B}{aa}
|
[] | 8 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the slingback is episcopal. ; $context$ = sent1: something is episcopal if it does ban. sent2: if the fact that the slingback is both not a stemma and ascosporic is not true then it is episcopal. sent3: that that that the slingback is both a ban and a dragging is true is wrong is right. sent4: something is episcopal if that the fact that it is not a ban and it does drag is not false is incorrect. sent5: that the slingback is episcopal is right if it is a ban. sent6: that the slingback is both not a ban and a dragging is not correct. sent7: if there is something such that that it is not christian and is a kind of a dining-hall does not hold the slingback is not episcopal. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> int1: the slingback is episcopal if that it is not a kind of a ban and it is a kind of a dragging does not hold.; int1 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if that either it is not pyrotechnics or it is alluvial or both does not hold then it is not a kind of a aneroid.
|
(Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
sent1: the Spork is non-arbitrative if that it is not a isotropy or is pyrotechnics or both is false. sent2: the fact that something is not a inefficacy if that it is non-aneroid or appellate or both does not hold is not wrong. sent3: there exists something such that if that it does not reorder dashiki and/or does mortise wardrobe is not true then it does not reorder testudo. sent4: if the fact that the Spork is not ulnar and/or it is nonrepresentational does not hold then it is not a kind of a hedgehog. sent5: there exists something such that if that the fact that it does not sedate segue and/or it is a kind of a Modigliani hold is incorrect then it does not reorder Spork. sent6: there is something such that if the fact that either it is not a plexor or it does shudder or both is false then it is not a kind of a numbat. sent7: there is something such that if that it either does not aspirate Trombiculidae or zones or both is wrong then it does not cabin. sent8: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a destalinization and/or is a kind of a launching is not true then it is not a kind of a maneuver. sent9: if that the Spork is not pyrotechnics and/or is alluvial is false then it is a aneroid. sent10: there exists something such that if it is not pyrotechnics and/or is alluvial it is not a aneroid. sent11: if that the retriever is not polarographic or is a Azerbaijani or both is false then it is not ipsilateral. sent12: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not pyrotechnics and/or is alluvial does not hold the fact that it is aneroid hold. sent13: there is something such that if the fact that it does not aspirate dogtrot or it is compatible or both is false then it is not a kind of a Reverend. sent14: there exists something such that if the fact that either it is not a nastiness or it is unripe or both is incorrect then it is not a kind of a cloud. sent15: the loosestrife does not bide if that it is not alluvial or it does commit or both does not hold. sent16: there is something such that if that it is pyrotechnics and/or it is alluvial is not correct then it is not aneroid. sent17: if that that the Spork either is not pyrotechnics or is alluvial or both is not wrong is not correct then it is not a kind of a aneroid. sent18: the Spork is not typical if the fact that it is not alluvial or is an emitter or both is not true. sent19: the Spork is not a kind of a aneroid if it is not pyrotechnics or it is alluvial or both. sent20: there exists something such that if that either it is not a oystercatcher or it is nonrepresentational or both is wrong it is not titular. sent21: the Spork is not a kind of a aneroid if that it is pyrotechnics and/or is alluvial is not true.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{HN}{aa} v {AA}{aa}) -> ¬{IC}{aa} sent2: (x): ¬(¬{B}x v {GQ}x) -> ¬{HO}x sent3: (Ex): ¬(¬{BB}x v {FU}x) -> ¬{EH}x sent4: ¬(¬{ID}{aa} v {DF}{aa}) -> ¬{FO}{aa} sent5: (Ex): ¬(¬{EC}x v {JA}x) -> ¬{JF}x sent6: (Ex): ¬(¬{O}x v {AF}x) -> ¬{HJ}x sent7: (Ex): ¬(¬{FF}x v {CR}x) -> ¬{FS}x sent8: (Ex): ¬(¬{CE}x v {AN}x) -> ¬{JG}x sent9: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent10: (Ex): (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent11: ¬(¬{AG}{co} v {AI}{co}) -> ¬{HK}{co} sent12: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> {B}x sent13: (Ex): ¬(¬{DQ}x v {K}x) -> ¬{IP}x sent14: (Ex): ¬(¬{GA}x v {CS}x) -> ¬{FB}x sent15: ¬(¬{AB}{ee} v {EJ}{ee}) -> ¬{D}{ee} sent16: (Ex): ¬({AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent17: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent18: ¬(¬{AB}{aa} v {AO}{aa}) -> ¬{EI}{aa} sent19: (¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent20: (Ex): ¬(¬{IJ}x v {DF}x) -> ¬{S}x sent21: ¬({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}
|
[
"sent17 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent17 -> hypothesis;"
] |
if that the juniper is not a aneroid or it is appellate or both is not correct then it is not a inefficacy.
|
¬(¬{B}{i} v {GQ}{i}) -> ¬{HO}{i}
|
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 20 | 0 | 20 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if that either it is not pyrotechnics or it is alluvial or both does not hold then it is not a kind of a aneroid. ; $context$ = sent1: the Spork is non-arbitrative if that it is not a isotropy or is pyrotechnics or both is false. sent2: the fact that something is not a inefficacy if that it is non-aneroid or appellate or both does not hold is not wrong. sent3: there exists something such that if that it does not reorder dashiki and/or does mortise wardrobe is not true then it does not reorder testudo. sent4: if the fact that the Spork is not ulnar and/or it is nonrepresentational does not hold then it is not a kind of a hedgehog. sent5: there exists something such that if that the fact that it does not sedate segue and/or it is a kind of a Modigliani hold is incorrect then it does not reorder Spork. sent6: there is something such that if the fact that either it is not a plexor or it does shudder or both is false then it is not a kind of a numbat. sent7: there is something such that if that it either does not aspirate Trombiculidae or zones or both is wrong then it does not cabin. sent8: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a destalinization and/or is a kind of a launching is not true then it is not a kind of a maneuver. sent9: if that the Spork is not pyrotechnics and/or is alluvial is false then it is a aneroid. sent10: there exists something such that if it is not pyrotechnics and/or is alluvial it is not a aneroid. sent11: if that the retriever is not polarographic or is a Azerbaijani or both is false then it is not ipsilateral. sent12: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not pyrotechnics and/or is alluvial does not hold the fact that it is aneroid hold. sent13: there is something such that if the fact that it does not aspirate dogtrot or it is compatible or both is false then it is not a kind of a Reverend. sent14: there exists something such that if the fact that either it is not a nastiness or it is unripe or both is incorrect then it is not a kind of a cloud. sent15: the loosestrife does not bide if that it is not alluvial or it does commit or both does not hold. sent16: there is something such that if that it is pyrotechnics and/or it is alluvial is not correct then it is not aneroid. sent17: if that that the Spork either is not pyrotechnics or is alluvial or both is not wrong is not correct then it is not a kind of a aneroid. sent18: the Spork is not typical if the fact that it is not alluvial or is an emitter or both is not true. sent19: the Spork is not a kind of a aneroid if it is not pyrotechnics or it is alluvial or both. sent20: there exists something such that if that either it is not a oystercatcher or it is nonrepresentational or both is wrong it is not titular. sent21: the Spork is not a kind of a aneroid if that it is pyrotechnics and/or is alluvial is not true. ; $proof$ =
|
sent17 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the fact that the amphetamine does not reorder Bushido and it does not reorder Nimravus does not hold is right.
|
¬(¬{E}{b} & ¬{D}{b})
|
sent1: that the ectoproct is not a vestryman is correct. sent2: The fact that the ectoproct does not sedate Salmon is not incorrect. sent3: if the Salmon does not sedate ectoproct then the fact that the amphetamine does not reorder Nimravus and does not suffer is not true. sent4: the fact that the amphetamine does not reorder Bushido but it reorders Nimravus is not correct. sent5: the fact that the Salmon reorders Nimravus and does not sedate ectoproct is not right if the amphetamine is not a crossing. sent6: something does not reorder Nimravus if it is not a crossing and it does not reorder Bushido. sent7: the norethindrone does not suffer if something does not cross and it does not sedate ectoproct. sent8: if the Salmon is a knock-kneed and it is a jaded then it is not a kind of a bough. sent9: the Salmon does not sedate ectoproct if it does not reorder Bushido and is not a crossing. sent10: the fact that the amphetamine reorders Bushido and does not reorder Nimravus is not true. sent11: the Salmon is not a crossing. sent12: something that does not sedate ectoproct and is not a crossing does not suffer. sent13: something does not reorder Nimravus if that it reorders Bushido and it is not a bough is incorrect. sent14: if the Salmon does not suffer that the amphetamine does not reorder Bushido and does reorder Nimravus is wrong. sent15: that the amphetamine is not a kind of a crossing and does not suffer is incorrect if the Salmon is not a kind of a bough. sent16: if the Salmon does not reorder Bushido then that the amphetamine does not reorder Nimravus and suffers is not true. sent17: if the Salmon does not suffer that the amphetamine does not reorder Bushido and does not reorder Nimravus is not correct. sent18: the Salmon is a knock-kneed and does reorder amphetamine if the ectoproct is not a vestryman. sent19: the cassock is not a kind of a crossing.
|
sent1: ¬{J}{c} sent2: ¬{AA}{aa} sent3: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{D}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent4: ¬(¬{E}{b} & {D}{b}) sent5: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬({D}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent6: (x): (¬{B}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{D}x sent7: (x): (¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{C}{fa} sent8: ({H}{a} & {G}{a}) -> ¬{F}{a} sent9: (¬{E}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent10: ¬({E}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent11: ¬{B}{a} sent12: (x): (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{C}x sent13: (x): ¬({E}x & ¬{F}x) -> ¬{D}x sent14: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬(¬{E}{b} & {D}{b}) sent15: ¬{F}{a} -> ¬(¬{B}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent16: ¬{E}{a} -> ¬(¬{D}{b} & {C}{b}) sent17: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬(¬{E}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent18: ¬{J}{c} -> ({H}{a} & {I}{a}) sent19: ¬{B}{h}
|
[
"sent12 -> int1: the Salmon does not suffer if it does not sedate ectoproct and it is not a crossing.;"
] |
[
"sent12 -> int1: (¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{a};"
] |
the norethindrone does not suffer.
|
¬{C}{fa}
|
[
"sent13 -> int2: the Salmon does not reorder Nimravus if that it reorders Bushido and is not a bough does not hold.;"
] | 5 | 3 | null | 16 | 0 | 16 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the fact that the amphetamine does not reorder Bushido and it does not reorder Nimravus does not hold is right. ; $context$ = sent1: that the ectoproct is not a vestryman is correct. sent2: The fact that the ectoproct does not sedate Salmon is not incorrect. sent3: if the Salmon does not sedate ectoproct then the fact that the amphetamine does not reorder Nimravus and does not suffer is not true. sent4: the fact that the amphetamine does not reorder Bushido but it reorders Nimravus is not correct. sent5: the fact that the Salmon reorders Nimravus and does not sedate ectoproct is not right if the amphetamine is not a crossing. sent6: something does not reorder Nimravus if it is not a crossing and it does not reorder Bushido. sent7: the norethindrone does not suffer if something does not cross and it does not sedate ectoproct. sent8: if the Salmon is a knock-kneed and it is a jaded then it is not a kind of a bough. sent9: the Salmon does not sedate ectoproct if it does not reorder Bushido and is not a crossing. sent10: the fact that the amphetamine reorders Bushido and does not reorder Nimravus is not true. sent11: the Salmon is not a crossing. sent12: something that does not sedate ectoproct and is not a crossing does not suffer. sent13: something does not reorder Nimravus if that it reorders Bushido and it is not a bough is incorrect. sent14: if the Salmon does not suffer that the amphetamine does not reorder Bushido and does reorder Nimravus is wrong. sent15: that the amphetamine is not a kind of a crossing and does not suffer is incorrect if the Salmon is not a kind of a bough. sent16: if the Salmon does not reorder Bushido then that the amphetamine does not reorder Nimravus and suffers is not true. sent17: if the Salmon does not suffer that the amphetamine does not reorder Bushido and does not reorder Nimravus is not correct. sent18: the Salmon is a knock-kneed and does reorder amphetamine if the ectoproct is not a vestryman. sent19: the cassock is not a kind of a crossing. ; $proof$ =
|
sent12 -> int1: the Salmon does not suffer if it does not sedate ectoproct and it is not a crossing.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the diabaticness occurs and the bibliomaniacalness happens.
|
({E} & {D})
|
sent1: the manicure occurs. sent2: if the fact that the manicure occurs and the cataphaticness does not occur is wrong the fact that the cataphaticness happens is not wrong. sent3: if the diabaticness happens then the bridal occurs. sent4: that the unworthiness does not occur is brought about by that the hovering or the manicuring or both occurs. sent5: that the cut-in does not occur is true if that the actualizing but not the indulgentness occurs is not correct. sent6: that that the manicure happens but the cataphaticness does not occur does not hold is true if the hovering does not occur. sent7: if the necklessness does not occur then the phonicsness does not occur and the teasing does not occur. sent8: the aspirating Soubise and the bibliomaniacalness happens if the slop does not occur. sent9: the diabaticness and the bibliomaniacalness happens if the unworthiness does not occur. sent10: that the actualizing and the nonindulgentness occurs does not hold if the sedating serranid happens. sent11: that the phonicsness does not occur and the teasing does not occur brings about that the slopping does not occur. sent12: the unworthiness does not occur if the hovering happens. sent13: the diabaticness occurs. sent14: that the hovering happens is prevented by that the bibliomaniacalness and the unworthiness occurs. sent15: the sedating serranid happens. sent16: that the cut-in does not occur leads to that the mortising heterocycle happens and the diabaticness happens.
|
sent1: {B} sent2: ¬({B} & ¬{FF}) -> {FF} sent3: {E} -> {FP} sent4: ({A} v {B}) -> ¬{C} sent5: ¬({N} & ¬{O}) -> ¬{I} sent6: ¬{A} -> ¬({B} & ¬{FF}) sent7: ¬{Q} -> (¬{M} & ¬{L}) sent8: ¬{K} -> ({H} & {D}) sent9: ¬{C} -> ({E} & {D}) sent10: {P} -> ¬({N} & ¬{O}) sent11: (¬{M} & ¬{L}) -> ¬{K} sent12: {A} -> ¬{C} sent13: {E} sent14: ({D} & {C}) -> ¬{A} sent15: {P} sent16: ¬{I} -> ({G} & {E})
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: the hovering occurs and/or the manicuring occurs.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: the unworthiness does not occur.; sent9 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: ({A} v {B}); sent4 & int1 -> int2: ¬{C}; sent9 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the bridal happens and the cataphaticness happens.
|
({FP} & {FF})
|
[
"sent10 & sent15 -> int3: that the actualizing but not the indulgentness happens is wrong.; sent5 & int3 -> int4: that the cut-in does not occur is not incorrect.; sent16 & int4 -> int5: the mortising heterocycle occurs and the diabaticness happens.; int5 -> int6: the diabaticness occurs.; sent3 & int6 -> int7: the bridal occurs.;"
] | 9 | 3 | 3 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the diabaticness occurs and the bibliomaniacalness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the manicure occurs. sent2: if the fact that the manicure occurs and the cataphaticness does not occur is wrong the fact that the cataphaticness happens is not wrong. sent3: if the diabaticness happens then the bridal occurs. sent4: that the unworthiness does not occur is brought about by that the hovering or the manicuring or both occurs. sent5: that the cut-in does not occur is true if that the actualizing but not the indulgentness occurs is not correct. sent6: that that the manicure happens but the cataphaticness does not occur does not hold is true if the hovering does not occur. sent7: if the necklessness does not occur then the phonicsness does not occur and the teasing does not occur. sent8: the aspirating Soubise and the bibliomaniacalness happens if the slop does not occur. sent9: the diabaticness and the bibliomaniacalness happens if the unworthiness does not occur. sent10: that the actualizing and the nonindulgentness occurs does not hold if the sedating serranid happens. sent11: that the phonicsness does not occur and the teasing does not occur brings about that the slopping does not occur. sent12: the unworthiness does not occur if the hovering happens. sent13: the diabaticness occurs. sent14: that the hovering happens is prevented by that the bibliomaniacalness and the unworthiness occurs. sent15: the sedating serranid happens. sent16: that the cut-in does not occur leads to that the mortising heterocycle happens and the diabaticness happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: the hovering occurs and/or the manicuring occurs.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: the unworthiness does not occur.; sent9 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the baseball does not occur and the mortising Germany does not occur is not false.
|
(¬{D} & ¬{E})
|
sent1: if the intercellularness does not occur the mortising Germany does not occur and the precipitating does not occur. sent2: the intercellularness does not occur and the mortising paynim occurs. sent3: the fact that the mnemonic does not occur is not wrong. sent4: if the conglomeration occurs then the gastronomy occurs. sent5: if the avalanche occurs that the iridaceousness happens is not wrong. sent6: the execration happens. sent7: the conglomeration occurs.
|
sent1: ¬{G} -> (¬{E} & ¬{F}) sent2: (¬{G} & {H}) sent3: ¬{BC} sent4: {A} -> {B} sent5: {DE} -> {AH} sent6: {IF} sent7: {A}
|
[
"sent4 & sent7 -> int1: the gastronomy happens.; int1 -> int2: either the gastronomy happens or the insubordination happens or both.; sent2 -> int3: the intercellularness does not occur.; sent1 & int3 -> int4: the mortising Germany does not occur and the precipitating does not occur.; int4 -> int5: the mortising Germany does not occur.;"
] |
[
"sent4 & sent7 -> int1: {B}; int1 -> int2: ({B} v {C}); sent2 -> int3: ¬{G}; sent1 & int3 -> int4: (¬{E} & ¬{F}); int4 -> int5: ¬{E};"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 4 | null | 3 | 0 | 3 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the baseball does not occur and the mortising Germany does not occur is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: if the intercellularness does not occur the mortising Germany does not occur and the precipitating does not occur. sent2: the intercellularness does not occur and the mortising paynim occurs. sent3: the fact that the mnemonic does not occur is not wrong. sent4: if the conglomeration occurs then the gastronomy occurs. sent5: if the avalanche occurs that the iridaceousness happens is not wrong. sent6: the execration happens. sent7: the conglomeration occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 & sent7 -> int1: the gastronomy happens.; int1 -> int2: either the gastronomy happens or the insubordination happens or both.; sent2 -> int3: the intercellularness does not occur.; sent1 & int3 -> int4: the mortising Germany does not occur and the precipitating does not occur.; int4 -> int5: the mortising Germany does not occur.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there exists something such that if it is a Bowdler and does not mortise clerestory it is not western is wrong.
|
¬((Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x)
|
sent1: if the clerestory is a kind of a Bowdler that does not mortise clerestory then it is not a western.
|
sent1: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if it is a Bowdler and does not mortise clerestory it is not western is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the clerestory is a kind of a Bowdler that does not mortise clerestory then it is not a western. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the hydrologist is a housing.
|
{C}{aa}
|
sent1: everything appropriates and does designate. sent2: everything is a Cyclopterus. sent3: that something is not a graze and does reorder ratability is not true if it does not receive. sent4: something houses if it reorders ratability. sent5: something quells and does not house if it does not reorder ratability. sent6: if the telegraphy is both not a isoclinal and a flexure then the striker does not receive. sent7: the hydrologist is a comforter. sent8: the fact that the hydrologist is a forefoot is right. sent9: the hydrologist is a kind of a comforter and it is a kind of a gecko. sent10: if the supergrass does sedate Dicamptodontidae it is fraternal. sent11: everything quells and does reorder ratability. sent12: something is a forefoot if it does quell. sent13: something is aeromedical if it does sedate Dasyurus. sent14: if the picnic does not graze then it does quell and reorders ratability.
|
sent1: (x): ({EA}x & {IQ}x) sent2: (x): {J}x sent3: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & {B}x) sent4: (x): {B}x -> {C}x sent5: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({A}x & ¬{C}x) sent6: (¬{G}{b} & {F}{b}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent7: {IH}{aa} sent8: {DO}{aa} sent9: ({IH}{aa} & {GL}{aa}) sent10: {CP}{hr} -> {IP}{hr} sent11: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) sent12: (x): {A}x -> {DO}x sent13: (x): {EC}x -> {DJ}x sent14: ¬{D}{et} -> ({A}{et} & {B}{et})
|
[
"sent11 -> int1: the hydrologist quells and reorders ratability.; int1 -> int2: the hydrologist reorders ratability.; sent4 -> int3: if the hydrologist does reorder ratability then it is a housing.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent11 -> int1: ({A}{aa} & {B}{aa}); int1 -> int2: {B}{aa}; sent4 -> int3: {B}{aa} -> {C}{aa}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the hydrologist is not a kind of a housing.
|
¬{C}{aa}
|
[
"sent5 -> int4: the hydrologist quells but it is not a kind of a housing if it does not reorder ratability.; sent3 -> int5: that the striker does not graze and reorders ratability is wrong if the fact that it does not receive is true.;"
] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the hydrologist is a housing. ; $context$ = sent1: everything appropriates and does designate. sent2: everything is a Cyclopterus. sent3: that something is not a graze and does reorder ratability is not true if it does not receive. sent4: something houses if it reorders ratability. sent5: something quells and does not house if it does not reorder ratability. sent6: if the telegraphy is both not a isoclinal and a flexure then the striker does not receive. sent7: the hydrologist is a comforter. sent8: the fact that the hydrologist is a forefoot is right. sent9: the hydrologist is a kind of a comforter and it is a kind of a gecko. sent10: if the supergrass does sedate Dicamptodontidae it is fraternal. sent11: everything quells and does reorder ratability. sent12: something is a forefoot if it does quell. sent13: something is aeromedical if it does sedate Dasyurus. sent14: if the picnic does not graze then it does quell and reorders ratability. ; $proof$ =
|
sent11 -> int1: the hydrologist quells and reorders ratability.; int1 -> int2: the hydrologist reorders ratability.; sent4 -> int3: if the hydrologist does reorder ratability then it is a housing.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the tractableness occurs and the mammothermography happens is incorrect.
|
¬({A} & {B})
|
sent1: the mortising ballpark and the mentalness occurs. sent2: the counterterrorness does not occur and the mammothermography does not occur if the plucking does not occur. sent3: the scholasticness occurs. sent4: if the sedating Campeche does not occur then the ultraviolet does not occur. sent5: the tractableness does not occur if that the tractableness but not the reordering nosepiece happens is false. sent6: the pluck triggers that not the reordering nosepiece but the counterterrorness happens. sent7: the fact that the urogenitalness does not occur is not incorrect if the fact that the urogenitalness happens and the reordering hawthorn happens is incorrect. sent8: that the pluck happens and the mortising satisfaction occurs is brought about by the non-urogenitalness. sent9: the smokiness happens if the tractableness does not occur. sent10: that the mortising satisfaction does not occur or that the plucking does not occur or both prevents that the plucking happens. sent11: if the fact that not the mammothermography but the tractableness happens is incorrect the tenderization occurs. sent12: that that the reordering nosepiece but not the plucking happens does not hold is correct if the counterterrorness occurs. sent13: the mammothermography happens. sent14: that both the urogenitalness and the reordering hawthorn occurs is not correct if the ultraviolet does not occur. sent15: the tractableness occurs. sent16: the sedating Colubridae and the sedating Togolese happens. sent17: if that the reordering nosepiece occurs but the plucking does not occur does not hold the reordering nosepiece does not occur.
|
sent1: ({L} & {DI}) sent2: ¬{E} -> (¬{D} & ¬{B}) sent3: {FT} sent4: ¬{J} -> ¬{I} sent5: ¬({A} & ¬{C}) -> ¬{A} sent6: {E} -> (¬{C} & {D}) sent7: ¬({G} & {H}) -> ¬{G} sent8: ¬{G} -> ({E} & {F}) sent9: ¬{A} -> {ED} sent10: (¬{F} v ¬{E}) -> ¬{E} sent11: ¬(¬{B} & {A}) -> {P} sent12: {D} -> ¬({C} & ¬{E}) sent13: {B} sent14: ¬{I} -> ¬({G} & {H}) sent15: {A} sent16: ({CL} & {O}) sent17: ¬({C} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{C}
|
[
"sent15 & sent13 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent15 & sent13 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the tenderization occurs and the lubrication happens.
|
({P} & {BA})
|
[] | 5 | 1 | 1 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the tractableness occurs and the mammothermography happens is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the mortising ballpark and the mentalness occurs. sent2: the counterterrorness does not occur and the mammothermography does not occur if the plucking does not occur. sent3: the scholasticness occurs. sent4: if the sedating Campeche does not occur then the ultraviolet does not occur. sent5: the tractableness does not occur if that the tractableness but not the reordering nosepiece happens is false. sent6: the pluck triggers that not the reordering nosepiece but the counterterrorness happens. sent7: the fact that the urogenitalness does not occur is not incorrect if the fact that the urogenitalness happens and the reordering hawthorn happens is incorrect. sent8: that the pluck happens and the mortising satisfaction occurs is brought about by the non-urogenitalness. sent9: the smokiness happens if the tractableness does not occur. sent10: that the mortising satisfaction does not occur or that the plucking does not occur or both prevents that the plucking happens. sent11: if the fact that not the mammothermography but the tractableness happens is incorrect the tenderization occurs. sent12: that that the reordering nosepiece but not the plucking happens does not hold is correct if the counterterrorness occurs. sent13: the mammothermography happens. sent14: that both the urogenitalness and the reordering hawthorn occurs is not correct if the ultraviolet does not occur. sent15: the tractableness occurs. sent16: the sedating Colubridae and the sedating Togolese happens. sent17: if that the reordering nosepiece occurs but the plucking does not occur does not hold the reordering nosepiece does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent15 & sent13 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if the fact that it invokes and is compassionate is not right then it is not Wittgensteinian.
|
(Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
sent1: The fact that the fact that that the rockery does not whine or it is not most-favored-nation or both does not hold hold if the rockery is a pathology is wrong.
|
sent1: The fact that the fact that that the rockery does not whine or it is not most-favored-nation or both does not hold hold if the rockery is a pathology is wrong.
|
[] |
[] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | null | 0 | 0 | 0 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if the fact that it invokes and is compassionate is not right then it is not Wittgensteinian. ; $context$ = sent1: The fact that the fact that that the rockery does not whine or it is not most-favored-nation or both does not hold hold if the rockery is a pathology is wrong. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the gaur is a kind of a dosimetry but it is not photometric.
|
({B}{b} & ¬{A}{b})
|
sent1: that the gaur does not mortise smoothbore is correct if there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a frock and it is not a cockatoo is incorrect. sent2: if the wonton is not non-Gauguinesque the fact that the gopher is photometric is not false. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a dosimetry and it is not photometric does not hold. sent4: there is something such that the fact that it is not photometric and it is not a kind of a dosimetry is incorrect. sent5: the fact that the gopher is both photometric and not a dosimetry is not wrong if the gaur is not a dosimetry. sent6: the fact that the fact that something is a dosimetry and non-photometric hold does not hold if that it is not non-Gauguinesque hold. sent7: that the redbrush is not photometric is true. sent8: the gopher is not a frock. sent9: the gaur does not mortise acrobat if there is something such that that the fact that it is both not archdiocesan and not promissory is not wrong is not correct. sent10: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a frock and mortises acrobat is not right. sent11: something is both not photometric and not a dosimetry. sent12: if there is something such that the fact that it is not a frock and it does not mortise acrobat is wrong the gopher is not photometric. sent13: the gopher is a kind of a dosimetry and is not photometric if the gaur is not photometric. sent14: the gaur is a dosimetry. sent15: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a frock that does not mortise acrobat is false. sent16: if there exists something such that it mortises acrobat the gopher is not photometric. sent17: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a frock and does not mortise acrobat does not hold. sent18: the fact that something is not Gauguinesque or is not a kind of a feather or both is incorrect if it is mercurial. sent19: something does not frock and does not mortise acrobat. sent20: the fact that if the gopher is not photometric then the gaur is a dosimetry hold. sent21: if that the hair is either not Gauguinesque or not a feather or both is not correct then the wonton is Gauguinesque.
|
sent1: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{T}x) -> ¬{EB}{b} sent2: {C}{c} -> {A}{a} sent3: (Ex): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) sent4: (Ex): ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) sent5: ¬{B}{b} -> ({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent6: (x): {C}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{A}x) sent7: ¬{A}{hb} sent8: ¬{AA}{a} sent9: (x): ¬(¬{DI}x & ¬{DS}x) -> ¬{AB}{b} sent10: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent11: (Ex): (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) sent12: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent13: ¬{A}{b} -> ({B}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent14: {B}{b} sent15: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent16: (x): {AB}x -> ¬{A}{a} sent17: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent18: (x): {E}x -> ¬(¬{C}x v ¬{D}x) sent19: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent20: ¬{A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent21: ¬(¬{C}{d} v ¬{D}{d}) -> {C}{c}
|
[
"sent17 & sent12 -> int1: the gopher is not photometric.;"
] |
[
"sent17 & sent12 -> int1: ¬{A}{a};"
] |
the fact that the gaur is a dosimetry that is not photometric does not hold.
|
¬({B}{b} & ¬{A}{b})
|
[
"sent18 -> int2: that the hair is not Gauguinesque and/or it does not feather does not hold if it is mercurial.;"
] | 7 | 2 | null | 19 | 0 | 19 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the gaur is a kind of a dosimetry but it is not photometric. ; $context$ = sent1: that the gaur does not mortise smoothbore is correct if there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a frock and it is not a cockatoo is incorrect. sent2: if the wonton is not non-Gauguinesque the fact that the gopher is photometric is not false. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a dosimetry and it is not photometric does not hold. sent4: there is something such that the fact that it is not photometric and it is not a kind of a dosimetry is incorrect. sent5: the fact that the gopher is both photometric and not a dosimetry is not wrong if the gaur is not a dosimetry. sent6: the fact that the fact that something is a dosimetry and non-photometric hold does not hold if that it is not non-Gauguinesque hold. sent7: that the redbrush is not photometric is true. sent8: the gopher is not a frock. sent9: the gaur does not mortise acrobat if there is something such that that the fact that it is both not archdiocesan and not promissory is not wrong is not correct. sent10: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a frock and mortises acrobat is not right. sent11: something is both not photometric and not a dosimetry. sent12: if there is something such that the fact that it is not a frock and it does not mortise acrobat is wrong the gopher is not photometric. sent13: the gopher is a kind of a dosimetry and is not photometric if the gaur is not photometric. sent14: the gaur is a dosimetry. sent15: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a frock that does not mortise acrobat is false. sent16: if there exists something such that it mortises acrobat the gopher is not photometric. sent17: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a frock and does not mortise acrobat does not hold. sent18: the fact that something is not Gauguinesque or is not a kind of a feather or both is incorrect if it is mercurial. sent19: something does not frock and does not mortise acrobat. sent20: the fact that if the gopher is not photometric then the gaur is a dosimetry hold. sent21: if that the hair is either not Gauguinesque or not a feather or both is not correct then the wonton is Gauguinesque. ; $proof$ =
|
sent17 & sent12 -> int1: the gopher is not photometric.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the show-stopper happens.
|
{A}
|
sent1: the regimentalsness happens. sent2: if the centrifugalness and the fullback happens the fact that the show-stopper occurs is not true. sent3: the sedating hygroscope happens. sent4: if the fact that the antiferromagneticness happens and the rumination does not occur is not correct then the antiferromagneticness does not occur. sent5: both the evaporativeness and the reddening occurs. sent6: the bagging does not occur and the aspirating review occurs. sent7: the fullback happens. sent8: the fullback happens and the centrifugalness occurs if the antiferromagneticness does not occur. sent9: the show-stopper happens and the fullbacking happens.
|
sent1: {JF} sent2: ({C} & {B}) -> ¬{A} sent3: {EA} sent4: ¬({E} & ¬{F}) -> ¬{E} sent5: ({JK} & {HG}) sent6: (¬{D} & {CT}) sent7: {B} sent8: ¬{E} -> ({B} & {C}) sent9: ({A} & {B})
|
[
"sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the show-stopper does not occur.
|
¬{A}
|
[] | 4 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the show-stopper happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the regimentalsness happens. sent2: if the centrifugalness and the fullback happens the fact that the show-stopper occurs is not true. sent3: the sedating hygroscope happens. sent4: if the fact that the antiferromagneticness happens and the rumination does not occur is not correct then the antiferromagneticness does not occur. sent5: both the evaporativeness and the reddening occurs. sent6: the bagging does not occur and the aspirating review occurs. sent7: the fullback happens. sent8: the fullback happens and the centrifugalness occurs if the antiferromagneticness does not occur. sent9: the show-stopper happens and the fullbacking happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that that the semioticness occurs and the mortising ableism does not occur hold does not hold.
|
¬({E} & ¬{D})
|
sent1: the mortising Beadle prevents that the risk happens. sent2: if the alkaloticness does not occur then the semioticness occurs and the mortising ableism does not occur. sent3: that the allowancing but not the physiologicalness occurs is not correct if the mortising cluck does not occur. sent4: if the alkaloticness does not occur then the fact that the fact that both the unwinding and the non-Icelandicness occurs is not wrong is not true. sent5: that both the semioticness and the mortising ableism occurs is not right if the risking does not occur. sent6: if the fact that the heliocentricness happens is not wrong the mortising cluck does not occur. sent7: the allowance does not occur if that the allowance but not the physiologicalness occurs is wrong. sent8: that the Triassicness and the risk occurs is caused by that the allowance does not occur. sent9: the sedating Chimakum or the butterflying or both occurs. sent10: that the antipollutionness happens and the pullback does not occur is not right if the tendering does not occur. sent11: that the reconverting but not the rationalization occurs is wrong if that the parallelness does not occur is not incorrect. sent12: the alkaloticness happens. sent13: the fact that the semioticness and the mortising ableism happens is not right. sent14: the mortising goner does not occur. sent15: that the risk occurs is prevented by the alkaloticness or that the mortising Beadle occurs or both. sent16: the desquamation does not occur. sent17: the worsening does not occur.
|
sent1: {B} -> ¬{C} sent2: ¬{A} -> ({E} & ¬{D}) sent3: ¬{I} -> ¬({G} & ¬{H}) sent4: ¬{A} -> ¬({FP} & ¬{FS}) sent5: ¬{C} -> ¬({E} & {D}) sent6: {J} -> ¬{I} sent7: ¬({G} & ¬{H}) -> ¬{G} sent8: ¬{G} -> ({F} & {C}) sent9: ({EF} v {CJ}) sent10: ¬{DN} -> ¬({IM} & ¬{IJ}) sent11: ¬{AD} -> ¬({BI} & ¬{CB}) sent12: {A} sent13: ¬({E} & {D}) sent14: ¬{AM} sent15: ({A} v {B}) -> ¬{C} sent16: ¬{EA} sent17: ¬{CH}
|
[
"sent12 -> int1: the alkaloticness occurs and/or the mortising Beadle happens.; sent15 & int1 -> int2: the risk does not occur.;"
] |
[
"sent12 -> int1: ({A} v {B}); sent15 & int1 -> int2: ¬{C};"
] |
the fact that the unwinding and the non-Icelandicness happens is not true.
|
¬({FP} & ¬{FS})
|
[] | 6 | 3 | null | 15 | 0 | 15 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that that the semioticness occurs and the mortising ableism does not occur hold does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the mortising Beadle prevents that the risk happens. sent2: if the alkaloticness does not occur then the semioticness occurs and the mortising ableism does not occur. sent3: that the allowancing but not the physiologicalness occurs is not correct if the mortising cluck does not occur. sent4: if the alkaloticness does not occur then the fact that the fact that both the unwinding and the non-Icelandicness occurs is not wrong is not true. sent5: that both the semioticness and the mortising ableism occurs is not right if the risking does not occur. sent6: if the fact that the heliocentricness happens is not wrong the mortising cluck does not occur. sent7: the allowance does not occur if that the allowance but not the physiologicalness occurs is wrong. sent8: that the Triassicness and the risk occurs is caused by that the allowance does not occur. sent9: the sedating Chimakum or the butterflying or both occurs. sent10: that the antipollutionness happens and the pullback does not occur is not right if the tendering does not occur. sent11: that the reconverting but not the rationalization occurs is wrong if that the parallelness does not occur is not incorrect. sent12: the alkaloticness happens. sent13: the fact that the semioticness and the mortising ableism happens is not right. sent14: the mortising goner does not occur. sent15: that the risk occurs is prevented by the alkaloticness or that the mortising Beadle occurs or both. sent16: the desquamation does not occur. sent17: the worsening does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent12 -> int1: the alkaloticness occurs and/or the mortising Beadle happens.; sent15 & int1 -> int2: the risk does not occur.; __UNKNOWN__
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.