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 fact that there exists something such that if it is unacceptable then that it is not argumentative or attaches or both does not hold is not right.
|
¬((Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x))
|
sent1: that the afterbirth either is not argumentative or attaches or both is false if it is unacceptable. sent2: there is something such that if it gouges afterbirth then it does not deplume. sent3: there is something such that if it is implausible then that it does not gouge tart or does gouge Rhine or both is incorrect. sent4: there is something such that if it is unacceptable it is not argumentative and/or does attach. sent5: if the afterbirth is unacceptable it is argumentative. sent6: if the afterbirth is anthropogenetic it is not tolerable or attaches or both. sent7: if something scourges then that either it is not a hurrah or it does scrimp or both is not true. sent8: that the waterer is not magisterial or it does gouge waterer or both is false if it is argumentative.
|
sent1: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent2: (Ex): {U}x -> ¬{F}x sent3: (Ex): {DH}x -> ¬(¬{BE}x v {EI}x) sent4: (Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) sent5: {A}{aa} -> {AA}{aa} sent6: {BL}{aa} -> (¬{CT}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent7: (x): {GU}x -> ¬(¬{AM}x v {AF}x) sent8: {AA}{bp} -> ¬(¬{O}{bp} v {GQ}{bp})
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
if the bellyband scourges that that either it is not a kind of a hurrah or it does scrimp or both is not incorrect is not correct.
|
{GU}{il} -> ¬(¬{AM}{il} v {AF}{il})
|
[
"sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it is unacceptable then that it is not argumentative or attaches or both does not hold is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: that the afterbirth either is not argumentative or attaches or both is false if it is unacceptable. sent2: there is something such that if it gouges afterbirth then it does not deplume. sent3: there is something such that if it is implausible then that it does not gouge tart or does gouge Rhine or both is incorrect. sent4: there is something such that if it is unacceptable it is not argumentative and/or does attach. sent5: if the afterbirth is unacceptable it is argumentative. sent6: if the afterbirth is anthropogenetic it is not tolerable or attaches or both. sent7: if something scourges then that either it is not a hurrah or it does scrimp or both is not true. sent8: that the waterer is not magisterial or it does gouge waterer or both is false if it is argumentative. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a Sfax and is not a lido is not right it is not non-transatlantic.
|
(Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x
|
sent1: something is transatlantic if that it is not a Sfax and it is a lido is incorrect. sent2: the clover is paniculate if the fact that it is not a lido and it is not aculeate is false. sent3: there is something such that if the fact that it is a sick and it does not glower AS is incorrect it is not wary. sent4: the clover is cytoarchitectural if it paws. sent5: there exists something such that if that it is an occurrence and is not a pitcher is not true that it is a pronominal is correct. sent6: if that something is not a kind of a Sfax and is not a lido is false it is transatlantic. sent7: if that something is not a aerolite and does not glower NICU does not hold it glowers Sikhism. sent8: if that the clover is not a Sfax and is a kind of a lido does not hold it is transatlantic. sent9: there exists something such that if it does not confront and it does not debrief redoubt it is a Melicytus. sent10: something is a Ruskin if the fact that it is not disorderly and it is not a yip is wrong. sent11: something that is both not vice-presidential and not a Blighia is not a Smyrnium. sent12: there is something such that if the fact that it does not glower clover and it does not debrief guereza is not right then it does debrief IRA. sent13: the clover does debrief pall-mall if it is not a kind of a lido and it is not a kind of a thermal. sent14: there is something such that if that it is non-paleolithic and is not a supporter does not hold it is aculeate.
|
sent1: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent2: ¬(¬{AB}{aa} & ¬{CD}{aa}) -> {CM}{aa} sent3: (Ex): ¬({II}x & ¬{DH}x) -> {FR}x sent4: {BG}{aa} -> {JE}{aa} sent5: (Ex): ¬({AC}x & ¬{ES}x) -> {CT}x sent6: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent7: (x): ¬(¬{ID}x & ¬{G}x) -> {JD}x sent8: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent9: (Ex): (¬{CN}x & ¬{IO}x) -> {FL}x sent10: (x): ¬(¬{EP}x & ¬{DA}x) -> {IG}x sent11: (x): (¬{DL}x & ¬{CA}x) -> {CK}x sent12: (Ex): ¬(¬{IR}x & ¬{BA}x) -> {AL}x sent13: (¬{AB}{aa} & ¬{EN}{aa}) -> {DP}{aa} sent14: (Ex): ¬(¬{Q}x & ¬{FK}x) -> {CD}x
|
[
"sent6 -> int1: if that the clover is not a Sfax and is not a lido is incorrect it is transatlantic.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there is something such that if that it is not a aerolite and does not glower NICU is wrong then it does glower Sikhism.
|
(Ex): ¬(¬{ID}x & ¬{G}x) -> {JD}x
|
[
"sent7 -> int2: if the fact that the guereza is not a kind of a aerolite and does not glower NICU does not hold then it glowers Sikhism.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 2 | 2 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a Sfax and is not a lido is not right it is not non-transatlantic. ; $context$ = sent1: something is transatlantic if that it is not a Sfax and it is a lido is incorrect. sent2: the clover is paniculate if the fact that it is not a lido and it is not aculeate is false. sent3: there is something such that if the fact that it is a sick and it does not glower AS is incorrect it is not wary. sent4: the clover is cytoarchitectural if it paws. sent5: there exists something such that if that it is an occurrence and is not a pitcher is not true that it is a pronominal is correct. sent6: if that something is not a kind of a Sfax and is not a lido is false it is transatlantic. sent7: if that something is not a aerolite and does not glower NICU does not hold it glowers Sikhism. sent8: if that the clover is not a Sfax and is a kind of a lido does not hold it is transatlantic. sent9: there exists something such that if it does not confront and it does not debrief redoubt it is a Melicytus. sent10: something is a Ruskin if the fact that it is not disorderly and it is not a yip is wrong. sent11: something that is both not vice-presidential and not a Blighia is not a Smyrnium. sent12: there is something such that if the fact that it does not glower clover and it does not debrief guereza is not right then it does debrief IRA. sent13: the clover does debrief pall-mall if it is not a kind of a lido and it is not a kind of a thermal. sent14: there is something such that if that it is non-paleolithic and is not a supporter does not hold it is aculeate. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 -> int1: if that the clover is not a Sfax and is not a lido is incorrect it is transatlantic.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the greisen is both a lobectomy and not an ammonium does not hold.
|
¬({D}{a} & ¬{C}{a})
|
sent1: the theologian is not heterosexual if the paving is not over-the-counter. sent2: the greisen is over-the-counter. sent3: something is a lobectomy if it is heterosexual. sent4: the fact that something does not gouge Alpena is not wrong if it is a driveller and does glower Corixidae. sent5: that the fact that something is a lobectomy but it is not an ammonium is not incorrect is not true if it does not close. sent6: the theologian is close but it is not a percolate if it is alkaline. sent7: that something is a kind of a readership and is not a kind of a captain is false if that it does not gouge bowler is not false. sent8: the shark does glower Leiopelmatidae and does not close. sent9: something is alkaline and it is a kind of a share if it is not a studiousness. sent10: the greisen is heterosexual. sent11: if the fact that something does not debrief Hameln is right that it is not a studiousness and it does not gouge theologian is not incorrect. sent12: if something does not gouge Alpena then the paving is heterosexual and/or not over-the-counter. sent13: if a close thing is over-the-counter then it is not an ammonium. sent14: something does debrief Savara if it is anticancer. sent15: if something is a Warren that does gouge maharaja then it is not mammalian. sent16: the greisen jolts. sent17: the weatherman is a driveller and it does glower Corixidae if the orthopteron is not a kind of a readership. sent18: the fact that the orthopteron is not a readership if the fact that the sepulcher is a kind of a readership but it is not a kind of a captain is false is not wrong. sent19: if the theologian is smooth thing that does not diminish airway it does not debrief Hameln. sent20: if the fact that the voile does not gouge bowler and does not debrief marbled is not true then the sepulcher does not gouge bowler. sent21: that the voile is a straitjacket is true. sent22: if the voile is a kind of a straitjacket the fact that it does not gouge bowler and does not debrief marbled is not correct. sent23: if the theologian is not heterosexual and not non-close the greisen is not non-close. sent24: the greisen closes. sent25: the theologian is not a kind of a heterosexual if the paving is heterosexual.
|
sent1: ¬{B}{c} -> ¬{E}{b} sent2: {B}{a} sent3: (x): {E}x -> {D}x sent4: (x): ({J}x & {K}x) -> ¬{F}x sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({D}x & ¬{C}x) sent6: {H}{b} -> ({A}{b} & ¬{G}{b}) sent7: (x): ¬{M}x -> ¬({L}x & ¬{N}x) sent8: ({FD}{ii} & ¬{A}{ii}) sent9: (x): ¬{O}x -> ({H}x & {I}x) sent10: {E}{a} sent11: (x): ¬{S}x -> (¬{O}x & ¬{R}x) sent12: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({E}{c} v ¬{B}{c}) sent13: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}x sent14: (x): {BN}x -> {HG}x sent15: (x): ({FC}x & {GO}x) -> ¬{CT}x sent16: {FL}{a} sent17: ¬{L}{e} -> ({J}{d} & {K}{d}) sent18: ¬({L}{f} & ¬{N}{f}) -> ¬{L}{e} sent19: ({T}{b} & ¬{U}{b}) -> ¬{S}{b} sent20: ¬(¬{M}{g} & ¬{P}{g}) -> ¬{M}{f} sent21: {Q}{g} sent22: {Q}{g} -> ¬(¬{M}{g} & ¬{P}{g}) sent23: (¬{E}{b} & {A}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent24: {A}{a} sent25: {E}{c} -> ¬{E}{b}
|
[
"sent24 & sent2 -> int1: the greisen does close and it is not non-over-the-counter.; sent13 -> int2: the greisen is not an ammonium if it closes and is over-the-counter.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the greisen is not a kind of an ammonium.; sent3 -> int4: the greisen is a lobectomy if it is a kind of a heterosexual.; int4 & sent10 -> int5: the greisen is a kind of a lobectomy.; int3 & int5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent24 & sent2 -> int1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}); sent13 -> int2: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬{C}{a}; sent3 -> int4: {E}{a} -> {D}{a}; int4 & sent10 -> int5: {D}{a}; int3 & int5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the greisen is a kind of a lobectomy and is not an ammonium is not correct.
|
¬({D}{a} & ¬{C}{a})
|
[
"sent5 -> int6: if the greisen is not close then that it is both a lobectomy and not an ammonium does not hold.; sent4 -> int7: if the weatherman is a kind of a driveller that does glower Corixidae then that it does gouge Alpena does not hold.; sent7 -> int8: if the sepulcher does not gouge bowler the fact that it is both a readership and not a captain does not hold.; sent22 & sent21 -> int9: the fact that the voile does not gouge bowler and it does not debrief marbled is not true.; sent20 & int9 -> int10: the sepulcher does not gouge bowler.; int8 & int10 -> int11: that the sepulcher is a readership but it is not a captain is not true.; sent18 & int11 -> int12: the orthopteron is not a readership.; sent17 & int12 -> int13: the weatherman is a driveller and it glowers Corixidae.; int7 & int13 -> int14: the weatherman does not gouge Alpena.; int14 -> int15: something does not gouge Alpena.; int15 & sent12 -> int16: the paving is heterosexual and/or it is not over-the-counter.; int16 & sent25 & sent1 -> int17: the theologian is not a heterosexual.; sent9 -> int18: the theologian is alkaline and it is a share if it is not a studiousness.; sent11 -> int19: if the theologian does not debrief Hameln then it is not a kind of a studiousness and does not gouge theologian.;"
] | 12 | 3 | 3 | 20 | 0 | 20 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the greisen is both a lobectomy and not an ammonium does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the theologian is not heterosexual if the paving is not over-the-counter. sent2: the greisen is over-the-counter. sent3: something is a lobectomy if it is heterosexual. sent4: the fact that something does not gouge Alpena is not wrong if it is a driveller and does glower Corixidae. sent5: that the fact that something is a lobectomy but it is not an ammonium is not incorrect is not true if it does not close. sent6: the theologian is close but it is not a percolate if it is alkaline. sent7: that something is a kind of a readership and is not a kind of a captain is false if that it does not gouge bowler is not false. sent8: the shark does glower Leiopelmatidae and does not close. sent9: something is alkaline and it is a kind of a share if it is not a studiousness. sent10: the greisen is heterosexual. sent11: if the fact that something does not debrief Hameln is right that it is not a studiousness and it does not gouge theologian is not incorrect. sent12: if something does not gouge Alpena then the paving is heterosexual and/or not over-the-counter. sent13: if a close thing is over-the-counter then it is not an ammonium. sent14: something does debrief Savara if it is anticancer. sent15: if something is a Warren that does gouge maharaja then it is not mammalian. sent16: the greisen jolts. sent17: the weatherman is a driveller and it does glower Corixidae if the orthopteron is not a kind of a readership. sent18: the fact that the orthopteron is not a readership if the fact that the sepulcher is a kind of a readership but it is not a kind of a captain is false is not wrong. sent19: if the theologian is smooth thing that does not diminish airway it does not debrief Hameln. sent20: if the fact that the voile does not gouge bowler and does not debrief marbled is not true then the sepulcher does not gouge bowler. sent21: that the voile is a straitjacket is true. sent22: if the voile is a kind of a straitjacket the fact that it does not gouge bowler and does not debrief marbled is not correct. sent23: if the theologian is not heterosexual and not non-close the greisen is not non-close. sent24: the greisen closes. sent25: the theologian is not a kind of a heterosexual if the paving is heterosexual. ; $proof$ =
|
sent24 & sent2 -> int1: the greisen does close and it is not non-over-the-counter.; sent13 -> int2: the greisen is not an ammonium if it closes and is over-the-counter.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the greisen is not a kind of an ammonium.; sent3 -> int4: the greisen is a lobectomy if it is a kind of a heterosexual.; int4 & sent10 -> int5: the greisen is a kind of a lobectomy.; int3 & int5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the fact that there exists something such that if it tumbles and it is not unnecessary it is oracular is not wrong does not hold.
|
¬((Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x)
|
sent1: if the kylix is unnecessary thing that does gouge bough that it diminishes atrium is not false. sent2: something that is a kind of a stokehold and does not mismanage is gerundial. sent3: if something is a kind of a tumble and is unnecessary then it is oracular. sent4: if something is a tumble but it is non-unnecessary then it is oracular.
|
sent1: ({AB}{aa} & {EH}{aa}) -> {CE}{aa} sent2: (x): ({DA}x & ¬{U}x) -> {CA}x sent3: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent4: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: the kylix is oracular if it is a tumble and it is not unnecessary.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the kylix is gerundial if it is a stokehold that does not mismanage.
|
({DA}{aa} & ¬{U}{aa}) -> {CA}{aa}
|
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = that the fact that there exists something such that if it tumbles and it is not unnecessary it is oracular is not wrong does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the kylix is unnecessary thing that does gouge bough that it diminishes atrium is not false. sent2: something that is a kind of a stokehold and does not mismanage is gerundial. sent3: if something is a kind of a tumble and is unnecessary then it is oracular. sent4: if something is a tumble but it is non-unnecessary then it is oracular. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> int1: the kylix is oracular if it is a tumble and it is not unnecessary.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the Sabine gouges lift and is a nabob is not true.
|
¬({C}{c} & {D}{c})
|
sent1: the Sabine is esophageal thing that does gouge lift. sent2: the neckcloth is not non-cubital. sent3: the bouffant does not gouge lift if the neckcloth is esophageal and it is cubital. sent4: if the bouffant does not gouge lift the fact that the Sabine gouge lift and is a kind of a nabob is incorrect.
|
sent1: ({A}{c} & {C}{c}) sent2: {B}{a} sent3: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent4: ¬{C}{b} -> ¬({C}{c} & {D}{c})
|
[] |
[] |
the Sabine gouges lift and is a nabob.
|
({C}{c} & {D}{c})
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: the Sabine gouges lift.;"
] | 5 | 3 | null | 1 | 0 | 1 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the Sabine gouges lift and is a nabob is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the Sabine is esophageal thing that does gouge lift. sent2: the neckcloth is not non-cubital. sent3: the bouffant does not gouge lift if the neckcloth is esophageal and it is cubital. sent4: if the bouffant does not gouge lift the fact that the Sabine gouge lift and is a kind of a nabob is incorrect. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a gneiss it is cowardly is false.
|
¬((Ex): ¬{B}x -> {C}x)
|
sent1: there is something such that if it is a gneiss it is cowardly. sent2: the claustrum is a gneiss if it is not an icing. sent3: if the claustrum is a elemi it is a kind of a guzzler. sent4: there is something such that if it does not diminish cape then it does snowboard. sent5: if something is not a enterotoxemia then it does glower Hasdrubal. sent6: if the chopsteak is non-cowardly then it is a kind of a Halcyon. sent7: there is something such that if it does gouge Hyperion it is not non-epithelial. sent8: there is something such that if it is a kind of a Steen then it does glower shivaree. sent9: there exists something such that if it is tearful that it glowers chopsteak is not false. sent10: the stanhope discriminates if it gouges epoxy. sent11: the claustrum is cowardly if it is a gneiss. sent12: there exists something such that if it does not glower blank then that it is an alcoholic is not false. sent13: if the claustrum is not a Creole it does glower catch. sent14: the claustrum is cowardly if it is not a gneiss.
|
sent1: (Ex): {B}x -> {C}x sent2: ¬{A}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent3: {FF}{aa} -> {JC}{aa} sent4: (Ex): ¬{DR}x -> {BA}x sent5: (x): ¬{EE}x -> {HR}x sent6: ¬{C}{fq} -> {AC}{fq} sent7: (Ex): {FH}x -> {GG}x sent8: (Ex): {CO}x -> {GE}x sent9: (Ex): {K}x -> {GC}x sent10: {HO}{el} -> {IM}{el} sent11: {B}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent12: (Ex): ¬{DN}x -> {EB}x sent13: ¬{JE}{aa} -> {HN}{aa} sent14: ¬{B}{aa} -> {C}{aa}
|
[
"sent14 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent14 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there exists something such that if it is not a enterotoxemia it glowers Hasdrubal.
|
(Ex): ¬{EE}x -> {HR}x
|
[
"sent5 -> int1: if that the crossbencher is not a enterotoxemia is not wrong then it does glower Hasdrubal.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a gneiss it is cowardly is false. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is a gneiss it is cowardly. sent2: the claustrum is a gneiss if it is not an icing. sent3: if the claustrum is a elemi it is a kind of a guzzler. sent4: there is something such that if it does not diminish cape then it does snowboard. sent5: if something is not a enterotoxemia then it does glower Hasdrubal. sent6: if the chopsteak is non-cowardly then it is a kind of a Halcyon. sent7: there is something such that if it does gouge Hyperion it is not non-epithelial. sent8: there is something such that if it is a kind of a Steen then it does glower shivaree. sent9: there exists something such that if it is tearful that it glowers chopsteak is not false. sent10: the stanhope discriminates if it gouges epoxy. sent11: the claustrum is cowardly if it is a gneiss. sent12: there exists something such that if it does not glower blank then that it is an alcoholic is not false. sent13: if the claustrum is not a Creole it does glower catch. sent14: the claustrum is cowardly if it is not a gneiss. ; $proof$ =
|
sent14 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the kylix is not a rebound.
|
¬{C}{a}
|
sent1: the kylix is not a kind of a bristletail. sent2: the kiss is not a bristletail if that the kylix is a kind of a rebound but it is not a bristletail is not correct. sent3: the kylix is not a nick. sent4: if something does not nick and it is not a kind of a bristletail it is not a kind of a rebound.
|
sent1: ¬{B}{a} sent2: ¬({C}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{B}{dt} sent3: ¬{A}{a} sent4: (x): (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{C}x
|
[
"sent3 & sent1 -> int1: the kylix is not a kind of a nick and is not a kind of a bristletail.; sent4 -> int2: if the kylix is not a kind of a nick and it is not a bristletail then it is not a rebound.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent1 -> int1: (¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}); sent4 -> int2: (¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the kiss is not a kind of a bristletail.
|
¬{B}{dt}
|
[] | 5 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the kylix is not a rebound. ; $context$ = sent1: the kylix is not a kind of a bristletail. sent2: the kiss is not a bristletail if that the kylix is a kind of a rebound but it is not a bristletail is not correct. sent3: the kylix is not a nick. sent4: if something does not nick and it is not a kind of a bristletail it is not a kind of a rebound. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent1 -> int1: the kylix is not a kind of a nick and is not a kind of a bristletail.; sent4 -> int2: if the kylix is not a kind of a nick and it is not a bristletail then it is not a rebound.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the gemsbok does not debrief vested and does not diminish patriarch.
|
(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a})
|
sent1: the gemsbok does not diminish patriarch. sent2: The patriarch does not diminish gemsbok. sent3: that the gemsbok is a nastiness and/or incandesces is incorrect if it does not diminish carbonation. sent4: if the valentine does not incandesce then that it is a Romneya and/or it is femoral is not correct. sent5: The carbonation does not diminish gemsbok. sent6: the gemsbok does not diminish carbonation.
|
sent1: ¬{C}{a} sent2: ¬{AE}{ac} sent3: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent4: ¬{AB}{hj} -> ¬({G}{hj} v {CJ}{hj}) sent5: ¬{AC}{aa} sent6: ¬{A}{a}
|
[
"sent3 & sent6 -> int1: that the fact that the gemsbok is a kind of a nastiness and/or incandesces is false is right.;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent6 -> int1: ¬({AA}{a} v {AB}{a});"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | null | 3 | 0 | 3 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the gemsbok does not debrief vested and does not diminish patriarch. ; $context$ = sent1: the gemsbok does not diminish patriarch. sent2: The patriarch does not diminish gemsbok. sent3: that the gemsbok is a nastiness and/or incandesces is incorrect if it does not diminish carbonation. sent4: if the valentine does not incandesce then that it is a Romneya and/or it is femoral is not correct. sent5: The carbonation does not diminish gemsbok. sent6: the gemsbok does not diminish carbonation. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent6 -> int1: that the fact that the gemsbok is a kind of a nastiness and/or incandesces is false is right.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
something is a kind of a perforation.
|
(Ex): {A}x
|
sent1: if that something is a perforation but it is not a subjunctive is not true then it is a subjunctive. sent2: there exists something such that that it does not diminish regent and it glowers talon is not true. sent3: if there exists something such that that it does not debrief More and babbles is not true then the overgarment gouges absorbent. sent4: if there are non-subjunctive things then that the overgarment is a kind of a perforation is true. sent5: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a chance and it is carnal is not true. sent6: there is something such that the fact that it is not an aerial and it uncurls is not correct. sent7: if the community is a kind of a program or it does not debrief comparison or both the overgarment does not debrief comparison. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of non-neuter thing that debriefs xenolith is incorrect. sent9: there is something such that that the fact that it does not diminish jostle and is a Gobiesocidae hold does not hold. sent10: there is something such that that it gouges absorbent and is subjunctive is not true. sent11: there is something such that it debriefs radius. sent12: something does not gouge absorbent but it is subjunctive. sent13: the overgarment depresses. sent14: the abrogator is an accent. sent15: if there exists something such that that it does not gouge crammer and it is exodontic does not hold the overgarment is Yeatsian. sent16: there exists something such that that it does not gouge absorbent and is a kind of a subjunctive is not true. sent17: there is something such that the fact that it is not a Comtism and gouges Telanthera does not hold. sent18: if there exists something such that that it is not a perforation and bawls does not hold the overgarment is hornless. sent19: there is something such that it is nonreturnable. sent20: the overgarment is subjunctive.
|
sent1: (x): ¬({A}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {AB}x sent2: (Ex): ¬(¬{GO}x & {ES}x) sent3: (x): ¬(¬{GM}x & {JI}x) -> {AA}{a} sent4: (x): ¬{AB}x -> {A}{a} sent5: (Ex): ¬(¬{HN}x & {BO}x) sent6: (Ex): ¬(¬{E}x & {P}x) sent7: ({D}{b} v ¬{B}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent8: (Ex): ¬(¬{BI}x & {HM}x) sent9: (Ex): ¬(¬{GA}x & {CT}x) sent10: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent11: (Ex): {GL}x sent12: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent13: {GF}{a} sent14: {BD}{ci} sent15: (x): ¬(¬{FU}x & {BA}x) -> {BS}{a} sent16: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent17: (Ex): ¬(¬{GP}x & {DB}x) sent18: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & {CQ}x) -> {BG}{a} sent19: (Ex): {IB}x sent20: {AB}{a}
|
[] |
[] |
the xenolith is a subjunctive.
|
{AB}{ir}
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: if that the xenolith is a kind of a perforation but it is not subjunctive is not true it is a subjunctive.;"
] | 6 | 2 | null | 19 | 0 | 19 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = something is a kind of a perforation. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something is a perforation but it is not a subjunctive is not true then it is a subjunctive. sent2: there exists something such that that it does not diminish regent and it glowers talon is not true. sent3: if there exists something such that that it does not debrief More and babbles is not true then the overgarment gouges absorbent. sent4: if there are non-subjunctive things then that the overgarment is a kind of a perforation is true. sent5: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a chance and it is carnal is not true. sent6: there is something such that the fact that it is not an aerial and it uncurls is not correct. sent7: if the community is a kind of a program or it does not debrief comparison or both the overgarment does not debrief comparison. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of non-neuter thing that debriefs xenolith is incorrect. sent9: there is something such that that the fact that it does not diminish jostle and is a Gobiesocidae hold does not hold. sent10: there is something such that that it gouges absorbent and is subjunctive is not true. sent11: there is something such that it debriefs radius. sent12: something does not gouge absorbent but it is subjunctive. sent13: the overgarment depresses. sent14: the abrogator is an accent. sent15: if there exists something such that that it does not gouge crammer and it is exodontic does not hold the overgarment is Yeatsian. sent16: there exists something such that that it does not gouge absorbent and is a kind of a subjunctive is not true. sent17: there is something such that the fact that it is not a Comtism and gouges Telanthera does not hold. sent18: if there exists something such that that it is not a perforation and bawls does not hold the overgarment is hornless. sent19: there is something such that it is nonreturnable. sent20: the overgarment is subjunctive. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the loudspeaker is earthy and/or it is unstoppable.
|
({A}{a} v {B}{a})
|
sent1: if the fact that something is unafraid and does not constipate is incorrect then it constipate. sent2: if the loudspeaker glowers Hipposideridae but it does not brace it is unstoppable. sent3: the phellem is not a kennel and it is not a Ivry. sent4: the loudspeaker is both not athletics and not pyrographic. sent5: something either is a swag or is unstoppable or both if it is not earthy. sent6: the Walloon is not unstoppable and it is not a kind of a umbrellawort. sent7: if that something constipates and is earthy is not true then it is not earthy. sent8: the loudspeaker is unstoppable if it does not glower Hipposideridae and braces. sent9: the loudspeaker does not glower Hipposideridae and does not brace.
|
sent1: (x): ¬({E}x & ¬{D}x) -> {D}x sent2: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent3: (¬{CI}{gk} & ¬{ET}{gk}) sent4: (¬{ED}{a} & ¬{CQ}{a}) sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({GB}x v {B}x) sent6: (¬{B}{al} & ¬{IE}{al}) sent7: (x): ¬({D}x & {A}x) -> ¬{A}x sent8: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent9: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})
|
[] |
[] |
the fact that either the loudspeaker is earthy or it is unstoppable or both does not hold.
|
¬({A}{a} v {B}{a})
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: the buttermilk constipates if the fact that it is a kind of unafraid thing that does not constipates does not hold.;"
] | 6 | 2 | null | 8 | 0 | 8 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the loudspeaker is earthy and/or it is unstoppable. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something is unafraid and does not constipate is incorrect then it constipate. sent2: if the loudspeaker glowers Hipposideridae but it does not brace it is unstoppable. sent3: the phellem is not a kennel and it is not a Ivry. sent4: the loudspeaker is both not athletics and not pyrographic. sent5: something either is a swag or is unstoppable or both if it is not earthy. sent6: the Walloon is not unstoppable and it is not a kind of a umbrellawort. sent7: if that something constipates and is earthy is not true then it is not earthy. sent8: the loudspeaker is unstoppable if it does not glower Hipposideridae and braces. sent9: the loudspeaker does not glower Hipposideridae and does not brace. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the headliner is not unripe or collapsible or both is not right.
|
¬(¬{F}{a} v {E}{a})
|
sent1: the headliner is unripe and/or it is collapsible if it is not a kind of a penguin. sent2: if the headliner does not diminish Fortuna it is a tranche and/or it gouges anjou. sent3: there is something such that it is a kind of a Melampsoraceae. sent4: there is something such that it is a spathe. sent5: the two-timer is a homonymy but it is not unripe. sent6: if the char is ignoble but it is not a frizz then it is not a penguin. sent7: the headliner either does generate or is a warehouser or both if it does not debrief cloudlessness. sent8: there is something such that it is not a Melampsoraceae. sent9: the headliner is not impressionist if it does gouge vasoconstrictor and it is not dictyopteran. sent10: if something is not a dybbuk it does not generate or it debriefs wish or both. sent11: the headliner does diminish Fortuna and is not a manglietia if something is not a Melampsoraceae. sent12: the fact that the headliner is not collapsible or it is a kind of a rich or both hold. sent13: if something does diminish Fortuna and is not a manglietia then it is not a penguin. sent14: if something is not a Einstein then either it is not a kind of a spathe or it is aspectual or both. sent15: if that the headliner is not a volatile is true then it is a manglietia and/or it is a dhak. sent16: something does debrief wish. sent17: that something that is not a kind of a penguin is not unripe or collapsible or both hold. sent18: the headliner does gouge Rittenhouse and/or it does glower urging.
|
sent1: ¬{D}{a} -> ({F}{a} v {E}{a}) sent2: ¬{B}{a} -> ({EE}{a} v {CI}{a}) sent3: (Ex): {A}x sent4: (Ex): {HR}x sent5: ({HA}{bp} & ¬{F}{bp}) sent6: ({II}{bh} & ¬{DK}{bh}) -> ¬{D}{bh} sent7: ¬{IE}{a} -> ({CS}{a} v {GI}{a}) sent8: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent9: ({HN}{a} & ¬{AK}{a}) -> ¬{GQ}{a} sent10: (x): ¬{CD}x -> (¬{CS}x v {CH}x) sent11: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent12: (¬{E}{a} v {EA}{a}) sent13: (x): ({B}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{D}x sent14: (x): ¬{JF}x -> (¬{HR}x v {HP}x) sent15: ¬{DB}{a} -> ({C}{a} v {EU}{a}) sent16: (Ex): {CH}x sent17: (x): ¬{D}x -> (¬{F}x v {E}x) sent18: ({ET}{a} v {FB}{a})
|
[
"sent8 & sent11 -> int1: the headliner diminishes Fortuna but it is not a manglietia.; sent13 -> int2: if the headliner diminishes Fortuna but it is not a manglietia it is not a penguin.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the headliner is not a penguin.; sent17 -> int4: if the headliner is not a penguin it is not unripe and/or it is collapsible.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 & sent11 -> int1: ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); sent13 -> int2: ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬{D}{a}; sent17 -> int4: ¬{D}{a} -> (¬{F}{a} v {E}{a}); int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 14 | 0 | 14 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = that the headliner is not unripe or collapsible or both is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the headliner is unripe and/or it is collapsible if it is not a kind of a penguin. sent2: if the headliner does not diminish Fortuna it is a tranche and/or it gouges anjou. sent3: there is something such that it is a kind of a Melampsoraceae. sent4: there is something such that it is a spathe. sent5: the two-timer is a homonymy but it is not unripe. sent6: if the char is ignoble but it is not a frizz then it is not a penguin. sent7: the headliner either does generate or is a warehouser or both if it does not debrief cloudlessness. sent8: there is something such that it is not a Melampsoraceae. sent9: the headliner is not impressionist if it does gouge vasoconstrictor and it is not dictyopteran. sent10: if something is not a dybbuk it does not generate or it debriefs wish or both. sent11: the headliner does diminish Fortuna and is not a manglietia if something is not a Melampsoraceae. sent12: the fact that the headliner is not collapsible or it is a kind of a rich or both hold. sent13: if something does diminish Fortuna and is not a manglietia then it is not a penguin. sent14: if something is not a Einstein then either it is not a kind of a spathe or it is aspectual or both. sent15: if that the headliner is not a volatile is true then it is a manglietia and/or it is a dhak. sent16: something does debrief wish. sent17: that something that is not a kind of a penguin is not unripe or collapsible or both hold. sent18: the headliner does gouge Rittenhouse and/or it does glower urging. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 & sent11 -> int1: the headliner diminishes Fortuna but it is not a manglietia.; sent13 -> int2: if the headliner diminishes Fortuna but it is not a manglietia it is not a penguin.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the headliner is not a penguin.; sent17 -> int4: if the headliner is not a penguin it is not unripe and/or it is collapsible.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if that it is bright and it is wide is incorrect then that it does not glower rhonchus hold.
|
(Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
sent1: there exists something such that if the fact that it is both a mime and aneroid does not hold then it does not glower Baikal. sent2: there is something such that if it is not bright it does not glower rhonchus. sent3: the stifle does not glower rhonchus if that it is bright thing that is wide is not correct. sent4: there is something such that if it glowers cemetery and it debriefs gunboat then it is not an ornamentation. sent5: the fact that the stifle does not glower rhonchus hold if it is not wide.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬({JG}x & {FI}x) -> ¬{GL}x sent2: (Ex): ¬{AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent3: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent4: (Ex): ({CU}x & {CS}x) -> ¬{N}x sent5: ¬{AB}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa}
|
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if that it is bright and it is wide is incorrect then that it does not glower rhonchus hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if the fact that it is both a mime and aneroid does not hold then it does not glower Baikal. sent2: there is something such that if it is not bright it does not glower rhonchus. sent3: the stifle does not glower rhonchus if that it is bright thing that is wide is not correct. sent4: there is something such that if it glowers cemetery and it debriefs gunboat then it is not an ornamentation. sent5: the fact that the stifle does not glower rhonchus hold if it is not wide. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there is something such that if it does glower mire the fact that it is a kind of a derrick and it is not aboral is not right is not right.
|
¬((Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x))
|
sent1: the fact that something is meteoritic but it is not a bathhouse does not hold if it debriefs Danu. sent2: the fact that the harborage is critical but not palingenetic is incorrect if it does housebreak. sent3: there exists something such that if it does glower moor then the fact that it gouges chemisorption and it is not a copperplate is incorrect. sent4: if the blizzard is a kind of a beneficiary it is a derrick that does not experience. sent5: there is something such that if it glowers mire it is a derrick and is not aboral. sent6: there exists something such that if it does debrief distemper the fact that it is a kind of Voltarian thing that does not debrief afterbirth does not hold. sent7: if the blizzard does glower glop then the fact that it diminishes Connecticut and it is not a derrick is wrong. sent8: there is something such that if the fact that it is a braid is not incorrect the fact that it is a Dendromecon that is non-acidotic is not true. sent9: if the blizzard glowers mire then it is a derrick and it is not aboral. sent10: there exists something such that if it arouses then the fact that it is both a safe and not a casualty does not hold. sent11: if the blizzard is a hawksbill then it is Voltarian and it does not glower mire. sent12: that that the blizzard does gouge anjou and does not gouge lasher is incorrect if that the blizzard is not a derrick is not true is right. sent13: there exists something such that if it is a fawn then it does gouge reclassification and it does not gouge lasher. sent14: there is something such that if it scrapes the fact that that it is an endocrinologist and it is pervious is not wrong is false. sent15: that if the fact that the blizzard is a kind of the derrick hold the fact that the blizzard gouges anjou and is not hydrodynamic is not true is right. sent16: there is something such that if it glowers mire the fact that it is a derrick and it is not non-aboral is false. sent17: if the blizzard glowers mire that it is a kind of a derrick and it is not aboral is not correct. sent18: that the blizzard is a derrick and it is aboral is false if it glowers mire. sent19: that the blizzard is basal and it is diamantine is not right if it is a derrick. sent20: if the smut is Pythagorean then it is a frock and it is not a kind of a globin.
|
sent1: (x): {ES}x -> ¬({IR}x & ¬{FB}x) sent2: {AH}{cn} -> ¬({CR}{cn} & ¬{BD}{cn}) sent3: (Ex): {BR}x -> ¬({GC}x & ¬{GA}x) sent4: {BL}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AT}{aa}) sent5: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent6: (Ex): {L}x -> ¬({HF}x & ¬{GP}x) sent7: {FH}{aa} -> ¬({DJ}{aa} & ¬{AA}{aa}) sent8: (Ex): {BS}x -> ¬({HR}x & ¬{DB}x) sent9: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent10: (Ex): {AS}x -> ¬({FD}x & ¬{HH}x) sent11: {BU}{aa} -> ({HF}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa}) sent12: {AA}{aa} -> ¬({BF}{aa} & ¬{CK}{aa}) sent13: (Ex): {C}x -> ({DN}x & ¬{CK}x) sent14: (Ex): {K}x -> ¬({HI}x & {BJ}x) sent15: {AA}{aa} -> ¬({BF}{aa} & ¬{F}{aa}) sent16: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent17: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent18: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent19: {AA}{aa} -> ¬({B}{aa} & {HK}{aa}) sent20: {CB}{ck} -> ({AN}{ck} & ¬{D}{ck})
|
[
"sent17 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent17 -> hypothesis;"
] |
if the blizzard debriefs Danu then the fact that it is meteoritic and it is not a kind of a bathhouse is wrong.
|
{ES}{aa} -> ¬({IR}{aa} & ¬{FB}{aa})
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if it does glower mire the fact that it is a kind of a derrick and it is not aboral is not right is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is meteoritic but it is not a bathhouse does not hold if it debriefs Danu. sent2: the fact that the harborage is critical but not palingenetic is incorrect if it does housebreak. sent3: there exists something such that if it does glower moor then the fact that it gouges chemisorption and it is not a copperplate is incorrect. sent4: if the blizzard is a kind of a beneficiary it is a derrick that does not experience. sent5: there is something such that if it glowers mire it is a derrick and is not aboral. sent6: there exists something such that if it does debrief distemper the fact that it is a kind of Voltarian thing that does not debrief afterbirth does not hold. sent7: if the blizzard does glower glop then the fact that it diminishes Connecticut and it is not a derrick is wrong. sent8: there is something such that if the fact that it is a braid is not incorrect the fact that it is a Dendromecon that is non-acidotic is not true. sent9: if the blizzard glowers mire then it is a derrick and it is not aboral. sent10: there exists something such that if it arouses then the fact that it is both a safe and not a casualty does not hold. sent11: if the blizzard is a hawksbill then it is Voltarian and it does not glower mire. sent12: that that the blizzard does gouge anjou and does not gouge lasher is incorrect if that the blizzard is not a derrick is not true is right. sent13: there exists something such that if it is a fawn then it does gouge reclassification and it does not gouge lasher. sent14: there is something such that if it scrapes the fact that that it is an endocrinologist and it is pervious is not wrong is false. sent15: that if the fact that the blizzard is a kind of the derrick hold the fact that the blizzard gouges anjou and is not hydrodynamic is not true is right. sent16: there is something such that if it glowers mire the fact that it is a derrick and it is not non-aboral is false. sent17: if the blizzard glowers mire that it is a kind of a derrick and it is not aboral is not correct. sent18: that the blizzard is a derrick and it is aboral is false if it glowers mire. sent19: that the blizzard is basal and it is diamantine is not right if it is a derrick. sent20: if the smut is Pythagorean then it is a frock and it is not a kind of a globin. ; $proof$ =
|
sent17 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the corticosteroid is a ballad.
|
{D}{c}
|
sent1: the beehive is not a crownbeard. sent2: that the andromeda is not a jog and not formic is not correct if the beehive is not a Cooperstown. sent3: the andromeda is not a Cooperstown and it is not formic. sent4: the corticosteroid is not a ballad if the beehive is a kind of a jog. sent5: the andromeda is not a Cooperstown. sent6: if there is something such that that it does not gouge action and is Cromwellian is wrong the andromeda is not Cromwellian. sent7: something is a ballad and it triggers if it is not parhelic. sent8: the beehive is not formic and it does not jog. sent9: that the beehive is not a trigger and does not jog is incorrect if the andromeda is not parhelic. sent10: the flare is not parhelic. sent11: if the beehive is not a crownbeard then the fact that it does not gouge action and it is Cromwellian is not true. sent12: the fact that the corticosteroid is not formic and not parhelic is wrong if the andromeda is not a ballad. sent13: if that the beehive is both not a jog and not a ballad is incorrect the corticosteroid is not formic. sent14: that the corticosteroid is both not a Cooperstown and not a ballad does not hold. sent15: if the corticosteroid is both not formic and not a jog it is not a ballad. sent16: the watercannon is not a ballad and it is not a transistor. sent17: the fact that the beehive is not a kind of a trigger but it jogs is incorrect. sent18: the fact that the beehive is not a trigger but it does jog does not hold if that the andromeda is not parhelic is true. sent19: the corticosteroid is not a kind of a ballad if that the beehive is not a trigger and it does not jog is incorrect. sent20: the andromeda is not parhelic if it is not a Cooperstown and not formic. sent21: the andromeda is non-parhelic if it is a Cooperstown and it is not formic. sent22: the fact that the beehive is not a ballad is not wrong. sent23: the beehive is non-formic if that the andromeda is both not a trigger and not parhelic is not true. sent24: the railing is not a kind of a trigger and it is not prefectural.
|
sent1: ¬{G}{b} sent2: ¬{AA}{b} -> ¬(¬{C}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent3: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent4: {C}{b} -> ¬{D}{c} sent5: ¬{AA}{a} sent6: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & {E}x) -> ¬{E}{a} sent7: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({D}x & {A}x) sent8: (¬{AB}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent9: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬(¬{A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent10: ¬{B}{ec} sent11: ¬{G}{b} -> ¬(¬{F}{b} & {E}{b}) sent12: ¬{D}{a} -> ¬(¬{AB}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) sent13: ¬(¬{C}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) -> ¬{AB}{c} sent14: ¬(¬{AA}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) sent15: (¬{AB}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) -> ¬{D}{c} sent16: (¬{D}{bj} & ¬{BK}{bj}) sent17: ¬(¬{A}{b} & {C}{b}) sent18: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬(¬{A}{b} & {C}{b}) sent19: ¬(¬{A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> ¬{D}{c} sent20: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent21: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent22: ¬{D}{b} sent23: ¬(¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{AB}{b} sent24: (¬{A}{ja} & ¬{AH}{ja})
|
[
"sent20 & sent3 -> int1: the andromeda is not parhelic.; sent9 & int1 -> int2: the fact that that the beehive is not a trigger and it is not a kind of a jog is not false does not hold.; sent19 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent20 & sent3 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; sent9 & int1 -> int2: ¬(¬{A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}); sent19 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the corticosteroid is a kind of a ballad.
|
{D}{c}
|
[
"sent7 -> int3: if the corticosteroid is not parhelic it is a ballad that triggers.; sent11 & sent1 -> int4: the fact that the beehive does not gouge action and is Cromwellian is not true.; int4 -> int5: there is something such that that it does not gouge action and is Cromwellian does not hold.; int5 & sent6 -> int6: the andromeda is not Cromwellian.; int6 -> int7: there exists something such that it is not Cromwellian.;"
] | 8 | 3 | 3 | 20 | 0 | 20 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the corticosteroid is a ballad. ; $context$ = sent1: the beehive is not a crownbeard. sent2: that the andromeda is not a jog and not formic is not correct if the beehive is not a Cooperstown. sent3: the andromeda is not a Cooperstown and it is not formic. sent4: the corticosteroid is not a ballad if the beehive is a kind of a jog. sent5: the andromeda is not a Cooperstown. sent6: if there is something such that that it does not gouge action and is Cromwellian is wrong the andromeda is not Cromwellian. sent7: something is a ballad and it triggers if it is not parhelic. sent8: the beehive is not formic and it does not jog. sent9: that the beehive is not a trigger and does not jog is incorrect if the andromeda is not parhelic. sent10: the flare is not parhelic. sent11: if the beehive is not a crownbeard then the fact that it does not gouge action and it is Cromwellian is not true. sent12: the fact that the corticosteroid is not formic and not parhelic is wrong if the andromeda is not a ballad. sent13: if that the beehive is both not a jog and not a ballad is incorrect the corticosteroid is not formic. sent14: that the corticosteroid is both not a Cooperstown and not a ballad does not hold. sent15: if the corticosteroid is both not formic and not a jog it is not a ballad. sent16: the watercannon is not a ballad and it is not a transistor. sent17: the fact that the beehive is not a kind of a trigger but it jogs is incorrect. sent18: the fact that the beehive is not a trigger but it does jog does not hold if that the andromeda is not parhelic is true. sent19: the corticosteroid is not a kind of a ballad if that the beehive is not a trigger and it does not jog is incorrect. sent20: the andromeda is not parhelic if it is not a Cooperstown and not formic. sent21: the andromeda is non-parhelic if it is a Cooperstown and it is not formic. sent22: the fact that the beehive is not a ballad is not wrong. sent23: the beehive is non-formic if that the andromeda is both not a trigger and not parhelic is not true. sent24: the railing is not a kind of a trigger and it is not prefectural. ; $proof$ =
|
sent20 & sent3 -> int1: the andromeda is not parhelic.; sent9 & int1 -> int2: the fact that that the beehive is not a trigger and it is not a kind of a jog is not false does not hold.; sent19 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that that there is something such that if it debriefs padding and it is not a tetracaine it does gouge biogeography is not wrong does not hold.
|
¬((Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x)
|
sent1: the brodiaea glowers switchboard if it does glower bleacher and is not a kind of a tetracaine. sent2: there is something such that if it is holozoic and does not glower switchboard then it diminishes psocid. sent3: if something that is a kind of a temper does not glower Samanala then it is uveal. sent4: if something that does close does not debrief thiothixene then it is a tetracaine. sent5: if the abrogator is a kind of deconstructionist thing that is not a fingermark it is a tetracaine. sent6: if something that is approachable is not a kind of a tempo it is a tetracaine. sent7: if the abrogator debriefs padding and it is a kind of a tetracaine then it does gouge biogeography. sent8: if the switchboard is invariable but it is not a chlamydospore then it is a Edinburgh. sent9: if the thiothixene diminishes psocid but it does not gouge badinage it gouges biogeography. sent10: if the abrogator debriefs padding but it is not a tetracaine then it does gouge biogeography. sent11: there is something such that if it is a spittoon and it is not a teasel then it is a kind of a supper. sent12: there is something such that if it does debrief padding and is a tetracaine it does gouge biogeography.
|
sent1: ({BN}{ba} & ¬{AB}{ba}) -> {JF}{ba} sent2: (Ex): ({FU}x & ¬{JF}x) -> {BK}x sent3: (x): ({JI}x & ¬{DB}x) -> {GJ}x sent4: (x): ({IP}x & ¬{AG}x) -> {AB}x sent5: ({JB}{aa} & ¬{FC}{aa}) -> {AB}{aa} sent6: (x): ({IA}x & ¬{R}x) -> {AB}x sent7: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent8: ({IM}{fa} & ¬{IS}{fa}) -> {AJ}{fa} sent9: ({BK}{bl} & ¬{IQ}{bl}) -> {B}{bl} sent10: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent11: (Ex): ({HQ}x & ¬{AP}x) -> {GT}x sent12: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x
|
[
"sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the Zinjanthropus is a tetracaine is not wrong if it is both approachable and not a tempo.
|
({IA}{hb} & ¬{R}{hb}) -> {AB}{hb}
|
[
"sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = that that there is something such that if it debriefs padding and it is not a tetracaine it does gouge biogeography is not wrong does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the brodiaea glowers switchboard if it does glower bleacher and is not a kind of a tetracaine. sent2: there is something such that if it is holozoic and does not glower switchboard then it diminishes psocid. sent3: if something that is a kind of a temper does not glower Samanala then it is uveal. sent4: if something that does close does not debrief thiothixene then it is a tetracaine. sent5: if the abrogator is a kind of deconstructionist thing that is not a fingermark it is a tetracaine. sent6: if something that is approachable is not a kind of a tempo it is a tetracaine. sent7: if the abrogator debriefs padding and it is a kind of a tetracaine then it does gouge biogeography. sent8: if the switchboard is invariable but it is not a chlamydospore then it is a Edinburgh. sent9: if the thiothixene diminishes psocid but it does not gouge badinage it gouges biogeography. sent10: if the abrogator debriefs padding but it is not a tetracaine then it does gouge biogeography. sent11: there is something such that if it is a spittoon and it is not a teasel then it is a kind of a supper. sent12: there is something such that if it does debrief padding and is a tetracaine it does gouge biogeography. ; $proof$ =
|
sent10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Calcuttanness does not occur.
|
¬{C}
|
sent1: that the meagerness does not occur brings about that the bursting and the Calcuttanness happens. sent2: the Cenozoic happens. sent3: the demotion happens. sent4: the industrialness occurs. sent5: the Calcuttanness does not occur if the bursting happens and the meagerness occurs. sent6: the burst occurs. sent7: if the meagerness does not occur or the bursting does not occur or both the landler happens. sent8: if either the thickness does not occur or the diminishing gemsbok occurs or both then the meagerness does not occur. sent9: the meagerness occurs. sent10: that the discriminatoriness does not occur is right. sent11: the adaptation and the holocaust occurs. sent12: the pervaporation does not occur. sent13: the Hungarianness happens. sent14: the debriefing congestion happens.
|
sent1: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {C}) sent2: {EP} sent3: {CB} sent4: {AG} sent5: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent6: {A} sent7: (¬{B} v ¬{A}) -> {J} sent8: (¬{E} v {D}) -> ¬{B} sent9: {B} sent10: ¬{DD} sent11: ({BP} & {CC}) sent12: ¬{AT} sent13: {DG} sent14: {IJ}
|
[
"sent6 & sent9 -> int1: the burst occurs and the meagerness happens.; int1 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 & sent9 -> int1: ({A} & {B}); int1 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the landler and the asterismalness occurs.
|
({J} & {HA})
|
[] | 5 | 2 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the Calcuttanness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the meagerness does not occur brings about that the bursting and the Calcuttanness happens. sent2: the Cenozoic happens. sent3: the demotion happens. sent4: the industrialness occurs. sent5: the Calcuttanness does not occur if the bursting happens and the meagerness occurs. sent6: the burst occurs. sent7: if the meagerness does not occur or the bursting does not occur or both the landler happens. sent8: if either the thickness does not occur or the diminishing gemsbok occurs or both then the meagerness does not occur. sent9: the meagerness occurs. sent10: that the discriminatoriness does not occur is right. sent11: the adaptation and the holocaust occurs. sent12: the pervaporation does not occur. sent13: the Hungarianness happens. sent14: the debriefing congestion happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 & sent9 -> int1: the burst occurs and the meagerness happens.; int1 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Blimp is a baldachin.
|
{C}{a}
|
sent1: the bellyband is a clashing that is providential. sent2: something is providential. sent3: if the fact that the phencyclidine is a west and it does debrief biogeography is incorrect it is not a clashing. sent4: if something is non-bromic it is a baldachin that is non-providential. sent5: if something is a kind of a baldachin and it is providential the Blimp is a clashing. sent6: the fact that something is both not non-west and not non-providential does not hold if it does not debrief biogeography. sent7: the Blimp is an intermediate if the phencyclidine is not a clashing. sent8: if the Blimp is a baldachin but not providential then it does debrief camphor. sent9: that that the phencyclidine is west and it does debrief biogeography is incorrect hold if the krigia is hatted. sent10: there exists something such that it does debrief bellyband. sent11: there exists something such that it is a potboiler. sent12: if the ewe is non-hatless thing that is not a discount then the krigia is not hatless. sent13: the boa smoothens and it does prey. sent14: the bellyband is providential if there exists something such that it is both a clashing and a baldachin. sent15: something is not hatless and it is not a discount if it is not upland.
|
sent1: ({A}{aa} & {B}{aa}) sent2: (Ex): {B}x sent3: ¬({D}{b} & {E}{b}) -> ¬{A}{b} sent4: (x): ¬{I}x -> ({C}x & ¬{B}x) sent5: (x): ({C}x & {B}x) -> {A}{a} sent6: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬({D}x & {B}x) sent7: ¬{A}{b} -> {GE}{a} sent8: ({C}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> {DR}{a} sent9: ¬{F}{c} -> ¬({D}{b} & {E}{b}) sent10: (Ex): {IJ}x sent11: (Ex): {HH}x sent12: (¬{F}{d} & ¬{H}{d}) -> ¬{F}{c} sent13: ({JH}{p} & {AS}{p}) sent14: (x): ({A}x & {C}x) -> {B}{aa} sent15: (x): ¬{G}x -> (¬{F}x & ¬{H}x)
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: there is something such that it is a clashing and it is providential.;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x);"
] |
there exists something such that it does debrief camphor and is an intermediate.
|
(Ex): ({DR}x & {GE}x)
|
[
"sent4 -> int2: if the Blimp is not bromic it is a baldachin and it is not providential.; sent15 -> int3: the ewe is not hatless and it is not a discount if it is not upland.;"
] | 8 | 2 | null | 14 | 0 | 14 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the Blimp is a baldachin. ; $context$ = sent1: the bellyband is a clashing that is providential. sent2: something is providential. sent3: if the fact that the phencyclidine is a west and it does debrief biogeography is incorrect it is not a clashing. sent4: if something is non-bromic it is a baldachin that is non-providential. sent5: if something is a kind of a baldachin and it is providential the Blimp is a clashing. sent6: the fact that something is both not non-west and not non-providential does not hold if it does not debrief biogeography. sent7: the Blimp is an intermediate if the phencyclidine is not a clashing. sent8: if the Blimp is a baldachin but not providential then it does debrief camphor. sent9: that that the phencyclidine is west and it does debrief biogeography is incorrect hold if the krigia is hatted. sent10: there exists something such that it does debrief bellyband. sent11: there exists something such that it is a potboiler. sent12: if the ewe is non-hatless thing that is not a discount then the krigia is not hatless. sent13: the boa smoothens and it does prey. sent14: the bellyband is providential if there exists something such that it is both a clashing and a baldachin. sent15: something is not hatless and it is not a discount if it is not upland. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: there is something such that it is a clashing and it is providential.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the Munchener is not a filmdom is not false.
|
¬{B}{a}
|
sent1: there exists something such that the fact that it does debrief halberd and is a kind of a Sunnite is false. sent2: the Babylonian is a filmdom. sent3: there exists something such that it does debrief halberd and it is not a Sunnite. sent4: something does not surmise if the fact that it does not outlive and is not a waist is not right. sent5: if there is something such that that it debriefs halberd and it is not a kind of a Sunnite is not correct then the Munchener does surmise. sent6: if something is a Sunnite it is a kind of a rump. sent7: if the Munchener is a missionary then it does debrief halberd. sent8: the masquerader is a filmdom. sent9: if something does surmise then it is a filmdom. sent10: the Munchener does satisfy if that it is kinesthetic is correct. sent11: there exists something such that that it debriefs halberd and is not a Sunnite is wrong. sent12: if there exists something such that that it is a Sunnite and does not diminish Hugo does not hold the Guernsey is bismuthic. sent13: the college is a Sunnite if there exists something such that it is salty. sent14: if the pig does not surmise the Munchener is not a kind of a filmdom. sent15: the fact that something is a kind of a filmdom but it does not surmise is not true if it outlives. sent16: if the transfer is not a kind of an antioxidant then it does gouge Sango and it is natal. sent17: if something is a kind of a Sunnite the Munchener does surmise.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent2: {B}{de} sent3: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent4: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{A}x sent5: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent6: (x): {AB}x -> {DD}x sent7: {BR}{a} -> {AA}{a} sent8: {B}{eb} sent9: (x): {A}x -> {B}x sent10: {AI}{a} -> {BI}{a} sent11: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent12: (x): ¬({AB}x & ¬{GJ}x) -> {EB}{gh} sent13: (x): {JI}x -> {AB}{fc} sent14: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬{B}{a} sent15: (x): {C}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{A}x) sent16: ¬{H}{d} -> ({G}{d} & {F}{d}) sent17: (x): {AB}x -> {A}{a}
|
[
"sent11 & sent5 -> int1: the Munchener does surmise.; sent9 -> int2: if the Munchener does surmise then it is a filmdom.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent11 & sent5 -> int1: {A}{a}; sent9 -> int2: {A}{a} -> {B}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the Munchener is not a kind of a filmdom.
|
¬{B}{a}
|
[
"sent4 -> int3: if the fact that the pig does not outlive and is not a waist is wrong then it does not surmise.;"
] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 14 | 0 | 14 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the Munchener is not a filmdom is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that the fact that it does debrief halberd and is a kind of a Sunnite is false. sent2: the Babylonian is a filmdom. sent3: there exists something such that it does debrief halberd and it is not a Sunnite. sent4: something does not surmise if the fact that it does not outlive and is not a waist is not right. sent5: if there is something such that that it debriefs halberd and it is not a kind of a Sunnite is not correct then the Munchener does surmise. sent6: if something is a Sunnite it is a kind of a rump. sent7: if the Munchener is a missionary then it does debrief halberd. sent8: the masquerader is a filmdom. sent9: if something does surmise then it is a filmdom. sent10: the Munchener does satisfy if that it is kinesthetic is correct. sent11: there exists something such that that it debriefs halberd and is not a Sunnite is wrong. sent12: if there exists something such that that it is a Sunnite and does not diminish Hugo does not hold the Guernsey is bismuthic. sent13: the college is a Sunnite if there exists something such that it is salty. sent14: if the pig does not surmise the Munchener is not a kind of a filmdom. sent15: the fact that something is a kind of a filmdom but it does not surmise is not true if it outlives. sent16: if the transfer is not a kind of an antioxidant then it does gouge Sango and it is natal. sent17: if something is a kind of a Sunnite the Munchener does surmise. ; $proof$ =
|
sent11 & sent5 -> int1: the Munchener does surmise.; sent9 -> int2: if the Munchener does surmise then it is a filmdom.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the tarragon is autodidactic.
|
{D}{b}
|
sent1: the fact that the tarragon is autodidactic is correct if the Hutu debriefs incisure. sent2: the tarragon does debrief incisure. sent3: the ashtray does glower Tiffany if the Tyrolean is allowable. sent4: the fact that the Hutu is autodidactic thing that debriefs Tyrolean does not hold if there exists something such that it is not a stupid. sent5: the Tyrolean is allowable. sent6: that something is not Trinidadian but allergic is not correct if it does not gouge simile. sent7: if the Hutu debriefs incisure then the tarragon is a stupid. sent8: if there exists something such that that it either does debrief incisure or is a coward or both does not hold the territory is not a kind of a stupid. sent9: the prefab is sabbatical if that the ashtray is non-Trinidadian but it is allergic does not hold. sent10: that that the tarragon does not debrief incisure is not true if the Hutu is autodidactic is not incorrect. sent11: the applecart does debrief Tyrolean. sent12: something that is a sabbatical debriefs delicatessen. sent13: that either the Colony does debrief incisure or it is a coward or both is wrong if there exists something such that it debriefs delicatessen. sent14: the ashtray does not gouge simile if it glowers Tiffany. sent15: if something is a stupid it does debrief incisure. sent16: the Hutu debriefs Tyrolean. sent17: the bullyboy is a stupid.
|
sent1: {C}{a} -> {D}{b} sent2: {C}{b} sent3: {L}{g} -> {K}{f} sent4: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({D}{a} & {A}{a}) sent5: {L}{g} sent6: (x): ¬{J}x -> ¬(¬{H}x & {I}x) sent7: {C}{a} -> {B}{b} sent8: (x): ¬({C}x v {E}x) -> ¬{B}{c} sent9: ¬(¬{H}{f} & {I}{f}) -> {G}{e} sent10: {D}{a} -> {C}{b} sent11: {A}{ik} sent12: (x): {G}x -> {F}x sent13: (x): {F}x -> ¬({C}{d} v {E}{d}) sent14: {K}{f} -> ¬{J}{f} sent15: (x): {B}x -> {C}x sent16: {A}{a} sent17: {B}{fg}
|
[
"sent15 -> int1: if the Hutu is a stupid then it debriefs incisure.;"
] |
[
"sent15 -> int1: {B}{a} -> {C}{a};"
] |
the tarragon is not autodidactic.
|
¬{D}{b}
|
[
"sent12 -> int2: if the prefab is a kind of a sabbatical it does debrief delicatessen.; sent6 -> int3: the fact that the ashtray is not Trinidadian but it is allergic is not correct if it does not gouge simile.; sent3 & sent5 -> int4: the ashtray glowers Tiffany.; sent14 & int4 -> int5: the ashtray does not gouge simile.; int3 & int5 -> int6: the fact that the fact that the ashtray is not a kind of a Trinidadian but it is allergic is incorrect hold.; sent9 & int6 -> int7: the prefab is not non-sabbatical.; int2 & int7 -> int8: the prefab does debrief delicatessen.; int8 -> int9: something does debrief delicatessen.; int9 & sent13 -> int10: the fact that the fact that the Colony debriefs incisure and/or is a coward hold is false.; int10 -> int11: there is something such that the fact that it does debrief incisure and/or it is a coward is false.; int11 & sent8 -> int12: the territory is not a stupid.; int12 -> int13: something is not a kind of a stupid.; int13 & sent4 -> int14: that the Hutu is autodidactic and does debrief Tyrolean is not true.; int14 -> int15: there exists something such that that it is autodidactic thing that does debrief Tyrolean is not right.;"
] | 13 | 3 | null | 15 | 0 | 15 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the tarragon is autodidactic. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the tarragon is autodidactic is correct if the Hutu debriefs incisure. sent2: the tarragon does debrief incisure. sent3: the ashtray does glower Tiffany if the Tyrolean is allowable. sent4: the fact that the Hutu is autodidactic thing that debriefs Tyrolean does not hold if there exists something such that it is not a stupid. sent5: the Tyrolean is allowable. sent6: that something is not Trinidadian but allergic is not correct if it does not gouge simile. sent7: if the Hutu debriefs incisure then the tarragon is a stupid. sent8: if there exists something such that that it either does debrief incisure or is a coward or both does not hold the territory is not a kind of a stupid. sent9: the prefab is sabbatical if that the ashtray is non-Trinidadian but it is allergic does not hold. sent10: that that the tarragon does not debrief incisure is not true if the Hutu is autodidactic is not incorrect. sent11: the applecart does debrief Tyrolean. sent12: something that is a sabbatical debriefs delicatessen. sent13: that either the Colony does debrief incisure or it is a coward or both is wrong if there exists something such that it debriefs delicatessen. sent14: the ashtray does not gouge simile if it glowers Tiffany. sent15: if something is a stupid it does debrief incisure. sent16: the Hutu debriefs Tyrolean. sent17: the bullyboy is a stupid. ; $proof$ =
|
sent15 -> int1: if the Hutu is a stupid then it debriefs incisure.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it is not cerebral the fact that it is not a abomasum and is not a Esperanto is not true.
|
(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
sent1: the fact that the lekvar does not debrief chemisorption and it does not forage is not true if the fact that it is not a kind of a Esperanto is not false. sent2: the soul is not a kind of a abomasum and it is not a kind of a Esperanto if it is not cerebral. sent3: there exists something such that if it does not gouge baldachin the fact that it is not a desert and it is not a towline is not true. sent4: there is something such that if the fact that it is not cerebral is right the fact that it is a abomasum but not a Esperanto is not right. sent5: if something is not a Nyamwezi that it does not approve and it is not cerebral is incorrect. sent6: there exists something such that if it is cerebral then that it is both not a abomasum and not a Esperanto is false. sent7: there exists something such that if the fact that it is non-cerebral is true it is not a abomasum and it is not a Esperanto. sent8: the fact that the soul is a abomasum but it is not a Esperanto is not correct if it is not cerebral. sent9: the fact that the soul is not a abomasum and not a Esperanto is incorrect if it is not cerebral. sent10: the fact that that the soul is not a Esperanto and does diminish eggshake does not hold is not false if it is not apteral. sent11: that the soul is not enthusiastic and is not a kind of a Esperanto does not hold if it is combinative. sent12: the fact that the fact that the plagiarist is not a moorfowl and not nonaddictive is not false is incorrect if it is an orifice. sent13: that the soul does not glower Cronus and is not a abomasum does not hold if it is not Jungian.
|
sent1: ¬{AB}{hj} -> ¬(¬{AL}{hj} & ¬{HJ}{hj}) sent2: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent3: (Ex): ¬{IQ}x -> ¬(¬{CI}x & ¬{N}x) sent4: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent5: (x): ¬{CT}x -> ¬(¬{HN}x & ¬{A}x) sent6: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent7: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent8: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent9: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent10: ¬{DF}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AB}{aa} & {AJ}{aa}) sent11: {EB}{aa} -> ¬(¬{IS}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent12: {II}{ii} -> ¬(¬{AS}{ii} & ¬{BF}{ii}) sent13: ¬{DH}{aa} -> ¬(¬{G}{aa} & ¬{AA}{aa})
|
[
"sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the thermoacidophile does not approve and is not cerebral does not hold if the fact that it is not a Nyamwezi is true.
|
¬{CT}{j} -> ¬(¬{HN}{j} & ¬{A}{j})
|
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is not cerebral the fact that it is not a abomasum and is not a Esperanto is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the lekvar does not debrief chemisorption and it does not forage is not true if the fact that it is not a kind of a Esperanto is not false. sent2: the soul is not a kind of a abomasum and it is not a kind of a Esperanto if it is not cerebral. sent3: there exists something such that if it does not gouge baldachin the fact that it is not a desert and it is not a towline is not true. sent4: there is something such that if the fact that it is not cerebral is right the fact that it is a abomasum but not a Esperanto is not right. sent5: if something is not a Nyamwezi that it does not approve and it is not cerebral is incorrect. sent6: there exists something such that if it is cerebral then that it is both not a abomasum and not a Esperanto is false. sent7: there exists something such that if the fact that it is non-cerebral is true it is not a abomasum and it is not a Esperanto. sent8: the fact that the soul is a abomasum but it is not a Esperanto is not correct if it is not cerebral. sent9: the fact that the soul is not a abomasum and not a Esperanto is incorrect if it is not cerebral. sent10: the fact that that the soul is not a Esperanto and does diminish eggshake does not hold is not false if it is not apteral. sent11: that the soul is not enthusiastic and is not a kind of a Esperanto does not hold if it is combinative. sent12: the fact that the fact that the plagiarist is not a moorfowl and not nonaddictive is not false is incorrect if it is an orifice. sent13: that the soul does not glower Cronus and is not a abomasum does not hold if it is not Jungian. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
not the salt but the abating happens.
|
(¬{C} & {D})
|
sent1: the nonmonotonicness and the fractionation happens. sent2: if the fact that not the clonicness but the attempt occurs is not true then the growling does not occur. sent3: if the remuneration happens the epiphany does not occur. sent4: the fact that the non-clonicness and the attempt happens is not true if the glowering adoption does not occur. sent5: if that the glowering SNP does not occur and the unpredictableness happens is not correct the fact that the unpredictableness does not occur is true. sent6: the debriefing huck occurs and the murineness occurs if the growling does not occur. sent7: the predictableness triggers that the salting occurs and the abating occurs. sent8: the comprehensiveness occurs and the gouging tranche occurs. sent9: the gouging tranche results in that the salting does not occur. sent10: the fact that that both the higherness and the noncomprehensiveness occurs hold is triggered by that the gouging tranche does not occur. sent11: that the glowering adoption does not occur is not incorrect if that the gouging Danu and the glowering adoption occurs is not correct. sent12: if the comprehensiveness does not occur that the salting does not occur but the abating happens is not true. sent13: the fact that not the glowering SNP but the unpredictableness happens is wrong if the chicane happens. sent14: the abating happens. sent15: if the epiphany does not occur then the fact that the gouging Danu happens and the glowering adoption happens is wrong. sent16: if the debriefing huck happens the chicane happens.
|
sent1: (¬{GN} & {HF}) sent2: ¬(¬{L} & {M}) -> ¬{K} sent3: {Q} -> ¬{P} sent4: ¬{N} -> ¬(¬{L} & {M}) sent5: ¬(¬{F} & {E}) -> ¬{E} sent6: ¬{K} -> ({H} & {J}) sent7: ¬{E} -> ({C} & {D}) sent8: ({A} & {B}) sent9: {B} -> ¬{C} sent10: ¬{B} -> ({I} & ¬{A}) sent11: ¬({O} & {N}) -> ¬{N} sent12: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{C} & {D}) sent13: {G} -> ¬(¬{F} & {E}) sent14: {D} sent15: ¬{P} -> ¬({O} & {N}) sent16: {H} -> {G}
|
[
"sent8 -> int1: the gouging tranche happens.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the salt does not occur.; int2 & sent14 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 -> int1: {B}; int1 & sent9 -> int2: ¬{C}; int2 & sent14 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the higherness happens.
|
{I}
|
[] | 16 | 3 | 3 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = not the salt but the abating happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the nonmonotonicness and the fractionation happens. sent2: if the fact that not the clonicness but the attempt occurs is not true then the growling does not occur. sent3: if the remuneration happens the epiphany does not occur. sent4: the fact that the non-clonicness and the attempt happens is not true if the glowering adoption does not occur. sent5: if that the glowering SNP does not occur and the unpredictableness happens is not correct the fact that the unpredictableness does not occur is true. sent6: the debriefing huck occurs and the murineness occurs if the growling does not occur. sent7: the predictableness triggers that the salting occurs and the abating occurs. sent8: the comprehensiveness occurs and the gouging tranche occurs. sent9: the gouging tranche results in that the salting does not occur. sent10: the fact that that both the higherness and the noncomprehensiveness occurs hold is triggered by that the gouging tranche does not occur. sent11: that the glowering adoption does not occur is not incorrect if that the gouging Danu and the glowering adoption occurs is not correct. sent12: if the comprehensiveness does not occur that the salting does not occur but the abating happens is not true. sent13: the fact that not the glowering SNP but the unpredictableness happens is wrong if the chicane happens. sent14: the abating happens. sent15: if the epiphany does not occur then the fact that the gouging Danu happens and the glowering adoption happens is wrong. sent16: if the debriefing huck happens the chicane happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 -> int1: the gouging tranche happens.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the salt does not occur.; int2 & sent14 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the tobacconist does not rehabilitate and/or does not glower traction is incorrect.
|
¬(¬{AA}{b} v ¬{AB}{b})
|
sent1: the fact that something severs if the fact that it does diminish Fortuna is right is correct. sent2: the tobacconist does not sever and/or it does not rehabilitate. sent3: the fact that if something is a Braun then that it is linguistic and is not a contemplation is incorrect hold. sent4: if there is something such that it is not linguistic then that the sowbelly does not gouge costermonger and does not transmute is incorrect. sent5: the wheeler is a kind of a Braun if it is rotational but not a Harrod. sent6: if the vicinity does not rehabilitate the tobacconist does not sever and/or it glowers traction. sent7: the fact that something does not rehabilitate or it does not glower traction or both is not true if it does sever. sent8: if there is something such that that it is linguistic and is not a contemplation is incorrect the costermonger is not linguistic. sent9: the wheeler is rotational but it is not a Harrod. sent10: if that the sowbelly does not gouge costermonger and does not transmute is wrong then the prizefighter does not gouge costermonger. sent11: if the tobacconist does not rehabilitate the vicinity does not glower traction and/or it does not sever. sent12: the welder does not glower traction or it is not astragalar or both. sent13: that the tobacconist does diminish Fortuna is not wrong if the vicinity diminish Fortuna. sent14: if the thrombin does not diminish Fortuna and/or severs it does not glower traction. sent15: the yield is non-cortical thing that is a Bulgaria if the prizefighter does not gouge costermonger. sent16: the tobacconist does not rehabilitate and/or it does glower traction if the vicinity does not sever. sent17: the tobacconist does rehabilitate and/or it does not glower traction if the vicinity does not sever. sent18: either the tobacconist does not rehabilitate or it does not glower traction or both if the vicinity does not sever. sent19: the spritsail does glower Nash but it does not concrete if the yield does not captain. sent20: something is not a captain if it is a kind of non-cortical a Bulgaria. sent21: the vicinity does not sever. sent22: if something glowers Nash and is not a concrete then it is suctorial.
|
sent1: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent2: (¬{A}{b} v ¬{AA}{b}) sent3: (x): {M}x -> ¬({K}x & ¬{N}x) sent4: (x): ¬{K}x -> ¬(¬{J}{f} & ¬{L}{f}) sent5: ({O}{h} & ¬{P}{h}) -> {M}{h} sent6: ¬{AA}{a} -> (¬{A}{b} v {AB}{b}) sent7: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent8: (x): ¬({K}x & ¬{N}x) -> ¬{K}{g} sent9: ({O}{h} & ¬{P}{h}) sent10: ¬(¬{J}{f} & ¬{L}{f}) -> ¬{J}{e} sent11: ¬{AA}{b} -> (¬{AB}{a} v ¬{A}{a}) sent12: (¬{AB}{jc} v ¬{BG}{jc}) sent13: {B}{a} -> {B}{b} sent14: (¬{B}{em} v {A}{em}) -> ¬{AB}{em} sent15: ¬{J}{e} -> (¬{I}{d} & {H}{d}) sent16: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} v {AB}{b}) sent17: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{b} v ¬{AB}{b}) sent18: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} v ¬{AB}{b}) sent19: ¬{G}{d} -> ({E}{c} & ¬{F}{c}) sent20: (x): (¬{I}x & {H}x) -> ¬{G}x sent21: ¬{A}{a} sent22: (x): ({E}x & ¬{F}x) -> {D}x
|
[
"sent18 & sent21 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent18 & sent21 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the thrombin does not glower traction.
|
¬{AB}{em}
|
[] | 6 | 1 | 1 | 20 | 0 | 20 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the tobacconist does not rehabilitate and/or does not glower traction is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something severs if the fact that it does diminish Fortuna is right is correct. sent2: the tobacconist does not sever and/or it does not rehabilitate. sent3: the fact that if something is a Braun then that it is linguistic and is not a contemplation is incorrect hold. sent4: if there is something such that it is not linguistic then that the sowbelly does not gouge costermonger and does not transmute is incorrect. sent5: the wheeler is a kind of a Braun if it is rotational but not a Harrod. sent6: if the vicinity does not rehabilitate the tobacconist does not sever and/or it glowers traction. sent7: the fact that something does not rehabilitate or it does not glower traction or both is not true if it does sever. sent8: if there is something such that that it is linguistic and is not a contemplation is incorrect the costermonger is not linguistic. sent9: the wheeler is rotational but it is not a Harrod. sent10: if that the sowbelly does not gouge costermonger and does not transmute is wrong then the prizefighter does not gouge costermonger. sent11: if the tobacconist does not rehabilitate the vicinity does not glower traction and/or it does not sever. sent12: the welder does not glower traction or it is not astragalar or both. sent13: that the tobacconist does diminish Fortuna is not wrong if the vicinity diminish Fortuna. sent14: if the thrombin does not diminish Fortuna and/or severs it does not glower traction. sent15: the yield is non-cortical thing that is a Bulgaria if the prizefighter does not gouge costermonger. sent16: the tobacconist does not rehabilitate and/or it does glower traction if the vicinity does not sever. sent17: the tobacconist does rehabilitate and/or it does not glower traction if the vicinity does not sever. sent18: either the tobacconist does not rehabilitate or it does not glower traction or both if the vicinity does not sever. sent19: the spritsail does glower Nash but it does not concrete if the yield does not captain. sent20: something is not a captain if it is a kind of non-cortical a Bulgaria. sent21: the vicinity does not sever. sent22: if something glowers Nash and is not a concrete then it is suctorial. ; $proof$ =
|
sent18 & sent21 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the bend is not a greengage and it is not a kind of a pitter-patter.
|
(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})
|
sent1: the thrombin is dyadic if there is something such that it does not debrief defense. sent2: the fact that the abacus is both expressionist and alternate is not wrong. sent3: something gouges thrombin if the fact that it is dyadic hold. sent4: if that the bend is astomatous hold it is not a pitter-patter. sent5: the defense is astomatous if that the thrombin is both not astomatous and antemeridian is false. sent6: if the abacus alternates then it either does debrief defense or is not tetanic or both. sent7: if something gouges thrombin and gouges proprietress then it is not stenographic. sent8: the thrombin does gouge proprietress if the toiletry gouge proprietress. sent9: if something is not astomatous then the toiletry is not a kind of a greengage and it is not antemeridian. sent10: if something does gouge thrombin that it does gouge proprietress is not false. sent11: the thrombin is a greengage if the toiletry is not a greengage and is not antemeridian. sent12: if something is not stenographic that it is not astomatous but antemeridian is not true. sent13: the toiletry gouges proprietress if the abacus gouges proprietress. sent14: something is not a greengage and not a pitter-patter if it is astomatous. sent15: there exists something such that it alternates. sent16: if the abacus is dyadic it does gouge thrombin. sent17: that the domestic is a kind of a greengage is not wrong. sent18: the abacus is dyadic if that either it does debrief defense or it is not tetanic or both is correct. sent19: the chrysoprase does not debrief defense. sent20: something is not astomatous if it does gouge proprietress or it is non-stenographic or both. sent21: the bend is antemeridian.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{G}x -> {F}{a} sent2: ({J}{c} & {I}{c}) sent3: (x): {F}x -> {E}x sent4: {A}{aa} -> ¬{AB}{aa} sent5: ¬(¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> {A}{eb} sent6: {I}{c} -> ({G}{c} v ¬{H}{c}) sent7: (x): ({E}x & {D}x) -> ¬{C}x sent8: {D}{b} -> {D}{a} sent9: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent10: (x): {E}x -> {D}x sent11: (¬{AA}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> {AA}{a} sent12: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & {B}x) sent13: {D}{c} -> {D}{b} sent14: (x): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent15: (Ex): {I}x sent16: {F}{c} -> {E}{c} sent17: {AA}{bp} sent18: ({G}{c} v ¬{H}{c}) -> {F}{c} sent19: ¬{G}{d} sent20: (x): ({D}x v ¬{C}x) -> ¬{A}x sent21: {B}{aa}
|
[
"sent14 -> int1: the bend is not a greengage and is not a pitter-patter if it is astomatous.;"
] |
[
"sent14 -> int1: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa});"
] |
the defense is astomatous.
|
{A}{eb}
|
[
"sent12 -> int2: if the thrombin is not stenographic then that it is not astomatous and is antemeridian is wrong.; sent7 -> int3: if the thrombin gouges thrombin and gouges proprietress it is not stenographic.; sent3 -> int4: if that the thrombin is dyadic hold then it does gouge thrombin.; sent19 -> int5: there exists something such that it does not debrief defense.; int5 & sent1 -> int6: the thrombin is dyadic.; int4 & int6 -> int7: the thrombin gouges thrombin.;"
] | 8 | 2 | null | 19 | 0 | 19 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the bend is not a greengage and it is not a kind of a pitter-patter. ; $context$ = sent1: the thrombin is dyadic if there is something such that it does not debrief defense. sent2: the fact that the abacus is both expressionist and alternate is not wrong. sent3: something gouges thrombin if the fact that it is dyadic hold. sent4: if that the bend is astomatous hold it is not a pitter-patter. sent5: the defense is astomatous if that the thrombin is both not astomatous and antemeridian is false. sent6: if the abacus alternates then it either does debrief defense or is not tetanic or both. sent7: if something gouges thrombin and gouges proprietress then it is not stenographic. sent8: the thrombin does gouge proprietress if the toiletry gouge proprietress. sent9: if something is not astomatous then the toiletry is not a kind of a greengage and it is not antemeridian. sent10: if something does gouge thrombin that it does gouge proprietress is not false. sent11: the thrombin is a greengage if the toiletry is not a greengage and is not antemeridian. sent12: if something is not stenographic that it is not astomatous but antemeridian is not true. sent13: the toiletry gouges proprietress if the abacus gouges proprietress. sent14: something is not a greengage and not a pitter-patter if it is astomatous. sent15: there exists something such that it alternates. sent16: if the abacus is dyadic it does gouge thrombin. sent17: that the domestic is a kind of a greengage is not wrong. sent18: the abacus is dyadic if that either it does debrief defense or it is not tetanic or both is correct. sent19: the chrysoprase does not debrief defense. sent20: something is not astomatous if it does gouge proprietress or it is non-stenographic or both. sent21: the bend is antemeridian. ; $proof$ =
|
sent14 -> int1: the bend is not a greengage and is not a pitter-patter if it is astomatous.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the seed gouges Magritte but it is not an afterburner.
|
({B}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa})
|
sent1: the fact that something does gouge Magritte but it is not a kind of an afterburner is not correct if it is a butterfish. sent2: that the seed glowers TCP does not hold. sent3: everything is both not an afterburner and not a butterfish. sent4: everything does not glower Stinger and is not ferial. sent5: if something is a Mainer then the seed does not glower TCP and is not a communications. sent6: if something that does not glower Stinger is not ferial then it does not diminish jobcentre. sent7: something gouges Magritte if it does not glower TCP and it is not a kind of a communications. sent8: the seed is not a butterfish. sent9: if something is not a kind of a Mainer but it is a tetrapod then it is a butterfish. sent10: there is something such that it is a Mainer. sent11: something gouges Magritte if the fact that it glowers TCP and it is not a communications hold. sent12: if the seed glowers TCP and is not a communications it gouges Magritte.
|
sent1: (x): {C}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{A}x) sent2: ¬{AA}{aa} sent3: (x): (¬{A}x & ¬{C}x) sent4: (x): (¬{G}x & ¬{H}x) sent5: (x): {D}x -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent6: (x): (¬{G}x & ¬{H}x) -> ¬{F}x sent7: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent8: ¬{C}{aa} sent9: (x): (¬{D}x & {E}x) -> {C}x sent10: (Ex): {D}x sent11: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent12: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}
|
[
"sent7 -> int1: if the seed does not glower TCP and is not a kind of a communications then it gouges Magritte.; sent10 & sent5 -> int2: the seed does not glower TCP and it is not a communications.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the seed gouges Magritte.; sent3 -> int4: the seed is not an afterburner and is not a butterfish.; int4 -> int5: the seed is not an afterburner.; int3 & int5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent7 -> int1: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; sent10 & sent5 -> int2: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> int3: {B}{aa}; sent3 -> int4: (¬{A}{aa} & ¬{C}{aa}); int4 -> int5: ¬{A}{aa}; int3 & int5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the seed gouges Magritte and is not an afterburner is incorrect.
|
¬({B}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa})
|
[
"sent1 -> int6: the fact that the chopsteak does gouge Magritte and is not a kind of an afterburner is not right if it is a butterfish.; sent9 -> int7: if the chopsteak is not a kind of a Mainer but it is a kind of a tetrapod then it is a butterfish.; sent4 -> int8: the chopsteak does not glower Stinger and it is not ferial.; sent6 -> int9: if the chopsteak does not glower Stinger and is not ferial then it does not diminish jobcentre.; int8 & int9 -> int10: the chopsteak does not diminish jobcentre.;"
] | 7 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the seed gouges Magritte but it is not an afterburner. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something does gouge Magritte but it is not a kind of an afterburner is not correct if it is a butterfish. sent2: that the seed glowers TCP does not hold. sent3: everything is both not an afterburner and not a butterfish. sent4: everything does not glower Stinger and is not ferial. sent5: if something is a Mainer then the seed does not glower TCP and is not a communications. sent6: if something that does not glower Stinger is not ferial then it does not diminish jobcentre. sent7: something gouges Magritte if it does not glower TCP and it is not a kind of a communications. sent8: the seed is not a butterfish. sent9: if something is not a kind of a Mainer but it is a tetrapod then it is a butterfish. sent10: there is something such that it is a Mainer. sent11: something gouges Magritte if the fact that it glowers TCP and it is not a communications hold. sent12: if the seed glowers TCP and is not a communications it gouges Magritte. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 -> int1: if the seed does not glower TCP and is not a kind of a communications then it gouges Magritte.; sent10 & sent5 -> int2: the seed does not glower TCP and it is not a communications.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the seed gouges Magritte.; sent3 -> int4: the seed is not an afterburner and is not a butterfish.; int4 -> int5: the seed is not an afterburner.; int3 & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the fact that there exists something such that if it is not a paper-pusher that it gouges newsletter and it does not gouge spathe does not hold is not false is wrong.
|
¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x))
|
sent1: that something does debrief harpsichordist and is not mediate is not correct if it is not shamanist. sent2: if something is not a paper-pusher that it does gouge newsletter and it does not gouge spathe is wrong.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{AL}x -> ¬({BA}x & ¬{CC}x) sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: if the spathe is not a paper-pusher then that it gouges newsletter and does not gouge spathe is false.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that there is something such that if that it is not shamanist hold then the fact that it does debrief harpsichordist and it does not mediate is false hold.
|
(Ex): ¬{AL}x -> ¬({BA}x & ¬{CC}x)
|
[
"sent1 -> int2: if the harpsichordist is not shamanist that it debriefs harpsichordist and does not mediate is not true.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the fact that there exists something such that if it is not a paper-pusher that it gouges newsletter and it does not gouge spathe does not hold is not false is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: that something does debrief harpsichordist and is not mediate is not correct if it is not shamanist. sent2: if something is not a paper-pusher that it does gouge newsletter and it does not gouge spathe is wrong. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> int1: if the spathe is not a paper-pusher then that it gouges newsletter and does not gouge spathe is false.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the telegraphicness does not occur.
|
¬{A}
|
sent1: the telegraphicness or the gouging Chancellor or both occurs if the reportableness does not occur. sent2: if the fact that the fictionalization happens and the paternalness happens is not wrong then the reportableness does not occur. sent3: the paternalness but not the bootlegging happens if the diminishing means happens. sent4: the gouging Chancellor does not occur and the reportableness occurs. sent5: if the telegraphicness happens but the gouging Chancellor does not occur the loosening occurs. sent6: the reportableness occurs. sent7: that both the telegraphicness and the gouging Chancellor occurs is brought about by the non-reportableness. sent8: that the permeableness does not occur is true. sent9: that the composite does not occur is prevented by that the marshaling occurs. sent10: if both the paternalness and the fictionalization happens then the reportableness does not occur. sent11: the gouging Chancellor happens if the telegraphicness happens.
|
sent1: ¬{C} -> ({A} v {B}) sent2: ({E} & {D}) -> ¬{C} sent3: {H} -> ({D} & ¬{G}) sent4: (¬{B} & {C}) sent5: ({A} & ¬{B}) -> {HA} sent6: {C} sent7: ¬{C} -> ({A} & {B}) sent8: ¬{J} sent9: {F} -> {HP} sent10: ({D} & {E}) -> ¬{C} sent11: {A} -> {B}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the telegraphicness occurs.; sent11 & assump1 -> int1: the gouging Chancellor happens.; sent4 -> int2: the gouging Chancellor does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}; sent11 & assump1 -> int1: {B}; sent4 -> int2: ¬{B}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the telegraphicness happens.
|
{A}
|
[] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the telegraphicness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the telegraphicness or the gouging Chancellor or both occurs if the reportableness does not occur. sent2: if the fact that the fictionalization happens and the paternalness happens is not wrong then the reportableness does not occur. sent3: the paternalness but not the bootlegging happens if the diminishing means happens. sent4: the gouging Chancellor does not occur and the reportableness occurs. sent5: if the telegraphicness happens but the gouging Chancellor does not occur the loosening occurs. sent6: the reportableness occurs. sent7: that both the telegraphicness and the gouging Chancellor occurs is brought about by the non-reportableness. sent8: that the permeableness does not occur is true. sent9: that the composite does not occur is prevented by that the marshaling occurs. sent10: if both the paternalness and the fictionalization happens then the reportableness does not occur. sent11: the gouging Chancellor happens if the telegraphicness happens. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the telegraphicness occurs.; sent11 & assump1 -> int1: the gouging Chancellor happens.; sent4 -> int2: the gouging Chancellor does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the greens does glower greediness.
|
{AB}{b}
|
sent1: the sensation is not parasympathomimetic. sent2: the greens is a kind of a nuncio and it does debrief Panini. sent3: the greens does debrief Panini if the dudeen does not glower greediness. sent4: the greens does glower greediness if the dudeen does not debrief Panini. sent5: the SNP does glower greediness and it is a rhombus. sent6: the lock-gate does not debrief Panini. sent7: the chanfron debriefs Panini. sent8: the dudeen glowers lock-gate. sent9: the fact that the newswoman is parasympathomimetic thing that is a left-handedness is not false. sent10: if that something is not parasympathomimetic and glowers greediness is wrong then it does not glowers greediness. sent11: the greens is not parasympathomimetic. sent12: the greens is not a kind of a shuffler. sent13: if the dudeen is non-parasympathomimetic then the greens debriefs Panini and it does glower greediness.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{bc} sent2: ({CS}{b} & {AA}{b}) sent3: ¬{AB}{a} -> {AA}{b} sent4: ¬{AA}{a} -> {AB}{b} sent5: ({AB}{gt} & {H}{gt}) sent6: ¬{AA}{cp} sent7: {AA}{et} sent8: {IS}{a} sent9: ({A}{t} & {ET}{t}) sent10: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{AB}x sent11: ¬{A}{b} sent12: ¬{AJ}{b} sent13: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{b} & {AB}{b})
|
[] |
[] |
the greens does not glower greediness.
|
¬{AB}{b}
|
[
"sent10 -> int1: the greens does not glower greediness if that it is not parasympathomimetic and it does glower greediness does not hold.;"
] | 4 | 2 | null | 12 | 0 | 12 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the greens does glower greediness. ; $context$ = sent1: the sensation is not parasympathomimetic. sent2: the greens is a kind of a nuncio and it does debrief Panini. sent3: the greens does debrief Panini if the dudeen does not glower greediness. sent4: the greens does glower greediness if the dudeen does not debrief Panini. sent5: the SNP does glower greediness and it is a rhombus. sent6: the lock-gate does not debrief Panini. sent7: the chanfron debriefs Panini. sent8: the dudeen glowers lock-gate. sent9: the fact that the newswoman is parasympathomimetic thing that is a left-handedness is not false. sent10: if that something is not parasympathomimetic and glowers greediness is wrong then it does not glowers greediness. sent11: the greens is not parasympathomimetic. sent12: the greens is not a kind of a shuffler. sent13: if the dudeen is non-parasympathomimetic then the greens debriefs Panini and it does glower greediness. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the paddlewheel is illegible is not wrong.
|
{C}{a}
|
sent1: the carburetor is a Defoe and it does reconvert. sent2: something does debrief Hebraist if it is illegible. sent3: the paddlewheel gouges overvaluation. sent4: the afterbirth is illegible. sent5: the paddlewheel debriefs Hebraist. sent6: the paddlewheel gouges afterbirth and does debrief Hebraist. sent7: something is illegible if it reconverts. sent8: the pegboard is a kind of an ischemia that does debrief Hebraist.
|
sent1: ({CD}{j} & {A}{j}) sent2: (x): {C}x -> {B}x sent3: {FO}{a} sent4: {C}{jc} sent5: {B}{a} sent6: ({IH}{a} & {B}{a}) sent7: (x): {A}x -> {C}x sent8: ({BR}{n} & {B}{n})
|
[
"sent7 -> int1: if the paddlewheel reconverts it is illegible.;"
] |
[
"sent7 -> int1: {A}{a} -> {C}{a};"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | null | 7 | 0 | 7 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = that the paddlewheel is illegible is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the carburetor is a Defoe and it does reconvert. sent2: something does debrief Hebraist if it is illegible. sent3: the paddlewheel gouges overvaluation. sent4: the afterbirth is illegible. sent5: the paddlewheel debriefs Hebraist. sent6: the paddlewheel gouges afterbirth and does debrief Hebraist. sent7: something is illegible if it reconverts. sent8: the pegboard is a kind of an ischemia that does debrief Hebraist. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 -> int1: if the paddlewheel reconverts it is illegible.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the posturalness occurs is right.
|
{B}
|
sent1: the triangulating does not occur. sent2: that the posturalness and the non-triangulateness happens causes that the debriefing blank does not occur. sent3: if the struggling happens the unperceptiveness does not occur but the purchase happens. sent4: the fact that the triangulating does not occur and the posturalness does not occur does not hold. sent5: the digitalness occurs and the struggle happens if the glowering repatriation does not occur. sent6: if that the glowering repatriation occurs and the hurling occurs is not correct then the fact that the glowering repatriation does not occur is right. sent7: the barratry does not occur if the fact that the leaningness does not occur is not incorrect. sent8: that either the triangulating or the non-posturalness or both occurs causes that the non-postural does not occur. sent9: both the triangulating and the hydrokineticness occurs if the glowering greediness does not occur. sent10: the fact that the glowering repatriation and the hurling happens is wrong if the barratry does not occur. sent11: that the perceptiveness and the purchase occurs triggers that the glowering greediness does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬{A} sent2: ({B} & ¬{A}) -> ¬{HG} sent3: {G} -> (¬{E} & {F}) sent4: ¬(¬{A} & ¬{B}) sent5: ¬{I} -> ({H} & {G}) sent6: ¬({I} & {K}) -> ¬{I} sent7: ¬{L} -> ¬{J} sent8: ({A} v ¬{B}) -> ¬{B} sent9: ¬{D} -> ({A} & {C}) sent10: ¬{J} -> ¬({I} & {K}) sent11: (¬{E} & {F}) -> ¬{D}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the posturalness does not occur.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the non-triangulateness and the non-posturalness occurs.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ¬{B}; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: (¬{A} & ¬{B}); int1 & sent4 -> int2: #F#; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the debriefing blank does not occur.
|
¬{HG}
|
[] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the posturalness occurs is right. ; $context$ = sent1: the triangulating does not occur. sent2: that the posturalness and the non-triangulateness happens causes that the debriefing blank does not occur. sent3: if the struggling happens the unperceptiveness does not occur but the purchase happens. sent4: the fact that the triangulating does not occur and the posturalness does not occur does not hold. sent5: the digitalness occurs and the struggle happens if the glowering repatriation does not occur. sent6: if that the glowering repatriation occurs and the hurling occurs is not correct then the fact that the glowering repatriation does not occur is right. sent7: the barratry does not occur if the fact that the leaningness does not occur is not incorrect. sent8: that either the triangulating or the non-posturalness or both occurs causes that the non-postural does not occur. sent9: both the triangulating and the hydrokineticness occurs if the glowering greediness does not occur. sent10: the fact that the glowering repatriation and the hurling happens is wrong if the barratry does not occur. sent11: that the perceptiveness and the purchase occurs triggers that the glowering greediness does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the posturalness does not occur.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the non-triangulateness and the non-posturalness occurs.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Balmoral is electromagnetic.
|
{A}{aa}
|
sent1: the fact that that the tracing is ulnar and is rupestral is not false does not hold if it does not glorify. sent2: if either something is not electromagnetic or it is not respectable or both it is not electromagnetic. sent3: the match is dependent if the tracing is not dependent but it is rupestral. sent4: something is unethical and supples. sent5: the Balmoral is respectable. sent6: something is not respectable if that it either is not frequent or does not gouge Progne or both is false. sent7: the tracing does not glorify if something is unethical and it does supple. sent8: everything is respectable. sent9: everything is electromagnetic and it is respectable. sent10: the Balmoral is respectable and it is not non-anarchistic. sent11: the fact that everything debriefs bezel and it debriefs vested hold. sent12: the tracing is not dependent. sent13: if something is not rupestral that it does not frequent or does not gouge Progne or both does not hold.
|
sent1: ¬{G}{a} -> ¬({F}{a} & {E}{a}) sent2: (x): (¬{A}x v ¬{B}x) -> ¬{A}x sent3: (¬{HN}{a} & {E}{a}) -> {HN}{do} sent4: (Ex): ({I}x & {H}x) sent5: {B}{aa} sent6: (x): ¬(¬{D}x v ¬{C}x) -> ¬{B}x sent7: (x): ({I}x & {H}x) -> ¬{G}{a} sent8: (x): {B}x sent9: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) sent10: ({B}{aa} & {FC}{aa}) sent11: (x): ({DA}x & {DF}x) sent12: ¬{HN}{a} sent13: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬(¬{D}x v ¬{C}x)
|
[
"sent9 -> int1: the Balmoral is electromagnetic and it is respectable.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 -> int1: ({A}{aa} & {B}{aa}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the match is dependent and is electromagnetic.
|
({HN}{do} & {A}{do})
|
[] | 4 | 2 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the Balmoral is electromagnetic. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that that the tracing is ulnar and is rupestral is not false does not hold if it does not glorify. sent2: if either something is not electromagnetic or it is not respectable or both it is not electromagnetic. sent3: the match is dependent if the tracing is not dependent but it is rupestral. sent4: something is unethical and supples. sent5: the Balmoral is respectable. sent6: something is not respectable if that it either is not frequent or does not gouge Progne or both is false. sent7: the tracing does not glorify if something is unethical and it does supple. sent8: everything is respectable. sent9: everything is electromagnetic and it is respectable. sent10: the Balmoral is respectable and it is not non-anarchistic. sent11: the fact that everything debriefs bezel and it debriefs vested hold. sent12: the tracing is not dependent. sent13: if something is not rupestral that it does not frequent or does not gouge Progne or both does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 -> int1: the Balmoral is electromagnetic and it is respectable.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there is something such that if it debriefs choppiness and is not a uranyl it is Tajikistani does not hold.
|
¬((Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x)
|
sent1: there is something such that if it is fleshy and not nativist it glowers Poitiers. sent2: if the wood-fern is a uranyl but it is not Rabelaisian the fact that it is a dioxin hold. sent3: there exists something such that if it debriefs choppiness and it is a uranyl it is Tajikistani. sent4: that the wood-fern is Tajikistani hold if it debriefs choppiness and is a uranyl. sent5: if the wood-fern does debrief choppiness and does not glower rhinencephalon then that it does debrief centime is not false. sent6: if the wood-fern does debrief choppiness but it is not a uranyl then it is Tajikistani. sent7: there is something such that if it is unargumentative but not plus it does glower Hipposideridae. sent8: something is ultramicroscopic if it is a documentary and is not a SD.
|
sent1: (Ex): ({CE}x & ¬{FH}x) -> {K}x sent2: ({AB}{aa} & ¬{AP}{aa}) -> {CI}{aa} sent3: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent4: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent5: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AL}{aa}) -> {F}{aa} sent6: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent7: (Ex): ({DI}x & ¬{GJ}x) -> {FO}x sent8: (x): ({FN}x & ¬{CA}x) -> {BD}x
|
[
"sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there exists something such that if it is a documentary and it is not a SD then it is ultramicroscopic.
|
(Ex): ({FN}x & ¬{CA}x) -> {BD}x
|
[
"sent8 -> int1: the theologian is ultramicroscopic if it is a kind of a documentary that is not a SD.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if it debriefs choppiness and is not a uranyl it is Tajikistani does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is fleshy and not nativist it glowers Poitiers. sent2: if the wood-fern is a uranyl but it is not Rabelaisian the fact that it is a dioxin hold. sent3: there exists something such that if it debriefs choppiness and it is a uranyl it is Tajikistani. sent4: that the wood-fern is Tajikistani hold if it debriefs choppiness and is a uranyl. sent5: if the wood-fern does debrief choppiness and does not glower rhinencephalon then that it does debrief centime is not false. sent6: if the wood-fern does debrief choppiness but it is not a uranyl then it is Tajikistani. sent7: there is something such that if it is unargumentative but not plus it does glower Hipposideridae. sent8: something is ultramicroscopic if it is a documentary and is not a SD. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the cubby is not amino and is neotenic.
|
(¬{C}{b} & {D}{b})
|
sent1: the fact that the cubby is not an amino is right if that it glowers Glossinidae and it does not gouge candlepower does not hold. sent2: that the fact that the cubby is non-amino thing that is neotenic does not hold is not false if the barony does glower Glossinidae. sent3: the fact that the taffy is not non-agricultural and it does gouge candlepower is not right. sent4: the fact that the barony is a kind of thrifty an amino is not right if the cubby is outdoor. sent5: that the barony is thrifty but it is not outdoor is wrong if the fact that it is not a slapshot is not incorrect. sent6: the barony is not a slapshot. sent7: if the douche is an amino and does not glower Glossinidae the cubby is not a slapshot. sent8: that the douche is neotenic is not wrong if the novitiate is neotenic. sent9: the fact that the cubby glowers Glossinidae and does not gouge candlepower is wrong if it is orthodox. sent10: the cubby is not unorthodox. sent11: if that the cubby is thrifty and not a slapshot is wrong it is neotenic. sent12: if that something is thrifty and is non-outdoor is not true then it glowers Glossinidae. sent13: that the fact that the cubby is amino and it is neotenic does not hold is not false.
|
sent1: ¬({B}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent2: {B}{a} -> ¬(¬{C}{b} & {D}{b}) sent3: ¬({F}{e} & {E}{e}) sent4: {AB}{b} -> ¬({AA}{a} & {C}{a}) sent5: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent6: ¬{A}{a} sent7: ({C}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) -> ¬{A}{b} sent8: {D}{d} -> {D}{c} sent9: {I}{b} -> ¬({B}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) sent10: {I}{b} sent11: ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) -> {D}{b} sent12: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent13: ¬({C}{b} & {D}{b})
|
[
"sent5 & sent6 -> int1: that the barony is thrifty but it is not outdoor is false.; sent12 -> int2: the barony glowers Glossinidae if the fact that it is thrifty but not outdoor is not right.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the barony glowers Glossinidae.; int3 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 & sent6 -> int1: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); sent12 -> int2: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {B}{a}; int3 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the cubby is not amino but it is neotenic.
|
(¬{C}{b} & {D}{b})
|
[
"sent9 & sent10 -> int4: that the cubby does glower Glossinidae and does not gouge candlepower does not hold.; sent1 & int4 -> int5: the cubby is not an amino.;"
] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the cubby is not amino and is neotenic. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the cubby is not an amino is right if that it glowers Glossinidae and it does not gouge candlepower does not hold. sent2: that the fact that the cubby is non-amino thing that is neotenic does not hold is not false if the barony does glower Glossinidae. sent3: the fact that the taffy is not non-agricultural and it does gouge candlepower is not right. sent4: the fact that the barony is a kind of thrifty an amino is not right if the cubby is outdoor. sent5: that the barony is thrifty but it is not outdoor is wrong if the fact that it is not a slapshot is not incorrect. sent6: the barony is not a slapshot. sent7: if the douche is an amino and does not glower Glossinidae the cubby is not a slapshot. sent8: that the douche is neotenic is not wrong if the novitiate is neotenic. sent9: the fact that the cubby glowers Glossinidae and does not gouge candlepower is wrong if it is orthodox. sent10: the cubby is not unorthodox. sent11: if that the cubby is thrifty and not a slapshot is wrong it is neotenic. sent12: if that something is thrifty and is non-outdoor is not true then it glowers Glossinidae. sent13: that the fact that the cubby is amino and it is neotenic does not hold is not false. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 & sent6 -> int1: that the barony is thrifty but it is not outdoor is false.; sent12 -> int2: the barony glowers Glossinidae if the fact that it is thrifty but not outdoor is not right.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the barony glowers Glossinidae.; int3 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if it is genotypical then it is not a villainess and is approachable.
|
(Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x)
|
sent1: the sensation is approachable and is an addition if it debriefs zoology. sent2: the checkerboard glowers Brinton if that it disharmonizes is right. sent3: there exists something such that if it is an accuser it is hatless and it is evitable. sent4: the fact that if the checkerboard is latitudinal then the checkerboard does not glower figurehead but it is untheatrical hold. sent5: that if the checkerboard is genotypical then the checkerboard is both not a villainess and not unapproachable is not incorrect. sent6: there is something such that if it is genotypical it is approachable. sent7: there is something such that if it is evitable it is not a holocephalan and glowers mincemeat. sent8: if the checkerboard is genotypical it is approachable. sent9: if something is an accomplice then it is not constructive but a frankincense. sent10: there is something such that if it is genotypical then it is not a kind of a villainess.
|
sent1: {DB}{n} -> ({AB}{n} & {CD}{n}) sent2: {AR}{aa} -> {GO}{aa} sent3: (Ex): {EE}x -> ({CB}x & {R}x) sent4: {JK}{aa} -> (¬{FA}{aa} & {IN}{aa}) sent5: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent6: (Ex): {A}x -> {AB}x sent7: (Ex): {R}x -> (¬{HG}x & {CE}x) sent8: {A}{aa} -> {AB}{aa} sent9: (x): {D}x -> (¬{IL}x & {F}x) sent10: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬{AA}x
|
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there exists something such that if it is a kind of an accomplice it is both not constructive and a frankincense.
|
(Ex): {D}x -> (¬{IL}x & {F}x)
|
[
"sent9 -> int1: the mincemeat is not constructive but a frankincense if it is an accomplice.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is genotypical then it is not a villainess and is approachable. ; $context$ = sent1: the sensation is approachable and is an addition if it debriefs zoology. sent2: the checkerboard glowers Brinton if that it disharmonizes is right. sent3: there exists something such that if it is an accuser it is hatless and it is evitable. sent4: the fact that if the checkerboard is latitudinal then the checkerboard does not glower figurehead but it is untheatrical hold. sent5: that if the checkerboard is genotypical then the checkerboard is both not a villainess and not unapproachable is not incorrect. sent6: there is something such that if it is genotypical it is approachable. sent7: there is something such that if it is evitable it is not a holocephalan and glowers mincemeat. sent8: if the checkerboard is genotypical it is approachable. sent9: if something is an accomplice then it is not constructive but a frankincense. sent10: there is something such that if it is genotypical then it is not a kind of a villainess. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if it is not insecure and it is non-least then that it is stenographic is not wrong.
|
(Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x
|
sent1: there is something such that if it is not a pledgee and it is not Athenian then it diminishes adience. sent2: the fact that the crowberry squishes is right if it does not debrief dicynodont and it is not a NSAID. sent3: if the butt-weld is not noticeable and not wiry then it is a bossism. sent4: the kea is a effortfulness if it does not limit and it does not debrief epoxy. sent5: if the amphetamine does not glower apostrophe and is not virulent it is a Ictiobus. sent6: the butt-weld is insecure if it is not a assignee and is not photoconductive. sent7: the butt-weld is stenographic if it is both not insecure and a least. sent8: there exists something such that if it is both not secure and not a least then it is stenographic. sent9: the butt-weld is stenographic if it is insecure and it is not least. sent10: if something that is not alike is not noninheritable it is a kind of a least. sent11: there exists something such that if that it is not insecure and it is a least is correct then it is stenographic. sent12: the butt-weld is a kind of a Romneya if it is not stenographic and not rhythmical. sent13: there is something such that if it is both not a dust and not Gauguinesque it is Apocryphal. sent14: the pepperwort does glower Antedonidae if it is not insecure and it is not alike. sent15: if the butt-weld does not gouge dress and it is not astomatal then it is a kind of a Ms. sent16: there exists something such that if it is not cachectic and it is not a kind of a Handel it does scab. sent17: if the butt-weld is secure thing that is not a kind of a least then it is stenographic.
|
sent1: (Ex): (¬{AO}x & ¬{IG}x) -> {CL}x sent2: (¬{DK}{jk} & ¬{ER}{jk}) -> {CG}{jk} sent3: (¬{BG}{aa} & ¬{EB}{aa}) -> {AJ}{aa} sent4: (¬{FU}{bj} & ¬{JB}{bj}) -> {ET}{bj} sent5: (¬{HL}{ci} & ¬{FO}{ci}) -> {FQ}{ci} sent6: (¬{GR}{aa} & ¬{AD}{aa}) -> {AA}{aa} sent7: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent8: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent9: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent10: (x): (¬{GQ}x & ¬{U}x) -> {AB}x sent11: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent12: (¬{B}{aa} & ¬{HN}{aa}) -> {CM}{aa} sent13: (Ex): (¬{GJ}x & ¬{GU}x) -> {T}x sent14: (¬{AA}{bn} & ¬{GQ}{bn}) -> {GH}{bn} sent15: (¬{BH}{aa} & ¬{HI}{aa}) -> {AC}{aa} sent16: (Ex): (¬{GD}x & ¬{EU}x) -> {CD}x sent17: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}
|
[
"sent17 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent17 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the gasohol is a kind of a least if it is not alike and it is not noninheritable.
|
(¬{GQ}{iu} & ¬{U}{iu}) -> {AB}{iu}
|
[
"sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 16 | 0 | 16 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is not insecure and it is non-least then that it is stenographic is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is not a pledgee and it is not Athenian then it diminishes adience. sent2: the fact that the crowberry squishes is right if it does not debrief dicynodont and it is not a NSAID. sent3: if the butt-weld is not noticeable and not wiry then it is a bossism. sent4: the kea is a effortfulness if it does not limit and it does not debrief epoxy. sent5: if the amphetamine does not glower apostrophe and is not virulent it is a Ictiobus. sent6: the butt-weld is insecure if it is not a assignee and is not photoconductive. sent7: the butt-weld is stenographic if it is both not insecure and a least. sent8: there exists something such that if it is both not secure and not a least then it is stenographic. sent9: the butt-weld is stenographic if it is insecure and it is not least. sent10: if something that is not alike is not noninheritable it is a kind of a least. sent11: there exists something such that if that it is not insecure and it is a least is correct then it is stenographic. sent12: the butt-weld is a kind of a Romneya if it is not stenographic and not rhythmical. sent13: there is something such that if it is both not a dust and not Gauguinesque it is Apocryphal. sent14: the pepperwort does glower Antedonidae if it is not insecure and it is not alike. sent15: if the butt-weld does not gouge dress and it is not astomatal then it is a kind of a Ms. sent16: there exists something such that if it is not cachectic and it is not a kind of a Handel it does scab. sent17: if the butt-weld is secure thing that is not a kind of a least then it is stenographic. ; $proof$ =
|
sent17 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the glowering huck happens.
|
{E}
|
sent1: if the irregularness and the non-staccatoness happens the glowering huck occurs. sent2: if the Masoreticness happens the dent does not occur and the glowering huck does not occur. sent3: the dent does not occur. sent4: that the Masoreticness happens is not wrong if the staccatoness occurs. sent5: the antistrophicness does not occur if the staccatoness occurs and the regular occurs. sent6: the staccatoness happens or the regular occurs or both. sent7: if the regularness happens the Masoreticness happens.
|
sent1: (¬{B} & ¬{A}) -> {E} sent2: {C} -> (¬{D} & ¬{E}) sent3: ¬{D} sent4: {A} -> {C} sent5: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{JF} sent6: ({A} v {B}) sent7: {B} -> {C}
|
[
"sent6 & sent4 & sent7 -> int1: the Masoreticness happens.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the dent does not occur and the glowering huck does not occur.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 & sent4 & sent7 -> int1: {C}; int1 & sent2 -> int2: (¬{D} & ¬{E}); int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the antistrophicness does not occur.
|
¬{JF}
|
[] | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the glowering huck happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if the irregularness and the non-staccatoness happens the glowering huck occurs. sent2: if the Masoreticness happens the dent does not occur and the glowering huck does not occur. sent3: the dent does not occur. sent4: that the Masoreticness happens is not wrong if the staccatoness occurs. sent5: the antistrophicness does not occur if the staccatoness occurs and the regular occurs. sent6: the staccatoness happens or the regular occurs or both. sent7: if the regularness happens the Masoreticness happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 & sent4 & sent7 -> int1: the Masoreticness happens.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the dent does not occur and the glowering huck does not occur.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that that it is not a kind of a quarterback and it glowers breviary does not hold.
|
(Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x)
|
sent1: the change is a gauntlet. sent2: that the change does not glower breviary and does renege is not right. sent3: that the cellblock is not a burgess but it does glower breviary does not hold. sent4: there exists something such that the fact that it does not renege and it does glower breviary is not right. sent5: that that the cellblock does not vary and glowers breviary is incorrect hold. sent6: there exists something such that it is not a quarterback and does glower breviary. sent7: the cellblock reneges. sent8: there is something such that the fact that it does not glower breviary and it does renege is not right. sent9: the flare glowers breviary. sent10: the fact that the cellblock does not glower breviary and does renege does not hold. sent11: there exists something such that that it glowers breviary and it reneges is not right. sent12: the change does renege. sent13: there is something such that that it is a quarterback and glowers breviary is incorrect. sent14: there exists something such that it is not a prize and it is postglacial. sent15: if the cellblock does glower breviary the fact that the change does not renege and does quarterback is wrong.
|
sent1: {EH}{a} sent2: ¬(¬{AB}{a} & {A}{a}) sent3: ¬(¬{AD}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent4: (Ex): ¬(¬{A}x & {AB}x) sent5: ¬(¬{HQ}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent6: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent7: {A}{b} sent8: (Ex): ¬(¬{AB}x & {A}x) sent9: {AB}{jk} sent10: ¬(¬{AB}{b} & {A}{b}) sent11: (Ex): ¬({AB}x & {A}x) sent12: {A}{a} sent13: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent14: (Ex): (¬{FT}x & {GS}x) sent15: {AB}{b} -> ¬(¬{A}{a} & {AA}{a})
|
[] |
[] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | null | 14 | 0 | 14 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that that it is not a kind of a quarterback and it glowers breviary does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the change is a gauntlet. sent2: that the change does not glower breviary and does renege is not right. sent3: that the cellblock is not a burgess but it does glower breviary does not hold. sent4: there exists something such that the fact that it does not renege and it does glower breviary is not right. sent5: that that the cellblock does not vary and glowers breviary is incorrect hold. sent6: there exists something such that it is not a quarterback and does glower breviary. sent7: the cellblock reneges. sent8: there is something such that the fact that it does not glower breviary and it does renege is not right. sent9: the flare glowers breviary. sent10: the fact that the cellblock does not glower breviary and does renege does not hold. sent11: there exists something such that that it glowers breviary and it reneges is not right. sent12: the change does renege. sent13: there is something such that that it is a quarterback and glowers breviary is incorrect. sent14: there exists something such that it is not a prize and it is postglacial. sent15: if the cellblock does glower breviary the fact that the change does not renege and does quarterback is wrong. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the checkerboard is side-to-side.
|
{B}{a}
|
sent1: the grass is a kind of a lymphoma. sent2: the checkerboard is a lymphoma. sent3: the checkerboard is a lymphoma and it is side-to-side. sent4: if the millwheel does not debrief suspense then the fact that the fact that the moorfowl is a kind of a lymphoma that glowers emoticon is incorrect is correct.
|
sent1: {A}{ji} sent2: {A}{a} sent3: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent4: ¬{D}{c} -> ¬({A}{b} & {C}{b})
|
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the checkerboard is not side-to-side.
|
¬{B}{a}
|
[] | 6 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the checkerboard is side-to-side. ; $context$ = sent1: the grass is a kind of a lymphoma. sent2: the checkerboard is a lymphoma. sent3: the checkerboard is a lymphoma and it is side-to-side. sent4: if the millwheel does not debrief suspense then the fact that the fact that the moorfowl is a kind of a lymphoma that glowers emoticon is incorrect is correct. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there is something such that if it does not necrose it is not an adversity and/or it is not a sluicing does not hold.
|
¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x))
|
sent1: the leek is not a kind of a sluicing and/or does not rhyme if it is not a motherliness. sent2: there is something such that if it does not necrose then either it is a kind of an adversity or it is not a sluicing or both. sent3: the leek does not necrose and/or it is not a disguise if it is not leafless. sent4: if that something does not necrose is not false then it is not an adversity and/or does not sluice. sent5: there is something such that if it is not a rhymed it is not dissimilar or it is not a shedding or both. sent6: either something is not a kind of an adversity or it is not a Bronx or both if it is not a kind of a Wernicke. sent7: something is not a kind of an adversity or is a sluicing or both if it does not necrose. sent8: if the leek does not necrose that it is not a kind of an adversity and/or it is a sluicing is not incorrect. sent9: the leek is not an adversity or does not sluice or both if it necroses. sent10: that if something is not forte then it does not glower pixel and/or it does not glower leek is correct. sent11: if the leek does not necrose it is either an adversity or not a sluicing or both. sent12: that if the panel is not the wanderer the panel either is not a kind of a mullioned or does not gouge Leiopelmatidae or both is not false. sent13: there is something such that if that it necroses is true then either it is not an adversity or it is not a kind of a sluicing or both. sent14: if the leek is not insoluble then either it is not an auctioneer or it does not necrose or both. sent15: if that the lipstick is not few is right then it is not a sluicing and/or it is not a kind of a Lebanese. sent16: something that does not necrose is an adversity or is not a sluicing or both. sent17: there exists something such that if it does not necrose then it is either not an adversity or a sluicing or both. sent18: the leek does not gouge computer or is not bold or both if it does not glower Thysanocarpus. sent19: something either is not upper-class or is not a E-bomb or both if it is a friendship. sent20: something is not an adversity and/or does not sluice if it necroses.
|
sent1: ¬{FG}{aa} -> (¬{AB}{aa} v ¬{JJ}{aa}) sent2: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent3: ¬{F}{aa} -> (¬{A}{aa} v ¬{BL}{aa}) sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent5: (Ex): ¬{JJ}x -> (¬{AD}x v ¬{CA}x) sent6: (x): ¬{BO}x -> (¬{AA}x v ¬{G}x) sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) sent8: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent9: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent10: (x): ¬{DG}x -> (¬{R}x v ¬{HF}x) sent11: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent12: ¬{FR}{ha} -> (¬{BT}{ha} v ¬{CF}{ha}) sent13: (Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent14: ¬{EU}{aa} -> (¬{GN}{aa} v ¬{A}{aa}) sent15: ¬{BH}{aj} -> (¬{AB}{aj} v ¬{B}{aj}) sent16: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent17: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) sent18: ¬{BB}{aa} -> (¬{IA}{aa} v ¬{FM}{aa}) sent19: (x): {CC}x -> (¬{I}x v ¬{JH}x) sent20: (x): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x)
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: if the leek does not necrose it is not an adversity and/or is not a sluicing.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
if that the federalist is not a kind of a Wernicke is not wrong then it is either not an adversity or not a Bronx or both.
|
¬{BO}{jc} -> (¬{AA}{jc} v ¬{G}{jc})
|
[
"sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 2 | 2 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if it does not necrose it is not an adversity and/or it is not a sluicing does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the leek is not a kind of a sluicing and/or does not rhyme if it is not a motherliness. sent2: there is something such that if it does not necrose then either it is a kind of an adversity or it is not a sluicing or both. sent3: the leek does not necrose and/or it is not a disguise if it is not leafless. sent4: if that something does not necrose is not false then it is not an adversity and/or does not sluice. sent5: there is something such that if it is not a rhymed it is not dissimilar or it is not a shedding or both. sent6: either something is not a kind of an adversity or it is not a Bronx or both if it is not a kind of a Wernicke. sent7: something is not a kind of an adversity or is a sluicing or both if it does not necrose. sent8: if the leek does not necrose that it is not a kind of an adversity and/or it is a sluicing is not incorrect. sent9: the leek is not an adversity or does not sluice or both if it necroses. sent10: that if something is not forte then it does not glower pixel and/or it does not glower leek is correct. sent11: if the leek does not necrose it is either an adversity or not a sluicing or both. sent12: that if the panel is not the wanderer the panel either is not a kind of a mullioned or does not gouge Leiopelmatidae or both is not false. sent13: there is something such that if that it necroses is true then either it is not an adversity or it is not a kind of a sluicing or both. sent14: if the leek is not insoluble then either it is not an auctioneer or it does not necrose or both. sent15: if that the lipstick is not few is right then it is not a sluicing and/or it is not a kind of a Lebanese. sent16: something that does not necrose is an adversity or is not a sluicing or both. sent17: there exists something such that if it does not necrose then it is either not an adversity or a sluicing or both. sent18: the leek does not gouge computer or is not bold or both if it does not glower Thysanocarpus. sent19: something either is not upper-class or is not a E-bomb or both if it is a friendship. sent20: something is not an adversity and/or does not sluice if it necroses. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> int1: if the leek does not necrose it is not an adversity and/or is not a sluicing.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the manglietia is a screening and/or does not glower Hillel is incorrect.
|
¬({C}{a} v ¬{B}{a})
|
sent1: if something that does not glower Hillel screens then it is not austenitic. sent2: if something suffocates but it is not neurotoxic it does not glower Hillel. sent3: if that the matai is not racial but it glowers manglietia is not true it is racial. sent4: the manglietia is not a screening. sent5: the wristwatch is not racial. sent6: the Tamale is not austenitic. sent7: if the Tamale does not glower Hillel then the fact that the manglietia does screen and/or it does not glower Hillel is wrong. sent8: the fact that the fact that the wristwatch is neurotoxic and does screen is wrong is not false if it is not racial. sent9: if the fact that that the matai does not glower Hillel and it is not austenitic is not wrong is wrong the manglietia is not austenitic. sent10: if something is racial it suffocates and it is not neurotoxic. sent11: the Tamale is a kind of a banyan. sent12: if the fact that the Tamale does not glower Hillel is not wrong then the manglietia does not screen. sent13: something is not a kind of a screening if the fact that it does not glower Hillel and it is austenitic hold.
|
sent1: (x): (¬{B}x & {C}x) -> ¬{AA}x sent2: (x): ({A}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{B}x sent3: ¬(¬{E}{b} & {F}{b}) -> {E}{b} sent4: ¬{C}{a} sent5: ¬{E}{e} sent6: ¬{AA}{aa} sent7: ¬{B}{aa} -> ¬({C}{a} v ¬{B}{a}) sent8: ¬{E}{e} -> ¬({D}{e} & {C}{e}) sent9: ¬(¬{B}{b} & ¬{AA}{b}) -> ¬{AA}{a} sent10: (x): {E}x -> ({A}x & ¬{D}x) sent11: {AB}{aa} sent12: ¬{B}{aa} -> ¬{C}{a} sent13: (x): (¬{B}x & {AA}x) -> ¬{C}x
|
[
"sent6 & sent11 -> int1: the Tamale is non-austenitic and is a banyan.;"
] |
[
"sent6 & sent11 -> int1: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa});"
] |
the manglietia is a kind of a screening and/or it does not glower Hillel.
|
({C}{a} v ¬{B}{a})
|
[
"sent2 -> int2: the matai does not glower Hillel if it suffocates and is non-neurotoxic.; sent10 -> int3: the matai does suffocate but it is not neurotoxic if that it is racial is not wrong.;"
] | 6 | 3 | null | 10 | 0 | 10 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the manglietia is a screening and/or does not glower Hillel is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if something that does not glower Hillel screens then it is not austenitic. sent2: if something suffocates but it is not neurotoxic it does not glower Hillel. sent3: if that the matai is not racial but it glowers manglietia is not true it is racial. sent4: the manglietia is not a screening. sent5: the wristwatch is not racial. sent6: the Tamale is not austenitic. sent7: if the Tamale does not glower Hillel then the fact that the manglietia does screen and/or it does not glower Hillel is wrong. sent8: the fact that the fact that the wristwatch is neurotoxic and does screen is wrong is not false if it is not racial. sent9: if the fact that that the matai does not glower Hillel and it is not austenitic is not wrong is wrong the manglietia is not austenitic. sent10: if something is racial it suffocates and it is not neurotoxic. sent11: the Tamale is a kind of a banyan. sent12: if the fact that the Tamale does not glower Hillel is not wrong then the manglietia does not screen. sent13: something is not a kind of a screening if the fact that it does not glower Hillel and it is austenitic hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 & sent11 -> int1: the Tamale is non-austenitic and is a banyan.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the giblet is a kind of a starlight hold.
|
{B}{a}
|
sent1: if the placeman is not a setting that that it is a kind of a milt and does debrief placeman is not wrong is not right. sent2: if something does not simulate but it does diminish giblet then it is not a kind of a starlight. sent3: the sorghum does not debrief placeman if the fact that the placeman is a milt and it does debrief placeman does not hold. sent4: if the giblet does not simulate and diminishes giblet it is not a starlight. sent5: the giblet does not debrief placeman. sent6: if something that does simulate does not diminish giblet then it is not a starlight. sent7: the quarter does not glower work-shirt if it does gouge booklet and it is not a lighting. sent8: The placeman does not debrief giblet. sent9: if something does not simulate and does not diminish giblet then it is not a starlight. sent10: the giblet does not simulate and it does not diminish giblet if it does not debrief placeman.
|
sent1: ¬{E}{c} -> ¬({D}{c} & {A}{c}) sent2: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent3: ¬({D}{c} & {A}{c}) -> ¬{A}{b} sent4: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent5: ¬{A}{a} sent6: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent7: ({DJ}{jb} & ¬{DU}{jb}) -> ¬{BB}{jb} sent8: ¬{AC}{aa} sent9: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent10: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})
|
[
"sent10 & sent5 -> int1: the giblet does not simulate and it does not diminish giblet.; sent9 -> int2: if the giblet does not simulate and does not diminish giblet then it is not a starlight.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent10 & sent5 -> int1: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); sent9 -> int2: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the giblet is a starlight.
|
{B}{a}
|
[] | 5 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the giblet is a kind of a starlight hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the placeman is not a setting that that it is a kind of a milt and does debrief placeman is not wrong is not right. sent2: if something does not simulate but it does diminish giblet then it is not a kind of a starlight. sent3: the sorghum does not debrief placeman if the fact that the placeman is a milt and it does debrief placeman does not hold. sent4: if the giblet does not simulate and diminishes giblet it is not a starlight. sent5: the giblet does not debrief placeman. sent6: if something that does simulate does not diminish giblet then it is not a starlight. sent7: the quarter does not glower work-shirt if it does gouge booklet and it is not a lighting. sent8: The placeman does not debrief giblet. sent9: if something does not simulate and does not diminish giblet then it is not a starlight. sent10: the giblet does not simulate and it does not diminish giblet if it does not debrief placeman. ; $proof$ =
|
sent10 & sent5 -> int1: the giblet does not simulate and it does not diminish giblet.; sent9 -> int2: if the giblet does not simulate and does not diminish giblet then it is not a starlight.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Blackshirt does not glower minicar.
|
¬{A}{aa}
|
sent1: everything is cyclic and not a acatalectic. sent2: something that is not a bride-gift resurrects and does not gouge Humperdinck. sent3: if something is not a criminalism then it is not non-multiphase and it does not glower minicar. sent4: the Blackshirt does not glower minicar if it is cyclic and it is not a acatalectic.
|
sent1: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent2: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({D}x & ¬{C}x) sent3: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({FS}x & ¬{A}x) sent4: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa}
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: the Blackshirt is cyclic thing that is not a acatalectic.; int1 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the BASIC is multiphase thing that does not glower minicar.
|
({FS}{fn} & ¬{A}{fn})
|
[
"sent3 -> int2: the BASIC is multiphase and does not glower minicar if it is not a criminalism.; sent2 -> int3: if the flooring is not a kind of a bride-gift it does resurrect and does not gouge Humperdinck.;"
] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the Blackshirt does not glower minicar. ; $context$ = sent1: everything is cyclic and not a acatalectic. sent2: something that is not a bride-gift resurrects and does not gouge Humperdinck. sent3: if something is not a criminalism then it is not non-multiphase and it does not glower minicar. sent4: the Blackshirt does not glower minicar if it is cyclic and it is not a acatalectic. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: the Blackshirt is cyclic thing that is not a acatalectic.; int1 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the niche is not Zairean.
|
¬{C}{a}
|
sent1: if the niche does not debrief Toxostoma it is Zairean. sent2: the forget-me-not does debrief Toxostoma. sent3: the niche is not Zairean if the fact that the cyberpunk debriefs Toxostoma and it crispens hold. sent4: if the fact that the fact that the niche debriefs Toxostoma and is not Deweyan is right does not hold then it does destain. sent5: if the fact that something debriefs Toxostoma but it does not crispen is false it is Zairean. sent6: the niche does crispen.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> {C}{a} sent2: {A}{jf} sent3: ({A}{b} & {B}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent4: ¬({A}{a} & ¬{R}{a}) -> {HI}{a} sent5: (x): ¬({A}x & ¬{B}x) -> {C}x sent6: {B}{a}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the niche debriefs Toxostoma but it does not crispen.; assump1 -> int1: the niche does not crispen.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: that that the niche does debrief Toxostoma but it does not crispen is not right hold.; sent5 -> int4: if the fact that the niche does debrief Toxostoma but it does not crispen is not right it is Zairean.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}); assump1 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; int1 & sent6 -> int2: #F#; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: ¬({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}); sent5 -> int4: ¬({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> {C}{a}; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the niche is not Zairean.
|
¬{C}{a}
|
[] | 5 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the niche is not Zairean. ; $context$ = sent1: if the niche does not debrief Toxostoma it is Zairean. sent2: the forget-me-not does debrief Toxostoma. sent3: the niche is not Zairean if the fact that the cyberpunk debriefs Toxostoma and it crispens hold. sent4: if the fact that the fact that the niche debriefs Toxostoma and is not Deweyan is right does not hold then it does destain. sent5: if the fact that something debriefs Toxostoma but it does not crispen is false it is Zairean. sent6: the niche does crispen. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the niche debriefs Toxostoma but it does not crispen.; assump1 -> int1: the niche does not crispen.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: that that the niche does debrief Toxostoma but it does not crispen is not right hold.; sent5 -> int4: if the fact that the niche does debrief Toxostoma but it does not crispen is not right it is Zairean.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there is something such that if it is not a CAD it is musculoskeletal is not right.
|
¬((Ex): ¬{B}x -> {C}x)
|
sent1: if the lochia is a kind of a CAD it is acrogenic. sent2: the lochia is musculoskeletal if it is not a Northampton. sent3: something does forward if it is tidy. sent4: the lochia is a teasel if it is not a CAD. sent5: if the lochia does not debrief Thorpe it is musculoskeletal. sent6: there exists something such that if it does not debrief ranger it is a vomer. sent7: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not decisive hold it is evitable. sent8: the kylix is a bristle if it is paranormal. sent9: the lochia is a balloonist if it is a John. sent10: the lochia is musculoskeletal if it is not a CAD. sent11: there exists something such that if it is a CAD then it is musculoskeletal. sent12: there is something such that if it is not untidy it does gouge SACEUR. sent13: if the lochia is musculoskeletal it is a kind of a Vespidae.
|
sent1: {B}{aa} -> {IC}{aa} sent2: ¬{AF}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent3: (x): ¬{DL}x -> {AN}x sent4: ¬{B}{aa} -> {HH}{aa} sent5: ¬{GL}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent6: (Ex): ¬{FH}x -> {JH}x sent7: (Ex): ¬{D}x -> {FT}x sent8: {IO}{gh} -> {EC}{gh} sent9: {IF}{aa} -> {J}{aa} sent10: ¬{B}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent11: (Ex): {B}x -> {C}x sent12: (Ex): ¬{DL}x -> {II}x sent13: {C}{aa} -> {FP}{aa}
|
[
"sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] |
if the trekker is not untidy it is forwarding.
|
¬{DL}{ek} -> {AN}{ek}
|
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if it is not a CAD it is musculoskeletal is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: if the lochia is a kind of a CAD it is acrogenic. sent2: the lochia is musculoskeletal if it is not a Northampton. sent3: something does forward if it is tidy. sent4: the lochia is a teasel if it is not a CAD. sent5: if the lochia does not debrief Thorpe it is musculoskeletal. sent6: there exists something such that if it does not debrief ranger it is a vomer. sent7: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not decisive hold it is evitable. sent8: the kylix is a bristle if it is paranormal. sent9: the lochia is a balloonist if it is a John. sent10: the lochia is musculoskeletal if it is not a CAD. sent11: there exists something such that if it is a CAD then it is musculoskeletal. sent12: there is something such that if it is not untidy it does gouge SACEUR. sent13: if the lochia is musculoskeletal it is a kind of a Vespidae. ; $proof$ =
|
sent10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the affiant is not unscholarly and does not injure is incorrect.
|
¬(¬{D}{d} & ¬{C}{d})
|
sent1: that the catchall does not glower saleratus is incorrect. sent2: if there exists something such that that it is coherent and glowers saleratus is not correct the catchall is xenogeneic. sent3: if the overgarment debriefs Curie the macintosh does injure. sent4: there exists something such that that it is unscholarly and it injures does not hold. sent5: if the macintosh does injure that the affiant is not unscholarly and injure is incorrect. sent6: the fact that the affiant is unscholarly but it does not injure is incorrect. sent7: if the grandson does surface then the macintosh surface. sent8: the macintosh is a kind of a Lorca. sent9: there is nothing such that it is a diflunisal and a distemper. sent10: the catchall does debrief Curie if there is something such that that it does injure and is xenogeneic is not right. sent11: the lawrencium is not a kind of a diflunisal if that it is a kind of a diflunisal that does distemper does not hold. sent12: if the macintosh is a kind of a surface then the overgarment imagines. sent13: the catchall is not xenogeneic if the overgarment does not clarion but it does debrief Curie. sent14: there is something such that the fact that it is coherent and does glower saleratus does not hold. sent15: the catchall injures. sent16: if that the macintosh injures is not incorrect then the fact that the affiant is unscholarly and does not injures is wrong. sent17: something is not a clarion and does debrief Curie if that it does imagine is not false. sent18: the fact that the catchall is non-xenogeneic thing that does not debrief Curie does not hold if the overgarment debrief Curie. sent19: something is coherent and glowers saleratus. sent20: if there exists something such that it does not glower saleratus the catchall is xenogeneic. sent21: that the affiant is a kind of non-unscholarly thing that injures does not hold. sent22: the macintosh is unscholarly. sent23: the oilcloth is unscholarly. sent24: that the overgarment does debrief Curie is true if the catchall is xenogeneic.
|
sent1: {AB}{a} sent2: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent3: {B}{b} -> {C}{c} sent4: (Ex): ¬({D}x & {C}x) sent5: {C}{c} -> ¬(¬{D}{d} & {C}{d}) sent6: ¬({D}{d} & ¬{C}{d}) sent7: {G}{e} -> {G}{c} sent8: {DM}{c} sent9: (x): ¬({H}x & {J}x) sent10: (x): ¬({C}x & {A}x) -> {B}{a} sent11: ¬({H}{f} & {J}{f}) -> ¬{H}{f} sent12: {G}{c} -> {F}{b} sent13: (¬{E}{b} & {B}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent14: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent15: {C}{a} sent16: {C}{c} -> ¬({D}{d} & ¬{C}{d}) sent17: (x): {F}x -> (¬{E}x & {B}x) sent18: {B}{b} -> ¬(¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent19: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent20: (x): ¬{AB}x -> {A}{a} sent21: ¬(¬{D}{d} & {C}{d}) sent22: {D}{c} sent23: {D}{fd} sent24: {A}{a} -> {B}{b}
|
[
"sent14 & sent2 -> int1: the catchall is xenogeneic.; sent24 & int1 -> int2: the overgarment does debrief Curie.; sent3 & int2 -> int3: the macintosh does injure.;"
] |
[
"sent14 & sent2 -> int1: {A}{a}; sent24 & int1 -> int2: {B}{b}; sent3 & int2 -> int3: {C}{c};"
] |
the affiant is not unscholarly and it does not injure.
|
(¬{D}{d} & ¬{C}{d})
|
[
"sent17 -> int4: if the overgarment imagines then it is not a kind of a clarion and debriefs Curie.; sent9 -> int5: that the lawrencium is a diflunisal and it is a distemper is wrong.; sent11 & int5 -> int6: the lawrencium is not a diflunisal.; int6 -> int7: there exists something such that it is not a diflunisal.;"
] | 10 | 4 | null | 20 | 0 | 20 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the affiant is not unscholarly and does not injure is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: that the catchall does not glower saleratus is incorrect. sent2: if there exists something such that that it is coherent and glowers saleratus is not correct the catchall is xenogeneic. sent3: if the overgarment debriefs Curie the macintosh does injure. sent4: there exists something such that that it is unscholarly and it injures does not hold. sent5: if the macintosh does injure that the affiant is not unscholarly and injure is incorrect. sent6: the fact that the affiant is unscholarly but it does not injure is incorrect. sent7: if the grandson does surface then the macintosh surface. sent8: the macintosh is a kind of a Lorca. sent9: there is nothing such that it is a diflunisal and a distemper. sent10: the catchall does debrief Curie if there is something such that that it does injure and is xenogeneic is not right. sent11: the lawrencium is not a kind of a diflunisal if that it is a kind of a diflunisal that does distemper does not hold. sent12: if the macintosh is a kind of a surface then the overgarment imagines. sent13: the catchall is not xenogeneic if the overgarment does not clarion but it does debrief Curie. sent14: there is something such that the fact that it is coherent and does glower saleratus does not hold. sent15: the catchall injures. sent16: if that the macintosh injures is not incorrect then the fact that the affiant is unscholarly and does not injures is wrong. sent17: something is not a clarion and does debrief Curie if that it does imagine is not false. sent18: the fact that the catchall is non-xenogeneic thing that does not debrief Curie does not hold if the overgarment debrief Curie. sent19: something is coherent and glowers saleratus. sent20: if there exists something such that it does not glower saleratus the catchall is xenogeneic. sent21: that the affiant is a kind of non-unscholarly thing that injures does not hold. sent22: the macintosh is unscholarly. sent23: the oilcloth is unscholarly. sent24: that the overgarment does debrief Curie is true if the catchall is xenogeneic. ; $proof$ =
|
sent14 & sent2 -> int1: the catchall is xenogeneic.; sent24 & int1 -> int2: the overgarment does debrief Curie.; sent3 & int2 -> int3: the macintosh does injure.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the telling does not occur.
|
¬{C}
|
sent1: that the hurrah does not occur and the emission does not occur does not hold if that the telling does not occur hold. sent2: the fact that that the isolation but not the debriefing tenth happens hold does not hold if the hinging occurs. sent3: if the isolation occurs then that the debriefing tenth does not occur is not false. sent4: the telling occurs if the fact that the hurrah but not the emission happens is false. sent5: the emission occurs. sent6: the isolation happens if the fact that the campaigning does not occur and the hinge does not occur is false. sent7: the telling does not occur if the fact that the isolation occurs and the debriefing tenth does not occur is incorrect. sent8: the basicsness does not occur if the fact that the hurrah does not occur and the emission does not occur does not hold. sent9: that the telling happens is brought about by that the hurrahing does not occur. sent10: that the hurrah does not occur and the emission does not occur is not true if the debriefing tenth does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{A} & ¬{B}) sent2: {F} -> ¬({E} & ¬{D}) sent3: {E} -> ¬{D} sent4: ¬({A} & ¬{B}) -> {C} sent5: {B} sent6: ¬(¬{G} & ¬{F}) -> {E} sent7: ¬({E} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{C} sent8: ¬(¬{A} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{BQ} sent9: ¬{A} -> {C} sent10: ¬{D} -> ¬(¬{A} & ¬{B})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the hurrah happens but the emission does not occur.; assump1 -> int1: the emission does not occur.; sent5 & int1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the hurrahing occurs but the emission does not occur is wrong.; sent4 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ({A} & ¬{B}); assump1 -> int1: ¬{B}; sent5 & int1 -> int2: #F#; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: ¬({A} & ¬{B}); sent4 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the basics does not occur.
|
¬{BQ}
|
[] | 9 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the telling does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the hurrah does not occur and the emission does not occur does not hold if that the telling does not occur hold. sent2: the fact that that the isolation but not the debriefing tenth happens hold does not hold if the hinging occurs. sent3: if the isolation occurs then that the debriefing tenth does not occur is not false. sent4: the telling occurs if the fact that the hurrah but not the emission happens is false. sent5: the emission occurs. sent6: the isolation happens if the fact that the campaigning does not occur and the hinge does not occur is false. sent7: the telling does not occur if the fact that the isolation occurs and the debriefing tenth does not occur is incorrect. sent8: the basicsness does not occur if the fact that the hurrah does not occur and the emission does not occur does not hold. sent9: that the telling happens is brought about by that the hurrahing does not occur. sent10: that the hurrah does not occur and the emission does not occur is not true if the debriefing tenth does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the hurrah happens but the emission does not occur.; assump1 -> int1: the emission does not occur.; sent5 & int1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the hurrahing occurs but the emission does not occur is wrong.; sent4 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the legs either is a kind of a nativist or fills or both.
|
({C}{c} v {E}{c})
|
sent1: the legs gouges phosphine. sent2: if that that something is hematologic thing that is vulpine hold does not hold it is not hematologic. sent3: that something does not glower Braun if the fact that it does glower Braun and it is hematologic is not true is right. sent4: if something does not gouge penne then that it is a nativist and/or does fill is wrong. sent5: the reluctance does fill. sent6: if the reluctance gouges penne the weakener is not nativist. sent7: that the bartender is hematologic and is vulpine is false if something is not a portrayal. sent8: The penne does gouge weakener. sent9: either the legs is a nativist or it does glower Braun or both. sent10: the seasnail is not a kind of an interim if the museum is both not a tramontane and not an interim. sent11: the weakener does gouge penne. sent12: that the reluctance diminishes father-in-law and/or gouges penne is incorrect if the phosphine does not glower Braun. sent13: the yellowfin is not a portrayal if the seasnail does gouge rubicelle and it is a citron. sent14: that the weakener does glower Braun hold if it gouges penne. sent15: the weakener does not gouge penne if the fact that the reluctance does diminish father-in-law or it gouge penne or both is not correct. sent16: the seasnail gouges rubicelle. sent17: if something is not an interim it is a citron and a kilometer. sent18: the museum is not an imperialism. sent19: the fact that if the weakener glowers Braun that the reluctance is not nativist is not wrong is true. sent20: if the reluctance is not hematologic then it does glower Braun and it does not diminish father-in-law. sent21: if the fact that the weakener does not gouge penne hold then the legs does gouge penne and/or does fill. sent22: the museum is not a tramontane and not an interim if it is not an imperialism. sent23: the Southerner is cognitive and/or it does glower Braun. sent24: the legs is a nativist and/or it does fill if the reluctance is not a kind of a nativist. sent25: that either the legs is nativist or it is a fill or both does not hold if the weakener does not gouge penne.
|
sent1: {EO}{c} sent2: (x): ¬({F}x & {G}x) -> ¬{F}x sent3: (x): ¬({B}x & {F}x) -> ¬{B}x sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({C}x v {E}x) sent5: {E}{b} sent6: {A}{b} -> ¬{C}{a} sent7: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬({F}{e} & {G}{e}) sent8: {AA}{aa} sent9: ({C}{c} v {B}{c}) sent10: (¬{M}{h} & ¬{L}{h}) -> ¬{L}{g} sent11: {A}{a} sent12: ¬{B}{d} -> ¬({D}{b} v {A}{b}) sent13: ({J}{g} & {I}{g}) -> ¬{H}{f} sent14: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent15: ¬({D}{b} v {A}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent16: {J}{g} sent17: (x): ¬{L}x -> ({I}x & {K}x) sent18: ¬{N}{h} sent19: {B}{a} -> ¬{C}{b} sent20: ¬{F}{b} -> ({B}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent21: ¬{A}{a} -> ({A}{c} v {E}{c}) sent22: ¬{N}{h} -> (¬{M}{h} & ¬{L}{h}) sent23: ({CJ}{ek} v {B}{ek}) sent24: ¬{C}{b} -> ({C}{c} v {E}{c}) sent25: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({C}{c} v {E}{c})
|
[
"sent14 & sent11 -> int1: the weakener does glower Braun.; sent19 & int1 -> int2: the reluctance is not a nativist.; sent24 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent14 & sent11 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent19 & int1 -> int2: ¬{C}{b}; sent24 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the legs is nativist and/or it is a fill is not true.
|
¬({C}{c} v {E}{c})
|
[
"sent4 -> int3: if the legs does not gouge penne the fact that it either is a nativist or is a fill or both does not hold.;"
] | 4 | 3 | 3 | 21 | 0 | 21 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the legs either is a kind of a nativist or fills or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the legs gouges phosphine. sent2: if that that something is hematologic thing that is vulpine hold does not hold it is not hematologic. sent3: that something does not glower Braun if the fact that it does glower Braun and it is hematologic is not true is right. sent4: if something does not gouge penne then that it is a nativist and/or does fill is wrong. sent5: the reluctance does fill. sent6: if the reluctance gouges penne the weakener is not nativist. sent7: that the bartender is hematologic and is vulpine is false if something is not a portrayal. sent8: The penne does gouge weakener. sent9: either the legs is a nativist or it does glower Braun or both. sent10: the seasnail is not a kind of an interim if the museum is both not a tramontane and not an interim. sent11: the weakener does gouge penne. sent12: that the reluctance diminishes father-in-law and/or gouges penne is incorrect if the phosphine does not glower Braun. sent13: the yellowfin is not a portrayal if the seasnail does gouge rubicelle and it is a citron. sent14: that the weakener does glower Braun hold if it gouges penne. sent15: the weakener does not gouge penne if the fact that the reluctance does diminish father-in-law or it gouge penne or both is not correct. sent16: the seasnail gouges rubicelle. sent17: if something is not an interim it is a citron and a kilometer. sent18: the museum is not an imperialism. sent19: the fact that if the weakener glowers Braun that the reluctance is not nativist is not wrong is true. sent20: if the reluctance is not hematologic then it does glower Braun and it does not diminish father-in-law. sent21: if the fact that the weakener does not gouge penne hold then the legs does gouge penne and/or does fill. sent22: the museum is not a tramontane and not an interim if it is not an imperialism. sent23: the Southerner is cognitive and/or it does glower Braun. sent24: the legs is a nativist and/or it does fill if the reluctance is not a kind of a nativist. sent25: that either the legs is nativist or it is a fill or both does not hold if the weakener does not gouge penne. ; $proof$ =
|
sent14 & sent11 -> int1: the weakener does glower Braun.; sent19 & int1 -> int2: the reluctance is not a nativist.; sent24 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the thiobacillus is not a kind of a fencing.
|
¬{B}{c}
|
sent1: the LGB is a kind of a OD if the wits does debrief anorchism. sent2: the flannelbush is not paroxysmal. sent3: the thiobacillus is paroxysmal if the flannelbush is a OD. sent4: the LGB is a Cavendish and/or it is not nonrepresentational if the fact that the flannelbush is non-paroxysmal hold. sent5: the thiobacillus is a fencing if the LGB is not nonrepresentational. sent6: if something is not onomatopoeic it debriefs anorchism and it is a sand. sent7: if the LGB is a OD then the flannelbush is a OD. sent8: if the LGB is a Cavendish then the thiobacillus is a fencing. sent9: the fact that something is not onomatopoeic if the fact that it is not cryogenic and it is onomatopoeic does not hold is right. sent10: if something is paroxysmal it is not a kind of a fencing.
|
sent1: {D}{d} -> {C}{b} sent2: ¬{A}{a} sent3: {C}{a} -> {A}{c} sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{b} v ¬{AB}{b}) sent5: ¬{AB}{b} -> {B}{c} sent6: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({D}x & {E}x) sent7: {C}{b} -> {C}{a} sent8: {AA}{b} -> {B}{c} sent9: (x): ¬(¬{H}x & {F}x) -> ¬{F}x sent10: (x): {A}x -> ¬{B}x
|
[
"sent4 & sent2 -> int1: either the LGB is a Cavendish or it is not nonrepresentational or both.; int1 & sent8 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 & sent2 -> int1: ({AA}{b} v ¬{AB}{b}); int1 & sent8 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the thiobacillus does not fence.
|
¬{B}{c}
|
[
"sent10 -> int2: the thiobacillus does not fence if it is paroxysmal.; sent6 -> int3: if the wits is not onomatopoeic then it debriefs anorchism and it is a sand.; sent9 -> int4: if the fact that the wits is not cryogenic but it is onomatopoeic is incorrect then that it is not onomatopoeic is not incorrect.;"
] | 8 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 6 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the thiobacillus is not a kind of a fencing. ; $context$ = sent1: the LGB is a kind of a OD if the wits does debrief anorchism. sent2: the flannelbush is not paroxysmal. sent3: the thiobacillus is paroxysmal if the flannelbush is a OD. sent4: the LGB is a Cavendish and/or it is not nonrepresentational if the fact that the flannelbush is non-paroxysmal hold. sent5: the thiobacillus is a fencing if the LGB is not nonrepresentational. sent6: if something is not onomatopoeic it debriefs anorchism and it is a sand. sent7: if the LGB is a OD then the flannelbush is a OD. sent8: if the LGB is a Cavendish then the thiobacillus is a fencing. sent9: the fact that something is not onomatopoeic if the fact that it is not cryogenic and it is onomatopoeic does not hold is right. sent10: if something is paroxysmal it is not a kind of a fencing. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 & sent2 -> int1: either the LGB is a Cavendish or it is not nonrepresentational or both.; int1 & sent8 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the Contras does denature and it is a haziness is not correct.
|
¬({B}{b} & {C}{b})
|
sent1: if the crocodile is not carcinomatous the Contras denatures. sent2: the crocodile is non-carcinomatous. sent3: the Contras is a haziness.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent2: ¬{A}{a} sent3: {C}{b}
|
[
"sent1 & sent2 -> int1: the Contras does denature.; int1 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 & sent2 -> int1: {B}{b}; int1 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the Contras does denature and it is a haziness is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the crocodile is not carcinomatous the Contras denatures. sent2: the crocodile is non-carcinomatous. sent3: the Contras is a haziness. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 & sent2 -> int1: the Contras does denature.; int1 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if that it is non-seminal and it is not a Town is false then it is a string.
|
(Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x
|
sent1: there exists something such that if it does not diminish treehopper and it is not tensile then it is curtainless. sent2: there exists something such that if that it is a kind of a anteroom and is not psychiatric is not correct it glowers cannonball. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not a misogamy and it does not applaud the fact that it does debrief demonstrator is true. sent4: there is something such that if it debriefs padding then it does diffract. sent5: the trekker is impalpable if the fact that it is implicational and it is not a shank is incorrect. sent6: if the fact that the trekker is not seminal and it is not a kind of a Town is incorrect it strings. sent7: the fact that the automation is a lobectomy is right if it is low-interest. sent8: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a shank and it does not glower badinage it is caloric. sent9: there exists something such that if it is a shmegegge then it is a TELINT. sent10: there exists something such that if that it is not a kind of a cetrimide and it does not gouge cabinetmaker does not hold then it is angry. sent11: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a shank and is not a Chickasaw does not hold it glowers bleacher. sent12: there is something such that if it is a Town then it is a string.
|
sent1: (Ex): (¬{DA}x & ¬{DP}x) -> {GJ}x sent2: (Ex): ¬({BG}x & ¬{HI}x) -> {EG}x sent3: (Ex): (¬{EL}x & ¬{GD}x) -> {FE}x sent4: (Ex): {CN}x -> {CT}x sent5: ¬({GI}{aa} & ¬{E}{aa}) -> {FK}{aa} sent6: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent7: {DJ}{ec} -> {BL}{ec} sent8: (Ex): (¬{E}x & ¬{DF}x) -> {EO}x sent9: (Ex): {CP}x -> {DC}x sent10: (Ex): ¬(¬{HN}x & ¬{FL}x) -> {BU}x sent11: (Ex): ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{K}x) -> {ER}x sent12: (Ex): {AB}x -> {B}x
|
[
"sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if that it is non-seminal and it is not a Town is false then it is a string. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it does not diminish treehopper and it is not tensile then it is curtainless. sent2: there exists something such that if that it is a kind of a anteroom and is not psychiatric is not correct it glowers cannonball. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not a misogamy and it does not applaud the fact that it does debrief demonstrator is true. sent4: there is something such that if it debriefs padding then it does diffract. sent5: the trekker is impalpable if the fact that it is implicational and it is not a shank is incorrect. sent6: if the fact that the trekker is not seminal and it is not a kind of a Town is incorrect it strings. sent7: the fact that the automation is a lobectomy is right if it is low-interest. sent8: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a shank and it does not glower badinage it is caloric. sent9: there exists something such that if it is a shmegegge then it is a TELINT. sent10: there exists something such that if that it is not a kind of a cetrimide and it does not gouge cabinetmaker does not hold then it is angry. sent11: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a shank and is not a Chickasaw does not hold it glowers bleacher. sent12: there is something such that if it is a Town then it is a string. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the aftermath does not occur if the gouging basketball happens.
|
{B} -> ¬{C}
|
sent1: that the nonfunctionalness does not occur is brought about by that the undynamicness does not occur and the drug happens. sent2: if the temporalness does not occur and the gouging basketball occurs then the aftermath occurs. sent3: the aftermath happens. sent4: if the gouging basketball happens then the aftermath happens. sent5: the birling happens. sent6: not the glowering Anomia but the PIN happens. sent7: the fracture does not occur. sent8: the detonation does not occur but the intraventricularness happens. sent9: the debriefing Bundesbank does not occur. sent10: the glance does not occur. sent11: the fluctuating does not occur. sent12: not the swabbing but the deviltry occurs. sent13: the choleraicness does not occur. sent14: the fact that the miracle occurs hold. sent15: that the nonrepresentationalness does not occur and the readjustment occurs results in that the catching does not occur. sent16: the mayhem does not occur and the pastorship occurs. sent17: the official does not occur if the fact that the glowering Anomia occurs hold. sent18: that the temporal does not occur but the gouging basketball occurs prevents the aftermath. sent19: the unclearness occurs.
|
sent1: (¬{BK} & {EU}) -> ¬{IA} sent2: (¬{A} & {B}) -> {C} sent3: {C} sent4: {B} -> {C} sent5: {P} sent6: (¬{CK} & {CL}) sent7: ¬{IT} sent8: (¬{GC} & {FN}) sent9: ¬{IM} sent10: ¬{EC} sent11: ¬{IH} sent12: (¬{BH} & {DD}) sent13: ¬{BB} sent14: {IO} sent15: (¬{DH} & {IR}) -> ¬{E} sent16: (¬{EB} & {DN}) sent17: {CK} -> ¬{GH} sent18: (¬{A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent19: {HF}
|
[] |
[] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | null | 18 | 0 | 18 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the aftermath does not occur if the gouging basketball happens. ; $context$ = sent1: that the nonfunctionalness does not occur is brought about by that the undynamicness does not occur and the drug happens. sent2: if the temporalness does not occur and the gouging basketball occurs then the aftermath occurs. sent3: the aftermath happens. sent4: if the gouging basketball happens then the aftermath happens. sent5: the birling happens. sent6: not the glowering Anomia but the PIN happens. sent7: the fracture does not occur. sent8: the detonation does not occur but the intraventricularness happens. sent9: the debriefing Bundesbank does not occur. sent10: the glance does not occur. sent11: the fluctuating does not occur. sent12: not the swabbing but the deviltry occurs. sent13: the choleraicness does not occur. sent14: the fact that the miracle occurs hold. sent15: that the nonrepresentationalness does not occur and the readjustment occurs results in that the catching does not occur. sent16: the mayhem does not occur and the pastorship occurs. sent17: the official does not occur if the fact that the glowering Anomia occurs hold. sent18: that the temporal does not occur but the gouging basketball occurs prevents the aftermath. sent19: the unclearness occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the ohmage and the spying occurs.
|
({B} & {C})
|
sent1: if the ohmage does not occur then that the glowering Alexandrine does not occur and the glowering macaw does not occur does not hold. sent2: the fact that the glowering macaw occurs is right. sent3: the climaticness happens. sent4: if the glowering macaw does not occur then the fact that the ohmage occurs and the spying occurs is incorrect. sent5: the spying occurs. sent6: if that the glowering Alexandrine does not occur and the glowering macaw does not occur is incorrect the glowering Alexandrine occurs. sent7: that both the glowering macaw and the ohmage occurs is correct.
|
sent1: ¬{B} -> ¬(¬{DJ} & ¬{A}) sent2: {A} sent3: {GL} sent4: ¬{A} -> ¬({B} & {C}) sent5: {C} sent6: ¬(¬{DJ} & ¬{A}) -> {DJ} sent7: ({A} & {B})
|
[
"sent7 -> int1: the ohmage occurs.; int1 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent7 -> int1: {B}; int1 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the glowering Alexandrine happens.
|
{DJ}
|
[] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the ohmage and the spying occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the ohmage does not occur then that the glowering Alexandrine does not occur and the glowering macaw does not occur does not hold. sent2: the fact that the glowering macaw occurs is right. sent3: the climaticness happens. sent4: if the glowering macaw does not occur then the fact that the ohmage occurs and the spying occurs is incorrect. sent5: the spying occurs. sent6: if that the glowering Alexandrine does not occur and the glowering macaw does not occur is incorrect the glowering Alexandrine occurs. sent7: that both the glowering macaw and the ohmage occurs is correct. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 -> int1: the ohmage occurs.; int1 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the taproot is a kind of an insolvency and it does glower Charlotte is wrong.
|
¬({A}{a} & {C}{a})
|
sent1: the taproot is not a skepful if it does gouge untrustworthiness. sent2: if the afterbirth diminishes sperm then that the candlestick is both not a riffle and unacquisitive does not hold. sent3: the repressor glowers filaggrin and does gouge Savara. sent4: if the taproot does gouge untrustworthiness or is not a vomer or both it is not a skepful. sent5: something does glower Charlotte if it does not glower filaggrin. sent6: if the repressor does glower filaggrin and does gouge Savara that the taproot does not glower filaggrin is not incorrect. sent7: the afterbirth diminishes sperm. sent8: if something is not a skepful then it is a kind of an insolvency. sent9: the repressor does glower filaggrin if it is hydroxy. sent10: the taproot is both an insolvency and not a skepful if the repressor does not glower Charlotte. sent11: if that something is both not a riffle and unacquisitive is not true it does not gouge Savara. sent12: if there is something such that the fact that it does not gouge Savara is not false then the fact that the canyon is a kind of hydroxy thing that does glower Charlotte does not hold. sent13: the taproot does gouge untrustworthiness and/or it is not a kind of a vomer.
|
sent1: {AA}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent2: {I}{e} -> ¬(¬{H}{d} & {G}{d}) sent3: ({D}{b} & {F}{b}) sent4: ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent5: (x): ¬{D}x -> {C}x sent6: ({D}{b} & {F}{b}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent7: {I}{e} sent8: (x): ¬{B}x -> {A}x sent9: {E}{b} -> {D}{b} sent10: ¬{C}{b} -> ({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent11: (x): ¬(¬{H}x & {G}x) -> ¬{F}x sent12: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬({E}{c} & {C}{c}) sent13: ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a})
|
[
"sent4 & sent13 -> int1: the taproot is not a skepful.; sent8 -> int2: if the taproot is not a skepful it is an insolvency.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the taproot is an insolvency.; sent5 -> int4: if the taproot does not glower filaggrin it glowers Charlotte.; sent6 & sent3 -> int5: the taproot does not glower filaggrin.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the taproot glowers Charlotte.; int3 & int6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 & sent13 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; sent8 -> int2: ¬{B}{a} -> {A}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {A}{a}; sent5 -> int4: ¬{D}{a} -> {C}{a}; sent6 & sent3 -> int5: ¬{D}{a}; int4 & int5 -> int6: {C}{a}; int3 & int6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the kiaat does not glower filaggrin.
|
¬{D}{bj}
|
[
"sent11 -> int7: if the fact that the candlestick does not riffle but it is unacquisitive is not correct then it does not gouge Savara.; sent2 & sent7 -> int8: the fact that the candlestick is not a riffle and is unacquisitive is false.; int7 & int8 -> int9: the candlestick does not gouge Savara.; int9 -> int10: something does not gouge Savara.; int10 & sent12 -> int11: the fact that that the canyon is not non-hydroxy and glowers Charlotte is incorrect is not wrong.; int11 -> int12: there exists something such that the fact that it is hydroxy and it glowers Charlotte does not hold.;"
] | 9 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the taproot is a kind of an insolvency and it does glower Charlotte is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the taproot is not a skepful if it does gouge untrustworthiness. sent2: if the afterbirth diminishes sperm then that the candlestick is both not a riffle and unacquisitive does not hold. sent3: the repressor glowers filaggrin and does gouge Savara. sent4: if the taproot does gouge untrustworthiness or is not a vomer or both it is not a skepful. sent5: something does glower Charlotte if it does not glower filaggrin. sent6: if the repressor does glower filaggrin and does gouge Savara that the taproot does not glower filaggrin is not incorrect. sent7: the afterbirth diminishes sperm. sent8: if something is not a skepful then it is a kind of an insolvency. sent9: the repressor does glower filaggrin if it is hydroxy. sent10: the taproot is both an insolvency and not a skepful if the repressor does not glower Charlotte. sent11: if that something is both not a riffle and unacquisitive is not true it does not gouge Savara. sent12: if there is something such that the fact that it does not gouge Savara is not false then the fact that the canyon is a kind of hydroxy thing that does glower Charlotte does not hold. sent13: the taproot does gouge untrustworthiness and/or it is not a kind of a vomer. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 & sent13 -> int1: the taproot is not a skepful.; sent8 -> int2: if the taproot is not a skepful it is an insolvency.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the taproot is an insolvency.; sent5 -> int4: if the taproot does not glower filaggrin it glowers Charlotte.; sent6 & sent3 -> int5: the taproot does not glower filaggrin.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the taproot glowers Charlotte.; int3 & int6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
both the gouging azimuth and the rite occurs.
|
({C} & {A})
|
sent1: if the ducking does not occur the gouging clothespress does not occur. sent2: not the gouging rondo but the gouging azimuth occurs if the two-dimensionalness does not occur. sent3: the debriefing freewheeling does not occur and the nonfatalness happens. sent4: the Caliphate does not occur if the fact that the generalship occurs and the acupressure occurs is wrong. sent5: that the cytokineticness happens prevents that the bailing does not occur. sent6: the fact that the gouging rondo does not occur hold. sent7: the fact that the plopping happens and the cytokineticness does not occur is not true. sent8: the bailing happens if that the plop happens and the cytokineticness does not occur does not hold. sent9: that both the mortalness and the non-unscholarliness happens does not hold if the rite does not occur. sent10: the devoting happens. sent11: the seclusion does not occur. sent12: the impureness yields that the non-two-dimensionalness and the non-melodicness occurs. sent13: the gouging rondo does not occur if the two-dimensionalness does not occur and the melodicness does not occur. sent14: the debriefing Jay does not occur. sent15: that not the ingress but the diminishing airway happens is brought about by that the Caliphate does not occur. sent16: the debriefing cut-in occurs and the impureness happens if the ingress does not occur. sent17: the fact that if the emoting does not occur then that that the generalship happens and the acupressure happens is true is incorrect is not wrong. sent18: the plusness does not occur. sent19: if the gouging rondo does not occur then that the fact that the gouging azimuth does not occur and the bailing does not occur is true is not true. sent20: if the bail happens then the rite occurs.
|
sent1: ¬{AU} -> ¬{BJ} sent2: ¬{E} -> (¬{D} & {C}) sent3: (¬{DO} & {HD}) sent4: ¬({L} & {M}) -> ¬{K} sent5: {AB} -> {B} sent6: ¬{D} sent7: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent8: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent9: ¬{A} -> ¬({AK} & ¬{HJ}) sent10: {HI} sent11: ¬{BB} sent12: {G} -> (¬{E} & ¬{F}) sent13: (¬{E} & ¬{F}) -> ¬{D} sent14: ¬{JF} sent15: ¬{K} -> (¬{I} & {J}) sent16: ¬{I} -> ({H} & {G}) sent17: ¬{N} -> ¬({L} & {M}) sent18: ¬{EH} sent19: ¬{D} -> ¬(¬{C} & ¬{B}) sent20: {B} -> {A}
|
[
"sent8 & sent7 -> int1: the bailing happens.; int1 & sent20 -> int2: the rite happens.;"
] |
[
"sent8 & sent7 -> int1: {B}; int1 & sent20 -> int2: {A};"
] |
the fact that the mortalness and the non-unscholarliness occurs is not true.
|
¬({AK} & ¬{HJ})
|
[] | 13 | 3 | null | 16 | 0 | 16 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = both the gouging azimuth and the rite occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the ducking does not occur the gouging clothespress does not occur. sent2: not the gouging rondo but the gouging azimuth occurs if the two-dimensionalness does not occur. sent3: the debriefing freewheeling does not occur and the nonfatalness happens. sent4: the Caliphate does not occur if the fact that the generalship occurs and the acupressure occurs is wrong. sent5: that the cytokineticness happens prevents that the bailing does not occur. sent6: the fact that the gouging rondo does not occur hold. sent7: the fact that the plopping happens and the cytokineticness does not occur is not true. sent8: the bailing happens if that the plop happens and the cytokineticness does not occur does not hold. sent9: that both the mortalness and the non-unscholarliness happens does not hold if the rite does not occur. sent10: the devoting happens. sent11: the seclusion does not occur. sent12: the impureness yields that the non-two-dimensionalness and the non-melodicness occurs. sent13: the gouging rondo does not occur if the two-dimensionalness does not occur and the melodicness does not occur. sent14: the debriefing Jay does not occur. sent15: that not the ingress but the diminishing airway happens is brought about by that the Caliphate does not occur. sent16: the debriefing cut-in occurs and the impureness happens if the ingress does not occur. sent17: the fact that if the emoting does not occur then that that the generalship happens and the acupressure happens is true is incorrect is not wrong. sent18: the plusness does not occur. sent19: if the gouging rondo does not occur then that the fact that the gouging azimuth does not occur and the bailing does not occur is true is not true. sent20: if the bail happens then the rite occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 & sent7 -> int1: the bailing happens.; int1 & sent20 -> int2: the rite happens.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if it is not reptilian then it is a kind of a Orontium.
|
(Ex): ¬{B}x -> {C}x
|
sent1: if the butcherbird is not reptilian then it is a Orontium. sent2: there exists something such that if it is not a Lublin then it debriefs Cardium. sent3: the butcherbird is a kind of a Kenyan if it is not allomerous. sent4: the friction is reptilian if that it is not a promising is not incorrect. sent5: there is something such that if it is reptilian then that it is a Orontium hold. sent6: something debriefs Pomolobus if it is not ionic. sent7: the butcherbird is a Orontium if it is reptilian.
|
sent1: ¬{B}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent2: (Ex): ¬{EO}x -> {GL}x sent3: ¬{IP}{aa} -> {IG}{aa} sent4: ¬{FG}{ba} -> {B}{ba} sent5: (Ex): {B}x -> {C}x sent6: (x): ¬{FB}x -> {JC}x sent7: {B}{aa} -> {C}{aa}
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
if the butcherbird is not ionic it does debrief Pomolobus.
|
¬{FB}{aa} -> {JC}{aa}
|
[
"sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 6 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is not reptilian then it is a kind of a Orontium. ; $context$ = sent1: if the butcherbird is not reptilian then it is a Orontium. sent2: there exists something such that if it is not a Lublin then it debriefs Cardium. sent3: the butcherbird is a kind of a Kenyan if it is not allomerous. sent4: the friction is reptilian if that it is not a promising is not incorrect. sent5: there is something such that if it is reptilian then that it is a Orontium hold. sent6: something debriefs Pomolobus if it is not ionic. sent7: the butcherbird is a Orontium if it is reptilian. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the uncommonness does not occur is correct.
|
¬{F}
|
sent1: if the gravitating does not occur the fact that either the opinion does not occur or the glowering card happens or both is not correct. sent2: if the opinion does not occur then the gravitating and the gouging Sauterne occurs. sent3: the gouging epicycle does not occur. sent4: if the cartooning occurs then the opinion does not occur and the glowering card does not occur. sent5: that the tragicness does not occur is correct. sent6: the gouging Sauterne results in that the uncommonness but not the gouging epicycle occurs. sent7: the opinion occurs. sent8: the port does not occur. sent9: that if the fact that the opinion does not occur and/or the glowering card happens is not correct then that the uncommonness does not occur is not incorrect hold. sent10: the gouging Hearst does not occur. sent11: the infliction does not occur but the micaceousness happens if the Orion occurs. sent12: that the gouging Sauterne does not occur hold. sent13: if the fact that the opinion happens and/or the glowering card happens is not true then the uncommonness does not occur. sent14: that the sculpture happens and the cartoon occurs is right if the infliction does not occur. sent15: that the grounds does not occur brings about that the glowering Proterozoic does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{D} v {E}) sent2: ¬{D} -> ({C} & {B}) sent3: ¬{A} sent4: {G} -> (¬{D} & ¬{E}) sent5: ¬{EA} sent6: {B} -> ({F} & ¬{A}) sent7: {D} sent8: ¬{HP} sent9: ¬(¬{D} v {E}) -> ¬{F} sent10: ¬{HL} sent11: {K} -> (¬{I} & {J}) sent12: ¬{B} sent13: ¬({D} v {E}) -> ¬{F} sent14: ¬{I} -> ({H} & {G}) sent15: ¬{BK} -> ¬{EN}
|
[
"sent3 & sent12 -> int1: the gouging epicycle does not occur and the gouging Sauterne does not occur.;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent12 -> int1: (¬{A} & ¬{B});"
] |
the uncommonness happens.
|
{F}
|
[] | 10 | 4 | null | 11 | 0 | 11 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the uncommonness does not occur is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the gravitating does not occur the fact that either the opinion does not occur or the glowering card happens or both is not correct. sent2: if the opinion does not occur then the gravitating and the gouging Sauterne occurs. sent3: the gouging epicycle does not occur. sent4: if the cartooning occurs then the opinion does not occur and the glowering card does not occur. sent5: that the tragicness does not occur is correct. sent6: the gouging Sauterne results in that the uncommonness but not the gouging epicycle occurs. sent7: the opinion occurs. sent8: the port does not occur. sent9: that if the fact that the opinion does not occur and/or the glowering card happens is not correct then that the uncommonness does not occur is not incorrect hold. sent10: the gouging Hearst does not occur. sent11: the infliction does not occur but the micaceousness happens if the Orion occurs. sent12: that the gouging Sauterne does not occur hold. sent13: if the fact that the opinion happens and/or the glowering card happens is not true then the uncommonness does not occur. sent14: that the sculpture happens and the cartoon occurs is right if the infliction does not occur. sent15: that the grounds does not occur brings about that the glowering Proterozoic does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent12 -> int1: the gouging epicycle does not occur and the gouging Sauterne does not occur.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that it is unofficial.
|
(Ex): {A}x
|
sent1: that the diplomat is atmospheric is right. sent2: if the fact that the iron-tree is both not unofficial and germy is incorrect the Karok is not non-hemodynamic. sent3: if the mucilage is not lively then it does not glower lacuna. sent4: the mucilage is not noncaloric and it is non-lively if the fact that it is not associational is correct. sent5: the fact that the Karok is germy is not wrong. sent6: the Karok is a kind of unofficial thing that is germy. sent7: if the mucilage does not glower lacuna then the fact that the iron-tree is official and is germy does not hold.
|
sent1: {IU}{fj} sent2: ¬(¬{A}{b} & {B}{b}) -> {AR}{a} sent3: ¬{D}{c} -> ¬{C}{c} sent4: ¬{F}{c} -> (¬{E}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) sent5: {B}{a} sent6: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent7: ¬{C}{c} -> ¬(¬{A}{b} & {B}{b})
|
[
"sent6 -> int1: the Karok is unofficial.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 -> int1: {A}{a}; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there exists something such that it is hemodynamic.
|
(Ex): {AR}x
|
[] | 8 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 6 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that it is unofficial. ; $context$ = sent1: that the diplomat is atmospheric is right. sent2: if the fact that the iron-tree is both not unofficial and germy is incorrect the Karok is not non-hemodynamic. sent3: if the mucilage is not lively then it does not glower lacuna. sent4: the mucilage is not noncaloric and it is non-lively if the fact that it is not associational is correct. sent5: the fact that the Karok is germy is not wrong. sent6: the Karok is a kind of unofficial thing that is germy. sent7: if the mucilage does not glower lacuna then the fact that the iron-tree is official and is germy does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 -> int1: the Karok is unofficial.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that it does gouge psilophyton and is eusporangiate.
|
(Ex): ({A}x & {C}x)
|
sent1: the masquerader is both a obtainment and botanic. sent2: the masquerader does gouge psilophyton and is soluble. sent3: if the fact that the curbstone is a drag and it is inadvisable is false then the masquerader is not soluble. sent4: that the masquerader is eusporangiate and it is a kind of a drag is not right. sent5: the masquerader is a unskillfulness. sent6: there exists something such that it does debrief flow and does glower masquerader. sent7: the ohmage is eusporangiate. sent8: the guestworker is a drag. sent9: there is something such that it is eusporangiate. sent10: there exists something such that it gouges psilophyton. sent11: the masquerader is soluble. sent12: the machinist does gouge psilophyton and it is eusporangiate if the masquerader is not soluble. sent13: that the masquerader is not eusporangiate but it is a drag is incorrect. sent14: that if the fact that the masquerader is non-eusporangiate the drag is not true the masquerader is eusporangiate hold.
|
sent1: ({FJ}{a} & {DA}{a}) sent2: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent3: ¬({D}{b} & {E}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent4: ¬({C}{a} & {D}{a}) sent5: {EA}{a} sent6: (Ex): ({EG}x & {GF}x) sent7: {C}{jg} sent8: {D}{ck} sent9: (Ex): {C}x sent10: (Ex): {A}x sent11: {B}{a} sent12: ¬{B}{a} -> ({A}{af} & {C}{af}) sent13: ¬(¬{C}{a} & {D}{a}) sent14: ¬(¬{C}{a} & {D}{a}) -> {C}{a}
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: the masquerader gouges psilophyton.; sent14 & sent13 -> int2: the masquerader is eusporangiate.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the masquerader gouges psilophyton and is eusporangiate hold.; int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> int1: {A}{a}; sent14 & sent13 -> int2: {C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({A}{a} & {C}{a}); int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the machinist is not non-eusporangiate.
|
{C}{af}
|
[] | 7 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that it does gouge psilophyton and is eusporangiate. ; $context$ = sent1: the masquerader is both a obtainment and botanic. sent2: the masquerader does gouge psilophyton and is soluble. sent3: if the fact that the curbstone is a drag and it is inadvisable is false then the masquerader is not soluble. sent4: that the masquerader is eusporangiate and it is a kind of a drag is not right. sent5: the masquerader is a unskillfulness. sent6: there exists something such that it does debrief flow and does glower masquerader. sent7: the ohmage is eusporangiate. sent8: the guestworker is a drag. sent9: there is something such that it is eusporangiate. sent10: there exists something such that it gouges psilophyton. sent11: the masquerader is soluble. sent12: the machinist does gouge psilophyton and it is eusporangiate if the masquerader is not soluble. sent13: that the masquerader is not eusporangiate but it is a drag is incorrect. sent14: that if the fact that the masquerader is non-eusporangiate the drag is not true the masquerader is eusporangiate hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> int1: the masquerader gouges psilophyton.; sent14 & sent13 -> int2: the masquerader is eusporangiate.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the masquerader gouges psilophyton and is eusporangiate hold.; int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the proconvertin does glower piquet and it does jingle does not hold.
|
¬({C}{b} & {B}{b})
|
sent1: if the curandero is a Latrodectus then the proconvertin does jingle. sent2: the curandero is a Latrodectus. sent3: everything glowers piquet.
|
sent1: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent2: {A}{a} sent3: (x): {C}x
|
[
"sent1 & sent2 -> int1: the proconvertin is a kind of a jingle.; sent3 -> int2: the proconvertin does glower piquet.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 & sent2 -> int1: {B}{b}; sent3 -> int2: {C}{b}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the proconvertin does glower piquet and it does jingle does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the curandero is a Latrodectus then the proconvertin does jingle. sent2: the curandero is a Latrodectus. sent3: everything glowers piquet. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 & sent2 -> int1: the proconvertin is a kind of a jingle.; sent3 -> int2: the proconvertin does glower piquet.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the autoplasty is not afferent.
|
¬{B}{aa}
|
sent1: if the fact that the fact that the obstetrician is a hunched and a crest hold does not hold then it is not a kind of a ejector. sent2: that something is not characteristic and/or it is not plumbic is not false if it does not fibrillate. sent3: if that the obstetrician is not a kind of a ejector is true then that the fact that it demilitarizes papaya and it does wrestle is not incorrect is not right. sent4: the saddler is not a wrestling if the fact that the obstetrician demilitarizes papaya and it is a wrestling does not hold. sent5: the fact that if the fact that the saddler smothers liabilities or it does not scourge Neoceratodus or both is false then the conciliator does not scourge Neoceratodus is true. sent6: the autoplasty concords. sent7: the fact that the heterotroph does twirl and it fibrillates does not hold if the conciliator does not scourge Neoceratodus. sent8: the autoplasty is not afferent if it is exoteric and it does scourge digester. sent9: something is a kind of a Inchon and it is ankylotic if it is not characteristic. sent10: if the saddler does not wrestle that it does smother liabilities and/or does not scourge Neoceratodus does not hold. sent11: the particle does not fibrillate if the fact that the heterotroph does twirl and does fibrillate is not true. sent12: that the obstetrician is a hunched and a crest is incorrect. sent13: the autoplasty does mobilize. sent14: the autoplasty is exoteric. sent15: something is not a kind of an afferent if it does concord and does mobilize. sent16: if something is either not a characteristic or not plumbic or both then it is not a characteristic. sent17: if the fact that something is a Inchon but it is not a kind of an afferent does not hold then it is a kind of an afferent. sent18: if something is ankylotic that it is a Inchon and it is not afferent is not correct.
|
sent1: ¬({N}{e} & {M}{e}) -> ¬{K}{e} sent2: (x): ¬{E}x -> (¬{D}x v ¬{F}x) sent3: ¬{K}{e} -> ¬({L}{e} & {I}{e}) sent4: ¬({L}{e} & {I}{e}) -> ¬{I}{d} sent5: ¬({J}{d} v ¬{H}{d}) -> ¬{H}{c} sent6: {AA}{aa} sent7: ¬{H}{c} -> ¬({G}{b} & {E}{b}) sent8: ({EA}{aa} & {FQ}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent9: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({A}x & {C}x) sent10: ¬{I}{d} -> ¬({J}{d} v ¬{H}{d}) sent11: ¬({G}{b} & {E}{b}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent12: ¬({N}{e} & {M}{e}) sent13: {AB}{aa} sent14: {EA}{aa} sent15: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent16: (x): (¬{D}x v ¬{F}x) -> ¬{D}x sent17: (x): ¬({A}x & ¬{B}x) -> {B}x sent18: (x): {C}x -> ¬({A}x & ¬{B}x)
|
[
"sent15 -> int1: the autoplasty is not an afferent if it concords and it does mobilize.; sent6 & sent13 -> int2: the autoplasty concords and it mobilizes.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent15 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; sent6 & sent13 -> int2: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the autoplasty is a kind of an afferent.
|
{B}{aa}
|
[
"sent17 -> int3: if the fact that the fact that the autoplasty is a Inchon but it is not an afferent is not correct is true then it is afferent.; sent18 -> int4: the fact that the autoplasty is a Inchon that is non-afferent is not true if it is ankylotic.;"
] | 5 | 2 | 2 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the autoplasty is not afferent. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the fact that the obstetrician is a hunched and a crest hold does not hold then it is not a kind of a ejector. sent2: that something is not characteristic and/or it is not plumbic is not false if it does not fibrillate. sent3: if that the obstetrician is not a kind of a ejector is true then that the fact that it demilitarizes papaya and it does wrestle is not incorrect is not right. sent4: the saddler is not a wrestling if the fact that the obstetrician demilitarizes papaya and it is a wrestling does not hold. sent5: the fact that if the fact that the saddler smothers liabilities or it does not scourge Neoceratodus or both is false then the conciliator does not scourge Neoceratodus is true. sent6: the autoplasty concords. sent7: the fact that the heterotroph does twirl and it fibrillates does not hold if the conciliator does not scourge Neoceratodus. sent8: the autoplasty is not afferent if it is exoteric and it does scourge digester. sent9: something is a kind of a Inchon and it is ankylotic if it is not characteristic. sent10: if the saddler does not wrestle that it does smother liabilities and/or does not scourge Neoceratodus does not hold. sent11: the particle does not fibrillate if the fact that the heterotroph does twirl and does fibrillate is not true. sent12: that the obstetrician is a hunched and a crest is incorrect. sent13: the autoplasty does mobilize. sent14: the autoplasty is exoteric. sent15: something is not a kind of an afferent if it does concord and does mobilize. sent16: if something is either not a characteristic or not plumbic or both then it is not a characteristic. sent17: if the fact that something is a Inchon but it is not a kind of an afferent does not hold then it is a kind of an afferent. sent18: if something is ankylotic that it is a Inchon and it is not afferent is not correct. ; $proof$ =
|
sent15 -> int1: the autoplasty is not an afferent if it concords and it does mobilize.; sent6 & sent13 -> int2: the autoplasty concords and it mobilizes.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the foraging happens.
|
{A}
|
sent1: the howler does not occur. sent2: the pollination does not occur. sent3: the foraging does not occur. sent4: the recouping does not occur. sent5: the reverberantness does not occur. sent6: if the hibernating does not occur then the foraging happens and the secondment happens. sent7: the smothering photolithography does not occur. sent8: if that that the dealing occurs and the chauvinisticness does not occur is not false does not hold the hibernating does not occur. sent9: the amitoticness does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬{GM} sent2: ¬{IF} sent3: ¬{A} sent4: ¬{AD} sent5: ¬{GD} sent6: ¬{C} -> ({A} & {B}) sent7: ¬{HE} sent8: ¬({E} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{C} sent9: ¬{EB}
|
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the foraging happens.
|
{A}
|
[] | 7 | 1 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the foraging happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the howler does not occur. sent2: the pollination does not occur. sent3: the foraging does not occur. sent4: the recouping does not occur. sent5: the reverberantness does not occur. sent6: if the hibernating does not occur then the foraging happens and the secondment happens. sent7: the smothering photolithography does not occur. sent8: if that that the dealing occurs and the chauvinisticness does not occur is not false does not hold the hibernating does not occur. sent9: the amitoticness does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the centerfielder is imitative.
|
{D}{c}
|
sent1: the universal is a Dix if there is something such that it does not scourge Arrhenius. sent2: the adesite is a kind of a Dix if the universal does stock. sent3: the fact that the centerfielder is an infernal and does scourge Arrhenius does not hold. sent4: the universal stocks. sent5: if there exists something such that it scourges Arrhenius and it is a Dix the centerfielder is imitative. sent6: the adesite does scourge Arrhenius if it is infernal. sent7: something does scourge Arrhenius. sent8: there exists something such that it smothers fencing. sent9: there is something such that it is a kind of imitative an infernal. sent10: if something is a Dix then that it is not imitative and it is not a stock is false.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{C}x -> {B}{a} sent2: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent3: ¬({E}{c} & {C}{c}) sent4: {A}{a} sent5: (x): ({C}x & {B}x) -> {D}{c} sent6: {E}{b} -> {C}{b} sent7: (Ex): {C}x sent8: (Ex): {CH}x sent9: (Ex): ({D}x & {E}x) sent10: (x): {B}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{A}x)
|
[
"sent2 & sent4 -> int1: the adesite is a kind of a Dix.;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent4 -> int1: {B}{b};"
] |
the fencing is imitative.
|
{D}{hc}
|
[
"sent10 -> int2: if the universal is a Dix the fact that it is not imitative and it does not stock does not hold.; sent3 -> int3: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of an infernal and it scourges Arrhenius does not hold.;"
] | 7 | 4 | null | 6 | 0 | 6 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the centerfielder is imitative. ; $context$ = sent1: the universal is a Dix if there is something such that it does not scourge Arrhenius. sent2: the adesite is a kind of a Dix if the universal does stock. sent3: the fact that the centerfielder is an infernal and does scourge Arrhenius does not hold. sent4: the universal stocks. sent5: if there exists something such that it scourges Arrhenius and it is a Dix the centerfielder is imitative. sent6: the adesite does scourge Arrhenius if it is infernal. sent7: something does scourge Arrhenius. sent8: there exists something such that it smothers fencing. sent9: there is something such that it is a kind of imitative an infernal. sent10: if something is a Dix then that it is not imitative and it is not a stock is false. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent4 -> int1: the adesite is a kind of a Dix.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the stage is not a headsman.
|
¬{D}{a}
|
sent1: the paretic is not an analogue. sent2: there are analogue things. sent3: the stage is not choral and it is not a circulation if there is something such that it is not a kind of an analogue. sent4: the stage is non-choral if something is not analogue. sent5: if something that is not choral is not a kind of a circulation then it is a kind of a headsman.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{aa} sent2: (Ex): {A}x sent3: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{C}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{C}{a} sent5: (x): (¬{C}x & ¬{B}x) -> {D}x
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: there exists something such that it is not analogue.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the stage is not choral and it is not a circulation.; sent5 -> int3: the stage is a headsman if it is not choral and is not a circulation.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: (Ex): ¬{A}x; int1 & sent3 -> int2: (¬{C}{a} & ¬{B}{a}); sent5 -> int3: (¬{C}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> {D}{a}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the stage is not a headsman. ; $context$ = sent1: the paretic is not an analogue. sent2: there are analogue things. sent3: the stage is not choral and it is not a circulation if there is something such that it is not a kind of an analogue. sent4: the stage is non-choral if something is not analogue. sent5: if something that is not choral is not a kind of a circulation then it is a kind of a headsman. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: there exists something such that it is not analogue.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the stage is not choral and it is not a circulation.; sent5 -> int3: the stage is a headsman if it is not choral and is not a circulation.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the greenroom is not absolutist is true.
|
¬{A}{aa}
|
sent1: something is not a kind of a henbit but it is a stander if that it is a unlikeness is not false. sent2: the greenroom is a Slovak. sent3: if the ACE is not a fly the fact that the hart's-tongue is both a Slovak and an absolutist is incorrect. sent4: something is a kind of an absolutist if it does fly. sent5: something is a fly if it is a larghetto and is a Dinka. sent6: if the greenroom is a kind of a larghetto and is a Dinka then it is a kind of a fly. sent7: that the greenroom is not a larghetto is not false. sent8: if something that is not a kind of a larghetto is a Dinka it is a kind of a fly. sent9: the greenroom is not a larghetto but a Dinka if that it is a kind of a Slovak hold. sent10: if the greenroom is a Slovak then it is not a larghetto.
|
sent1: (x): {DA}x -> (¬{IC}x & {G}x) sent2: {C}{aa} sent3: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬({C}{a} & {A}{a}) sent4: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent5: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent6: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent7: ¬{AA}{aa} sent8: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent9: {C}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent10: {C}{aa} -> ¬{AA}{aa}
|
[
"sent8 -> int1: if the greenroom is both not a larghetto and a Dinka that it is a fly is true.; sent9 & sent2 -> int2: the greenroom is both not a larghetto and a Dinka.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the greenroom is a kind of a fly.; sent4 -> int4: the greenroom is absolutist if it flies.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 -> int1: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; sent9 & sent2 -> int2: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> int3: {B}{aa}; sent4 -> int4: {B}{aa} -> {A}{aa}; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the greenroom is not absolutist.
|
¬{A}{aa}
|
[] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 6 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the greenroom is not absolutist is true. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not a kind of a henbit but it is a stander if that it is a unlikeness is not false. sent2: the greenroom is a Slovak. sent3: if the ACE is not a fly the fact that the hart's-tongue is both a Slovak and an absolutist is incorrect. sent4: something is a kind of an absolutist if it does fly. sent5: something is a fly if it is a larghetto and is a Dinka. sent6: if the greenroom is a kind of a larghetto and is a Dinka then it is a kind of a fly. sent7: that the greenroom is not a larghetto is not false. sent8: if something that is not a kind of a larghetto is a Dinka it is a kind of a fly. sent9: the greenroom is not a larghetto but a Dinka if that it is a kind of a Slovak hold. sent10: if the greenroom is a Slovak then it is not a larghetto. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 -> int1: if the greenroom is both not a larghetto and a Dinka that it is a fly is true.; sent9 & sent2 -> int2: the greenroom is both not a larghetto and a Dinka.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the greenroom is a kind of a fly.; sent4 -> int4: the greenroom is absolutist if it flies.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the encephalography occurs.
|
{B}
|
sent1: the slip does not occur. sent2: the ferrimagnetism does not occur. sent3: the Levantineness does not occur. sent4: if the terminalness does not occur then that the equinoctial occurs and/or the observation does not occur is incorrect. sent5: if the Bahraini does not occur the fact that the slip occurs and/or the ferrimagnetism does not occur does not hold.
|
sent1: ¬{AA} sent2: ¬{AB} sent3: ¬{T} sent4: ¬{HH} -> ¬({GA} v ¬{GC}) sent5: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} v ¬{AB})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Bahraini does not occur.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: that the slipping occurs and/or the ferrimagnetism does not occur does not hold.; sent2 -> int2: the slip happens and/or the ferrimagnetism does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the Bahraininess happens.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ¬{A}; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: ¬({AA} v ¬{AB}); sent2 -> int2: ({AA} v ¬{AB}); int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: {A};"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 4 | null | 3 | 0 | 3 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the encephalography occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the slip does not occur. sent2: the ferrimagnetism does not occur. sent3: the Levantineness does not occur. sent4: if the terminalness does not occur then that the equinoctial occurs and/or the observation does not occur is incorrect. sent5: if the Bahraini does not occur the fact that the slip occurs and/or the ferrimagnetism does not occur does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Bahraini does not occur.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: that the slipping occurs and/or the ferrimagnetism does not occur does not hold.; sent2 -> int2: the slip happens and/or the ferrimagnetism does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the Bahraininess happens.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if that it does demilitarize mush and is not a kind of a amnesic does not hold then it does not snort.
|
(Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
sent1: there is something such that if it does demilitarize mush and it is not a amnesic then the fact that it does not snort is true. sent2: the Arikara does not snort if it is amnesic. sent3: something does not shove if that it is a suburb and it does not pirate is false. sent4: the Arikara does not snort if it does demilitarize mush and it is not a amnesic. sent5: there exists something such that if that it is a kind of a bracteole and it does not scourge neem does not hold it is distrustful. sent6: if that the Arikara is a perfectionism but not a gnathion is not correct it satiates. sent7: the Arikara is not a syphilitic if it is an aluminum. sent8: the mush is not unclear if the fact that it is ammino and it does not demilitarize mush is correct. sent9: there is something such that if it does not demilitarize mush then it does not snort. sent10: there is something such that if the fact that it demilitarizes mush and it is a kind of a amnesic does not hold it does not snort. sent11: there is something such that if the fact that it is a kind of a urease and is not a kind of a Slovak is not right it prizes. sent12: if the fact that the Arikara demilitarizes mush but it is not amnesic does not hold then it does not snort. sent13: there is something such that if that it demilitarizes lotus and does expel is incorrect then it is not a glow. sent14: the Arikara does not demilitarize emerald if it is a kind of a bracteole.
|
sent1: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent2: {AB}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent3: (x): ¬({HU}x & ¬{FG}x) -> ¬{EI}x sent4: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent5: (Ex): ¬({AU}x & ¬{IJ}x) -> {BN}x sent6: ¬({GM}{aa} & ¬{ID}{aa}) -> {CK}{aa} sent7: {FU}{aa} -> ¬{HC}{aa} sent8: ({DL}{u} & ¬{AA}{u}) -> ¬{IS}{u} sent9: (Ex): ¬{AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent10: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent11: (Ex): ¬({IB}x & ¬{GK}x) -> {CT}x sent12: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent13: (Ex): ¬({IF}x & {FC}x) -> ¬{H}x sent14: {AU}{aa} -> ¬{DS}{aa}
|
[
"sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there exists something such that if the fact that it is a suburb and it is not a pirate is not correct then it does not shove.
|
(Ex): ¬({HU}x & ¬{FG}x) -> ¬{EI}x
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: the gangway does not shove if the fact that it is both a suburb and not a pirate is not true.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if that it does demilitarize mush and is not a kind of a amnesic does not hold then it does not snort. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it does demilitarize mush and it is not a amnesic then the fact that it does not snort is true. sent2: the Arikara does not snort if it is amnesic. sent3: something does not shove if that it is a suburb and it does not pirate is false. sent4: the Arikara does not snort if it does demilitarize mush and it is not a amnesic. sent5: there exists something such that if that it is a kind of a bracteole and it does not scourge neem does not hold it is distrustful. sent6: if that the Arikara is a perfectionism but not a gnathion is not correct it satiates. sent7: the Arikara is not a syphilitic if it is an aluminum. sent8: the mush is not unclear if the fact that it is ammino and it does not demilitarize mush is correct. sent9: there is something such that if it does not demilitarize mush then it does not snort. sent10: there is something such that if the fact that it demilitarizes mush and it is a kind of a amnesic does not hold it does not snort. sent11: there is something such that if the fact that it is a kind of a urease and is not a kind of a Slovak is not right it prizes. sent12: if the fact that the Arikara demilitarizes mush but it is not amnesic does not hold then it does not snort. sent13: there is something such that if that it demilitarizes lotus and does expel is incorrect then it is not a glow. sent14: the Arikara does not demilitarize emerald if it is a kind of a bracteole. ; $proof$ =
|
sent12 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the mayfly is a kind of a partitive that does not stew suppressor is incorrect.
|
¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})
|
sent1: if something is not a kind of a acrocarp that it does stew mollusk and it is a groundfish is false. sent2: if the Malto is asymmetrical then the knotgrass does not stew Cornishman and does not scourge dander. sent3: the fact that that the anil does stew mollusk and is not greater is right is not true. sent4: if something is not greater it is partitive and does not stew suppressor. sent5: something does not stew suppressor if it is not greater. sent6: if there exists something such that it does not stew Cornishman and it does not scourge dander the highroad is not a acrocarp. sent7: the counterbore is hermeneutics if there is something such that the fact that it does stew mollusk and it is a kind of a groundfish does not hold. sent8: the anil is not greater if there exists something such that it is hermeneutics. sent9: the Malto is asymmetrical. sent10: the mayfly is not greater if the fact that the anil stews mollusk but it is not greater is wrong.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬({C}x & {D}x) sent2: {H}{e} -> (¬{G}{d} & ¬{F}{d}) sent3: ¬({C}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{AB}x sent6: (x): (¬{G}x & ¬{F}x) -> ¬{E}{c} sent7: (x): ¬({C}x & {D}x) -> {B}{b} sent8: (x): {B}x -> ¬{A}{a} sent9: {H}{e} sent10: ¬({C}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> ¬{A}{aa}
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: if the mayfly is not greater it is not non-partitive and it does not stew suppressor.; sent10 & sent3 -> int2: the mayfly is not greater.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); sent10 & sent3 -> int2: ¬{A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the mayfly is partitive thing that does not stew suppressor is not right.
|
¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})
|
[
"sent1 -> int3: that the highroad stews mollusk and is a groundfish is not correct if it is not a acrocarp.; sent2 & sent9 -> int4: the knotgrass does not stew Cornishman and does not scourge dander.; int4 -> int5: something does not stew Cornishman and it does not scourge dander.; int5 & sent6 -> int6: the highroad is not a acrocarp.; int3 & int6 -> int7: the fact that the highroad stews mollusk and is a kind of a groundfish does not hold.; int7 -> int8: there exists something such that that it does stew mollusk and is a groundfish does not hold.; int8 & sent7 -> int9: the counterbore is hermeneutics.; int9 -> int10: there is something such that it is hermeneutics.; int10 & sent8 -> int11: the anil is not greater.; int11 -> int12: there exists something such that it is not greater.;"
] | 10 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the mayfly is a kind of a partitive that does not stew suppressor is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not a kind of a acrocarp that it does stew mollusk and it is a groundfish is false. sent2: if the Malto is asymmetrical then the knotgrass does not stew Cornishman and does not scourge dander. sent3: the fact that that the anil does stew mollusk and is not greater is right is not true. sent4: if something is not greater it is partitive and does not stew suppressor. sent5: something does not stew suppressor if it is not greater. sent6: if there exists something such that it does not stew Cornishman and it does not scourge dander the highroad is not a acrocarp. sent7: the counterbore is hermeneutics if there is something such that the fact that it does stew mollusk and it is a kind of a groundfish does not hold. sent8: the anil is not greater if there exists something such that it is hermeneutics. sent9: the Malto is asymmetrical. sent10: the mayfly is not greater if the fact that the anil stews mollusk but it is not greater is wrong. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> int1: if the mayfly is not greater it is not non-partitive and it does not stew suppressor.; sent10 & sent3 -> int2: the mayfly is not greater.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there is something such that that it is bregmatic thing that scourges wardership is wrong is not true.
|
¬((Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x))
|
sent1: the fact that the chambermaid is a bumptiousness and it is Turkic does not hold. sent2: the fact that the Dominique does smother Scotch and it does scourge wardership does not hold. sent3: the fact that the Scotch does scourge wardership and is a kind of a Pharsalus is wrong. sent4: there exists something such that that it is opposite and it is a moneywort does not hold. sent5: there is something such that that it is a Bailey and it demilitarizes Linz is incorrect. sent6: that the Dominique is a kind of a Ehadhamen and it is a rowel does not hold. sent7: there is something such that the fact that it is a quincentennial and a socialism is not right. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of Turkic thing that is a bully is not correct. sent9: that the Dominique is centralist and is bregmatic is false. sent10: there exists something such that the fact that it demilitarizes sildenafil and does stew Allegheny is incorrect. sent11: that the Dominique is not non-bregmatic and does scourge wardership is not right. sent12: that the Dominique is a Nestor and it is bregmatic is incorrect. sent13: there is something such that it is bregmatic and does scourge wardership. sent14: something is a protege if the fact that it is not a foreman and/or is a plowman is not true. sent15: there is something such that the fact that it is macrencephalic and it demilitarizes knobkerrie does not hold.
|
sent1: ¬({DK}{fs} & {HG}{fs}) sent2: ¬({GD}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: ¬({AB}{gt} & {JG}{gt}) sent4: (Ex): ¬({FG}x & {GR}x) sent5: (Ex): ¬({CF}x & {JC}x) sent6: ¬({GM}{aa} & {CE}{aa}) sent7: (Ex): ¬({AS}x & {BF}x) sent8: (Ex): ¬({HG}x & {AE}x) sent9: ¬({EC}{aa} & {AA}{aa}) sent10: (Ex): ¬({BB}x & {CL}x) sent11: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent12: ¬({DP}{aa} & {AA}{aa}) sent13: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent14: (x): ¬(¬{B}x v {C}x) -> {A}x sent15: (Ex): ¬({ES}x & {HS}x)
|
[
"sent11 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent11 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there is something such that the fact that it scourges Lepanto and does smother luging does not hold.
|
(Ex): ¬({HP}x & {BN}x)
|
[
"sent14 -> int1: if the fact that the parent is not a kind of a foreman and/or it is a plowman does not hold it is a protege.;"
] | 5 | 1 | 1 | 14 | 0 | 14 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that that it is bregmatic thing that scourges wardership is wrong is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the chambermaid is a bumptiousness and it is Turkic does not hold. sent2: the fact that the Dominique does smother Scotch and it does scourge wardership does not hold. sent3: the fact that the Scotch does scourge wardership and is a kind of a Pharsalus is wrong. sent4: there exists something such that that it is opposite and it is a moneywort does not hold. sent5: there is something such that that it is a Bailey and it demilitarizes Linz is incorrect. sent6: that the Dominique is a kind of a Ehadhamen and it is a rowel does not hold. sent7: there is something such that the fact that it is a quincentennial and a socialism is not right. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of Turkic thing that is a bully is not correct. sent9: that the Dominique is centralist and is bregmatic is false. sent10: there exists something such that the fact that it demilitarizes sildenafil and does stew Allegheny is incorrect. sent11: that the Dominique is not non-bregmatic and does scourge wardership is not right. sent12: that the Dominique is a Nestor and it is bregmatic is incorrect. sent13: there is something such that it is bregmatic and does scourge wardership. sent14: something is a protege if the fact that it is not a foreman and/or is a plowman is not true. sent15: there is something such that the fact that it is macrencephalic and it demilitarizes knobkerrie does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the God is a biochemistry.
|
{E}{b}
|
sent1: if the gully is a Cynopterus the God does scourge stabling. sent2: if something does scourge stabling then it is a biochemistry. sent3: the fact that the fact that the gully is not a Cynopterus and it is not unbridgeable is wrong if there exists something such that it is not a sunscreen is not wrong. sent4: something is not a kind of a sunscreen. sent5: the whiteout is not unbridgeable and/or it does not scourge hurrah. sent6: the fact that the gully is both a Cynopterus and not unbridgeable is not true. sent7: there is something such that it is a sunscreen.
|
sent1: {B}{a} -> {D}{b} sent2: (x): {D}x -> {E}x sent3: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent4: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent5: (¬{C}{c} v ¬{F}{c}) sent6: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent7: (Ex): {A}x
|
[
"sent4 & sent3 -> int1: that the gully is not a Cynopterus and is not unbridgeable is not right.; sent2 -> int2: the God is a biochemistry if the fact that it does scourge stabling hold.;"
] |
[
"sent4 & sent3 -> int1: ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); sent2 -> int2: {D}{b} -> {E}{b};"
] |
the God is not a kind of a biochemistry.
|
¬{E}{b}
|
[
"sent5 -> int3: something is not unbridgeable or it does not scourge hurrah or both.;"
] | 5 | 3 | null | 4 | 0 | 4 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the God is a biochemistry. ; $context$ = sent1: if the gully is a Cynopterus the God does scourge stabling. sent2: if something does scourge stabling then it is a biochemistry. sent3: the fact that the fact that the gully is not a Cynopterus and it is not unbridgeable is wrong if there exists something such that it is not a sunscreen is not wrong. sent4: something is not a kind of a sunscreen. sent5: the whiteout is not unbridgeable and/or it does not scourge hurrah. sent6: the fact that the gully is both a Cynopterus and not unbridgeable is not true. sent7: there is something such that it is a sunscreen. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 & sent3 -> int1: that the gully is not a Cynopterus and is not unbridgeable is not right.; sent2 -> int2: the God is a biochemistry if the fact that it does scourge stabling hold.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the infundibulum is not a kind of a lavage.
|
¬{D}{b}
|
sent1: the infundibulum is not a lavage if the gazelle is not unenforceable and/or it is not a kind of a larva. sent2: the gazelle is not unenforceable and/or is not a kind of a larva if there exists something such that it is azonal. sent3: if a non-unenforceable thing is not azonal it is a lavage.
|
sent1: (¬{B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent2: (x): {A}x -> (¬{B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) sent3: (x): (¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) -> {D}x
|
[] |
[] |
the infundibulum is a kind of a lavage.
|
{D}{b}
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: if the infundibulum is both not unenforceable and not azonal it is a lavage.;"
] | 5 | 2 | null | 1 | 0 | 1 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the infundibulum is not a kind of a lavage. ; $context$ = sent1: the infundibulum is not a lavage if the gazelle is not unenforceable and/or it is not a kind of a larva. sent2: the gazelle is not unenforceable and/or is not a kind of a larva if there exists something such that it is azonal. sent3: if a non-unenforceable thing is not azonal it is a lavage. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the smothering transposon occurs.
|
{A}
|
sent1: that the lurching occurs hold. sent2: the smothering transposon occurs.
|
sent1: {FR} sent2: {A}
|
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the smothering transposon occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that the lurching occurs hold. sent2: the smothering transposon occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
either the stewing outlier does not occur or the greensideness does not occur or both.
|
(¬{D} v ¬{E})
|
sent1: the non-palatialness and the non-Macedonianness happens. sent2: the demilitarizing C-horizon does not occur and the sobering does not occur if the transdermalness does not occur. sent3: that the funicularness occurs is right. sent4: the scoffing does not occur and the saddle does not occur. sent5: the vanillaness does not occur and the scourging curler does not occur. sent6: the calcifugousness does not occur if the fact that both the scourging curler and the calcifugousness happens is not true. sent7: that the stewing outlier does not occur is brought about by the fact that that the smothering roofed does not occur and the Macedonian does not occur is true. sent8: if the fact that the larding does not occur and the Preakness occurs does not hold the Preakness does not occur. sent9: if the smothering roofed occurs that the Macedonianness occurs and the palatialness does not occur does not hold. sent10: if the demilitarizing C-horizon does not occur then either the funicular or the non-Bismarckianness or both happens. sent11: if the fact that the Preakness does not occur hold then the fact that both the scourging curler and the calcifugousness happens is false. sent12: the stewing outlier and/or the non-greensideness occurs. sent13: if the palatialness happens that the stewing outlier does not occur or the greensideness does not occur or both is not right. sent14: the fact that the palatialness does not occur hold. sent15: the fact that either the stewing outlier does not occur or the greensideness happens or both hold. sent16: that not the casing but the transdermalness happens is wrong if the precipitation happens. sent17: that the precipitation and the stewing simony happens if the calcifugousness does not occur hold. sent18: the transdermalness does not occur if the fact that not the casing but the transdermalness happens is false.
|
sent1: (¬{A} & ¬{B}) sent2: ¬{J} -> (¬{H} & ¬{I}) sent3: {F} sent4: (¬{AQ} & ¬{IM}) sent5: (¬{CP} & ¬{P}) sent6: ¬({P} & {N}) -> ¬{N} sent7: (¬{C} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{D} sent8: ¬(¬{R} & {O}) -> ¬{O} sent9: {C} -> ¬({B} & ¬{A}) sent10: ¬{H} -> ({F} v ¬{G}) sent11: ¬{O} -> ¬({P} & {N}) sent12: ({D} v ¬{E}) sent13: {A} -> ¬(¬{D} v ¬{E}) sent14: ¬{A} sent15: (¬{D} v {E}) sent16: {K} -> ¬(¬{L} & {J}) sent17: ¬{N} -> ({K} & {M}) sent18: ¬(¬{L} & {J}) -> ¬{J}
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: the Macedonian does not occur.;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: ¬{B};"
] |
the fact that either the stewing outlier does not occur or the greensideness does not occur or both does not hold.
|
¬(¬{D} v ¬{E})
|
[] | 15 | 4 | null | 15 | 0 | 15 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = either the stewing outlier does not occur or the greensideness does not occur or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the non-palatialness and the non-Macedonianness happens. sent2: the demilitarizing C-horizon does not occur and the sobering does not occur if the transdermalness does not occur. sent3: that the funicularness occurs is right. sent4: the scoffing does not occur and the saddle does not occur. sent5: the vanillaness does not occur and the scourging curler does not occur. sent6: the calcifugousness does not occur if the fact that both the scourging curler and the calcifugousness happens is not true. sent7: that the stewing outlier does not occur is brought about by the fact that that the smothering roofed does not occur and the Macedonian does not occur is true. sent8: if the fact that the larding does not occur and the Preakness occurs does not hold the Preakness does not occur. sent9: if the smothering roofed occurs that the Macedonianness occurs and the palatialness does not occur does not hold. sent10: if the demilitarizing C-horizon does not occur then either the funicular or the non-Bismarckianness or both happens. sent11: if the fact that the Preakness does not occur hold then the fact that both the scourging curler and the calcifugousness happens is false. sent12: the stewing outlier and/or the non-greensideness occurs. sent13: if the palatialness happens that the stewing outlier does not occur or the greensideness does not occur or both is not right. sent14: the fact that the palatialness does not occur hold. sent15: the fact that either the stewing outlier does not occur or the greensideness happens or both hold. sent16: that not the casing but the transdermalness happens is wrong if the precipitation happens. sent17: that the precipitation and the stewing simony happens if the calcifugousness does not occur hold. sent18: the transdermalness does not occur if the fact that not the casing but the transdermalness happens is false. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: the Macedonian does not occur.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that if that the sable does not deflate is not false then that the sable is not tectonic but it is manorial hold is not correct.
|
¬(¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}))
|
sent1: something is non-tectonic thing that is manorial if it does not deflate. sent2: the sable is not tectonic but manorial if it deflates. sent3: the sable is tectonic and it is manorial if it does not deflate. sent4: if the iodination is not a kind of a 120 then it is manorial. sent5: something is a kind of non-tectonic thing that is manorial if it deflates.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent2: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent4: ¬{CI}{de} -> {AB}{de} sent5: (x): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x)
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = that if that the sable does not deflate is not false then that the sable is not tectonic but it is manorial hold is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: something is non-tectonic thing that is manorial if it does not deflate. sent2: the sable is not tectonic but manorial if it deflates. sent3: the sable is tectonic and it is manorial if it does not deflate. sent4: if the iodination is not a kind of a 120 then it is manorial. sent5: something is a kind of non-tectonic thing that is manorial if it deflates. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the aeronauticalness does not occur.
|
¬{A}
|
sent1: the aeronauticalness happens. sent2: the stewing Pretender occurs. sent3: the nonprofessionalness occurs.
|
sent1: {A} sent2: {FJ} sent3: {DL}
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the aeronauticalness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the aeronauticalness happens. sent2: the stewing Pretender occurs. sent3: the nonprofessionalness occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the sou'wester is not a kind of a deference.
|
¬{C}{a}
|
sent1: something is not a kind of a intactness if it is a kind of a differential and/or it does not scourge Cathaya. sent2: the sou'wester either does pompadour or smothers gone or both. sent3: the sou'wester smothers gone and/or it is not a cartwheel. sent4: something is not a deference if that either it does pompadour or it does not smother gone or both is right. sent5: something is a deference if it does not pompadour. sent6: the sou'wester is a phobia and/or it does pompadour. sent7: the sou'wester is non-congressional if it is not hypnotic.
|
sent1: (x): ({FO}x v ¬{CF}x) -> ¬{GD}x sent2: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}) sent3: ({B}{a} v ¬{S}{a}) sent4: (x): ({A}x v ¬{B}x) -> ¬{C}x sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> {C}x sent6: ({EF}{a} v {A}{a}) sent7: ¬{DT}{a} -> ¬{D}{a}
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: if the sou'wester is a pompadour or it does not smother gone or both it is not a deference.;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> int1: ({A}{a} v ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{a};"
] |
the sou'wester is a deference.
|
{C}{a}
|
[
"sent5 -> int2: if the downdraft is not a pompadour it is a kind of a deference.;"
] | 5 | 2 | null | 6 | 0 | 6 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the sou'wester is not a kind of a deference. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not a kind of a intactness if it is a kind of a differential and/or it does not scourge Cathaya. sent2: the sou'wester either does pompadour or smothers gone or both. sent3: the sou'wester smothers gone and/or it is not a cartwheel. sent4: something is not a deference if that either it does pompadour or it does not smother gone or both is right. sent5: something is a deference if it does not pompadour. sent6: the sou'wester is a phobia and/or it does pompadour. sent7: the sou'wester is non-congressional if it is not hypnotic. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> int1: if the sou'wester is a pompadour or it does not smother gone or both it is not a deference.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
not the friction but the smoking occurs.
|
(¬{AA} & {AB})
|
sent1: not the shooting but the radial-pliness happens. sent2: not the friction but the smoking happens. sent3: the ostracism does not occur but the scourging housekeeper happens. sent4: the supraorbitalness happens.
|
sent1: (¬{HO} & {JJ}) sent2: (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent3: (¬{DL} & {II}) sent4: {AE}
|
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = not the friction but the smoking occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: not the shooting but the radial-pliness happens. sent2: not the friction but the smoking happens. sent3: the ostracism does not occur but the scourging housekeeper happens. sent4: the supraorbitalness happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the substitution happens.
|
{D}
|
sent1: if that that not the part but the demilitarizing Lycosa happens does not hold is not wrong the demilitarizing Lycosa does not occur. sent2: if the fact that the worthlessness occurs but the nervousness does not occur is not right then the steepening happens. sent3: the stewing icicle happens. sent4: if the ecotourism happens then the innings occurs. sent5: the demilitarizing stuff occurs. sent6: that the drowning does not occur is brought about by that the coincidence does not occur. sent7: if the demilitarizing Lycosa occurs the scourging permutability happens. sent8: if the demilitarizing Lycosa does not occur then that the substitution but not the underlying happens is incorrect. sent9: both the underlying and the demilitarizing Lycosa occurs. sent10: if that the scourging permutability occurs is true the fact that the substitution happens is correct. sent11: that the unrespectableness occurs is caused by that the basket happens. sent12: the underlying happens. sent13: that the coincidence does not occur hold. sent14: if the phonemicness occurs then the intangible happens. sent15: if the capering and the steepening occurs the scourging permutability does not occur. sent16: if the drowning does not occur both the caper and the smothering affenpinscher happens.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{E} & {B}) -> ¬{B} sent2: ¬({J} & ¬{K}) -> {F} sent3: {GL} sent4: {BJ} -> {HH} sent5: {AU} sent6: ¬{L} -> ¬{I} sent7: {B} -> {C} sent8: ¬{B} -> ¬({D} & ¬{A}) sent9: ({A} & {B}) sent10: {C} -> {D} sent11: {BR} -> {R} sent12: {A} sent13: ¬{L} sent14: {BE} -> {FU} sent15: ({G} & {F}) -> ¬{C} sent16: ¬{I} -> ({G} & {H})
|
[
"sent9 -> int1: the demilitarizing Lycosa happens.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: the scourging permutability occurs.; int2 & sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 -> int1: {B}; int1 & sent7 -> int2: {C}; int2 & sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the substitution does not occur.
|
¬{D}
|
[
"sent6 & sent13 -> int3: the drowning does not occur.; sent16 & int3 -> int4: the caper happens and the smothering affenpinscher occurs.; int4 -> int5: the caper happens.;"
] | 9 | 3 | 3 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the substitution happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if that that not the part but the demilitarizing Lycosa happens does not hold is not wrong the demilitarizing Lycosa does not occur. sent2: if the fact that the worthlessness occurs but the nervousness does not occur is not right then the steepening happens. sent3: the stewing icicle happens. sent4: if the ecotourism happens then the innings occurs. sent5: the demilitarizing stuff occurs. sent6: that the drowning does not occur is brought about by that the coincidence does not occur. sent7: if the demilitarizing Lycosa occurs the scourging permutability happens. sent8: if the demilitarizing Lycosa does not occur then that the substitution but not the underlying happens is incorrect. sent9: both the underlying and the demilitarizing Lycosa occurs. sent10: if that the scourging permutability occurs is true the fact that the substitution happens is correct. sent11: that the unrespectableness occurs is caused by that the basket happens. sent12: the underlying happens. sent13: that the coincidence does not occur hold. sent14: if the phonemicness occurs then the intangible happens. sent15: if the capering and the steepening occurs the scourging permutability does not occur. sent16: if the drowning does not occur both the caper and the smothering affenpinscher happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 -> int1: the demilitarizing Lycosa happens.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: the scourging permutability occurs.; int2 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the patron does stew self-esteem.
|
{C}{b}
|
sent1: something is a Twin that demilitarizes caddisworm. sent2: something is pointless but it is not a rioter if it is a legality. sent3: the increase does smother guerdon. sent4: if the fact that the increase does demilitarize caddisworm or does not smother guerdon or both does not hold then that it is a Twin is not wrong. sent5: something is a deadlock. sent6: the increase is a rioter and it is a deadlock. sent7: the patron is a kind of a Twin. sent8: that the patron is a carat hold. sent9: that the increase is a rioter is not incorrect. sent10: something is a deadlock that demilitarizes caddisworm. sent11: the lout is a Twin. sent12: the fact that the increase does demilitarize caddisworm and/or it does not smother guerdon does not hold. sent13: something is not a Twin if it is pointless and it is not a kind of a rioter. sent14: the increase is a kind of a Twin if the fact that it does demilitarize caddisworm and/or it does smother guerdon does not hold. sent15: that something is a kind of a Twin is not false.
|
sent1: (Ex): ({B}x & {AA}x) sent2: (x): {F}x -> ({E}x & ¬{D}x) sent3: {AB}{a} sent4: ¬({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent5: (Ex): {A}x sent6: ({D}{a} & {A}{a}) sent7: {B}{b} sent8: {DG}{b} sent9: {D}{a} sent10: (Ex): ({A}x & {AA}x) sent11: {B}{cf} sent12: ¬({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent13: (x): ({E}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{B}x sent14: ¬({AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent15: (Ex): {B}x
|
[
"sent4 & sent12 -> int1: the increase is a Twin.; sent6 -> int2: the increase is a kind of a deadlock.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the increase is a kind of a deadlock and is a Twin.; int3 -> int4: there is something such that it is a kind of a deadlock that is a kind of a Twin.;"
] |
[
"sent4 & sent12 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent6 -> int2: {A}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}); int3 -> int4: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x);"
] |
the patron does not stew self-esteem.
|
¬{C}{b}
|
[
"sent13 -> int5: the increase is not a kind of a Twin if it is a kind of pointless thing that is not a rioter.; sent2 -> int6: if the increase is a legality it is pointless and it is not a rioter.;"
] | 6 | 4 | null | 12 | 0 | 12 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the patron does stew self-esteem. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a Twin that demilitarizes caddisworm. sent2: something is pointless but it is not a rioter if it is a legality. sent3: the increase does smother guerdon. sent4: if the fact that the increase does demilitarize caddisworm or does not smother guerdon or both does not hold then that it is a Twin is not wrong. sent5: something is a deadlock. sent6: the increase is a rioter and it is a deadlock. sent7: the patron is a kind of a Twin. sent8: that the patron is a carat hold. sent9: that the increase is a rioter is not incorrect. sent10: something is a deadlock that demilitarizes caddisworm. sent11: the lout is a Twin. sent12: the fact that the increase does demilitarize caddisworm and/or it does not smother guerdon does not hold. sent13: something is not a Twin if it is pointless and it is not a kind of a rioter. sent14: the increase is a kind of a Twin if the fact that it does demilitarize caddisworm and/or it does smother guerdon does not hold. sent15: that something is a kind of a Twin is not false. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 & sent12 -> int1: the increase is a Twin.; sent6 -> int2: the increase is a kind of a deadlock.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the increase is a kind of a deadlock and is a Twin.; int3 -> int4: there is something such that it is a kind of a deadlock that is a kind of a Twin.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the stairhead is non-secondary.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
sent1: the stairhead is not a Kafir but it is calcific if the geoduck is a botulinus. sent2: if the fact that the stairhead is a kind of a stingaree-bush that is a kind of a SCET is not correct it is not a SCET. sent3: the geoduck is not a kind of a secondary. sent4: the geoduck is a pointed if it is a kind of a Kafir. sent5: the geoduck is calcific. sent6: everything is a Kafir and/or is a botulinus. sent7: if the stairhead is a Kafir it is a subjunctive. sent8: that the sericulture does frazzle is right if it is synchronous. sent9: if the stairhead is a kind of a secondary the geoduck is calcific. sent10: something points if it is a kind of a botulinus. sent11: if something is not a SCET it is a botulinus or it is a Kafir or both. sent12: the stairhead is a pointed. sent13: the stairhead is not a Kafir and is a secondary if the geoduck is a SCET. sent14: that something is a stingaree-bush and is a SCET is not right if it does not demilitarize sericulture.
|
sent1: {B}{b} -> (¬{C}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent2: ¬({E}{a} & {D}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent3: ¬{A}{b} sent4: {C}{b} -> {AA}{b} sent5: {AB}{b} sent6: (x): ({C}x v {B}x) sent7: {C}{a} -> {GH}{a} sent8: {DN}{cu} -> {CR}{cu} sent9: {A}{a} -> {AB}{b} sent10: (x): {B}x -> {AA}x sent11: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({B}x v {C}x) sent12: {AA}{a} sent13: {D}{b} -> (¬{C}{a} & {A}{a}) sent14: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬({E}x & {D}x)
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the stairhead is a kind of a secondary.; sent6 -> int1: the geoduck is a kind of a Kafir and/or it is a botulinus.; sent10 -> int2: if the geoduck is a kind of a botulinus it does point.; int1 & sent4 & int2 -> int3: the geoduck is a pointed.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}{a}; sent6 -> int1: ({C}{b} v {B}{b}); sent10 -> int2: {B}{b} -> {AA}{b}; int1 & sent4 & int2 -> int3: {AA}{b};"
] |
the fact that the stairhead is a secondary hold.
|
{A}{a}
|
[
"sent11 -> int4: the stairhead is a botulinus and/or it is a Kafir if the fact that it is not a SCET is true.; sent14 -> int5: that the stairhead is a stingaree-bush and it is a SCET is not true if it does not demilitarize sericulture.;"
] | 5 | 4 | null | 11 | 0 | 11 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the stairhead is non-secondary. ; $context$ = sent1: the stairhead is not a Kafir but it is calcific if the geoduck is a botulinus. sent2: if the fact that the stairhead is a kind of a stingaree-bush that is a kind of a SCET is not correct it is not a SCET. sent3: the geoduck is not a kind of a secondary. sent4: the geoduck is a pointed if it is a kind of a Kafir. sent5: the geoduck is calcific. sent6: everything is a Kafir and/or is a botulinus. sent7: if the stairhead is a Kafir it is a subjunctive. sent8: that the sericulture does frazzle is right if it is synchronous. sent9: if the stairhead is a kind of a secondary the geoduck is calcific. sent10: something points if it is a kind of a botulinus. sent11: if something is not a SCET it is a botulinus or it is a Kafir or both. sent12: the stairhead is a pointed. sent13: the stairhead is not a Kafir and is a secondary if the geoduck is a SCET. sent14: that something is a stingaree-bush and is a SCET is not right if it does not demilitarize sericulture. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the stairhead is a kind of a secondary.; sent6 -> int1: the geoduck is a kind of a Kafir and/or it is a botulinus.; sent10 -> int2: if the geoduck is a kind of a botulinus it does point.; int1 & sent4 & int2 -> int3: the geoduck is a pointed.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that it is not a kind of a scouring.
|
(Ex): ¬{C}x
|
sent1: the songster is a kind of logistic thing that is subtractive. sent2: there are non-logistic things. sent3: the hobbyhorse is a kind of a bilby. sent4: if the eristic is a scouring and logistic the songster is not a kind of a bilby. sent5: something scours. sent6: the eristic is caulescent and does demilitarize opossum. sent7: the eristic is a kind of a bilby. sent8: the fact that the songster is a Smetana is correct. sent9: the eristic is mercurial. sent10: that something is not a Newtonian hold. sent11: the eristic is a scouring. sent12: if the eristic is logistic a scouring then that the songster is not a kind of a bilby is right. sent13: the songster does not scour if the eristic is a bilby and it is logistic. sent14: something does not scourge soapiness. sent15: the songster is logistic. sent16: the eristic is not logistic if the songster is a scouring and a bilby.
|
sent1: ({B}{b} & {CN}{b}) sent2: (Ex): ¬{B}x sent3: {A}{ds} sent4: ({C}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{A}{b} sent5: (Ex): {C}x sent6: ({AC}{a} & {EO}{a}) sent7: {A}{a} sent8: {BK}{b} sent9: {EF}{a} sent10: (Ex): ¬{BF}x sent11: {C}{a} sent12: ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{A}{b} sent13: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent14: (Ex): ¬{AM}x sent15: {B}{b} sent16: ({C}{b} & {A}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a}
|
[] |
[] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | null | 14 | 0 | 14 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that it is not a kind of a scouring. ; $context$ = sent1: the songster is a kind of logistic thing that is subtractive. sent2: there are non-logistic things. sent3: the hobbyhorse is a kind of a bilby. sent4: if the eristic is a scouring and logistic the songster is not a kind of a bilby. sent5: something scours. sent6: the eristic is caulescent and does demilitarize opossum. sent7: the eristic is a kind of a bilby. sent8: the fact that the songster is a Smetana is correct. sent9: the eristic is mercurial. sent10: that something is not a Newtonian hold. sent11: the eristic is a scouring. sent12: if the eristic is logistic a scouring then that the songster is not a kind of a bilby is right. sent13: the songster does not scour if the eristic is a bilby and it is logistic. sent14: something does not scourge soapiness. sent15: the songster is logistic. sent16: the eristic is not logistic if the songster is a scouring and a bilby. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the clupeid is ulcerative but it is not dendritic.
|
({B}{b} & ¬{C}{b})
|
sent1: the geophysicist does not sidle. sent2: the gargle is not a whack and is a kind of a condition. sent3: the clupeid does not whack. sent4: the geophysicist is not irreparable. sent5: the fact that something is ulcerative but it is not dendritic is false if that it does sidle is not wrong. sent6: if something that is not a fib is reparable it is not a rough. sent7: the Aeolian roughs. sent8: the clupeid does rough. sent9: The opossum demilitarizes clupeid. sent10: the geophysicist is reparable if it does not demilitarize opossum. sent11: if the fact that the geophysicist either does not whack or is not a kind of a fib or both is wrong the clupeid roughs. sent12: if something that does not whack does fib then it is not dendritic. sent13: the geophysicist is not motivational and/or it does not scourge Aeolian. sent14: the clupeid does rough if it is not ulcerative. sent15: if something does not demilitarize opossum it is not a whack. sent16: if that the geophysicist is not a rough or it is not reparable or both is not right the clupeid is ulcerative. sent17: if something is not motivational or it does not scourge Aeolian or both it does not demilitarize opossum. sent18: the clupeid demilitarizes opossum. sent19: the fact that the fact that the geophysicist is not the rough or it is not reparable or both is not right if the geophysicist does not sidle is not wrong. sent20: if the fact that the geophysicist is a fib but not latinate is not true then it does not fib. sent21: the clupeid is not a whack but a fib if it does demilitarize opossum.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{a} sent2: (¬{E}{au} & {FL}{au}) sent3: ¬{E}{b} sent4: {AB}{a} sent5: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x) sent6: (x): (¬{D}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{AA}x sent7: {AA}{cs} sent8: {AA}{b} sent9: {AC}{aa} sent10: ¬{F}{a} -> {AB}{a} sent11: ¬(¬{E}{a} v ¬{D}{a}) -> {AA}{b} sent12: (x): (¬{E}x & {D}x) -> ¬{C}x sent13: (¬{H}{a} v ¬{G}{a}) sent14: ¬{B}{b} -> {AA}{b} sent15: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬{E}x sent16: ¬(¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent17: (x): (¬{H}x v ¬{G}x) -> ¬{F}x sent18: {F}{b} sent19: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent20: ¬({D}{a} & ¬{J}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent21: {F}{b} -> (¬{E}{b} & {D}{b})
|
[
"sent19 & sent1 -> int1: the fact that the geophysicist is not a rough and/or it is not reparable does not hold.; int1 & sent16 -> int2: the clupeid is ulcerative.; sent12 -> int3: the clupeid is not dendritic if it is both not a whack and a fib.; sent21 & sent18 -> int4: the clupeid does not whack but it is a kind of a fib.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the clupeid is not dendritic.; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent19 & sent1 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}); int1 & sent16 -> int2: {B}{b}; sent12 -> int3: (¬{E}{b} & {D}{b}) -> ¬{C}{b}; sent21 & sent18 -> int4: (¬{E}{b} & {D}{b}); int3 & int4 -> int5: ¬{C}{b}; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the clupeid is ulcerative and non-dendritic is not right.
|
¬({B}{b} & ¬{C}{b})
|
[
"sent5 -> int6: that the clupeid is not non-ulcerative and is not dendritic is not true if it does sidle.; sent15 -> int7: if the geophysicist does not demilitarize opossum then that it does not whack hold.; sent17 -> int8: the geophysicist does not demilitarize opossum if it is not motivational or it does not scourge Aeolian or both.; int8 & sent13 -> int9: the geophysicist does not demilitarize opossum.; int7 & int9 -> int10: the geophysicist does not whack.;"
] | 7 | 3 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the clupeid is ulcerative but it is not dendritic. ; $context$ = sent1: the geophysicist does not sidle. sent2: the gargle is not a whack and is a kind of a condition. sent3: the clupeid does not whack. sent4: the geophysicist is not irreparable. sent5: the fact that something is ulcerative but it is not dendritic is false if that it does sidle is not wrong. sent6: if something that is not a fib is reparable it is not a rough. sent7: the Aeolian roughs. sent8: the clupeid does rough. sent9: The opossum demilitarizes clupeid. sent10: the geophysicist is reparable if it does not demilitarize opossum. sent11: if the fact that the geophysicist either does not whack or is not a kind of a fib or both is wrong the clupeid roughs. sent12: if something that does not whack does fib then it is not dendritic. sent13: the geophysicist is not motivational and/or it does not scourge Aeolian. sent14: the clupeid does rough if it is not ulcerative. sent15: if something does not demilitarize opossum it is not a whack. sent16: if that the geophysicist is not a rough or it is not reparable or both is not right the clupeid is ulcerative. sent17: if something is not motivational or it does not scourge Aeolian or both it does not demilitarize opossum. sent18: the clupeid demilitarizes opossum. sent19: the fact that the fact that the geophysicist is not the rough or it is not reparable or both is not right if the geophysicist does not sidle is not wrong. sent20: if the fact that the geophysicist is a fib but not latinate is not true then it does not fib. sent21: the clupeid is not a whack but a fib if it does demilitarize opossum. ; $proof$ =
|
sent19 & sent1 -> int1: the fact that the geophysicist is not a rough and/or it is not reparable does not hold.; int1 & sent16 -> int2: the clupeid is ulcerative.; sent12 -> int3: the clupeid is not dendritic if it is both not a whack and a fib.; sent21 & sent18 -> int4: the clupeid does not whack but it is a kind of a fib.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the clupeid is not dendritic.; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
something is not a constituency and is not a Hoenir.
|
(Ex): (¬{C}x & ¬{D}x)
|
sent1: if the fact that the quoit is a constituency is true the encyclopedist is not a constituency and is not a kind of a Hoenir. sent2: the encyclopedist is not a Hoenir if the quoit is a constituency. sent3: something is a buteonine but it is not deflationary. sent4: if the encyclopedist is not a WMD then the quoit is inadequate and it is a kind of a creeper. sent5: something is not syllabic and does not demilitarize Pitot. sent6: there is something such that it is both a creeper and a WMD.
|
sent1: {C}{a} -> (¬{C}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent2: {C}{a} -> ¬{D}{b} sent3: (Ex): ({HP}x & ¬{IB}x) sent4: ¬{B}{b} -> ({EP}{a} & {A}{a}) sent5: (Ex): (¬{FS}x & ¬{BU}x) sent6: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x)
|
[] |
[] |
something is inadequate and is a Dobrich.
|
(Ex): ({EP}x & {DI}x)
|
[] | 5 | 3 | null | 4 | 0 | 4 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = something is not a constituency and is not a Hoenir. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the quoit is a constituency is true the encyclopedist is not a constituency and is not a kind of a Hoenir. sent2: the encyclopedist is not a Hoenir if the quoit is a constituency. sent3: something is a buteonine but it is not deflationary. sent4: if the encyclopedist is not a WMD then the quoit is inadequate and it is a kind of a creeper. sent5: something is not syllabic and does not demilitarize Pitot. sent6: there is something such that it is both a creeper and a WMD. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the foryml is a diminutive but it is not a kind of a basswood is wrong.
|
¬({A}{aa} & ¬{B}{aa})
|
sent1: if something is a supplejack that does smother fatherliness it is not a basswood. sent2: there is something such that that it smothers unproductiveness and is a caress is wrong. sent3: there is something such that that it is not a polish and it does stop is not right. sent4: the fact that something is a diminutive and not a basswood is not right if it is a caress. sent5: the foryml is a proctoscope. sent6: the fact that the foryml is not a dribbler is not false. sent7: the foryml is not a caress if there exists something such that the fact that that it does not smother unproductiveness and it caress is not incorrect is false. sent8: if something that is counterinsurgent is a composite then it is not a noncandidate. sent9: if something does not caress then it is a diminutive. sent10: the foryml does scourge burgundy. sent11: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a proctoscope is not incorrect then the foryml is not a proctoscope. sent12: if something that does not scourge Tomistoma is a kind of a dribbler it is not a gargle. sent13: the vitrification is not a kind of a basswood. sent14: the foryml is not a basswood if it is a kind of a supplejack and it does smother fatherliness. sent15: if something is a malevolence and a fit it is not Carmelite. sent16: the fact that the bible is not a proctoscope but it is a kind of a diminutive is wrong. sent17: if something that is not a supplejack does smother fatherliness it is not a basswood. sent18: the fact that the foryml is not a kind of the supplejack and does smother fatherliness if the fact that the foryml is a proctoscope hold is true. sent19: there exists something such that that it does not smother unproductiveness and it is a caress is wrong. sent20: the foryml is not a supplejack. sent21: the uakari is a proctoscope. sent22: the foryml is not a kind of a supplejack if it is a kind of a proctoscope. sent23: the foryml is not a caress if there exists something such that it does smother unproductiveness. sent24: the squamule is not a supplejack. sent25: there is something such that that it does not smother unproductiveness and caresses hold.
|
sent1: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent2: (Ex): ¬({E}x & {C}x) sent3: (Ex): ¬(¬{HI}x & {BJ}x) sent4: (x): {C}x -> ¬({A}x & ¬{B}x) sent5: {D}{aa} sent6: ¬{CQ}{aa} sent7: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & {C}x) -> ¬{C}{aa} sent8: (x): ({AR}x & {BS}x) -> ¬{FN}x sent9: (x): ¬{C}x -> {A}x sent10: {CK}{aa} sent11: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬{D}{aa} sent12: (x): (¬{AP}x & {CQ}x) -> ¬{AM}x sent13: ¬{B}{gh} sent14: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent15: (x): ({JH}x & {GC}x) -> ¬{EI}x sent16: ¬(¬{D}{a} & {A}{a}) sent17: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent18: {D}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent19: (Ex): ¬(¬{E}x & {C}x) sent20: ¬{AA}{aa} sent21: {D}{bk} sent22: {D}{aa} -> ¬{AA}{aa} sent23: (x): {E}x -> ¬{C}{aa} sent24: ¬{AA}{bl} sent25: (Ex): (¬{E}x & {C}x)
|
[
"sent17 -> int1: that the foryml is not a basswood is not incorrect if it is not a kind of a supplejack and smothers fatherliness.; sent18 & sent5 -> int2: the foryml is not a kind of a supplejack and smothers fatherliness.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the foryml is not a basswood.; sent9 -> int4: the foryml is a diminutive if it is not a caress.; sent19 & sent7 -> int5: the foryml does not caress.; int4 & int5 -> int6: that the foryml is a diminutive hold.; int3 & int6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent17 -> int1: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; sent18 & sent5 -> int2: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬{B}{aa}; sent9 -> int4: ¬{C}{aa} -> {A}{aa}; sent19 & sent7 -> int5: ¬{C}{aa}; int4 & int5 -> int6: {A}{aa}; int3 & int6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the death is a kind of a basswood.
|
{B}{ee}
|
[
"sent16 -> int7: there is something such that the fact that it is both not a proctoscope and a diminutive is wrong.;"
] | 4 | 3 | 3 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the foryml is a diminutive but it is not a kind of a basswood is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a supplejack that does smother fatherliness it is not a basswood. sent2: there is something such that that it smothers unproductiveness and is a caress is wrong. sent3: there is something such that that it is not a polish and it does stop is not right. sent4: the fact that something is a diminutive and not a basswood is not right if it is a caress. sent5: the foryml is a proctoscope. sent6: the fact that the foryml is not a dribbler is not false. sent7: the foryml is not a caress if there exists something such that the fact that that it does not smother unproductiveness and it caress is not incorrect is false. sent8: if something that is counterinsurgent is a composite then it is not a noncandidate. sent9: if something does not caress then it is a diminutive. sent10: the foryml does scourge burgundy. sent11: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a proctoscope is not incorrect then the foryml is not a proctoscope. sent12: if something that does not scourge Tomistoma is a kind of a dribbler it is not a gargle. sent13: the vitrification is not a kind of a basswood. sent14: the foryml is not a basswood if it is a kind of a supplejack and it does smother fatherliness. sent15: if something is a malevolence and a fit it is not Carmelite. sent16: the fact that the bible is not a proctoscope but it is a kind of a diminutive is wrong. sent17: if something that is not a supplejack does smother fatherliness it is not a basswood. sent18: the fact that the foryml is not a kind of the supplejack and does smother fatherliness if the fact that the foryml is a proctoscope hold is true. sent19: there exists something such that that it does not smother unproductiveness and it is a caress is wrong. sent20: the foryml is not a supplejack. sent21: the uakari is a proctoscope. sent22: the foryml is not a kind of a supplejack if it is a kind of a proctoscope. sent23: the foryml is not a caress if there exists something such that it does smother unproductiveness. sent24: the squamule is not a supplejack. sent25: there is something such that that it does not smother unproductiveness and caresses hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent17 -> int1: that the foryml is not a basswood is not incorrect if it is not a kind of a supplejack and smothers fatherliness.; sent18 & sent5 -> int2: the foryml is not a kind of a supplejack and smothers fatherliness.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the foryml is not a basswood.; sent9 -> int4: the foryml is a diminutive if it is not a caress.; sent19 & sent7 -> int5: the foryml does not caress.; int4 & int5 -> int6: that the foryml is a diminutive hold.; int3 & int6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the save-all is a kind of a self-starter.
|
{C}{c}
|
sent1: the ciliate is a Reticulum. sent2: the ciliate is not emptying. sent3: if the save-all is a kind of a heroics then the handspike is a kind of a self-starter. sent4: if that either the handspike is non-heroics or it empties or both is not true then that it is a Reticulum hold. sent5: the fact that the handspike is either not heroics or not emptying or both is not right. sent6: the save-all is a Judah. sent7: the ciliate is a kind of a heroics. sent8: if that the handspike is not a heroics and/or is not an emptying is not correct then it is a Reticulum. sent9: if that the handspike is a heroics and/or is not an emptying is not true then it is a Reticulum. sent10: if the handspike is a Reticulum the ciliate is a kind of a Judah. sent11: the handspike is a self-starter if the save-all is a Reticulum. sent12: something is a Reticulum and it is a Judah if it is not a kind of a self-starter. sent13: the save-all is a Reticulum if the handspike does smother waif. sent14: the save-all is not non-emptying. sent15: if the ciliate is a Judah then the save-all is not a kind of a self-starter. sent16: the spikemoss is a Reticulum. sent17: the ciliate is non-emptying if the handspike is a Judah. sent18: the handspike does smother waif if the ciliate does not smother phone or it does not smother waif or both. sent19: if the ciliate is a kind of a Reticulum the handspike is not a Judah.
|
sent1: {B}{b} sent2: ¬{AB}{b} sent3: {AA}{c} -> {C}{a} sent4: ¬(¬{AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent5: ¬(¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent6: {A}{c} sent7: {AA}{b} sent8: ¬(¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent9: ¬({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent10: {B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent11: {B}{c} -> {C}{a} sent12: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) sent13: {D}{a} -> {B}{c} sent14: {AB}{c} sent15: {A}{b} -> ¬{C}{c} sent16: {B}{fp} sent17: {A}{a} -> ¬{AB}{b} sent18: (¬{F}{b} v ¬{D}{b}) -> {D}{a} sent19: {B}{b} -> ¬{A}{a}
|
[
"sent8 & sent5 -> int1: the handspike is a Reticulum.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: the ciliate is a kind of a Judah.; int2 & sent15 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 & sent5 -> int1: {B}{a}; int1 & sent10 -> int2: {A}{b}; int2 & sent15 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the outlet is an emptying.
|
{AB}{hk}
|
[
"sent12 -> int3: the handspike is a Reticulum that is a Judah if it is not a kind of a self-starter.;"
] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the save-all is a kind of a self-starter. ; $context$ = sent1: the ciliate is a Reticulum. sent2: the ciliate is not emptying. sent3: if the save-all is a kind of a heroics then the handspike is a kind of a self-starter. sent4: if that either the handspike is non-heroics or it empties or both is not true then that it is a Reticulum hold. sent5: the fact that the handspike is either not heroics or not emptying or both is not right. sent6: the save-all is a Judah. sent7: the ciliate is a kind of a heroics. sent8: if that the handspike is not a heroics and/or is not an emptying is not correct then it is a Reticulum. sent9: if that the handspike is a heroics and/or is not an emptying is not true then it is a Reticulum. sent10: if the handspike is a Reticulum the ciliate is a kind of a Judah. sent11: the handspike is a self-starter if the save-all is a Reticulum. sent12: something is a Reticulum and it is a Judah if it is not a kind of a self-starter. sent13: the save-all is a Reticulum if the handspike does smother waif. sent14: the save-all is not non-emptying. sent15: if the ciliate is a Judah then the save-all is not a kind of a self-starter. sent16: the spikemoss is a Reticulum. sent17: the ciliate is non-emptying if the handspike is a Judah. sent18: the handspike does smother waif if the ciliate does not smother phone or it does not smother waif or both. sent19: if the ciliate is a kind of a Reticulum the handspike is not a Judah. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 & sent5 -> int1: the handspike is a Reticulum.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: the ciliate is a kind of a Judah.; int2 & sent15 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if it does not unclog the fact that it is a Oestrus and is not theocratic is incorrect.
|
(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
sent1: if the framer does not demilitarize metaphor that it does scourge batch and turtles does not hold. sent2: there exists something such that if it does not unclog then that it is a kind of a Oestrus and is theocratic is not right. sent3: if the framer does unclog the fact that it is a kind of a Oestrus that is not theocratic is not correct. sent4: if the framer does not unclog then it is a Oestrus and is not theocratic. sent5: the fact that the framer is Ebionite and it is theocratic is false if it is not a kind of a ammoniac. sent6: if the fact that the framer does unclog is not true then that it is a Oestrus and not theocratic is false. sent7: if the bobtail is not a Ishtar the fact that it does scourge brazil and does smother reasoning is not correct. sent8: if the framer does not unclog then that the fact that it is a kind of a Oestrus and it is theocratic is not false is false. sent9: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a bladder the fact that it is unsurmountable but not a wirehair is false. sent10: that the ghetto is a Oestrus that is not an employer is false if it is basipetal. sent11: there exists something such that if it unclogs then the fact that it is a Oestrus and it is not theocratic does not hold. sent12: that something is educational and is not a Oestrus is wrong if it is not a kind of a one-third.
|
sent1: ¬{HO}{aa} -> ¬({ER}{aa} & {FF}{aa}) sent2: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent4: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent5: ¬{AG}{aa} -> ¬({S}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent6: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent7: ¬{HH}{bj} -> ¬({C}{bj} & {G}{bj}) sent8: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent9: (Ex): ¬{BS}x -> ¬({HF}x & ¬{O}x) sent10: {AN}{ja} -> ¬({AA}{ja} & ¬{EG}{ja}) sent11: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent12: (x): ¬{GT}x -> ¬({GK}x & ¬{AA}x)
|
[
"sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
if the grating is not a kind of a one-third then the fact that it is educational and it is not a Oestrus does not hold.
|
¬{GT}{ep} -> ¬({GK}{ep} & ¬{AA}{ep})
|
[
"sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it does not unclog the fact that it is a Oestrus and is not theocratic is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if the framer does not demilitarize metaphor that it does scourge batch and turtles does not hold. sent2: there exists something such that if it does not unclog then that it is a kind of a Oestrus and is theocratic is not right. sent3: if the framer does unclog the fact that it is a kind of a Oestrus that is not theocratic is not correct. sent4: if the framer does not unclog then it is a Oestrus and is not theocratic. sent5: the fact that the framer is Ebionite and it is theocratic is false if it is not a kind of a ammoniac. sent6: if the fact that the framer does unclog is not true then that it is a Oestrus and not theocratic is false. sent7: if the bobtail is not a Ishtar the fact that it does scourge brazil and does smother reasoning is not correct. sent8: if the framer does not unclog then that the fact that it is a kind of a Oestrus and it is theocratic is not false is false. sent9: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a bladder the fact that it is unsurmountable but not a wirehair is false. sent10: that the ghetto is a Oestrus that is not an employer is false if it is basipetal. sent11: there exists something such that if it unclogs then the fact that it is a Oestrus and it is not theocratic does not hold. sent12: that something is educational and is not a Oestrus is wrong if it is not a kind of a one-third. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the upsetter is a kind of a Calvinism.
|
{C}{b}
|
sent1: that the bonduc is a cynancum and a capacitance is false. sent2: the fireguard is a Ionian and/or it is full-time. sent3: if the friction is not a capacitance the Palatinate is a kind of a bpm. sent4: if something is a bpm then that it is not full-time and it is not a Calvinism is not correct. sent5: that the friction is not a capacitance if there exists something such that the fact that it is a cynancum that is a capacitance is not right is true. sent6: everything is a bpm. sent7: if there is something such that it is full-time or it is not a Ionian or both then the fireguard is a Calvinism. sent8: the upsetter is full-time. sent9: the fireguard is not full-time. sent10: either something is a Ionian or it is full-time or both. sent11: the upsetter is a Ionian or it is not a Calvinism or both. sent12: the upsetter is a Calvinism if something is a Ionian or it is not full-time or both. sent13: there is something such that it either smothers friction or is distributional or both.
|
sent1: ¬({G}{e} & {E}{e}) sent2: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}) sent3: ¬{E}{d} -> {D}{c} sent4: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) sent5: (x): ¬({G}x & {E}x) -> ¬{E}{d} sent6: (x): {D}x sent7: (x): ({B}x v ¬{A}x) -> {C}{a} sent8: {B}{b} sent9: ¬{B}{a} sent10: (Ex): ({A}x v {B}x) sent11: ({A}{b} v ¬{C}{b}) sent12: (x): ({A}x v ¬{B}x) -> {C}{b} sent13: (Ex): ({CN}x v {EI}x)
|
[
"sent9 -> int1: the fireguard is Ionian and/or is not full-time.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that either it is a kind of a Ionian or it is not full-time or both.; int2 & sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 -> int1: ({A}{a} v ¬{B}{a}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): ({A}x v ¬{B}x); int2 & sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the upsetter is not a Calvinism.
|
¬{C}{b}
|
[
"sent1 -> int3: there exists something such that the fact that it is a cynancum and it is a capacitance is wrong.; int3 & sent5 -> int4: the friction is not a kind of a capacitance.; sent3 & int4 -> int5: the Palatinate is a bpm.;"
] | 7 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the upsetter is a kind of a Calvinism. ; $context$ = sent1: that the bonduc is a cynancum and a capacitance is false. sent2: the fireguard is a Ionian and/or it is full-time. sent3: if the friction is not a capacitance the Palatinate is a kind of a bpm. sent4: if something is a bpm then that it is not full-time and it is not a Calvinism is not correct. sent5: that the friction is not a capacitance if there exists something such that the fact that it is a cynancum that is a capacitance is not right is true. sent6: everything is a bpm. sent7: if there is something such that it is full-time or it is not a Ionian or both then the fireguard is a Calvinism. sent8: the upsetter is full-time. sent9: the fireguard is not full-time. sent10: either something is a Ionian or it is full-time or both. sent11: the upsetter is a Ionian or it is not a Calvinism or both. sent12: the upsetter is a Calvinism if something is a Ionian or it is not full-time or both. sent13: there is something such that it either smothers friction or is distributional or both. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 -> int1: the fireguard is Ionian and/or is not full-time.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that either it is a kind of a Ionian or it is not full-time or both.; int2 & sent12 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the lovage is calyptrate.
|
{B}{aa}
|
sent1: something is not a kind of a Gretzky if it is not a Gretzky and/or it stews Theraphosidae. sent2: the clearway is not a Gretzky or it does stew Theraphosidae or both. sent3: the preemptor does chirk if that something is not a Mozambican hold. sent4: the lovage is not calyptrate if the fact that the tension does scourge durative and is not calyptrate is not false. sent5: something does not chirk but it does scourge durative. sent6: if something is not a Gretzky then it is not a Mozambican. sent7: if something is not a marquee then that it is both biogenetic and thyrotoxic is not true. sent8: that the lovage is biogenetic and thyrotoxic is wrong. sent9: that something is not biogenetic but it does stew coontie is incorrect if it is a kind of a marquee. sent10: something does chirk and it does scourge durative. sent11: there is something such that it does not chirk. sent12: there is something such that it does scourge durative. sent13: the coontie is calyptrate. sent14: something is calyptrate if that it is both not biogenetic and thyrotoxic is not right. sent15: the fact that something is non-biogenetic but it is thyrotoxic does not hold if that it is not a marquee is not incorrect. sent16: the lovage is not a marquee if there is something such that it does not chirk and it scourges durative. sent17: the lovage is calyptrate if it is biogenetic. sent18: if something is biogenetic it is not non-calyptrate. sent19: the cordierite is a marquee if that the fact that the fact that the tension scourges durative and is not calyptrate is correct is incorrect is true.
|
sent1: (x): (¬{F}x v {H}x) -> ¬{F}x sent2: (¬{F}{c} v {H}{c}) sent3: (x): ¬{E}x -> {D}{b} sent4: ({C}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent5: (Ex): (¬{D}x & {C}x) sent6: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬{E}x sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent8: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent9: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {DR}x) sent10: (Ex): ({D}x & {C}x) sent11: (Ex): ¬{D}x sent12: (Ex): {C}x sent13: {B}{di} sent14: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent15: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent16: (x): (¬{D}x & {C}x) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent17: {AA}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent18: (x): {AA}x -> {B}x sent19: ¬({C}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> {A}{q}
|
[
"sent15 -> int1: if the lovage is not a marquee then the fact that that it is not biogenetic and it is thyrotoxic is right is incorrect.; sent5 & sent16 -> int2: the lovage is not a marquee.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that that the lovage is a kind of non-biogenetic thing that is thyrotoxic is not correct is not incorrect.; sent14 -> int4: if that the fact that the lovage is both not biogenetic and not non-thyrotoxic does not hold hold then it is calyptrate.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent15 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); sent5 & sent16 -> int2: ¬{A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); sent14 -> int4: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the lovage is not calyptrate.
|
¬{B}{aa}
|
[] | 5 | 3 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the lovage is calyptrate. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not a kind of a Gretzky if it is not a Gretzky and/or it stews Theraphosidae. sent2: the clearway is not a Gretzky or it does stew Theraphosidae or both. sent3: the preemptor does chirk if that something is not a Mozambican hold. sent4: the lovage is not calyptrate if the fact that the tension does scourge durative and is not calyptrate is not false. sent5: something does not chirk but it does scourge durative. sent6: if something is not a Gretzky then it is not a Mozambican. sent7: if something is not a marquee then that it is both biogenetic and thyrotoxic is not true. sent8: that the lovage is biogenetic and thyrotoxic is wrong. sent9: that something is not biogenetic but it does stew coontie is incorrect if it is a kind of a marquee. sent10: something does chirk and it does scourge durative. sent11: there is something such that it does not chirk. sent12: there is something such that it does scourge durative. sent13: the coontie is calyptrate. sent14: something is calyptrate if that it is both not biogenetic and thyrotoxic is not right. sent15: the fact that something is non-biogenetic but it is thyrotoxic does not hold if that it is not a marquee is not incorrect. sent16: the lovage is not a marquee if there is something such that it does not chirk and it scourges durative. sent17: the lovage is calyptrate if it is biogenetic. sent18: if something is biogenetic it is not non-calyptrate. sent19: the cordierite is a marquee if that the fact that the fact that the tension scourges durative and is not calyptrate is correct is incorrect is true. ; $proof$ =
|
sent15 -> int1: if the lovage is not a marquee then the fact that that it is not biogenetic and it is thyrotoxic is right is incorrect.; sent5 & sent16 -> int2: the lovage is not a marquee.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that that the lovage is a kind of non-biogenetic thing that is thyrotoxic is not correct is not incorrect.; sent14 -> int4: if that the fact that the lovage is both not biogenetic and not non-thyrotoxic does not hold hold then it is calyptrate.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the swooping does not occur.
|
¬{E}
|
sent1: that the demilitarizing disorder but not the demilitarizing shuttlecock occurs is caused by the acetylicness. sent2: that the demilitarizing distressing does not occur brings about that both the open-hearthness and the scourging gas occurs. sent3: the demilitarizing distressing does not occur if the fact that both the demilitarizing distressing and the non-anthropologicalness happens does not hold. sent4: if the craniotomy happens that the directedness does not occur and the demilitarizing Ob does not occur is not true. sent5: the phagocyticness and/or the scourging dispensary occurs. sent6: the aphasic happens if the phagocyticness happens. sent7: the phagocyticness does not occur or the scourging dispensary does not occur or both if the aphasic does not occur. sent8: that the demilitarizing distressing but not the anthropologicalness happens is incorrect if the Romanian occurs. sent9: the demilitarizing disorder leads to that not the depreciation but the assenting happens. sent10: that not the depreciation but the assent happens prevents that the craniotomy does not occur. sent11: if the fact that the directing does not occur and the demilitarizing Ob does not occur is not true the smothering Pharomacrus does not occur. sent12: the fact that the ligation occurs and the scourging gas does not occur is not true. sent13: that the ligation does not occur is right if the fact that the ligation occurs but the scourging gas does not occur is incorrect. sent14: the aphasicness happens if the scourging dispensary happens. sent15: the Romanianness occurs and the incorporealness happens if the smothering Pharomacrus does not occur. sent16: the fact that the ligation does not occur and the swooping does not occur is false if the scourging gas happens.
|
sent1: {T} -> ({R} & ¬{S}) sent2: ¬{H} -> ({G} & {F}) sent3: ¬({H} & ¬{I}) -> ¬{H} sent4: {O} -> ¬(¬{M} & ¬{N}) sent5: ({A} v {B}) sent6: {A} -> {C} sent7: ¬{C} -> (¬{A} v ¬{B}) sent8: {J} -> ¬({H} & ¬{I}) sent9: {R} -> (¬{P} & {Q}) sent10: (¬{P} & {Q}) -> {O} sent11: ¬(¬{M} & ¬{N}) -> ¬{L} sent12: ¬({D} & ¬{F}) sent13: ¬({D} & ¬{F}) -> ¬{D} sent14: {B} -> {C} sent15: ¬{L} -> ({J} & {K}) sent16: {F} -> ¬(¬{D} & ¬{E})
|
[
"sent5 & sent6 & sent14 -> int1: the aphasic occurs.; sent13 & sent12 -> int2: the ligation does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the ligation does not occur but the aphasicness happens.;"
] |
[
"sent5 & sent6 & sent14 -> int1: {C}; sent13 & sent12 -> int2: ¬{D}; int1 & int2 -> int3: (¬{D} & {C});"
] |
the woolenness does not occur.
|
¬{FD}
|
[] | 16 | 3 | null | 11 | 0 | 11 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the swooping does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the demilitarizing disorder but not the demilitarizing shuttlecock occurs is caused by the acetylicness. sent2: that the demilitarizing distressing does not occur brings about that both the open-hearthness and the scourging gas occurs. sent3: the demilitarizing distressing does not occur if the fact that both the demilitarizing distressing and the non-anthropologicalness happens does not hold. sent4: if the craniotomy happens that the directedness does not occur and the demilitarizing Ob does not occur is not true. sent5: the phagocyticness and/or the scourging dispensary occurs. sent6: the aphasic happens if the phagocyticness happens. sent7: the phagocyticness does not occur or the scourging dispensary does not occur or both if the aphasic does not occur. sent8: that the demilitarizing distressing but not the anthropologicalness happens is incorrect if the Romanian occurs. sent9: the demilitarizing disorder leads to that not the depreciation but the assenting happens. sent10: that not the depreciation but the assent happens prevents that the craniotomy does not occur. sent11: if the fact that the directing does not occur and the demilitarizing Ob does not occur is not true the smothering Pharomacrus does not occur. sent12: the fact that the ligation occurs and the scourging gas does not occur is not true. sent13: that the ligation does not occur is right if the fact that the ligation occurs but the scourging gas does not occur is incorrect. sent14: the aphasicness happens if the scourging dispensary happens. sent15: the Romanianness occurs and the incorporealness happens if the smothering Pharomacrus does not occur. sent16: the fact that the ligation does not occur and the swooping does not occur is false if the scourging gas happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 & sent6 & sent14 -> int1: the aphasic occurs.; sent13 & sent12 -> int2: the ligation does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the ligation does not occur but the aphasicness happens.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there exists something such that if it is not a oxalacetate and not operatic it is not a kind of a Entebbe is correct.
|
(Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
sent1: something is non-dogmatic if it is not a pinball and is typical. sent2: there exists something such that if it is not typical and it is chemiluminescent then it is not lively. sent3: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a Canopus and is not providential it does not scourge astronomer. sent4: if the gully is not sinkable and it is non-operatic then that it is not lean is not wrong. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not ethnocentric and it is not a mainframe then it does furnish. sent6: if the astronomer does not demilitarize Chimborazo and does not demilitarize gully then it is non-operatic. sent7: there is something such that if it is not a AUC and it is not an inkblot then it is exculpatory. sent8: if something is non-lively thing that does scourge firmness then it does not smother comforted. sent9: if something is not a oxalacetate and it is not operatic it is not a Entebbe. sent10: something does not smother truant if it is orthotropous and it is not unstoppable. sent11: if that the fencing is not a oxalacetate and it is not a reticulum is not false that it is not scientific is correct. sent12: if the fencing does not demilitarize birch and it is not operatic then it is not urinary.
|
sent1: (x): (¬{CM}x & {BC}x) -> ¬{IM}x sent2: (Ex): (¬{BC}x & {JA}x) -> ¬{FB}x sent3: (Ex): (¬{I}x & ¬{IT}x) -> ¬{EA}x sent4: (¬{BF}{ck} & ¬{AB}{ck}) -> ¬{FC}{ck} sent5: (Ex): (¬{FP}x & ¬{CB}x) -> {GL}x sent6: (¬{ET}{es} & ¬{EO}{es}) -> ¬{AB}{es} sent7: (Ex): (¬{DL}x & ¬{DE}x) -> {FE}x sent8: (x): (¬{FB}x & {CT}x) -> ¬{DI}x sent9: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent10: (x): ({GJ}x & ¬{BI}x) -> ¬{GU}x sent11: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{DB}{aa}) -> ¬{EK}{aa} sent12: (¬{BJ}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{AG}{aa}
|
[
"sent9 -> int1: if the fencing is not a oxalacetate and is not operatic it is not a Entebbe.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 -> int1: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if it is not a oxalacetate and not operatic it is not a kind of a Entebbe is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: something is non-dogmatic if it is not a pinball and is typical. sent2: there exists something such that if it is not typical and it is chemiluminescent then it is not lively. sent3: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a Canopus and is not providential it does not scourge astronomer. sent4: if the gully is not sinkable and it is non-operatic then that it is not lean is not wrong. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not ethnocentric and it is not a mainframe then it does furnish. sent6: if the astronomer does not demilitarize Chimborazo and does not demilitarize gully then it is non-operatic. sent7: there is something such that if it is not a AUC and it is not an inkblot then it is exculpatory. sent8: if something is non-lively thing that does scourge firmness then it does not smother comforted. sent9: if something is not a oxalacetate and it is not operatic it is not a Entebbe. sent10: something does not smother truant if it is orthotropous and it is not unstoppable. sent11: if that the fencing is not a oxalacetate and it is not a reticulum is not false that it is not scientific is correct. sent12: if the fencing does not demilitarize birch and it is not operatic then it is not urinary. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 -> int1: if the fencing is not a oxalacetate and is not operatic it is not a Entebbe.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there exists something such that if it is a brooklet it does not demilitarize reserved and is not a cocklebur does not hold.
|
¬((Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x))
|
sent1: if the fact that the programmer is a kind of a brooklet is not false then it does not demilitarize reserved and it is not a kind of a cocklebur.
|
sent1: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it is a brooklet it does not demilitarize reserved and is not a cocklebur does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the programmer is a kind of a brooklet is not false then it does not demilitarize reserved and it is not a kind of a cocklebur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there is something such that it demilitarizes precipitator and is a rupture is not right.
|
¬((Ex): ({A}x & {B}x))
|
sent1: the yodeller is a Hygeia and does enliven. sent2: the fact that there is something such that it is a rupture is not false. sent3: the rangeland is a rupture. sent4: the yodeller is auspicious and is a corncrake. sent5: the CO does demilitarize precipitator. sent6: the yodeller is a mount and substantival. sent7: that the rangeland is a Minnesotan hold. sent8: The precipitator demilitarizes yodeller. sent9: if something is an intimidation the fact that it demilitarizes precipitator is not false. sent10: if the swearer does demilitarize precipitator then the yodeller is not a kind of a rupture and it is not idiopathic. sent11: if something is not tetragonal the fact that it is an intimidation and is a kind of an albacore is right. sent12: there is something such that it is both advective and an occurrence. sent13: there exists something such that it utilizes and it is a Amharic. sent14: the chino is a kind of a rupture if the yodeller is not a rupture and is not idiopathic. sent15: there exists something such that it is a poplin and it is papilliform. sent16: the yodeller is not unreasonable. sent17: the yodeller is zonal. sent18: something demilitarizes precipitator. sent19: the Prussian is a stride that demilitarizes precipitator. sent20: the yodeller is a rupture. sent21: the yodeller demilitarizes precipitator. sent22: the yodeller is a intemperance.
|
sent1: ({IN}{a} & {JB}{a}) sent2: (Ex): {B}x sent3: {B}{g} sent4: ({HL}{a} & {HE}{a}) sent5: {A}{ih} sent6: ({HI}{a} & {JK}{a}) sent7: {HU}{g} sent8: {AA}{aa} sent9: (x): {D}x -> {A}x sent10: {A}{b} -> (¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent11: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({D}x & {E}x) sent12: (Ex): ({HH}x & {CB}x) sent13: (Ex): ({AL}x & {IK}x) sent14: (¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {B}{hb} sent15: (Ex): ({FR}x & {AD}x) sent16: {HJ}{a} sent17: {GA}{a} sent18: (Ex): {A}x sent19: ({HG}{eq} & {A}{eq}) sent20: {B}{a} sent21: {A}{a} sent22: {IB}{a}
|
[
"sent21 & sent20 -> int1: the yodeller demilitarizes precipitator and it is a rupture.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent21 & sent20 -> int1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the chino is a rupture.
|
{B}{hb}
|
[
"sent9 -> int2: if the fact that the swearer is an intimidation is true it demilitarizes precipitator.; sent11 -> int3: the swearer is a kind of an intimidation and it is an albacore if it is not tetragonal.;"
] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 20 | 0 | 20 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that it demilitarizes precipitator and is a rupture is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the yodeller is a Hygeia and does enliven. sent2: the fact that there is something such that it is a rupture is not false. sent3: the rangeland is a rupture. sent4: the yodeller is auspicious and is a corncrake. sent5: the CO does demilitarize precipitator. sent6: the yodeller is a mount and substantival. sent7: that the rangeland is a Minnesotan hold. sent8: The precipitator demilitarizes yodeller. sent9: if something is an intimidation the fact that it demilitarizes precipitator is not false. sent10: if the swearer does demilitarize precipitator then the yodeller is not a kind of a rupture and it is not idiopathic. sent11: if something is not tetragonal the fact that it is an intimidation and is a kind of an albacore is right. sent12: there is something such that it is both advective and an occurrence. sent13: there exists something such that it utilizes and it is a Amharic. sent14: the chino is a kind of a rupture if the yodeller is not a rupture and is not idiopathic. sent15: there exists something such that it is a poplin and it is papilliform. sent16: the yodeller is not unreasonable. sent17: the yodeller is zonal. sent18: something demilitarizes precipitator. sent19: the Prussian is a stride that demilitarizes precipitator. sent20: the yodeller is a rupture. sent21: the yodeller demilitarizes precipitator. sent22: the yodeller is a intemperance. ; $proof$ =
|
sent21 & sent20 -> int1: the yodeller demilitarizes precipitator and it is a rupture.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the moralness does not occur.
|
¬{C}
|
sent1: the wake occurs. sent2: the moral happens if the fact that both the smothering malacopterygian and the moralness occurs does not hold. sent3: the demilitarizing Broca occurs if the fact that the exotericness does not occur and/or the solarizing does not occur is not correct. sent4: if the thrashing happens and/or the smothering malacopterygian happens the moral does not occur. sent5: that the smothering malacopterygian but not the moral happens is not correct if the thrash does not occur. sent6: the fact that the atavism does not occur and/or the Cartesian does not occur is incorrect. sent7: the remilitarization happens. sent8: the guffaw and/or the floweriness occurs.
|
sent1: {FB} sent2: ¬({B} & ¬{C}) -> {C} sent3: ¬(¬{ID} v ¬{AR}) -> {DN} sent4: ({A} v {B}) -> ¬{C} sent5: ¬{A} -> ¬({B} & ¬{C}) sent6: ¬(¬{AA} v ¬{AB}) sent7: {GN} sent8: ({JD} v {CK})
|
[] |
[] |
the moral happens.
|
{C}
|
[] | 7 | 3 | null | 6 | 0 | 6 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the moralness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the wake occurs. sent2: the moral happens if the fact that both the smothering malacopterygian and the moralness occurs does not hold. sent3: the demilitarizing Broca occurs if the fact that the exotericness does not occur and/or the solarizing does not occur is not correct. sent4: if the thrashing happens and/or the smothering malacopterygian happens the moral does not occur. sent5: that the smothering malacopterygian but not the moral happens is not correct if the thrash does not occur. sent6: the fact that the atavism does not occur and/or the Cartesian does not occur is incorrect. sent7: the remilitarization happens. sent8: the guffaw and/or the floweriness occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the sectarian does smother gal and is choral is not true.
|
¬({B}{a} & {C}{a})
|
sent1: the sectarian does smother gal if there exists something such that that it does not scourge coziness hold. sent2: there exists something such that it is not choral. sent3: there is something such that the fact that it does not scourge coziness is not incorrect. sent4: the fact that the proportion is a applewood but it is not suborbital is incorrect if there is something such that it does not itinerate. sent5: there is something such that it does scourge coziness. sent6: the fact that the sectarian is a pawnbroker is not false. sent7: the gal is choral. sent8: the fact that the fact that the chipboard is not a kind of a applewood hold if there is something such that the fact that it is both a applewood and non-suborbital does not hold hold. sent9: the sectarian is choral and it is a kind of a pawnbroker. sent10: if the fact that something does not demilitarize respite but it is a catarrhine is not true then it is choral. sent11: if something is not a applewood the fact that the digestion does not demilitarize respite but it is a kind of a catarrhine is not right. sent12: if the sectarian does not smother gal then the stile is a pawnbroker that scourges coziness. sent13: there exists something such that it does not itinerate.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> {B}{a} sent2: (Ex): ¬{C}x sent3: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent4: (x): ¬{I}x -> ¬({G}{d} & ¬{H}{d}) sent5: (Ex): {A}x sent6: {D}{a} sent7: {C}{ad} sent8: (x): ¬({G}x & ¬{H}x) -> ¬{G}{c} sent9: ({C}{a} & {D}{a}) sent10: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & {F}x) -> {C}x sent11: (x): ¬{G}x -> ¬(¬{E}{b} & {F}{b}) sent12: ¬{B}{a} -> ({D}{bb} & {A}{bb}) sent13: (Ex): ¬{I}x
|
[
"sent3 & sent1 -> int1: the sectarian does smother gal.; sent9 -> int2: the sectarian is choral.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent1 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent9 -> int2: {C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the stile is a kind of a pawnbroker.
|
{D}{bb}
|
[
"sent10 -> int3: the digestion is choral if that it does not demilitarize respite and is catarrhine is wrong.; sent13 & sent4 -> int4: the fact that the proportion is a kind of a applewood that is not suborbital is incorrect.; int4 -> int5: there exists something such that the fact that it is a applewood that is not suborbital is incorrect.; int5 & sent8 -> int6: the chipboard is not a applewood.; int6 -> int7: there exists something such that it is not a applewood.; int7 & sent11 -> int8: the fact that the digestion does not demilitarize respite and is a catarrhine does not hold.; int3 & int8 -> int9: the digestion is choral.; int9 -> int10: there are choral things.;"
] | 10 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the sectarian does smother gal and is choral is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the sectarian does smother gal if there exists something such that that it does not scourge coziness hold. sent2: there exists something such that it is not choral. sent3: there is something such that the fact that it does not scourge coziness is not incorrect. sent4: the fact that the proportion is a applewood but it is not suborbital is incorrect if there is something such that it does not itinerate. sent5: there is something such that it does scourge coziness. sent6: the fact that the sectarian is a pawnbroker is not false. sent7: the gal is choral. sent8: the fact that the fact that the chipboard is not a kind of a applewood hold if there is something such that the fact that it is both a applewood and non-suborbital does not hold hold. sent9: the sectarian is choral and it is a kind of a pawnbroker. sent10: if the fact that something does not demilitarize respite but it is a catarrhine is not true then it is choral. sent11: if something is not a applewood the fact that the digestion does not demilitarize respite but it is a kind of a catarrhine is not right. sent12: if the sectarian does not smother gal then the stile is a pawnbroker that scourges coziness. sent13: there exists something such that it does not itinerate. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent1 -> int1: the sectarian does smother gal.; sent9 -> int2: the sectarian is choral.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the perturbation is not a ovenware.
|
¬{C}{b}
|
sent1: if something does not coconspire it is actable and it is a kind of a trophy. sent2: there exists something such that the fact that it does not cry hold. sent3: the perturbation is not a ovenware if the goldbrick is a Fabian. sent4: the goldbrick is a Fabian if it scourges lapful. sent5: the fact that something is a kind of a Fabian that is not a ovenware is not correct if it does scourge lapful. sent6: if something is not a trophy it scourges lapful and is actable. sent7: the goldbrick scourges lapful. sent8: if that something is not non-Fabian but it is not a kind of a ovenware is not correct then it is a ovenware. sent9: if the goldbrick is a kind of a Fabian the perturbation does not scourge lapful. sent10: that the goldbrick does not coconspire is correct if the perturbation is not a kind of a cry but it does coconspire. sent11: the goldbrick is not indeterminable if the fact that the weightlifter is both indeterminable and a Hegelian does not hold. sent12: the fact that the gluteus is not a ovenware hold. sent13: the fact that the weightlifter is indeterminable and Hegelian is not right if something does not cry. sent14: the perturbation is not a cry and coconspires. sent15: The lapful scourges goldbrick.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({D}x & {E}x) sent2: (Ex): ¬{H}x sent3: {B}{a} -> ¬{C}{b} sent4: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent5: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x) sent6: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({A}x & {D}x) sent7: {A}{a} sent8: (x): ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x) -> {C}x sent9: {B}{a} -> ¬{A}{b} sent10: (¬{H}{b} & {F}{b}) -> ¬{F}{a} sent11: ¬({G}{c} & {I}{c}) -> ¬{G}{a} sent12: ¬{C}{eq} sent13: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬({G}{c} & {I}{c}) sent14: (¬{H}{b} & {F}{b}) sent15: {AA}{aa}
|
[
"sent4 & sent7 -> int1: the goldbrick is a kind of a Fabian.; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 & sent7 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the perturbation is a ovenware is true.
|
{C}{b}
|
[
"sent8 -> int2: if the fact that the perturbation is a Fabian but it is not a ovenware does not hold then it is a ovenware.; sent5 -> int3: if the perturbation scourges lapful that it is Fabian and it is not a kind of a ovenware does not hold.; sent6 -> int4: the perturbation does scourge lapful and is actable if it is not a kind of a trophy.; sent2 & sent13 -> int5: the fact that the weightlifter is not determinable and it is a Hegelian is not true.; sent11 & int5 -> int6: the goldbrick is not indeterminable.; int6 -> int7: there is something such that it is not indeterminable.;"
] | 9 | 2 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the perturbation is not a ovenware. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not coconspire it is actable and it is a kind of a trophy. sent2: there exists something such that the fact that it does not cry hold. sent3: the perturbation is not a ovenware if the goldbrick is a Fabian. sent4: the goldbrick is a Fabian if it scourges lapful. sent5: the fact that something is a kind of a Fabian that is not a ovenware is not correct if it does scourge lapful. sent6: if something is not a trophy it scourges lapful and is actable. sent7: the goldbrick scourges lapful. sent8: if that something is not non-Fabian but it is not a kind of a ovenware is not correct then it is a ovenware. sent9: if the goldbrick is a kind of a Fabian the perturbation does not scourge lapful. sent10: that the goldbrick does not coconspire is correct if the perturbation is not a kind of a cry but it does coconspire. sent11: the goldbrick is not indeterminable if the fact that the weightlifter is both indeterminable and a Hegelian does not hold. sent12: the fact that the gluteus is not a ovenware hold. sent13: the fact that the weightlifter is indeterminable and Hegelian is not right if something does not cry. sent14: the perturbation is not a cry and coconspires. sent15: The lapful scourges goldbrick. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 & sent7 -> int1: the goldbrick is a kind of a Fabian.; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it is flat and it is a kind of a alkylbenzene it is not an indium.
|
(Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
sent1: the groover does smother yardage if it demilitarizes crying and is flat. sent2: if the groover is a kind of a flat and it is a kind of a alkylbenzene then it is not a kind of an indium. sent3: there is something such that if it is a kind of a stager and it does stew cakewalk then it is non-far. sent4: something does not cull if it attends and it is an indium. sent5: there exists something such that if it stews Mogul and does demilitarize cottonmouth it is not a phonebook. sent6: there is something such that if it is a Alnus and it is a maleate then it is not a fawn. sent7: the tout is not a kind of a fawn if it scourges distressing and it is an indium. sent8: there exists something such that if it is flat and it is a alkylbenzene it is an indium. sent9: if the groover is a kind of a alkylbenzene and it is a kind of a boating then it does not scourge firmness. sent10: if the groover is flat thing that is a alkylbenzene it is an indium. sent11: something is not a kind of a osier if it is a Melopsittacus and blond.
|
sent1: ({FT}{aa} & {AA}{aa}) -> {G}{aa} sent2: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent3: (Ex): ({CJ}x & {IQ}x) -> ¬{DK}x sent4: (x): ({IS}x & {B}x) -> ¬{GJ}x sent5: (Ex): ({JC}x & {EF}x) -> ¬{EU}x sent6: (Ex): ({HE}x & {CI}x) -> ¬{IR}x sent7: ({AC}{gh} & {B}{gh}) -> ¬{IR}{gh} sent8: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent9: ({AB}{aa} & {J}{aa}) -> ¬{ED}{aa} sent10: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent11: (x): ({BU}x & {BH}x) -> ¬{BT}x
|
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there is something such that if it is a Melopsittacus and it is a blond it is not a kind of a osier.
|
(Ex): ({BU}x & {BH}x) -> ¬{BT}x
|
[
"sent11 -> int1: the headdress is not a kind of a osier if it is a kind of a Melopsittacus that is a kind of a blond.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is flat and it is a kind of a alkylbenzene it is not an indium. ; $context$ = sent1: the groover does smother yardage if it demilitarizes crying and is flat. sent2: if the groover is a kind of a flat and it is a kind of a alkylbenzene then it is not a kind of an indium. sent3: there is something such that if it is a kind of a stager and it does stew cakewalk then it is non-far. sent4: something does not cull if it attends and it is an indium. sent5: there exists something such that if it stews Mogul and does demilitarize cottonmouth it is not a phonebook. sent6: there is something such that if it is a Alnus and it is a maleate then it is not a fawn. sent7: the tout is not a kind of a fawn if it scourges distressing and it is an indium. sent8: there exists something such that if it is flat and it is a alkylbenzene it is an indium. sent9: if the groover is a kind of a alkylbenzene and it is a kind of a boating then it does not scourge firmness. sent10: if the groover is flat thing that is a alkylbenzene it is an indium. sent11: something is not a kind of a osier if it is a Melopsittacus and blond. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the exploration does not occur.
|
¬{D}
|
sent1: the assortment happens and the swiping occurs. sent2: the hydroxiness and the friendly occurs. sent3: the Eucharisticness does not occur if that the hooking does not occur and the Eucharisticness occurs does not hold. sent4: the smothering sparrow happens. sent5: the Eucharisticness occurs. sent6: if the mixing happens then the incorporealness does not occur. sent7: the scourging eyelessness and the occupation occurs. sent8: both the inducement and the asclepiadaceousness occurs. sent9: both the opinion and the mutant happens. sent10: if the demilitarizing oncologist does not occur and the Frisianness does not occur then the traceableness does not occur. sent11: that not the hooking but the Eucharisticness occurs does not hold if the incorporealness does not occur. sent12: the occupation happens. sent13: the tolerantness and the stewing Canopus occurs. sent14: both the smothering Jeremiah and the phase-out happens. sent15: the non-Eucharisticness yields that both the scourging juvenescence and the occupation occurs. sent16: the mix happens and the predicting occurs if the traceableness does not occur. sent17: the exponentiation does not occur. sent18: that the MPEG and the snookering happens prevents the sinking. sent19: both the manipulating and the auditioning occurs. sent20: both the scourging juvenescence and the Eucharisticness happens. sent21: the greensideness occurs.
|
sent1: ({IS} & {DF}) sent2: ({CT} & {DS}) sent3: ¬(¬{G} & {E}) -> ¬{E} sent4: {BC} sent5: {E} sent6: {H} -> ¬{F} sent7: ({A} & {B}) sent8: ({U} & {GL}) sent9: ({GP} & {GO}) sent10: (¬{K} & ¬{L}) -> ¬{J} sent11: ¬{F} -> ¬(¬{G} & {E}) sent12: {B} sent13: ({FE} & {DP}) sent14: ({AF} & {IR}) sent15: ¬{E} -> ({C} & {B}) sent16: ¬{J} -> ({H} & {I}) sent17: ¬{FM} sent18: ({AL} & {HO}) -> ¬{EF} sent19: ({BO} & {DJ}) sent20: ({C} & {E}) sent21: {DM}
|
[
"sent7 -> int1: the fact that the scourging eyelessness happens is not wrong.; sent20 -> int2: the scourging juvenescence occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the scourging eyelessness and the scourging juvenescence happens.;"
] |
[
"sent7 -> int1: {A}; sent20 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({A} & {C});"
] |
the exploration happens.
|
{D}
|
[] | 11 | 3 | null | 19 | 0 | 19 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the exploration does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the assortment happens and the swiping occurs. sent2: the hydroxiness and the friendly occurs. sent3: the Eucharisticness does not occur if that the hooking does not occur and the Eucharisticness occurs does not hold. sent4: the smothering sparrow happens. sent5: the Eucharisticness occurs. sent6: if the mixing happens then the incorporealness does not occur. sent7: the scourging eyelessness and the occupation occurs. sent8: both the inducement and the asclepiadaceousness occurs. sent9: both the opinion and the mutant happens. sent10: if the demilitarizing oncologist does not occur and the Frisianness does not occur then the traceableness does not occur. sent11: that not the hooking but the Eucharisticness occurs does not hold if the incorporealness does not occur. sent12: the occupation happens. sent13: the tolerantness and the stewing Canopus occurs. sent14: both the smothering Jeremiah and the phase-out happens. sent15: the non-Eucharisticness yields that both the scourging juvenescence and the occupation occurs. sent16: the mix happens and the predicting occurs if the traceableness does not occur. sent17: the exponentiation does not occur. sent18: that the MPEG and the snookering happens prevents the sinking. sent19: both the manipulating and the auditioning occurs. sent20: both the scourging juvenescence and the Eucharisticness happens. sent21: the greensideness occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 -> int1: the fact that the scourging eyelessness happens is not wrong.; sent20 -> int2: the scourging juvenescence occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the scourging eyelessness and the scourging juvenescence happens.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the quicklime is not artifactual.
|
¬{B}{b}
|
sent1: there is something such that that it is a centrism and it is artifactual is not correct. sent2: if there exists something such that it is not a centrism the olecranon is not artifactual. sent3: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of conspicuous a thanatophobia is false the olecranon is not a kind of a centrism. sent4: the onionskin is not a catamaran and does not stew works. sent5: something is not non-artifactual and it is a kind of a centrism if it is not a schlockmeister. sent6: something is a kind of a centrism. sent7: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a knife-edge and is moneyless is not true then the olecranon is not artifactual. sent8: there is something such that the fact that it is conspicuous and it is a kind of a thanatophobia is not right. sent9: the olecranon is not a centrism if there are inconspicuous things. sent10: the onionskin is not a kind of a schlockmeister but it is artifactual if it is not a catamaran.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬({A}x & {B}x) sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{B}{a} sent3: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent4: (¬{D}{c} & ¬{E}{c}) sent5: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) sent6: (Ex): {A}x sent7: (x): ¬({GE}x & {DO}x) -> ¬{B}{a} sent8: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent9: (x): ¬{AA}x -> ¬{A}{a} sent10: ¬{D}{c} -> (¬{C}{c} & {B}{c})
|
[
"sent8 & sent3 -> int1: the olecranon is not a centrism.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that the fact that it is not a centrism is correct.;"
] |
[
"sent8 & sent3 -> int1: ¬{A}{a}; int1 -> int2: (Ex): ¬{A}x;"
] |
the quicklime is artifactual.
|
{B}{b}
|
[
"sent5 -> int3: if the quicklime is not a schlockmeister it is artifactual and it is a kind of a centrism.;"
] | 5 | 3 | null | 8 | 0 | 8 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the quicklime is not artifactual. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that that it is a centrism and it is artifactual is not correct. sent2: if there exists something such that it is not a centrism the olecranon is not artifactual. sent3: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of conspicuous a thanatophobia is false the olecranon is not a kind of a centrism. sent4: the onionskin is not a catamaran and does not stew works. sent5: something is not non-artifactual and it is a kind of a centrism if it is not a schlockmeister. sent6: something is a kind of a centrism. sent7: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a knife-edge and is moneyless is not true then the olecranon is not artifactual. sent8: there is something such that the fact that it is conspicuous and it is a kind of a thanatophobia is not right. sent9: the olecranon is not a centrism if there are inconspicuous things. sent10: the onionskin is not a kind of a schlockmeister but it is artifactual if it is not a catamaran. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 & sent3 -> int1: the olecranon is not a centrism.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that the fact that it is not a centrism is correct.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the core is both not inflationary and tactless.
|
(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})
|
sent1: that the handicraft is a kind of non-inflationary thing that is a hackwork is not correct. sent2: if that that something is a kind of blastogenetic thing that does not scourge Crow hold is not correct then it is serous. sent3: the fact that the core is inflationary and is tactless is incorrect. sent4: that that the core is a kind of non-inflationary thing that is tactless is not incorrect is not true.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{AA}{bl} & {EQ}{bl}) sent2: (x): ¬({C}x & ¬{B}x) -> {A}x sent3: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent4: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})
|
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the core does not demilitarize tolbutamide and refuses is not correct.
|
¬(¬{GU}{a} & {CD}{a})
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: if that the Curl is blastogenetic thing that does not scourge Crow is false it is serous.;"
] | 5 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the core is both not inflationary and tactless. ; $context$ = sent1: that the handicraft is a kind of non-inflationary thing that is a hackwork is not correct. sent2: if that that something is a kind of blastogenetic thing that does not scourge Crow hold is not correct then it is serous. sent3: the fact that the core is inflationary and is tactless is incorrect. sent4: that that the core is a kind of non-inflationary thing that is tactless is not incorrect is not true. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the corset is Lao.
|
{D}{b}
|
sent1: if something is lenten then the coffee is a kind of an antiseptic. sent2: something does demilitarize Tobagonian and/or it is shrubby. sent3: if something is a kind of a plantigrade either the soixante-neuf does smother Mormon or it is a kind of a summary or both. sent4: the fact that if the soixante-neuf does smother Mormon then the wirer is lenten hold. sent5: if something is an antiseptic then it does scourge drapery. sent6: the fact that the corset is a Lao if the ohmage is a rivet hold. sent7: if there exists something such that it does scourge drapery then that that the corset is Lao thing that is present does not hold hold. sent8: there exists something such that it is a kind of a plantigrade. sent9: if the soixante-neuf is a summary then the wirer is lenten. sent10: the prankster is centrosomic if there exists something such that it is a Adonic and/or it is Lao.
|
sent1: (x): {H}x -> {G}{c} sent2: (Ex): ({A}x v {B}x) sent3: (x): {K}x -> ({I}{e} v {J}{e}) sent4: {I}{e} -> {H}{d} sent5: (x): {G}x -> {F}x sent6: {C}{a} -> {D}{b} sent7: (x): {F}x -> ¬({D}{b} & {E}{b}) sent8: (Ex): {K}x sent9: {J}{e} -> {H}{d} sent10: (x): ({GN}x v {D}x) -> {EL}{gd}
|
[] |
[] |
the Protropin is a kind of a rivet.
|
{C}{ee}
|
[
"sent5 -> int1: the coffee scourges drapery if it is antiseptic.; sent8 & sent3 -> int2: either the soixante-neuf does smother Mormon or it is a kind of a summary or both.; int2 & sent4 & sent9 -> int3: the wirer is lenten.; int3 -> int4: there is something such that the fact that it is lenten is not wrong.; int4 & sent1 -> int5: the coffee is a kind of an antiseptic.; int1 & int5 -> int6: the coffee scourges drapery.; int6 -> int7: something scourges drapery.; int7 & sent7 -> int8: the fact that the corset is a Lao and it is a present does not hold.; int8 -> int9: that there exists something such that that it is a kind of a Lao that presents is not right is true.;"
] | 11 | 2 | null | 8 | 0 | 8 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the corset is Lao. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is lenten then the coffee is a kind of an antiseptic. sent2: something does demilitarize Tobagonian and/or it is shrubby. sent3: if something is a kind of a plantigrade either the soixante-neuf does smother Mormon or it is a kind of a summary or both. sent4: the fact that if the soixante-neuf does smother Mormon then the wirer is lenten hold. sent5: if something is an antiseptic then it does scourge drapery. sent6: the fact that the corset is a Lao if the ohmage is a rivet hold. sent7: if there exists something such that it does scourge drapery then that that the corset is Lao thing that is present does not hold hold. sent8: there exists something such that it is a kind of a plantigrade. sent9: if the soixante-neuf is a summary then the wirer is lenten. sent10: the prankster is centrosomic if there exists something such that it is a Adonic and/or it is Lao. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the bee is not unlikable is not correct.
|
{B}{aa}
|
sent1: that the bee scourges mush and it is a kind of a fogbank is wrong. sent2: if the fact that the snowcap either is a kind of a national or is an ignorance or both is right then the onager is not unstatesmanlike. sent3: the Liege does not smother unau if it does not demilitarize goitrogen. sent4: the bee does not spoon if it is not onstage. sent5: if there exists something such that it does smother lockstitch then the fossa is a kind of an ignorance. sent6: if that either the aniline scourges mush or it does bandage or both is wrong then it is not a lob. sent7: there is something such that it is not a kind of a subpopulation. sent8: the unfortunate directs. sent9: if the fact that the bee demilitarizes goitrogen or it directs or both is not correct it is not a kind of a spoon. sent10: if there is something such that it is not a subpopulation the mush is not a kind of a bound and is a masonry. sent11: something does not scourge mush if it is not directing. sent12: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a ceramics the conjurer does not smother lockstitch but it is a innervation. sent13: the fact that the fact that something does not scourge mush but it is a fogbank is not false is wrong if it does not spoon. sent14: the demander is ceramics if the marginalization is not non-scenic. sent15: if the conjurer does not smother lockstitch and is a innervation the draftsman smother lockstitch. sent16: if the punchball is not directing then the fact that the bee does directing is incorrect. sent17: the bee does not spoon if the fact that either it does not demilitarize goitrogen or it is directing or both is not true. sent18: something is not unlikable if the fact that it does not scourge mush and it is a fogbank is not correct. sent19: the bee does not direct if it is non-Frankish. sent20: if that the lockstitch directs is not incorrect then the punchball does not directs. sent21: that the bee does not demilitarize goitrogen and/or it is not non-directing is not right. sent22: if the onager is not unstatesmanlike then the lockstitch is directing thing that does demilitarize goitrogen. sent23: if the fact that something is not unlikable is correct then it does not direct. sent24: if the mush does not bind then the marginalization is a kind of a dilatation and it is scenic.
|
sent1: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent2: ({G}{d} v {F}{d}) -> ¬{E}{c} sent3: ¬{D}{af} -> ¬{IJ}{af} sent4: ¬{DJ}{aa} -> ¬{A}{aa} sent5: (x): {H}x -> {F}{e} sent6: ¬({AA}{eu} v {FJ}{eu}) -> ¬{AL}{eu} sent7: (Ex): ¬{O}x sent8: {C}{es} sent9: ¬({D}{aa} v {C}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent10: (x): ¬{O}x -> (¬{M}{j} & {N}{j}) sent11: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬{AA}x sent12: (x): {J}x -> (¬{H}{g} & {I}{g}) sent13: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent14: {K}{i} -> {J}{h} sent15: (¬{H}{g} & {I}{g}) -> {H}{f} sent16: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬{C}{aa} sent17: ¬(¬{D}{aa} v {C}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent18: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent19: ¬{DH}{aa} -> ¬{C}{aa} sent20: {C}{b} -> ¬{C}{a} sent21: ¬(¬{D}{aa} v {C}{aa}) sent22: ¬{E}{c} -> ({C}{b} & {D}{b}) sent23: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{C}x sent24: ¬{M}{j} -> ({L}{i} & {K}{i})
|
[
"sent13 -> int1: if the bee is not a kind of a spoon then the fact that it does not scourge mush and is a kind of a fogbank is wrong.; sent17 & sent21 -> int2: the bee does not spoon.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the bee does not scourge mush but it is a kind of a fogbank does not hold.; sent18 -> int4: the bee is not unlikable if the fact that it does not scourge mush and it is a fogbank is not correct.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent13 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); sent17 & sent21 -> int2: ¬{A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); sent18 -> int4: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the bee is unlikable.
|
{B}{aa}
|
[
"sent7 & sent10 -> int5: the mush does not bind but it is a masonry.; int5 -> int6: the mush is not a bound.; sent24 & int6 -> int7: the marginalization is a dilatation and it is scenic.; int7 -> int8: the marginalization is scenic.; sent14 & int8 -> int9: the demander is a ceramics.; int9 -> int10: there exists something such that it is a ceramics.; int10 & sent12 -> int11: the conjurer does not smother lockstitch and is a innervation.; sent15 & int11 -> int12: the draftsman does smother lockstitch.; int12 -> int13: there exists something such that it does smother lockstitch.; int13 & sent5 -> int14: the fossa is an ignorance.; int14 -> int15: there is something such that it is an ignorance.;"
] | 19 | 3 | 3 | 20 | 0 | 20 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the bee is not unlikable is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: that the bee scourges mush and it is a kind of a fogbank is wrong. sent2: if the fact that the snowcap either is a kind of a national or is an ignorance or both is right then the onager is not unstatesmanlike. sent3: the Liege does not smother unau if it does not demilitarize goitrogen. sent4: the bee does not spoon if it is not onstage. sent5: if there exists something such that it does smother lockstitch then the fossa is a kind of an ignorance. sent6: if that either the aniline scourges mush or it does bandage or both is wrong then it is not a lob. sent7: there is something such that it is not a kind of a subpopulation. sent8: the unfortunate directs. sent9: if the fact that the bee demilitarizes goitrogen or it directs or both is not correct it is not a kind of a spoon. sent10: if there is something such that it is not a subpopulation the mush is not a kind of a bound and is a masonry. sent11: something does not scourge mush if it is not directing. sent12: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a ceramics the conjurer does not smother lockstitch but it is a innervation. sent13: the fact that the fact that something does not scourge mush but it is a fogbank is not false is wrong if it does not spoon. sent14: the demander is ceramics if the marginalization is not non-scenic. sent15: if the conjurer does not smother lockstitch and is a innervation the draftsman smother lockstitch. sent16: if the punchball is not directing then the fact that the bee does directing is incorrect. sent17: the bee does not spoon if the fact that either it does not demilitarize goitrogen or it is directing or both is not true. sent18: something is not unlikable if the fact that it does not scourge mush and it is a fogbank is not correct. sent19: the bee does not direct if it is non-Frankish. sent20: if that the lockstitch directs is not incorrect then the punchball does not directs. sent21: that the bee does not demilitarize goitrogen and/or it is not non-directing is not right. sent22: if the onager is not unstatesmanlike then the lockstitch is directing thing that does demilitarize goitrogen. sent23: if the fact that something is not unlikable is correct then it does not direct. sent24: if the mush does not bind then the marginalization is a kind of a dilatation and it is scenic. ; $proof$ =
|
sent13 -> int1: if the bee is not a kind of a spoon then the fact that it does not scourge mush and is a kind of a fogbank is wrong.; sent17 & sent21 -> int2: the bee does not spoon.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the bee does not scourge mush but it is a kind of a fogbank does not hold.; sent18 -> int4: the bee is not unlikable if the fact that it does not scourge mush and it is a fogbank is not correct.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the cephalometry does not occur.
|
¬{C}
|
sent1: the non-noninfectiousness causes that the smothering Dias does not occur and the poker does not occur. sent2: the noninfectiousness does not occur. sent3: the fact that the cephalometry does not occur and the Bulgarianness does not occur is not right if the unpicking does not occur. sent4: the infectiousness and the non-Bulgarianness happens. sent5: if the smothering antitrades does not occur the unpicking does not occur and the bolographicness does not occur. sent6: if that the cephalometry does not occur and the Bulgarianness does not occur does not hold the noninfectiousness does not occur. sent7: the cephalometry does not occur if the Bulgarian does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬{A} -> (¬{GK} & ¬{BE}) sent2: ¬{A} sent3: ¬{D} -> ¬(¬{C} & ¬{B}) sent4: (¬{A} & ¬{B}) sent5: ¬{F} -> (¬{D} & ¬{E}) sent6: ¬(¬{C} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{A} sent7: ¬{B} -> ¬{C}
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: the Bulgarianness does not occur.; int1 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> int1: ¬{B}; int1 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the smothering Dias does not occur and the poker does not occur.
|
(¬{GK} & ¬{BE})
|
[] | 9 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the cephalometry does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the non-noninfectiousness causes that the smothering Dias does not occur and the poker does not occur. sent2: the noninfectiousness does not occur. sent3: the fact that the cephalometry does not occur and the Bulgarianness does not occur is not right if the unpicking does not occur. sent4: the infectiousness and the non-Bulgarianness happens. sent5: if the smothering antitrades does not occur the unpicking does not occur and the bolographicness does not occur. sent6: if that the cephalometry does not occur and the Bulgarianness does not occur does not hold the noninfectiousness does not occur. sent7: the cephalometry does not occur if the Bulgarian does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> int1: the Bulgarianness does not occur.; int1 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.