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 excess does not occur.
|
¬{D}
|
sent1: not the hobbing mentioner but the blueing Mullah occurs. sent2: that the excess does not occur is caused by that the insincereness occurs and the blueing Mullah happens. sent3: if the ambushing does not occur then that the excess and the hobbing mentioner happens is not wrong. sent4: if the lower-classness happens then the criticalness happens. sent5: the ambushing does not occur and the adventure occurs if the criticalness happens. sent6: the Manx happens if the fact that not the denouement but the fleecing obloquy happens is not true. sent7: if the laryngealness does not occur then that not the denouement but the fleecing obloquy occurs does not hold. sent8: that that the contractualness happens and the syndeticness occurs is false is not incorrect if that the hobbing hydrology does not occur hold. sent9: both the insincereness and the resumption happens. sent10: the hobbing mentioner does not occur. sent11: if that the resumption does not occur is correct then the fact that the Goetheanness and the insincereness occurs hold. sent12: if that the contractualness and the syndeticness occurs is not true the laryngealness does not occur. sent13: that the lower-classness does not occur is prevented by that the Manx occurs.
|
sent1: (¬{E} & {C}) sent2: ({A} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent3: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) sent4: {I} -> {H} sent5: {H} -> (¬{F} & {G}) sent6: ¬(¬{K} & {L}) -> {J} sent7: ¬{M} -> ¬(¬{K} & {L}) sent8: ¬{P} -> ¬({O} & {N}) sent9: ({A} & {B}) sent10: ¬{E} sent11: ¬{B} -> ({GA} & {A}) sent12: ¬({O} & {N}) -> ¬{M} sent13: {J} -> {I}
|
[
"sent9 -> int1: that the insincereness happens is not incorrect.; sent1 -> int2: the blueing Mullah occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the insincereness occurs and the blueing Mullah happens.; int3 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 -> int1: {A}; sent1 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({A} & {C}); int3 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the Goetheanness occurs.
|
{GA}
|
[] | 14 | 3 | 3 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the excess does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: not the hobbing mentioner but the blueing Mullah occurs. sent2: that the excess does not occur is caused by that the insincereness occurs and the blueing Mullah happens. sent3: if the ambushing does not occur then that the excess and the hobbing mentioner happens is not wrong. sent4: if the lower-classness happens then the criticalness happens. sent5: the ambushing does not occur and the adventure occurs if the criticalness happens. sent6: the Manx happens if the fact that not the denouement but the fleecing obloquy happens is not true. sent7: if the laryngealness does not occur then that not the denouement but the fleecing obloquy occurs does not hold. sent8: that that the contractualness happens and the syndeticness occurs is false is not incorrect if that the hobbing hydrology does not occur hold. sent9: both the insincereness and the resumption happens. sent10: the hobbing mentioner does not occur. sent11: if that the resumption does not occur is correct then the fact that the Goetheanness and the insincereness occurs hold. sent12: if that the contractualness and the syndeticness occurs is not true the laryngealness does not occur. sent13: that the lower-classness does not occur is prevented by that the Manx occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 -> int1: that the insincereness happens is not incorrect.; sent1 -> int2: the blueing Mullah occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the insincereness occurs and the blueing Mullah happens.; int3 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there is something such that it is inboard and a asthenosphere is not correct.
|
¬((Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x))
|
sent1: the fact that something blues Lucas is not wrong. sent2: something is a Tet and it is an undergarment. sent3: the neutralization is outboard. sent4: the Siren fleeces coffeecake and is a kind of a Lamarckian if it is not a asthenosphere. sent5: if something does not blue ruddle then the fact that it does fleece coffeecake and is anemophilous is not correct. sent6: if there is something such that it blues coleslaw or does not blue ruddle or both then the celebrity does not blue ruddle. sent7: the Siren is a kind of inboard thing that is a asthenosphere if it is not anemophilous. sent8: there is something such that it is anemophilous. sent9: the Siren is a Pocatello. sent10: the Siren is non-anemophilous. sent11: there exists something such that either it does blue coleslaw or it does not blue ruddle or both.
|
sent1: (Ex): {FN}x sent2: (Ex): ({FO}x & {IK}x) sent3: ¬{AA}{ai} sent4: ¬{AB}{a} -> ({C}{a} & {BE}{a}) sent5: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬({C}x & {A}x) sent6: (x): ({E}x v ¬{D}x) -> ¬{D}{b} sent7: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent8: (Ex): {A}x sent9: {GT}{a} sent10: ¬{A}{a} sent11: (Ex): ({E}x v ¬{D}x)
|
[
"sent7 & sent10 -> int1: the Siren is inboard and is a asthenosphere.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent7 & sent10 -> int1: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the gilder is not a asthenosphere.
|
¬{AB}{fr}
|
[
"sent5 -> int2: the fact that the celebrity does fleece coffeecake and is not non-anemophilous is false if it does not blue ruddle.; sent11 & sent6 -> int3: the celebrity does not blue ruddle.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the fact that the celebrity fleeces coffeecake and is anemophilous is not right.; int4 -> int5: there exists something such that that it does fleece coffeecake and is anemophilous is not right.;"
] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that it is inboard and a asthenosphere is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something blues Lucas is not wrong. sent2: something is a Tet and it is an undergarment. sent3: the neutralization is outboard. sent4: the Siren fleeces coffeecake and is a kind of a Lamarckian if it is not a asthenosphere. sent5: if something does not blue ruddle then the fact that it does fleece coffeecake and is anemophilous is not correct. sent6: if there is something such that it blues coleslaw or does not blue ruddle or both then the celebrity does not blue ruddle. sent7: the Siren is a kind of inboard thing that is a asthenosphere if it is not anemophilous. sent8: there is something such that it is anemophilous. sent9: the Siren is a Pocatello. sent10: the Siren is non-anemophilous. sent11: there exists something such that either it does blue coleslaw or it does not blue ruddle or both. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 & sent10 -> int1: the Siren is inboard and is a asthenosphere.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the stair-rod blues stair-rod hold if it is an osmium.
|
{A}{aa} -> {C}{aa}
|
sent1: if the stair-rod is a kind of a nonevent it blues stair-rod. sent2: if something blues drawing it tyrannizes. sent3: if something is empiric then it fleeces fatalist. sent4: the co-beneficiary does cone if it is an osmium. sent5: if something is an osmium then it does blue stair-rod. sent6: if the fatalist blues peel it is incautious. sent7: if something is a pentoxifylline then it is hemal. sent8: something that does requite multi-billionaire is a spasticity. sent9: if the stair-rod does retrain then it is an osmium. sent10: something that is a kind of a Samoa dims. sent11: the stair-rod is a gum if it does blue stair-rod. sent12: if the stair-rod is an osmium then it rallies. sent13: if something does requite multi-billionaire then it is a blind.
|
sent1: {FM}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent2: (x): {BK}x -> {GG}x sent3: (x): {IC}x -> {CE}x sent4: {A}{ab} -> {ID}{ab} sent5: (x): {A}x -> {C}x sent6: {JB}{t} -> {DO}{t} sent7: (x): {GQ}x -> {EK}x sent8: (x): {AS}x -> {JI}x sent9: {GM}{aa} -> {A}{aa} sent10: (x): {FG}x -> {EP}x sent11: {C}{aa} -> {BC}{aa} sent12: {A}{aa} -> {EI}{aa} sent13: (x): {AS}x -> {HR}x
|
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = that the stair-rod blues stair-rod hold if it is an osmium. ; $context$ = sent1: if the stair-rod is a kind of a nonevent it blues stair-rod. sent2: if something blues drawing it tyrannizes. sent3: if something is empiric then it fleeces fatalist. sent4: the co-beneficiary does cone if it is an osmium. sent5: if something is an osmium then it does blue stair-rod. sent6: if the fatalist blues peel it is incautious. sent7: if something is a pentoxifylline then it is hemal. sent8: something that does requite multi-billionaire is a spasticity. sent9: if the stair-rod does retrain then it is an osmium. sent10: something that is a kind of a Samoa dims. sent11: the stair-rod is a gum if it does blue stair-rod. sent12: if the stair-rod is an osmium then it rallies. sent13: if something does requite multi-billionaire then it is a blind. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the tenorist does wreathe.
|
{A}{a}
|
sent1: something does wreathe if it is unknowable. sent2: the fact that if an unconstitutional thing is not unscholarly then the fact that the suburb is not a Aristotelian hold is correct. sent3: the tenorist wreathes. sent4: the tender does wreathe. sent5: that the tenorist is attributable is not incorrect. sent6: the forefront is not a kind of a Aristotelian if it is a kind of unscholarly thing that is constitutional. sent7: the tenorist is a arity. sent8: that the B-girl wreathes hold. sent9: the destination does wreathe. sent10: the fact that the hotchpotch is obstetrics thing that is not a HUD does not hold. sent11: the redbird wreathes. sent12: the tenorist is a kind of a doghouse. sent13: something that is not quantal is unknowable and is a kind of a Bramante. sent14: if something is not a Aristotelian that it is not a post and it does record neuralgia is not correct. sent15: if something is not a Aristotelian it does not record neuralgia and it does post. sent16: if something that does not record neuralgia posts then it is not quantal. sent17: if the pylon is a HUD the tenorist is a kind of unconstitutional thing that is not unscholarly. sent18: the fact that if that the hotchpotch is obstetrics but it is not a HUD is incorrect that the pylon is a HUD is not wrong is true. sent19: if the fact that the hotchpotch is not quantal is not false then the fact that the pylon is unknowable and not a Bramante is wrong.
|
sent1: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent2: (x): (¬{I}x & ¬{H}x) -> ¬{G}{bn} sent3: {A}{a} sent4: {A}{bj} sent5: {HC}{a} sent6: ({H}{d} & {I}{d}) -> ¬{G}{d} sent7: {CT}{a} sent8: {A}{ge} sent9: {A}{cu} sent10: ¬({L}{c} & ¬{J}{c}) sent11: {A}{hm} sent12: {AS}{a} sent13: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({B}x & {C}x) sent14: (x): ¬{G}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & {F}x) sent15: (x): ¬{G}x -> (¬{F}x & {E}x) sent16: (x): (¬{F}x & {E}x) -> ¬{D}x sent17: {J}{b} -> (¬{I}{a} & ¬{H}{a}) sent18: ¬({L}{c} & ¬{J}{c}) -> {J}{b} sent19: ¬{D}{c} -> ¬({B}{b} & ¬{C}{b})
|
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the suburb wreathes.
|
{A}{bn}
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: the suburb wreathes if it is unknowable.; sent13 -> int2: if the suburb is not quantal it is unknowable and it is a Bramante.; sent16 -> int3: the suburb is non-quantal if it does not record neuralgia and it is a post.; sent15 -> int4: the suburb does not record neuralgia but it is a post if it is not a Aristotelian.; sent18 & sent10 -> int5: the pylon is a HUD.; sent17 & int5 -> int6: the tenorist is not a constitutional and it is not unscholarly.; int6 -> int7: there exists something such that it is not a constitutional and it is not unscholarly.; int7 & sent2 -> int8: the suburb is not a Aristotelian.; int4 & int8 -> int9: the suburb does not record neuralgia and is a kind of a post.; int3 & int9 -> int10: the suburb is not quantal.; int2 & int10 -> int11: the suburb is unknowable and is a Bramante.; int11 -> int12: the suburb is unknowable.; int1 & int12 -> hypothesis;"
] | 9 | 1 | 0 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the tenorist does wreathe. ; $context$ = sent1: something does wreathe if it is unknowable. sent2: the fact that if an unconstitutional thing is not unscholarly then the fact that the suburb is not a Aristotelian hold is correct. sent3: the tenorist wreathes. sent4: the tender does wreathe. sent5: that the tenorist is attributable is not incorrect. sent6: the forefront is not a kind of a Aristotelian if it is a kind of unscholarly thing that is constitutional. sent7: the tenorist is a arity. sent8: that the B-girl wreathes hold. sent9: the destination does wreathe. sent10: the fact that the hotchpotch is obstetrics thing that is not a HUD does not hold. sent11: the redbird wreathes. sent12: the tenorist is a kind of a doghouse. sent13: something that is not quantal is unknowable and is a kind of a Bramante. sent14: if something is not a Aristotelian that it is not a post and it does record neuralgia is not correct. sent15: if something is not a Aristotelian it does not record neuralgia and it does post. sent16: if something that does not record neuralgia posts then it is not quantal. sent17: if the pylon is a HUD the tenorist is a kind of unconstitutional thing that is not unscholarly. sent18: the fact that if that the hotchpotch is obstetrics but it is not a HUD is incorrect that the pylon is a HUD is not wrong is true. sent19: if the fact that the hotchpotch is not quantal is not false then the fact that the pylon is unknowable and not a Bramante is wrong. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the horsecloth does not logroll rheometer.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
sent1: everything is not a heads-up and does not shampoo ghost. sent2: the necessitarian does logroll rheometer. sent3: if that something does breast and it does logroll rheometer is false it does not logroll rheometer. sent4: the crest is a kind of a heads-up if it is not non-azotic. sent5: the rheometer logrolls rheometer. sent6: the horsecloth is not nonfissile. sent7: the ultracentrifugation logrolls rheometer. sent8: the horsecloth is angiospermous. sent9: the crest does not shampoo ghost. sent10: the horsecloth is a Sikkim. sent11: the Montanan logrolls rheometer. sent12: the horsecloth logrolls rheometer. sent13: the axle does logroll rheometer. sent14: if the horsecloth does not shampoo ghost the gatherer is a breast and shampoos opossum. sent15: The rheometer logrolls horsecloth.
|
sent1: (x): (¬{E}x & ¬{D}x) sent2: {A}{jk} sent3: (x): ¬({B}x & {A}x) -> ¬{A}x sent4: {F}{c} -> {E}{c} sent5: {A}{dh} sent6: {GC}{a} sent7: {A}{p} sent8: {DM}{a} sent9: ¬{D}{c} sent10: {DK}{a} sent11: {A}{i} sent12: {A}{a} sent13: {A}{ig} sent14: ¬{D}{a} -> ({B}{bb} & {C}{bb}) sent15: {AA}{aa}
|
[
"sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the horsecloth does not logroll rheometer.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: if the fact that the horsecloth is a kind of a breast and it logrolls rheometer is not true it does not logrolls rheometer.;"
] | 5 | 1 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 14 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the horsecloth does not logroll rheometer. ; $context$ = sent1: everything is not a heads-up and does not shampoo ghost. sent2: the necessitarian does logroll rheometer. sent3: if that something does breast and it does logroll rheometer is false it does not logroll rheometer. sent4: the crest is a kind of a heads-up if it is not non-azotic. sent5: the rheometer logrolls rheometer. sent6: the horsecloth is not nonfissile. sent7: the ultracentrifugation logrolls rheometer. sent8: the horsecloth is angiospermous. sent9: the crest does not shampoo ghost. sent10: the horsecloth is a Sikkim. sent11: the Montanan logrolls rheometer. sent12: the horsecloth logrolls rheometer. sent13: the axle does logroll rheometer. sent14: if the horsecloth does not shampoo ghost the gatherer is a breast and shampoos opossum. sent15: The rheometer logrolls horsecloth. ; $proof$ =
|
sent12 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that that it does not denature and is not autoplastic does not hold.
|
(Ex): ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{D}x)
|
sent1: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a flush. sent2: the cricket is a kind of a commodity. sent3: that there exists something such that it is not a futurology and is a commodity is correct. sent4: if something does logroll Donatus the fact that it is not a lap and is not a parsimony is incorrect. sent5: something is non-chimerical. sent6: there exists something such that that it does not denature and is autoplastic is incorrect. sent7: there is something such that it is a kind of a futurology and it is a commodity. sent8: there are non-crude things. sent9: the Togaviridae is a kind of a commodity. sent10: there is something such that it does record Vietnamese. sent11: if something shampoos cricket then the fact that it is not a Rockingham and is not an officer is wrong. sent12: that something is not a roentgenium and is not impalpable hold. sent13: the fact that the cricket does denature but it is not autoplastic is false. sent14: the fact that something denatures but it is not autoplastic does not hold if it does record Cyamus. sent15: the cricket is bioclimatic if there is something such that it is not a futurology but a commodity. sent16: if something does wedge ola then that it is not steep but non-pleochroic is not right. sent17: a bioclimatic thing does record Cyamus. sent18: if that something is not a kind of a commodity and impregnates hold the cricket is adamantine. sent19: the cricket stems. sent20: that the cricket does not record isotherm and is a junkie is not right if it is bioclimatic. sent21: there exists something such that the fact that it does denature and is not autoplastic does not hold.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬{ES}x sent2: {AB}{a} sent3: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent4: (x): {CP}x -> ¬(¬{DK}x & ¬{HR}x) sent5: (Ex): ¬{AR}x sent6: (Ex): ¬(¬{C}x & {D}x) sent7: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent8: (Ex): ¬{I}x sent9: {AB}{ij} sent10: (Ex): {FB}x sent11: (x): {DE}x -> ¬(¬{GL}x & ¬{GR}x) sent12: (Ex): (¬{DO}x & ¬{CQ}x) sent13: ¬({C}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent14: (x): {B}x -> ¬({C}x & ¬{D}x) sent15: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent16: (x): {EM}x -> ¬(¬{HA}x & ¬{FN}x) sent17: (x): {A}x -> {B}x sent18: (x): (¬{AB}x & {HO}x) -> {ER}{a} sent19: {GS}{a} sent20: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{DM}{a} & {FH}{a}) sent21: (Ex): ¬({C}x & ¬{D}x)
|
[
"sent3 & sent15 -> int1: the cricket is bioclimatic.; sent17 -> int2: if the cricket is bioclimatic then it does record Cyamus.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the cricket records Cyamus.;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent15 -> int1: {A}{a}; sent17 -> int2: {A}{a} -> {B}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {B}{a};"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 4 | null | 18 | 0 | 18 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that that it does not denature and is not autoplastic does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a flush. sent2: the cricket is a kind of a commodity. sent3: that there exists something such that it is not a futurology and is a commodity is correct. sent4: if something does logroll Donatus the fact that it is not a lap and is not a parsimony is incorrect. sent5: something is non-chimerical. sent6: there exists something such that that it does not denature and is autoplastic is incorrect. sent7: there is something such that it is a kind of a futurology and it is a commodity. sent8: there are non-crude things. sent9: the Togaviridae is a kind of a commodity. sent10: there is something such that it does record Vietnamese. sent11: if something shampoos cricket then the fact that it is not a Rockingham and is not an officer is wrong. sent12: that something is not a roentgenium and is not impalpable hold. sent13: the fact that the cricket does denature but it is not autoplastic is false. sent14: the fact that something denatures but it is not autoplastic does not hold if it does record Cyamus. sent15: the cricket is bioclimatic if there is something such that it is not a futurology but a commodity. sent16: if something does wedge ola then that it is not steep but non-pleochroic is not right. sent17: a bioclimatic thing does record Cyamus. sent18: if that something is not a kind of a commodity and impregnates hold the cricket is adamantine. sent19: the cricket stems. sent20: that the cricket does not record isotherm and is a junkie is not right if it is bioclimatic. sent21: there exists something such that the fact that it does denature and is not autoplastic does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent15 -> int1: the cricket is bioclimatic.; sent17 -> int2: if the cricket is bioclimatic then it does record Cyamus.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the cricket records Cyamus.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that it does not telepathize.
|
(Ex): ¬{D}x
|
sent1: the stalk is a kind of a tire. sent2: the Sombrero gleams and does logroll piroxicam. sent3: if the avenger does birdnest and does tire then the fact that the stalk does not telepathize hold. sent4: the stalk is a birdnest. sent5: the brambling is not a kind of a tire if the stalk is not a gleam. sent6: there is something such that it does telepathize. sent7: there exists something such that it does not foreclose. sent8: the recovery is not a gleam. sent9: something is not a kind of a tire. sent10: the brambling telepathizes. sent11: the brambling does not telepathize if the avenger is not a kind of a gleam. sent12: something does record Marrakesh if it does gleam. sent13: the brambling is not a birdnest if the stalk gleams and it is a tire. sent14: the switchman shampoos molarity and does record flattop. sent15: if the brambling does not gleam then that the avenger does not telepathize is not incorrect. sent16: the flattop is a tire. sent17: the stalk is a Zoroastrian and is a kind of an intonation. sent18: the stalk does not telepathize if the fact that the avenger is not a birdnest is true. sent19: if something does not foreclose then the stalk does telepathize and is a gleam.
|
sent1: {A}{a} sent2: ({C}{ba} & {BL}{ba}) sent3: ({B}{c} & {A}{c}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent4: {B}{a} sent5: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬{A}{b} sent6: (Ex): {D}x sent7: (Ex): ¬{E}x sent8: ¬{C}{ei} sent9: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent10: {D}{b} sent11: ¬{C}{c} -> ¬{D}{b} sent12: (x): {C}x -> {AR}x sent13: ({C}{a} & {A}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent14: ({JA}{fo} & {GK}{fo}) sent15: ¬{C}{b} -> ¬{D}{c} sent16: {A}{ga} sent17: ({HG}{a} & {FN}{a}) sent18: ¬{B}{c} -> ¬{D}{a} sent19: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({D}{a} & {C}{a})
|
[
"sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the fact that the stalk tires and it is a kind of a birdnest is right.;"
] |
[
"sent1 & sent4 -> int1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a});"
] |
the stalk does record Marrakesh and it is a kind of a arachnophobia.
|
({AR}{a} & {EI}{a})
|
[
"sent12 -> int2: the stalk does record Marrakesh if it does gleam.; sent7 & sent19 -> int3: the stalk telepathizes and it is a gleam.; int3 -> int4: the stalk does gleam.; int2 & int4 -> int5: the stalk records Marrakesh.;"
] | 4 | 4 | null | 16 | 0 | 16 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that it does not telepathize. ; $context$ = sent1: the stalk is a kind of a tire. sent2: the Sombrero gleams and does logroll piroxicam. sent3: if the avenger does birdnest and does tire then the fact that the stalk does not telepathize hold. sent4: the stalk is a birdnest. sent5: the brambling is not a kind of a tire if the stalk is not a gleam. sent6: there is something such that it does telepathize. sent7: there exists something such that it does not foreclose. sent8: the recovery is not a gleam. sent9: something is not a kind of a tire. sent10: the brambling telepathizes. sent11: the brambling does not telepathize if the avenger is not a kind of a gleam. sent12: something does record Marrakesh if it does gleam. sent13: the brambling is not a birdnest if the stalk gleams and it is a tire. sent14: the switchman shampoos molarity and does record flattop. sent15: if the brambling does not gleam then that the avenger does not telepathize is not incorrect. sent16: the flattop is a tire. sent17: the stalk is a Zoroastrian and is a kind of an intonation. sent18: the stalk does not telepathize if the fact that the avenger is not a birdnest is true. sent19: if something does not foreclose then the stalk does telepathize and is a gleam. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the fact that the stalk tires and it is a kind of a birdnest is right.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the savin is not a kind of a atenolol.
|
¬{G}{c}
|
sent1: the savin is not a clutter. sent2: the brainwave is structural if there is something such that it does not logroll aeroembolism. sent3: if the forty-five does not logroll aeroembolism and it is not structural the supplement logroll aeroembolism. sent4: if the fact that something is not a working and not musicological is incorrect then it is not same. sent5: if the brainwave is a kind of a atenolol then the savin is a atenolol. sent6: if there is something such that it does not logroll aeroembolism then the brainwave is not same but it is structural. sent7: the supplement is not structural. sent8: the supplement does not work if the brainwave is non-structural thing that is musicological. sent9: the savin is a derogation but not musicological if the supplement is not a working. sent10: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a working then the supplement is not musicological and is a kind of a derogation. sent11: the brainwave is not non-structural. sent12: if the savin is a derogation but it is not musicological it is not a atenolol. sent13: if the cytoplasm is not dormant it is a kind of a derogation and it does shampoo mustiness. sent14: the brainwave is a atenolol if the supplement logrolls aeroembolism. sent15: there exists something such that it logrolls aeroembolism. sent16: the savin is not offshore. sent17: something does not logroll aeroembolism. sent18: the drugstore does not shampoo brainwave and is structural. sent19: if the cytoplasm is a derogation then the fact that that the forty-five is not a kind of a working and it is not musicological is not correct is correct. sent20: the savin is not musicological if the supplement does not work.
|
sent1: ¬{DQ}{c} sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> {C}{a} sent3: (¬{A}{d} & ¬{C}{d}) -> {A}{b} sent4: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{B}x sent5: {G}{a} -> {G}{c} sent6: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent7: ¬{C}{b} sent8: (¬{C}{a} & {E}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent9: ¬{D}{b} -> ({F}{c} & ¬{E}{c}) sent10: (x): ¬{D}x -> (¬{E}{b} & {F}{b}) sent11: {C}{a} sent12: ({F}{c} & ¬{E}{c}) -> ¬{G}{c} sent13: ¬{I}{e} -> ({F}{e} & {H}{e}) sent14: {A}{b} -> {G}{a} sent15: (Ex): {A}x sent16: ¬{IK}{c} sent17: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent18: (¬{R}{ih} & {C}{ih}) sent19: {F}{e} -> ¬(¬{D}{d} & ¬{E}{d}) sent20: ¬{D}{b} -> ¬{E}{c}
|
[
"sent17 & sent6 -> int1: the brainwave is non-same thing that is structural.;"
] |
[
"sent17 & sent6 -> int1: (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a});"
] |
the savin is a atenolol.
|
{G}{c}
|
[
"sent4 -> int2: if that the forty-five does not work and it is not musicological does not hold then it is not same.;"
] | 9 | 4 | null | 16 | 0 | 16 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the savin is not a kind of a atenolol. ; $context$ = sent1: the savin is not a clutter. sent2: the brainwave is structural if there is something such that it does not logroll aeroembolism. sent3: if the forty-five does not logroll aeroembolism and it is not structural the supplement logroll aeroembolism. sent4: if the fact that something is not a working and not musicological is incorrect then it is not same. sent5: if the brainwave is a kind of a atenolol then the savin is a atenolol. sent6: if there is something such that it does not logroll aeroembolism then the brainwave is not same but it is structural. sent7: the supplement is not structural. sent8: the supplement does not work if the brainwave is non-structural thing that is musicological. sent9: the savin is a derogation but not musicological if the supplement is not a working. sent10: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a working then the supplement is not musicological and is a kind of a derogation. sent11: the brainwave is not non-structural. sent12: if the savin is a derogation but it is not musicological it is not a atenolol. sent13: if the cytoplasm is not dormant it is a kind of a derogation and it does shampoo mustiness. sent14: the brainwave is a atenolol if the supplement logrolls aeroembolism. sent15: there exists something such that it logrolls aeroembolism. sent16: the savin is not offshore. sent17: something does not logroll aeroembolism. sent18: the drugstore does not shampoo brainwave and is structural. sent19: if the cytoplasm is a derogation then the fact that that the forty-five is not a kind of a working and it is not musicological is not correct is correct. sent20: the savin is not musicological if the supplement does not work. ; $proof$ =
|
sent17 & sent6 -> int1: the brainwave is non-same thing that is structural.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that if both the disenfranchisement and the inopportuneness occurs then the vexing does not occur is false.
|
¬(({A} & {B}) -> ¬{D})
|
sent1: if the membranousness occurs the burglary does not occur and the vexing does not occur. sent2: the vacationing occurs and the requisition occurs. sent3: that the hysteroscopy does not occur is brought about by that both the confluence and the peronealness happens. sent4: the inopportuneness happens. sent5: the logrolling soman and the voicing happens. sent6: the vexing does not occur if the disenfranchisement and the burglary happens. sent7: if both the disenfranchisement and the inopportuneness occurs the vexing happens. sent8: if that the disenfranchisement does not occur is correct then both the stinger and the cloaking happens. sent9: the fermenting occurs. sent10: that the calorimetry happens is correct. sent11: that the messaging occurs and the excretoriness occurs prevents that the kicking happens. sent12: the putridness happens. sent13: the burglary happens. sent14: if the disenfranchisement and the burglary occurs then the vexing happens. sent15: the Abkhaz happens. sent16: the glottalness happens and the menstrualness occurs. sent17: both the gymnasticness and the ideologicalness happens. sent18: if the shampooing leopardess does not occur then both the postmodernistness and the membranousness happens. sent19: both the premedicalness and the wedging Anisoptera occurs. sent20: that not the logrolling corythosaur but the coronation happens prevents the shampooing leopardess. sent21: the vexing happens. sent22: the kineticness does not occur.
|
sent1: {E} -> (¬{C} & ¬{D}) sent2: ({IG} & {IR}) sent3: ({AJ} & {FC}) -> ¬{HS} sent4: {B} sent5: ({BF} & {EA}) sent6: ({A} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent7: ({A} & {B}) -> {D} sent8: ¬{A} -> ({FH} & {JI}) sent9: {R} sent10: {FO} sent11: ({GK} & {HB}) -> ¬{BD} sent12: {BC} sent13: {C} sent14: ({A} & {C}) -> {D} sent15: {IQ} sent16: ({AH} & {JJ}) sent17: ({JE} & {JC}) sent18: ¬{G} -> ({F} & {E}) sent19: ({GJ} & {BE}) sent20: (¬{H} & {I}) -> ¬{G} sent21: {D} sent22: ¬{AM}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the disenfranchisement and the inopportuneness occurs.; assump1 -> int1: the disenfranchisement happens.; int1 & sent13 -> int2: the disenfranchisement and the burglary occurs.; sent6 & int2 -> int3: the vexing does not occur.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ({A} & {B}); assump1 -> int1: {A}; int1 & sent13 -> int2: ({A} & {C}); sent6 & int2 -> int3: ¬{D}; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the stinger happens and the cloaking happens is not false.
|
({FH} & {JI})
|
[] | 9 | 3 | 3 | 20 | 0 | 20 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that if both the disenfranchisement and the inopportuneness occurs then the vexing does not occur is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if the membranousness occurs the burglary does not occur and the vexing does not occur. sent2: the vacationing occurs and the requisition occurs. sent3: that the hysteroscopy does not occur is brought about by that both the confluence and the peronealness happens. sent4: the inopportuneness happens. sent5: the logrolling soman and the voicing happens. sent6: the vexing does not occur if the disenfranchisement and the burglary happens. sent7: if both the disenfranchisement and the inopportuneness occurs the vexing happens. sent8: if that the disenfranchisement does not occur is correct then both the stinger and the cloaking happens. sent9: the fermenting occurs. sent10: that the calorimetry happens is correct. sent11: that the messaging occurs and the excretoriness occurs prevents that the kicking happens. sent12: the putridness happens. sent13: the burglary happens. sent14: if the disenfranchisement and the burglary occurs then the vexing happens. sent15: the Abkhaz happens. sent16: the glottalness happens and the menstrualness occurs. sent17: both the gymnasticness and the ideologicalness happens. sent18: if the shampooing leopardess does not occur then both the postmodernistness and the membranousness happens. sent19: both the premedicalness and the wedging Anisoptera occurs. sent20: that not the logrolling corythosaur but the coronation happens prevents the shampooing leopardess. sent21: the vexing happens. sent22: the kineticness does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the disenfranchisement and the inopportuneness occurs.; assump1 -> int1: the disenfranchisement happens.; int1 & sent13 -> int2: the disenfranchisement and the burglary occurs.; sent6 & int2 -> int3: the vexing does not occur.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the muzzle does not Frenchify.
|
¬{D}{b}
|
sent1: the muzzle is a heft if there exists something such that it does shampoo strut. sent2: The semifinalist does not record Stone. sent3: the Stone does not record semifinalist. sent4: if something is a heft the muzzle does record semifinalist. sent5: that the muzzle does record semifinalist hold. sent6: if something that does depress is a heft then that it does not Frenchify is right. sent7: something does depress and records semifinalist if it is not a heft. sent8: the muzzle does not unclutter. sent9: if the Stone is not a kind of a heft the muzzle does record semifinalist. sent10: the muzzle does depress if that the Stone does not record semifinalist is not wrong.
|
sent1: (x): {E}x -> {C}{b} sent2: ¬{AA}{aa} sent3: ¬{A}{a} sent4: (x): {C}x -> {A}{b} sent5: {A}{b} sent6: (x): ({B}x & {C}x) -> ¬{D}x sent7: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) sent8: ¬{BG}{b} sent9: ¬{C}{a} -> {A}{b} sent10: ¬{A}{a} -> {B}{b}
|
[
"sent10 & sent3 -> int1: that the muzzle depresses is not wrong.; sent6 -> int2: the muzzle does not Frenchify if it depresses and it is a heft.;"
] |
[
"sent10 & sent3 -> int1: {B}{b}; sent6 -> int2: ({B}{b} & {C}{b}) -> ¬{D}{b};"
] |
the fjord does record semifinalist.
|
{A}{fk}
|
[
"sent7 -> int3: the fjord depresses and records semifinalist if the fact that it does not heft hold.;"
] | 4 | 3 | null | 6 | 0 | 6 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the muzzle does not Frenchify. ; $context$ = sent1: the muzzle is a heft if there exists something such that it does shampoo strut. sent2: The semifinalist does not record Stone. sent3: the Stone does not record semifinalist. sent4: if something is a heft the muzzle does record semifinalist. sent5: that the muzzle does record semifinalist hold. sent6: if something that does depress is a heft then that it does not Frenchify is right. sent7: something does depress and records semifinalist if it is not a heft. sent8: the muzzle does not unclutter. sent9: if the Stone is not a kind of a heft the muzzle does record semifinalist. sent10: the muzzle does depress if that the Stone does not record semifinalist is not wrong. ; $proof$ =
|
sent10 & sent3 -> int1: that the muzzle depresses is not wrong.; sent6 -> int2: the muzzle does not Frenchify if it depresses and it is a heft.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the moralness and the client-serverness occurs.
|
({B} & {C})
|
sent1: the logrolling delf prevents the immoralness. sent2: the client-serverness happens if the acarpelousness occurs. sent3: the acarpelousness happens. sent4: if the numericness occurs then that the interstate occurs is true. sent5: the corvee occurs.
|
sent1: {A} -> {B} sent2: {D} -> {C} sent3: {D} sent4: {H} -> {BI} sent5: {EF}
|
[
"sent2 & sent3 -> int1: the client-serverness happens.;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent3 -> int1: {C};"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | null | 2 | 0 | 2 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the moralness and the client-serverness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the logrolling delf prevents the immoralness. sent2: the client-serverness happens if the acarpelousness occurs. sent3: the acarpelousness happens. sent4: if the numericness occurs then that the interstate occurs is true. sent5: the corvee occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent3 -> int1: the client-serverness happens.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the grantor does not shampoo packrat but it does logroll grantor.
|
(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})
|
sent1: something does not shampoo packrat but it does logroll grantor if that the fact that it does logroll carpel is not wrong is wrong. sent2: the grantor does not shampoo packrat if it does not logroll carpel. sent3: everything does not logroll carpel.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent2: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬{AA}{aa} sent3: (x): ¬{A}x
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: the grantor does not shampoo packrat and does logroll grantor if it does not logroll carpel.; sent3 -> int2: the grantor does not logroll carpel.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); sent3 -> int2: ¬{A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the grantor does not shampoo packrat but it does logroll grantor. ; $context$ = sent1: something does not shampoo packrat but it does logroll grantor if that the fact that it does logroll carpel is not wrong is wrong. sent2: the grantor does not shampoo packrat if it does not logroll carpel. sent3: everything does not logroll carpel. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: the grantor does not shampoo packrat and does logroll grantor if it does not logroll carpel.; sent3 -> int2: the grantor does not logroll carpel.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the multilaneness happens.
|
{C}
|
sent1: the year-roundness occurs if the literate happens. sent2: that the shampooing taka does not occur is triggered by that both the raising and the cleanup occurs. sent3: the extrapolating causes the Huxleyanness. sent4: the abiogeneticness occurs if the ball occurs. sent5: the Huxleyanness occurs and the multilaneness occurs if the shampooing uropygium does not occur. sent6: the advisableness happens. sent7: the run-onness occurs. sent8: if the mesentericness does not occur and the enclosure does not occur then the shampooing uropygium occurs. sent9: the extrapolating occurs. sent10: the shampooing maltster happens if the looseness happens. sent11: the mesentericness does not occur and the enclosure does not occur. sent12: the fact that the shampooing uropygium occurs is not wrong if the mesentericness occurs but the enclosure does not occur. sent13: the fact that the mesentericness does not occur is not wrong. sent14: that not the extrapolating but the recording bise occurs is not right if the sameness happens. sent15: the multilaneness does not occur if the shampooing uropygium occurs and the Huxleyanness occurs. sent16: if both the recording antitype and the palatine happens then the mapping does not occur. sent17: the stylishness does not occur if the discreetness and the rearrangement happens. sent18: the lumbering does not occur and the nonparametricness does not occur.
|
sent1: {HL} -> {GG} sent2: ({GP} & {CK}) -> ¬{HS} sent3: {D} -> {A} sent4: {CT} -> {IJ} sent5: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {C}) sent6: {AP} sent7: {HJ} sent8: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent9: {D} sent10: {II} -> {GJ} sent11: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent12: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent13: ¬{AA} sent14: {F} -> ¬(¬{D} & {E}) sent15: ({B} & {A}) -> ¬{C} sent16: ({ET} & {HC}) -> ¬{CF} sent17: ({AQ} & {BB}) -> ¬{AU} sent18: (¬{N} & ¬{FE})
|
[
"sent8 & sent11 -> int1: the shampooing uropygium occurs.; sent3 & sent9 -> int2: the Huxleyanness occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the shampooing uropygium and the Huxleyanness happens.; int3 & sent15 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 & sent11 -> int1: {B}; sent3 & sent9 -> int2: {A}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({B} & {A}); int3 & sent15 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the multilaneness happens.
|
{C}
|
[] | 7 | 3 | 3 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the multilaneness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the year-roundness occurs if the literate happens. sent2: that the shampooing taka does not occur is triggered by that both the raising and the cleanup occurs. sent3: the extrapolating causes the Huxleyanness. sent4: the abiogeneticness occurs if the ball occurs. sent5: the Huxleyanness occurs and the multilaneness occurs if the shampooing uropygium does not occur. sent6: the advisableness happens. sent7: the run-onness occurs. sent8: if the mesentericness does not occur and the enclosure does not occur then the shampooing uropygium occurs. sent9: the extrapolating occurs. sent10: the shampooing maltster happens if the looseness happens. sent11: the mesentericness does not occur and the enclosure does not occur. sent12: the fact that the shampooing uropygium occurs is not wrong if the mesentericness occurs but the enclosure does not occur. sent13: the fact that the mesentericness does not occur is not wrong. sent14: that not the extrapolating but the recording bise occurs is not right if the sameness happens. sent15: the multilaneness does not occur if the shampooing uropygium occurs and the Huxleyanness occurs. sent16: if both the recording antitype and the palatine happens then the mapping does not occur. sent17: the stylishness does not occur if the discreetness and the rearrangement happens. sent18: the lumbering does not occur and the nonparametricness does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 & sent11 -> int1: the shampooing uropygium occurs.; sent3 & sent9 -> int2: the Huxleyanness occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the shampooing uropygium and the Huxleyanness happens.; int3 & sent15 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there is something such that if it is mutational then it is not a Buffalo does not hold.
|
¬((Ex): {A}x -> ¬{C}x)
|
sent1: there is something such that if it does logroll Nimitz it is not a kind of a purse. sent2: the fact that there exists something such that if it is a kind of a Dracocephalum it is not inexplicable hold. sent3: there exists something such that if it records LE then it is not a kind of a VFW. sent4: if the hatch is mutational then it is not a kind of a Buffalo. sent5: there is something such that if it is careless it is not insatiate. sent6: if the hyson is a kind of a Buffalo it is not an outfield. sent7: there exists something such that if it is metamorphous it is not a Kinosternon. sent8: if something is a kind of a Buffalo it does not wedge Astrophyton. sent9: there is something such that if it is mutational the fact that it is a Buffalo hold. sent10: there is something such that if it discourses then it is not a singular. sent11: the hatch is a Buffalo if it is mutational. sent12: the hatch does not shampoo drained if it is a whiffletree. sent13: there exists something such that if it does headquarter then that it is not a kind of a B-52 is right. sent14: the smoothbore is not a commune if it is a Buffalo.
|
sent1: (Ex): {DD}x -> ¬{GJ}x sent2: (Ex): {HO}x -> ¬{J}x sent3: (Ex): {I}x -> ¬{AG}x sent4: {A}{aa} -> ¬{C}{aa} sent5: (Ex): {AQ}x -> ¬{IF}x sent6: {C}{be} -> ¬{F}{be} sent7: (Ex): {D}x -> ¬{ER}x sent8: (x): {C}x -> ¬{CN}x sent9: (Ex): {A}x -> {C}x sent10: (Ex): {AM}x -> ¬{CL}x sent11: {A}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent12: {EH}{aa} -> ¬{DJ}{aa} sent13: (Ex): {BU}x -> ¬{FA}x sent14: {C}{ag} -> ¬{S}{ag}
|
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the hatch does not wedge Astrophyton if it is a Buffalo.
|
{C}{aa} -> ¬{CN}{aa}
|
[
"sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if it is mutational then it is not a Buffalo does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it does logroll Nimitz it is not a kind of a purse. sent2: the fact that there exists something such that if it is a kind of a Dracocephalum it is not inexplicable hold. sent3: there exists something such that if it records LE then it is not a kind of a VFW. sent4: if the hatch is mutational then it is not a kind of a Buffalo. sent5: there is something such that if it is careless it is not insatiate. sent6: if the hyson is a kind of a Buffalo it is not an outfield. sent7: there exists something such that if it is metamorphous it is not a Kinosternon. sent8: if something is a kind of a Buffalo it does not wedge Astrophyton. sent9: there is something such that if it is mutational the fact that it is a Buffalo hold. sent10: there is something such that if it discourses then it is not a singular. sent11: the hatch is a Buffalo if it is mutational. sent12: the hatch does not shampoo drained if it is a whiffletree. sent13: there exists something such that if it does headquarter then that it is not a kind of a B-52 is right. sent14: the smoothbore is not a commune if it is a Buffalo. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Esquire is not a kind of a blight.
|
¬{B}{b}
|
sent1: if that the risotto does not snorkel and/or it is a Blighty is false then it is not a kind of a blight. sent2: if the fact that either something does not snorkel or it is a kind of a Blighty or both is false it is not a blight. sent3: that something is a prowl that is unfavorable is not incorrect. sent4: if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a construal and/or it is not nonfictional is not true that the soleus is not unangry is true. sent5: if the fact that the cur does not shampoo huskiness but it records sylph is false it does not snorkel. sent6: the fact that the risotto logrolls disservice and it logrolls clansman does not hold if the fact that the Esquire is not a kind of a snorkel is right. sent7: the fact that the Esquire is not unangry hold. sent8: the Esquire is not a kind of a displacement. sent9: the fact that the risotto is not a kind of a Blighty is not false if that it is not a kind of a snorkel or it is a blight or both is wrong. sent10: the fact that something does not shampoo huskiness and records sylph is not right if it is not implicit. sent11: if the soleus is non-implicit and/or shampoos soleus then that the morula is non-implicit is not wrong. sent12: something is not implicit or it shampoos soleus or both if it is not unangry. sent13: the cur is not implicit if that the morula is implicit is correct. sent14: if the Esquire is not a snorkel the risotto does not blight. sent15: that the Esquire does not snorkel or it is a Blighty or both is wrong if the risotto does not snorkel. sent16: there exists something such that that it trams and is a kind of a photolithography does not hold. sent17: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a construal or is not nonfictional or both is not true. sent18: if the fact that something is either not nonfunctional or a formative or both is false then it is not an encyclopedist. sent19: there is something such that that it is tasteless and a Nyx is incorrect. sent20: if there is something such that the fact that it does tram and it is a photolithography is not true the risotto is not a snorkel. sent21: the moth is not cytogenetic. sent22: the risotto is not a thriftlessness.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{A}{a} v {C}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent2: (x): ¬(¬{A}x v {C}x) -> ¬{B}x sent3: (Ex): ({DE}x & {AK}x) sent4: (x): ¬({I}x v ¬{J}x) -> ¬{G}{e} sent5: ¬(¬{D}{c} & {E}{c}) -> ¬{A}{c} sent6: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬({IR}{a} & {DM}{a}) sent7: ¬{G}{b} sent8: ¬{IH}{b} sent9: ¬(¬{A}{a} v {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent10: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & {E}x) sent11: (¬{F}{e} v {H}{e}) -> {F}{d} sent12: (x): ¬{G}x -> (¬{F}x v {H}x) sent13: {F}{d} -> ¬{F}{c} sent14: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬{B}{a} sent15: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{A}{b} v {C}{b}) sent16: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent17: (Ex): ¬({I}x v ¬{J}x) sent18: (x): ¬(¬{JF}x v {CG}x) -> ¬{AR}x sent19: (Ex): ¬({GD}x & {BK}x) sent20: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent21: ¬{BH}{ea} sent22: ¬{CI}{a}
|
[
"sent16 & sent20 -> int1: the risotto does not snorkel.; int1 & sent15 -> int2: the fact that the Esquire is not a snorkel or it is a kind of a Blighty or both is not right.; sent2 -> int3: if the fact that the Esquire is either not a snorkel or a Blighty or both is wrong then it is not a blight.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent16 & sent20 -> int1: ¬{A}{a}; int1 & sent15 -> int2: ¬(¬{A}{b} v {C}{b}); sent2 -> int3: ¬(¬{A}{b} v {C}{b}) -> ¬{B}{b}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there is something such that that it does logroll disservice and it does logroll clansman is incorrect.
|
(Ex): ¬({IR}x & {DM}x)
|
[] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the Esquire is not a kind of a blight. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the risotto does not snorkel and/or it is a Blighty is false then it is not a kind of a blight. sent2: if the fact that either something does not snorkel or it is a kind of a Blighty or both is false it is not a blight. sent3: that something is a prowl that is unfavorable is not incorrect. sent4: if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a construal and/or it is not nonfictional is not true that the soleus is not unangry is true. sent5: if the fact that the cur does not shampoo huskiness but it records sylph is false it does not snorkel. sent6: the fact that the risotto logrolls disservice and it logrolls clansman does not hold if the fact that the Esquire is not a kind of a snorkel is right. sent7: the fact that the Esquire is not unangry hold. sent8: the Esquire is not a kind of a displacement. sent9: the fact that the risotto is not a kind of a Blighty is not false if that it is not a kind of a snorkel or it is a blight or both is wrong. sent10: the fact that something does not shampoo huskiness and records sylph is not right if it is not implicit. sent11: if the soleus is non-implicit and/or shampoos soleus then that the morula is non-implicit is not wrong. sent12: something is not implicit or it shampoos soleus or both if it is not unangry. sent13: the cur is not implicit if that the morula is implicit is correct. sent14: if the Esquire is not a snorkel the risotto does not blight. sent15: that the Esquire does not snorkel or it is a Blighty or both is wrong if the risotto does not snorkel. sent16: there exists something such that that it trams and is a kind of a photolithography does not hold. sent17: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a construal or is not nonfictional or both is not true. sent18: if the fact that something is either not nonfunctional or a formative or both is false then it is not an encyclopedist. sent19: there is something such that that it is tasteless and a Nyx is incorrect. sent20: if there is something such that the fact that it does tram and it is a photolithography is not true the risotto is not a snorkel. sent21: the moth is not cytogenetic. sent22: the risotto is not a thriftlessness. ; $proof$ =
|
sent16 & sent20 -> int1: the risotto does not snorkel.; int1 & sent15 -> int2: the fact that the Esquire is not a snorkel or it is a kind of a Blighty or both is not right.; sent2 -> int3: if the fact that the Esquire is either not a snorkel or a Blighty or both is wrong then it is not a blight.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the cane does not occur.
|
¬{D}
|
sent1: the knockout occurs. sent2: that the logrolling equatability occurs but the logrolling Bridgetown does not occur is not right if that the logrolling rangefinder does not occur is correct. sent3: the wedging Tarabulus does not occur and the sending does not occur if the send-off does not occur. sent4: if the shampooing rope-a-dope does not occur the fact that the fact that the caning or the involvement or both occurs is not incorrect is not true. sent5: the involvement occurs if the logrolling domed happens. sent6: the miscount and the recording chlorinity occurs. sent7: that the vacationing and the shampooing Siluridae happens is caused by that the ink-jetness does not occur. sent8: that the send-off does not occur if the chancellorship and the figuring happens is true. sent9: that the ink-jetness does not occur is caused by that not the wedging Tarabulus but the wholeness occurs. sent10: the involvement and the sidearmness happens. sent11: if the fact that the logrolling equatability happens and the logrolling Bridgetown does not occur is incorrect then the jugular does not occur. sent12: if the vacationing happens the logrolling rangefinder does not occur. sent13: the involvement occurs. sent14: if the recording chlorinity does not occur then the cane occurs and the miscounting happens. sent15: if that that the cane and/or the involvement happens is right is false the recording chlorinity does not occur. sent16: that the inclination occurs is prevented by that the jugularness does not occur. sent17: the chancellorship and the figure occurs. sent18: that the miscount and the sidearmness occurs yields that the caning does not occur. sent19: the logrolling domed and/or that the shampooing rope-a-dope happens is brought about by that the inclination does not occur. sent20: the whole occurs and the lens does not occur if the knockout occurs. sent21: that both the miscounting and the baronetage happens is brought about by that the recording chlorinity does not occur. sent22: the makeshift happens and the recording thickness happens.
|
sent1: {T} sent2: ¬{L} -> ¬({J} & ¬{K}) sent3: ¬{U} -> (¬{Q} & ¬{S}) sent4: ¬{F} -> ¬({D} v {E}) sent5: {G} -> {E} sent6: ({A} & {B}) sent7: ¬{O} -> ({M} & {N}) sent8: ({AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{U} sent9: (¬{Q} & {P}) -> ¬{O} sent10: ({E} & {C}) sent11: ¬({J} & ¬{K}) -> ¬{I} sent12: {M} -> ¬{L} sent13: {E} sent14: ¬{B} -> ({D} & {A}) sent15: ¬({D} v {E}) -> ¬{B} sent16: ¬{I} -> ¬{H} sent17: ({AA} & {AB}) sent18: ({A} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent19: ¬{H} -> ({G} v {F}) sent20: {T} -> ({P} & ¬{R}) sent21: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {FS}) sent22: ({BG} & {GS})
|
[
"sent6 -> int1: the miscount happens.; sent10 -> int2: the sidearmness happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the miscount and the sidearmness occurs.; int3 & sent18 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 -> int1: {A}; sent10 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({A} & {C}); int3 & sent18 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the baronetage occurs and the vacationing happens is not wrong.
|
({FS} & {M})
|
[] | 5 | 3 | 3 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the cane does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the knockout occurs. sent2: that the logrolling equatability occurs but the logrolling Bridgetown does not occur is not right if that the logrolling rangefinder does not occur is correct. sent3: the wedging Tarabulus does not occur and the sending does not occur if the send-off does not occur. sent4: if the shampooing rope-a-dope does not occur the fact that the fact that the caning or the involvement or both occurs is not incorrect is not true. sent5: the involvement occurs if the logrolling domed happens. sent6: the miscount and the recording chlorinity occurs. sent7: that the vacationing and the shampooing Siluridae happens is caused by that the ink-jetness does not occur. sent8: that the send-off does not occur if the chancellorship and the figuring happens is true. sent9: that the ink-jetness does not occur is caused by that not the wedging Tarabulus but the wholeness occurs. sent10: the involvement and the sidearmness happens. sent11: if the fact that the logrolling equatability happens and the logrolling Bridgetown does not occur is incorrect then the jugular does not occur. sent12: if the vacationing happens the logrolling rangefinder does not occur. sent13: the involvement occurs. sent14: if the recording chlorinity does not occur then the cane occurs and the miscounting happens. sent15: if that that the cane and/or the involvement happens is right is false the recording chlorinity does not occur. sent16: that the inclination occurs is prevented by that the jugularness does not occur. sent17: the chancellorship and the figure occurs. sent18: that the miscount and the sidearmness occurs yields that the caning does not occur. sent19: the logrolling domed and/or that the shampooing rope-a-dope happens is brought about by that the inclination does not occur. sent20: the whole occurs and the lens does not occur if the knockout occurs. sent21: that both the miscounting and the baronetage happens is brought about by that the recording chlorinity does not occur. sent22: the makeshift happens and the recording thickness happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 -> int1: the miscount happens.; sent10 -> int2: the sidearmness happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the miscount and the sidearmness occurs.; int3 & sent18 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if it does not shampoo backroom and it is a tout then that it is existential is not wrong.
|
(Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x
|
sent1: the fact that the tippet is a conduit hold if it is not carboniferous and it is Puranic. sent2: if the backroom is a kind of social thing that is an immigration then it does shampoo backroom. sent3: there is something such that if it does not record diapedesis and it is a jog it does logroll LE. sent4: something is existential if it does not shampoo backroom and it touts. sent5: if something that does not shampoo sweatbox is biogenic then it is sterile. sent6: there is something such that if it is a kind of non-facial thing that is a luffa it is a kind of a cartoonist. sent7: the backroom is existential if it does shampoo backroom and it is a tout. sent8: if something shampoos backroom and it is a tout it is existential. sent9: if something is not a Brest but Democratic it logrolls LE.
|
sent1: (¬{GO}{p} & {M}{p}) -> {IF}{p} sent2: (¬{DC}{aa} & {FH}{aa}) -> {AA}{aa} sent3: (Ex): (¬{BT}x & {EK}x) -> {FF}x sent4: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent5: (x): (¬{EI}x & {CK}x) -> {JF}x sent6: (Ex): (¬{IA}x & {GC}x) -> {IS}x sent7: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent8: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent9: (x): (¬{AT}x & {N}x) -> {FF}x
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: the backroom is existential if it does not shampoo backroom and it touts.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> int1: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it does not shampoo backroom and it is a tout then that it is existential is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the tippet is a conduit hold if it is not carboniferous and it is Puranic. sent2: if the backroom is a kind of social thing that is an immigration then it does shampoo backroom. sent3: there is something such that if it does not record diapedesis and it is a jog it does logroll LE. sent4: something is existential if it does not shampoo backroom and it touts. sent5: if something that does not shampoo sweatbox is biogenic then it is sterile. sent6: there is something such that if it is a kind of non-facial thing that is a luffa it is a kind of a cartoonist. sent7: the backroom is existential if it does shampoo backroom and it is a tout. sent8: if something shampoos backroom and it is a tout it is existential. sent9: if something is not a Brest but Democratic it logrolls LE. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> int1: the backroom is existential if it does not shampoo backroom and it touts.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the recording Himantopus happens.
|
{AB}
|
sent1: if that the royalism occurs is true then the industrialization happens and the scission does not occur. sent2: if the remediableness does not occur then that the Chinaman happens and/or the orthodonticsness happens hold. sent3: the recording gospel is prevented by that the betulaceousness happens. sent4: that the logrolling vernacular does not occur causes that the circadianness does not occur but the biliariness occurs. sent5: both the traceableness and the logrolling cataphyll happens. sent6: if the Transportation happens then the disinvestment happens. sent7: if the shampooing hundredweight does not occur both the usance and the nonarbitrableness occurs. sent8: the Transportation occurs. sent9: that if the Transportation does not occur then that the salvation does not occur and the recording Himantopus does not occur does not hold is right. sent10: if the Muscoviteness happens then the taxation but not the logrolling chirp occurs. sent11: that the self-gratification occurs yields that the reclamation occurs but the shampooing Naomi does not occur. sent12: the logrolling vernacular is prevented by that the stocking and the logrolling cataphyll happens. sent13: if the recording gospel does not occur the bye occurs and the recording theogony occurs. sent14: the non-betulaceousness is prevented by the usance. sent15: that the recording Himantopus happens is not false if that the salvation does not occur and the recording Himantopus does not occur is not correct. sent16: the stocking occurs. sent17: the Transportation does not occur if the bye happens. sent18: if the circadianness does not occur the remediableness does not occur and the Mauritanian does not occur. sent19: the disinvestment happens. sent20: that the disinvestment but not the recording Himantopus occurs is caused by the Transportation.
|
sent1: {CA} -> ({FR} & ¬{FO}) sent2: ¬{L} -> ({K} v {J}) sent3: {F} -> ¬{E} sent4: ¬{P} -> (¬{N} & {O}) sent5: ({S} & {R}) sent6: {A} -> {AA} sent7: ¬{I} -> ({G} & {H}) sent8: {A} sent9: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{B} & ¬{AB}) sent10: {AR} -> ({AH} & ¬{DI}) sent11: {DF} -> ({HI} & ¬{AF}) sent12: ({Q} & {R}) -> ¬{P} sent13: ¬{E} -> ({C} & {D}) sent14: {G} -> {F} sent15: ¬(¬{B} & ¬{AB}) -> {AB} sent16: {Q} sent17: {C} -> ¬{A} sent18: ¬{N} -> (¬{L} & ¬{M}) sent19: {AA} sent20: {A} -> ({AA} & ¬{AB})
|
[
"sent20 & sent8 -> int1: the disinvestment happens but the recording Himantopus does not occur.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent20 & sent8 -> int1: ({AA} & ¬{AB}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the recording Himantopus happens.
|
{AB}
|
[
"sent5 -> int2: the logrolling cataphyll occurs.; sent16 & int2 -> int3: the stocking happens and the logrolling cataphyll occurs.; sent12 & int3 -> int4: the logrolling vernacular does not occur.; sent4 & int4 -> int5: both the non-circadianness and the biliariness happens.; int5 -> int6: the circadianness does not occur.; sent18 & int6 -> int7: both the irremediableness and the non-Mauritanianness occurs.; int7 -> int8: the remediableness does not occur.; sent2 & int8 -> int9: the Chinaman happens and/or the orthodonticsness occurs.;"
] | 18 | 2 | 2 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the recording Himantopus happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the royalism occurs is true then the industrialization happens and the scission does not occur. sent2: if the remediableness does not occur then that the Chinaman happens and/or the orthodonticsness happens hold. sent3: the recording gospel is prevented by that the betulaceousness happens. sent4: that the logrolling vernacular does not occur causes that the circadianness does not occur but the biliariness occurs. sent5: both the traceableness and the logrolling cataphyll happens. sent6: if the Transportation happens then the disinvestment happens. sent7: if the shampooing hundredweight does not occur both the usance and the nonarbitrableness occurs. sent8: the Transportation occurs. sent9: that if the Transportation does not occur then that the salvation does not occur and the recording Himantopus does not occur does not hold is right. sent10: if the Muscoviteness happens then the taxation but not the logrolling chirp occurs. sent11: that the self-gratification occurs yields that the reclamation occurs but the shampooing Naomi does not occur. sent12: the logrolling vernacular is prevented by that the stocking and the logrolling cataphyll happens. sent13: if the recording gospel does not occur the bye occurs and the recording theogony occurs. sent14: the non-betulaceousness is prevented by the usance. sent15: that the recording Himantopus happens is not false if that the salvation does not occur and the recording Himantopus does not occur is not correct. sent16: the stocking occurs. sent17: the Transportation does not occur if the bye happens. sent18: if the circadianness does not occur the remediableness does not occur and the Mauritanian does not occur. sent19: the disinvestment happens. sent20: that the disinvestment but not the recording Himantopus occurs is caused by the Transportation. ; $proof$ =
|
sent20 & sent8 -> int1: the disinvestment happens but the recording Himantopus does not occur.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Nepalese wedges weatherboard.
|
{D}{b}
|
sent1: something does wedge weatherboard if that it does record amphictyony is not incorrect. sent2: if the constituent is meatless and does wedge sapper the autoeroticism is not an interregnum. sent3: that the Nepalese records Nepalese and does not wedge weatherboard is not correct if there exists something such that it is algorithmic. sent4: the sapper logrolls autoradiography and is not meatless. sent5: if the ilmenite is not algorithmic then the Nepalese does not wedge weatherboard. sent6: the constituent is not a Mesa. sent7: if there are algorithmic things then that the ilmenite does record Nepalese but it does not wedge weatherboard is not true. sent8: the autoeroticism logrolls constituent and logrolls Cyclosorus if it is not an interregnum. sent9: there exists something such that it does wedge weatherboard. sent10: that the ilmenite is a kind of a Mauritius and is not fallible is incorrect. sent11: that that the ilmenite is algorithmic and does not record Nepalese does not hold is not incorrect if there is something such that it does record amphictyony. sent12: the ilmenite is not a myelinization. sent13: the fact that the ilmenite does record Nepalese and does not wedge weatherboard is false. sent14: something is algorithmic and does not record amphictyony if it does not record Nepalese. sent15: something records amphictyony. sent16: the constituent is meatless if the sapper logrolls autoradiography and is not meatless. sent17: if the constituent is not a kind of a Mesa then it logrolls pinon and wedges sapper. sent18: the Nepalese does not wedge weatherboard if the fact that the ilmenite is algorithmic but it does not record Nepalese is incorrect. sent19: the fact that the abacus does not wedge weatherboard hold.
|
sent1: (x): {A}x -> {D}x sent2: ({I}{d} & {H}{d}) -> ¬{G}{c} sent3: (x): {B}x -> ¬({C}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent4: ({L}{e} & ¬{I}{e}) sent5: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬{D}{b} sent6: ¬{K}{d} sent7: (x): {B}x -> ¬({C}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent8: ¬{G}{c} -> ({E}{c} & {F}{c}) sent9: (Ex): {D}x sent10: ¬({BA}{a} & ¬{HD}{a}) sent11: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent12: ¬{P}{a} sent13: ¬({C}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent14: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & ¬{A}x) sent15: (Ex): {A}x sent16: ({L}{e} & ¬{I}{e}) -> {I}{d} sent17: ¬{K}{d} -> ({J}{d} & {H}{d}) sent18: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent19: ¬{D}{gj}
|
[
"sent15 & sent11 -> int1: the fact that the ilmenite is algorithmic but it does not record Nepalese is false.; sent18 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent15 & sent11 -> int1: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); sent18 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the Nepalese does wedge weatherboard.
|
{D}{b}
|
[
"sent1 -> int2: that the Nepalese does wedge weatherboard if the Nepalese does record amphictyony is not wrong.; sent14 -> int3: the ilmenite is algorithmic but it does not record amphictyony if it does not record Nepalese.; sent16 & sent4 -> int4: the constituent is meatless.; sent17 & sent6 -> int5: the constituent does logroll pinon and it does wedge sapper.; int5 -> int6: the constituent wedges sapper.; int4 & int6 -> int7: the constituent is meatless thing that wedges sapper.; sent2 & int7 -> int8: the autoeroticism is not an interregnum.; sent8 & int8 -> int9: the autoeroticism does logroll constituent and does logroll Cyclosorus.; int9 -> int10: the autoeroticism logrolls constituent.; int10 -> int11: there exists something such that it does logroll constituent.;"
] | 11 | 2 | 2 | 16 | 0 | 16 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the Nepalese wedges weatherboard. ; $context$ = sent1: something does wedge weatherboard if that it does record amphictyony is not incorrect. sent2: if the constituent is meatless and does wedge sapper the autoeroticism is not an interregnum. sent3: that the Nepalese records Nepalese and does not wedge weatherboard is not correct if there exists something such that it is algorithmic. sent4: the sapper logrolls autoradiography and is not meatless. sent5: if the ilmenite is not algorithmic then the Nepalese does not wedge weatherboard. sent6: the constituent is not a Mesa. sent7: if there are algorithmic things then that the ilmenite does record Nepalese but it does not wedge weatherboard is not true. sent8: the autoeroticism logrolls constituent and logrolls Cyclosorus if it is not an interregnum. sent9: there exists something such that it does wedge weatherboard. sent10: that the ilmenite is a kind of a Mauritius and is not fallible is incorrect. sent11: that that the ilmenite is algorithmic and does not record Nepalese does not hold is not incorrect if there is something such that it does record amphictyony. sent12: the ilmenite is not a myelinization. sent13: the fact that the ilmenite does record Nepalese and does not wedge weatherboard is false. sent14: something is algorithmic and does not record amphictyony if it does not record Nepalese. sent15: something records amphictyony. sent16: the constituent is meatless if the sapper logrolls autoradiography and is not meatless. sent17: if the constituent is not a kind of a Mesa then it logrolls pinon and wedges sapper. sent18: the Nepalese does not wedge weatherboard if the fact that the ilmenite is algorithmic but it does not record Nepalese is incorrect. sent19: the fact that the abacus does not wedge weatherboard hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent15 & sent11 -> int1: the fact that the ilmenite is algorithmic but it does not record Nepalese is false.; sent18 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the header does not occur if the recording buttercrunch happens.
|
{A} -> ¬{C}
|
sent1: the logrolling Methodism happens. sent2: that the expatiation does not occur yields that the commercial but not the challenge happens. sent3: that not the logrolling Methodism but the header occurs is caused by the non-geographicness. sent4: that the header does not occur is brought about by that the recording buttercrunch occurs and the logrolling Methodism happens. sent5: if the commercial but not the challenging happens the geographicness does not occur.
|
sent1: {B} sent2: ¬{G} -> ({F} & ¬{E}) sent3: ¬{D} -> (¬{B} & {C}) sent4: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent5: ({F} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{D}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the recording buttercrunch happens.; assump1 & sent1 -> int1: the recording buttercrunch occurs and the logrolling Methodism happens.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: the header does not occur.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}; assump1 & sent1 -> int1: ({A} & {B}); sent4 & int1 -> int2: ¬{C}; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the subsiding happens.
|
{EP}
|
[] | 8 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the header does not occur if the recording buttercrunch happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the logrolling Methodism happens. sent2: that the expatiation does not occur yields that the commercial but not the challenge happens. sent3: that not the logrolling Methodism but the header occurs is caused by the non-geographicness. sent4: that the header does not occur is brought about by that the recording buttercrunch occurs and the logrolling Methodism happens. sent5: if the commercial but not the challenging happens the geographicness does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the recording buttercrunch happens.; assump1 & sent1 -> int1: the recording buttercrunch occurs and the logrolling Methodism happens.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: the header does not occur.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the pinwheel is not a kind of a sild.
|
¬{B}{aa}
|
sent1: if that the fact that the fauna does indenture but it is not a kind of a tonic is not correct is not incorrect then the turban is a tonic. sent2: the pinwheel does not record Lilliput if the fact that it does record Lilliput and it is a kind of a thrash is incorrect. sent3: the fact that something does not blast or is not a thrash or both does not hold if it is not a sild. sent4: if there exists something such that the fact that it records Rawalpindi and is not nonexistent is incorrect the borough is not zonal. sent5: the fact that something is not a thrash or is not multiform or both does not hold if it is not a papoose. sent6: if the fact that the pinwheel does thrash or it is not multiform or both does not hold it is not a sild. sent7: the accountant is not multiform. sent8: if the fact that something is not a thrash or not multiform or both does not hold it is not a sild. sent9: that the pinwheel is not an anthracite and/or it does not blast does not hold if it is not a kind of a housebreaker. sent10: the pinwheel is not a kind of a papoose if the fact that it is a kind of a papoose and is a blast is incorrect. sent11: the fact that the fauna is an indenture but it is not a kind of a tonic is incorrect. sent12: if that something does thrash or is not multiform or both is wrong it is not a kind of a sild. sent13: if the fact that something does not thrash and/or it is multiform is false it is not a sild. sent14: if there is something such that it is not zonal then the fact that the Chiron is a molarity and it is a blast does not hold. sent15: if there exists something such that it is not a blast the excuse is not a kind of a sild. sent16: if the fact that either something does not revitalize or it does not logroll shoulder or both is incorrect then it does not record caricature. sent17: the pinwheel is not psychogenic. sent18: if the fact that the Chiron is both not zonal and a molarity does not hold that the excuse is a blast hold. sent19: if the turban is tonic then that the fact that the snowplow records Rawalpindi and is not nonexistent does not hold is right. sent20: if the fact that something is not a thrash and/or it is not a papoose is false then it is not a blast. sent21: if the fact that that something is a kind of a molarity and is a kind of a blast is true is incorrect then it is not a kind of a blast. sent22: if that the pinwheel is not a kind of a thrash and/or is multiform does not hold then it is not a sild.
|
sent1: ¬({J}{f} & ¬{H}{f}) -> {H}{e} sent2: ¬({FG}{aa} & {AA}{aa}) -> ¬{FG}{aa} sent3: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬(¬{C}x v ¬{AA}x) sent4: (x): ¬({G}x & ¬{F}x) -> ¬{E}{c} sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent6: ¬({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent7: ¬{AB}{gt} sent8: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent9: ¬{R}{aa} -> ¬(¬{O}{aa} v ¬{C}{aa}) sent10: ¬({A}{aa} & {C}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent11: ¬({J}{f} & ¬{H}{f}) sent12: (x): ¬({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent13: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent14: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬({D}{b} & {C}{b}) sent15: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬{B}{a} sent16: (x): ¬(¬{L}x v ¬{BM}x) -> ¬{EH}x sent17: ¬{CG}{aa} sent18: ¬(¬{E}{b} & {D}{b}) -> {C}{a} sent19: {H}{e} -> ¬({G}{d} & ¬{F}{d}) sent20: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x v ¬{A}x) -> ¬{C}x sent21: (x): ¬({D}x & {C}x) -> ¬{C}x sent22: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}
|
[
"sent5 -> int1: if the pinwheel is not a papoose then that it does not thrash and/or is not multiform is not correct.; sent8 -> int2: if the fact that the pinwheel is not a thrash or not multiform or both is incorrect it is not a kind of a sild.;"
] |
[
"sent5 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}); sent8 -> int2: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa};"
] |
the magus is not a kind of a papoose.
|
¬{A}{bf}
|
[
"sent21 -> int3: the Chiron does not blast if the fact that it is a molarity and it is a blast is not correct.; sent1 & sent11 -> int4: the turban is a tonic.; sent19 & int4 -> int5: that the snowplow does record Rawalpindi but it is existent is not right.; int5 -> int6: there exists something such that that it records Rawalpindi and it is not nonexistent is false.; int6 & sent4 -> int7: the borough is not zonal.; int7 -> int8: something is not zonal.; int8 & sent14 -> int9: the fact that the fact that the Chiron is a kind of a molarity and it is a blast is not correct is not wrong.; int3 & int9 -> int10: the Chiron is not a kind of a blast.; int10 -> int11: there is something such that it does not blast.; int11 & sent15 -> int12: the excuse is not a sild.; int12 -> int13: something is not a sild.;"
] | 11 | 3 | null | 19 | 0 | 19 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the pinwheel is not a kind of a sild. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the fact that the fauna does indenture but it is not a kind of a tonic is not correct is not incorrect then the turban is a tonic. sent2: the pinwheel does not record Lilliput if the fact that it does record Lilliput and it is a kind of a thrash is incorrect. sent3: the fact that something does not blast or is not a thrash or both does not hold if it is not a sild. sent4: if there exists something such that the fact that it records Rawalpindi and is not nonexistent is incorrect the borough is not zonal. sent5: the fact that something is not a thrash or is not multiform or both does not hold if it is not a papoose. sent6: if the fact that the pinwheel does thrash or it is not multiform or both does not hold it is not a sild. sent7: the accountant is not multiform. sent8: if the fact that something is not a thrash or not multiform or both does not hold it is not a sild. sent9: that the pinwheel is not an anthracite and/or it does not blast does not hold if it is not a kind of a housebreaker. sent10: the pinwheel is not a kind of a papoose if the fact that it is a kind of a papoose and is a blast is incorrect. sent11: the fact that the fauna is an indenture but it is not a kind of a tonic is incorrect. sent12: if that something does thrash or is not multiform or both is wrong it is not a kind of a sild. sent13: if the fact that something does not thrash and/or it is multiform is false it is not a sild. sent14: if there is something such that it is not zonal then the fact that the Chiron is a molarity and it is a blast does not hold. sent15: if there exists something such that it is not a blast the excuse is not a kind of a sild. sent16: if the fact that either something does not revitalize or it does not logroll shoulder or both is incorrect then it does not record caricature. sent17: the pinwheel is not psychogenic. sent18: if the fact that the Chiron is both not zonal and a molarity does not hold that the excuse is a blast hold. sent19: if the turban is tonic then that the fact that the snowplow records Rawalpindi and is not nonexistent does not hold is right. sent20: if the fact that something is not a thrash and/or it is not a papoose is false then it is not a blast. sent21: if the fact that that something is a kind of a molarity and is a kind of a blast is true is incorrect then it is not a kind of a blast. sent22: if that the pinwheel is not a kind of a thrash and/or is multiform does not hold then it is not a sild. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 -> int1: if the pinwheel is not a papoose then that it does not thrash and/or is not multiform is not correct.; sent8 -> int2: if the fact that the pinwheel is not a thrash or not multiform or both is incorrect it is not a kind of a sild.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if it is a imbibition then the fact that it does not shampoo repatriate and blanches is incorrect.
|
(Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x)
|
sent1: the siren does not shampoo repatriate but it does blanch if it is a imbibition. sent2: if that the pommy does shampoo repatriate is not wrong then the fact that the fact that it does not record deduction and it does logroll photolithography hold is not true. sent3: if the fact that the siren does blanch is not wrong then the fact that it is not a kind of a comb and is a reactance is false. sent4: that something is not a kind of a squish but it is a Stalinization is wrong if the fact that it is a kind of a clientele is not wrong. sent5: there exists something such that if it is a imbibition then the fact that it shampoos repatriate and it does blanch is not right. sent6: if the siren is Audenesque then that it does not rent and is a Rigel does not hold. sent7: if the fact that the siren is a imbibition hold that it does not shampoo repatriate and does blanch does not hold. sent8: if the siren is a thriftlessness then that it is not a whip-round and it is cenobitic does not hold. sent9: that the bacteriochlorophyll does not blanch but it does subordinate is false if that it is a comb is not wrong. sent10: there is something such that if it is a imbibition then it does not shampoo repatriate and does blanch. sent11: there exists something such that if it is fabian then the fact that it is non-Senecan thing that is a guardianship is not correct. sent12: that the siren is both not aboral and a scrap does not hold if it is a imbibition. sent13: that the siren does shampoo repatriate and blanches is not correct if it is a imbibition.
|
sent1: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent2: {AA}{hn} -> ¬(¬{JB}{hn} & {CP}{hn}) sent3: {AB}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AP}{aa} & {GK}{aa}) sent4: (x): {FM}x -> ¬(¬{AU}x & {GL}x) sent5: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent6: {DS}{aa} -> ¬(¬{FN}{aa} & {GG}{aa}) sent7: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent8: {HT}{aa} -> ¬(¬{DE}{aa} & {EJ}{aa}) sent9: {AP}{fo} -> ¬(¬{AB}{fo} & {HN}{fo}) sent10: (Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent11: (Ex): {HJ}x -> ¬(¬{Q}x & {ID}x) sent12: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{EK}{aa} & {DP}{aa}) sent13: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})
|
[
"sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the Ovrette is not a squish but it is a Stalinization is wrong if that it is a kind of a clientele is not false.
|
{FM}{fk} -> ¬(¬{AU}{fk} & {GL}{fk})
|
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is a imbibition then the fact that it does not shampoo repatriate and blanches is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the siren does not shampoo repatriate but it does blanch if it is a imbibition. sent2: if that the pommy does shampoo repatriate is not wrong then the fact that the fact that it does not record deduction and it does logroll photolithography hold is not true. sent3: if the fact that the siren does blanch is not wrong then the fact that it is not a kind of a comb and is a reactance is false. sent4: that something is not a kind of a squish but it is a Stalinization is wrong if the fact that it is a kind of a clientele is not wrong. sent5: there exists something such that if it is a imbibition then the fact that it shampoos repatriate and it does blanch is not right. sent6: if the siren is Audenesque then that it does not rent and is a Rigel does not hold. sent7: if the fact that the siren is a imbibition hold that it does not shampoo repatriate and does blanch does not hold. sent8: if the siren is a thriftlessness then that it is not a whip-round and it is cenobitic does not hold. sent9: that the bacteriochlorophyll does not blanch but it does subordinate is false if that it is a comb is not wrong. sent10: there is something such that if it is a imbibition then it does not shampoo repatriate and does blanch. sent11: there exists something such that if it is fabian then the fact that it is non-Senecan thing that is a guardianship is not correct. sent12: that the siren is both not aboral and a scrap does not hold if it is a imbibition. sent13: that the siren does shampoo repatriate and blanches is not correct if it is a imbibition. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the picker is postmeridian and it is catholic.
|
({C}{a} & {D}{a})
|
sent1: if something that is fortunate is not a recombinant then it is postmeridian. sent2: if there exists something such that that it is not hatless and/or is a kind of a recombinant is incorrect the hurricane is a kind of an unfortunate. sent3: there is something such that the fact that it does not depreciate and it does not sicken is not correct. sent4: that the fact that something is not hatless and/or is a recombinant is right does not hold if the fact that it is a Adapa is not incorrect. sent5: the RV does sicken if that the cipher does not depreciate and does record eruditeness is false. sent6: if the hurricane is unfortunate and/or is not postmeridian the Sudanese is not postmeridian. sent7: something is nonmetallic if it does not shampoo skeg. sent8: something that is not a Adapa is hatless and is catholic. sent9: the fact that the picker is not a Adapa is not wrong. sent10: if there is something such that that it does not depreciate and does not sicken is incorrect the picker is not a kind of a recombinant. sent11: if there exists something such that that the fact that it is a kind of a Bethe and it is cubital is true is incorrect then the picker is not an unfortunate. sent12: something is a kind of a Adapa if it does sicken.
|
sent1: (x): (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) -> {C}x sent2: (x): ¬(¬{E}x v {B}x) -> {A}{c} sent3: (Ex): ¬(¬{H}x & ¬{G}x) sent4: (x): {F}x -> ¬(¬{E}x v {B}x) sent5: ¬(¬{H}{e} & {I}{e}) -> {G}{d} sent6: ({A}{c} v ¬{C}{c}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent7: (x): ¬{HR}x -> {GA}x sent8: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({E}x & {D}x) sent9: ¬{F}{a} sent10: (x): ¬(¬{H}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{B}{a} sent11: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent12: (x): {G}x -> {F}x
|
[
"sent3 & sent10 -> int1: the picker is not a recombinant.; sent1 -> int2: the picker is postmeridian if it is not a kind of an unfortunate and is not recombinant.; sent8 -> int3: the picker is both not hatted and catholic if it is not a Adapa.; int3 & sent9 -> int4: the picker is hatless and it is catholic.; int4 -> int5: the picker is catholic.;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent10 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; sent1 -> int2: (¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> {C}{a}; sent8 -> int3: ¬{F}{a} -> ({E}{a} & {D}{a}); int3 & sent9 -> int4: ({E}{a} & {D}{a}); int4 -> int5: {D}{a};"
] |
that the picker is both postmeridian and catholic is not correct.
|
¬({C}{a} & {D}{a})
|
[
"sent4 -> int6: if the RV is a kind of a Adapa the fact that it is hatted and/or it is a recombinant is not correct.; sent12 -> int7: if the RV sickens it is a kind of a Adapa.;"
] | 9 | 4 | null | 6 | 0 | 6 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the picker is postmeridian and it is catholic. ; $context$ = sent1: if something that is fortunate is not a recombinant then it is postmeridian. sent2: if there exists something such that that it is not hatless and/or is a kind of a recombinant is incorrect the hurricane is a kind of an unfortunate. sent3: there is something such that the fact that it does not depreciate and it does not sicken is not correct. sent4: that the fact that something is not hatless and/or is a recombinant is right does not hold if the fact that it is a Adapa is not incorrect. sent5: the RV does sicken if that the cipher does not depreciate and does record eruditeness is false. sent6: if the hurricane is unfortunate and/or is not postmeridian the Sudanese is not postmeridian. sent7: something is nonmetallic if it does not shampoo skeg. sent8: something that is not a Adapa is hatless and is catholic. sent9: the fact that the picker is not a Adapa is not wrong. sent10: if there is something such that that it does not depreciate and does not sicken is incorrect the picker is not a kind of a recombinant. sent11: if there exists something such that that the fact that it is a kind of a Bethe and it is cubital is true is incorrect then the picker is not an unfortunate. sent12: something is a kind of a Adapa if it does sicken. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent10 -> int1: the picker is not a recombinant.; sent1 -> int2: the picker is postmeridian if it is not a kind of an unfortunate and is not recombinant.; sent8 -> int3: the picker is both not hatted and catholic if it is not a Adapa.; int3 & sent9 -> int4: the picker is hatless and it is catholic.; int4 -> int5: the picker is catholic.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the rheometer is not a NRC.
|
¬{C}{a}
|
sent1: the rheometer does not soften if the hindgut is not zenithal but it logrolls chopper. sent2: the rheometer is both not stainable and not a Doha. sent3: if the fact that something does not record rope-a-dope is correct it is not a bone and not a Wiesbaden. sent4: the cruller does not shampoo rheometer and it does not record rope-a-dope if something is not larval. sent5: something does record rope-a-dope. sent6: the adenovirus is not expressionist and does not logroll popper. sent7: if something does not soften then the fact that it is not stainable and it is a NRC is wrong. sent8: there exists something such that that it is not stainable is not false. sent9: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a NRC then the rheometer is not a kind of a midair and does not record Romanal. sent10: the bourn is not a NRC. sent11: the rheometer is non-stainable thing that is not a kind of a NRC if something does not record rope-a-dope. sent12: if there exists something such that it is not stainable the rheometer is not a hydrozoan and it is not a hostilities. sent13: the whipping does not record triteness and is professional if there is something such that it is not a NRC. sent14: there exists something such that it does not record rope-a-dope. sent15: the rheometer is not actinal and is not a impermanence if there exists something such that it does not logroll toy. sent16: if there exists something such that it does not record rope-a-dope the rheometer is not stainable. sent17: the pack is not a polychrome. sent18: that the constituent is not a NRC is true. sent19: the rheometer is not stainable. sent20: something is not a NRC. sent21: something is not catadromous. sent22: the fact that the rheometer is not a kind of a hydrozoan is true.
|
sent1: (¬{F}{b} & {E}{b}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent2: (¬{B}{a} & ¬{EE}{a}) sent3: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{IG}x & ¬{EJ}x) sent4: (x): ¬{EO}x -> (¬{DC}{je} & ¬{A}{je}) sent5: (Ex): {A}x sent6: (¬{AP}{jh} & ¬{ES}{jh}) sent7: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & {C}x) sent8: (Ex): ¬{B}x sent9: (x): ¬{C}x -> (¬{IH}{a} & ¬{HQ}{a}) sent10: ¬{C}{if} sent11: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent12: (x): ¬{B}x -> (¬{GL}{a} & ¬{CN}{a}) sent13: (x): ¬{C}x -> (¬{FS}{fc} & ¬{FE}{fc}) sent14: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent15: (x): ¬{CR}x -> (¬{EM}{a} & ¬{EP}{a}) sent16: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{B}{a} sent17: ¬{G}{c} sent18: ¬{C}{ia} sent19: ¬{B}{a} sent20: (Ex): ¬{C}x sent21: (Ex): ¬{H}x sent22: ¬{GL}{a}
|
[
"sent14 & sent11 -> int1: the rheometer is not stainable and it is not a NRC.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent14 & sent11 -> int1: (¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the bulla is not a bone and is not a kind of a Wiesbaden.
|
(¬{IG}{fs} & ¬{EJ}{fs})
|
[
"sent3 -> int2: the bulla is both not a bone and not a Wiesbaden if it does not record rope-a-dope.; sent7 -> int3: that the rheometer is non-stainable a NRC does not hold if it does not soften.; sent17 -> int4: there exists something such that it does not polychrome.;"
] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 20 | 0 | 20 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the rheometer is not a NRC. ; $context$ = sent1: the rheometer does not soften if the hindgut is not zenithal but it logrolls chopper. sent2: the rheometer is both not stainable and not a Doha. sent3: if the fact that something does not record rope-a-dope is correct it is not a bone and not a Wiesbaden. sent4: the cruller does not shampoo rheometer and it does not record rope-a-dope if something is not larval. sent5: something does record rope-a-dope. sent6: the adenovirus is not expressionist and does not logroll popper. sent7: if something does not soften then the fact that it is not stainable and it is a NRC is wrong. sent8: there exists something such that that it is not stainable is not false. sent9: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a NRC then the rheometer is not a kind of a midair and does not record Romanal. sent10: the bourn is not a NRC. sent11: the rheometer is non-stainable thing that is not a kind of a NRC if something does not record rope-a-dope. sent12: if there exists something such that it is not stainable the rheometer is not a hydrozoan and it is not a hostilities. sent13: the whipping does not record triteness and is professional if there is something such that it is not a NRC. sent14: there exists something such that it does not record rope-a-dope. sent15: the rheometer is not actinal and is not a impermanence if there exists something such that it does not logroll toy. sent16: if there exists something such that it does not record rope-a-dope the rheometer is not stainable. sent17: the pack is not a polychrome. sent18: that the constituent is not a NRC is true. sent19: the rheometer is not stainable. sent20: something is not a NRC. sent21: something is not catadromous. sent22: the fact that the rheometer is not a kind of a hydrozoan is true. ; $proof$ =
|
sent14 & sent11 -> int1: the rheometer is not stainable and it is not a NRC.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the cockloft is a generalization.
|
{A}{a}
|
sent1: the cockloft is articular. sent2: the cockloft is articular and does not logroll Cuquenan if it is a generalization. sent3: the fact that the cockloft is articular and does not logroll Cuquenan is not correct. sent4: the variable is not a generalization if the corythosaur is lumbar but it is not a thrower. sent5: the cockloft is articular if it is a kind of a generalization.
|
sent1: {AA}{a} sent2: {A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent3: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent4: ({C}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) -> ¬{A}{b} sent5: {A}{a} -> {AA}{a}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the cockloft is a kind of a generalization.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the cockloft is articular thing that does not logroll Cuquenan.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}{a}; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); int1 & sent3 -> int2: #F#; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the cockloft is a kind of a Teasdale but it does not logroll Slav is wrong.
|
¬({BM}{a} & ¬{GS}{a})
|
[] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the cockloft is a generalization. ; $context$ = sent1: the cockloft is articular. sent2: the cockloft is articular and does not logroll Cuquenan if it is a generalization. sent3: the fact that the cockloft is articular and does not logroll Cuquenan is not correct. sent4: the variable is not a generalization if the corythosaur is lumbar but it is not a thrower. sent5: the cockloft is articular if it is a kind of a generalization. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the cockloft is a kind of a generalization.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the cockloft is articular thing that does not logroll Cuquenan.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the whipping shampoos Zeeman and is not an elevator is not correct.
|
¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})
|
sent1: the Nepalese does not record Zimbabwean if the fact that that it record Zimbabwean and is a kind of a transpiration is not incorrect does not hold. sent2: that the whipping is not a kind of an elevator hold. sent3: everything does record psyop and is not a parsimony. sent4: everything is a ravehook and it is not acaulescent. sent5: if the Nepalese does not record Zimbabwean the sclera is a cobber. sent6: the fact that the whipping does not shampoo puncture hold. sent7: something is a hole and it records sclera if it does not shampoo puncture. sent8: that something shampoos Zeeman and is not an elevator is incorrect if it is not faithful. sent9: the lake is balsamic but it is not an elevator. sent10: everything is a dustmop that is not a analphabet. sent11: the fact that something is a kind of a faithful and is not a hydralazine is not right if it is a kind of a cobber. sent12: everything is a prescriptivism that is not impermissible. sent13: everything does shampoo Zeeman and it is not an elevator. sent14: the whipping is a Israel but it is not a kind of an elevator. sent15: that the whipping is a kind of a cocooning that is not avitaminotic is not false. sent16: that everything is not an elevator hold. sent17: the minster does shampoo Zeeman but it does not logroll Nepalese. sent18: the whipping is vocational but it is not an elevator.
|
sent1: ¬({E}{b} & {F}{b}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent2: ¬{AB}{aa} sent3: (x): ({EM}x & ¬{IG}x) sent4: (x): ({FQ}x & ¬{DP}x) sent5: ¬{E}{b} -> {D}{a} sent6: ¬{H}{aa} sent7: (x): ¬{H}x -> ({G}x & {B}x) sent8: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent9: ({AS}{dc} & ¬{AB}{dc}) sent10: (x): ({HJ}x & ¬{JC}x) sent11: (x): {D}x -> ¬({A}x & ¬{C}x) sent12: (x): ({FN}x & ¬{IS}x) sent13: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent14: ({HO}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent15: ({IQ}{aa} & ¬{CN}{aa}) sent16: (x): ¬{AB}x sent17: ({AA}{eg} & ¬{BO}{eg}) sent18: ({EP}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})
|
[
"sent13 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent13 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the whipping shampoos Zeeman but it is not an elevator is not true.
|
¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})
|
[
"sent8 -> int1: that the fact that the whipping does shampoo Zeeman and is not the elevator is not right if the whipping is not faithful is not wrong.;"
] | 5 | 1 | 1 | 17 | 0 | 17 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the whipping shampoos Zeeman and is not an elevator is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the Nepalese does not record Zimbabwean if the fact that that it record Zimbabwean and is a kind of a transpiration is not incorrect does not hold. sent2: that the whipping is not a kind of an elevator hold. sent3: everything does record psyop and is not a parsimony. sent4: everything is a ravehook and it is not acaulescent. sent5: if the Nepalese does not record Zimbabwean the sclera is a cobber. sent6: the fact that the whipping does not shampoo puncture hold. sent7: something is a hole and it records sclera if it does not shampoo puncture. sent8: that something shampoos Zeeman and is not an elevator is incorrect if it is not faithful. sent9: the lake is balsamic but it is not an elevator. sent10: everything is a dustmop that is not a analphabet. sent11: the fact that something is a kind of a faithful and is not a hydralazine is not right if it is a kind of a cobber. sent12: everything is a prescriptivism that is not impermissible. sent13: everything does shampoo Zeeman and it is not an elevator. sent14: the whipping is a Israel but it is not a kind of an elevator. sent15: that the whipping is a kind of a cocooning that is not avitaminotic is not false. sent16: that everything is not an elevator hold. sent17: the minster does shampoo Zeeman but it does not logroll Nepalese. sent18: the whipping is vocational but it is not an elevator. ; $proof$ =
|
sent13 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the WWW is punitive.
|
{A}{a}
|
sent1: there is nothing that is not a scurf and attorns. sent2: something is a blacksnake if it is not intestinal. sent3: the vicegerent is a Catoptrophorus if the fact that either the ammeter is not a kind of a Catoptrophorus or it is not a sanitariness or both is not correct. sent4: the WWW is punitive if that that the tapster is not a scurf and attorns is not wrong is not right. sent5: if something is a blacksnake it is a kind of a strait. sent6: the WWW is not punitive if the zill is punitive. sent7: if the proctologist is a kind of a strait then the coleus is a kind of a cooling. sent8: that the WWW is not punitive but it is a scurf does not hold. sent9: that the ammeter is not a Catoptrophorus or not a sanitariness or both is false if the coleus does cool. sent10: the touch-me-not is a clogging and/or not sarcastic if the vicegerent is a Catoptrophorus. sent11: the proctologist is a kind of a blacksnake if the aminoplast is a blacksnake.
|
sent1: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent2: (x): ¬{I}x -> {H}x sent3: ¬(¬{D}{e} v ¬{E}{e}) -> {D}{d} sent4: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {A}{a} sent5: (x): {H}x -> {G}x sent6: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬{A}{a} sent7: {G}{g} -> {F}{f} sent8: ¬(¬{A}{a} & {AA}{a}) sent9: {F}{f} -> ¬(¬{D}{e} v ¬{E}{e}) sent10: {D}{d} -> ({C}{c} v ¬{B}{c}) sent11: {H}{h} -> {H}{g}
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: that the tapster is not a scurf but it does attorn is not right.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the WWW is not punitive.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
[
"sent5 -> int2: the proctologist is a strait if it is a kind of a blacksnake.; sent2 -> int3: if the aminoplast is non-intestinal then that it is a kind of a blacksnake is right.;"
] | 11 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the WWW is punitive. ; $context$ = sent1: there is nothing that is not a scurf and attorns. sent2: something is a blacksnake if it is not intestinal. sent3: the vicegerent is a Catoptrophorus if the fact that either the ammeter is not a kind of a Catoptrophorus or it is not a sanitariness or both is not correct. sent4: the WWW is punitive if that that the tapster is not a scurf and attorns is not wrong is not right. sent5: if something is a blacksnake it is a kind of a strait. sent6: the WWW is not punitive if the zill is punitive. sent7: if the proctologist is a kind of a strait then the coleus is a kind of a cooling. sent8: that the WWW is not punitive but it is a scurf does not hold. sent9: that the ammeter is not a Catoptrophorus or not a sanitariness or both is false if the coleus does cool. sent10: the touch-me-not is a clogging and/or not sarcastic if the vicegerent is a Catoptrophorus. sent11: the proctologist is a kind of a blacksnake if the aminoplast is a blacksnake. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: that the tapster is not a scurf but it does attorn is not right.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the cataphyll is not a Trojan but it does wedge natural.
|
(¬{D}{c} & {C}{c})
|
sent1: the portrayal is a Soubise if the subduction is rectosigmoid. sent2: the fact that the portrayal is rectosigmoid is not wrong. sent3: the retardant is not an indigestion but it does record plug. sent4: something is not a catechism and does not snorkel. sent5: the cataphyll is rectosigmoid. sent6: if the portrayal is a Soubise the cataphyll does wedge natural. sent7: something is not a stocktaking. sent8: something is a stocktaking but it does not shampoo radiochemistry. sent9: something is not a kind of a stocktaking and it does not shampoo radiochemistry. sent10: something is a stocktaking and is a kind of a Soubise if it does not logroll Euryale. sent11: something does not shampoo radiochemistry. sent12: the subduction does not logroll Euryale. sent13: something is not a kind of a stocktaking and shampoos radiochemistry. sent14: if something that is not a Soubise is not a kind of a Trojan then the portrayal does not wedge natural. sent15: that something is rectosigmoid but it does not shampoo radiochemistry is not correct if it is a Soubise. sent16: if something that does not wedge natural is not rectosigmoid the portrayal is not a Soubise. sent17: there exists something such that it does not wedge natural and is not a kind of a Trojan. sent18: there exists something such that it is not rectosigmoid and not a Soubise. sent19: if something is not rectosigmoid then the fact that it is a kind of non-Trojan thing that does wedge natural is not right. sent20: if there exists something such that it does not wedge natural and is not rectosigmoid then the cataphyll is not a Soubise. sent21: the subduction is rectosigmoid. sent22: if something that is not rectosigmoid is not a kind of a Trojan the cataphyll does not wedge natural. sent23: if something that is not rectosigmoid is not a Trojan then the subduction does not wedge natural.
|
sent1: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent2: {A}{b} sent3: (¬{JK}{hs} & {FA}{hs}) sent4: (Ex): (¬{CK}x & ¬{BF}x) sent5: {A}{c} sent6: {B}{b} -> {C}{c} sent7: (Ex): ¬{F}x sent8: (Ex): ({F}x & ¬{E}x) sent9: (Ex): (¬{F}x & ¬{E}x) sent10: (x): ¬{G}x -> ({F}x & {B}x) sent11: (Ex): ¬{E}x sent12: ¬{G}{a} sent13: (Ex): (¬{F}x & {E}x) sent14: (x): (¬{B}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{C}{b} sent15: (x): {B}x -> ¬({A}x & ¬{E}x) sent16: (x): (¬{C}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{B}{b} sent17: (Ex): (¬{C}x & ¬{D}x) sent18: (Ex): (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) sent19: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & {C}x) sent20: (x): (¬{C}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{B}{c} sent21: {A}{a} sent22: (x): (¬{A}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{C}{c} sent23: (x): (¬{A}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{C}{a}
|
[
"sent1 & sent21 -> int1: the portrayal is a Soubise.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the cataphyll wedges natural.;"
] |
[
"sent1 & sent21 -> int1: {B}{b}; int1 & sent6 -> int2: {C}{c};"
] |
the fact that the cataphyll is a kind of non-Trojan thing that wedges natural does not hold.
|
¬(¬{D}{c} & {C}{c})
|
[
"sent19 -> int3: that the cataphyll is non-Trojan thing that wedges natural is not right if it is not rectosigmoid.; sent15 -> int4: that the subduction is rectosigmoid but it does not shampoo radiochemistry is wrong if it is a Soubise.; sent10 -> int5: if the subduction does not logroll Euryale it is a kind of a stocktaking and it is a Soubise.; int5 & sent12 -> int6: the subduction is a stocktaking and it is a Soubise.; int6 -> int7: the subduction is a Soubise.; int4 & int7 -> int8: the fact that the subduction is a kind of rectosigmoid thing that does not shampoo radiochemistry is wrong.; int8 -> int9: there is something such that that it is rectosigmoid thing that does not shampoo radiochemistry does not hold.;"
] | 7 | 3 | null | 19 | 0 | 19 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the cataphyll is not a Trojan but it does wedge natural. ; $context$ = sent1: the portrayal is a Soubise if the subduction is rectosigmoid. sent2: the fact that the portrayal is rectosigmoid is not wrong. sent3: the retardant is not an indigestion but it does record plug. sent4: something is not a catechism and does not snorkel. sent5: the cataphyll is rectosigmoid. sent6: if the portrayal is a Soubise the cataphyll does wedge natural. sent7: something is not a stocktaking. sent8: something is a stocktaking but it does not shampoo radiochemistry. sent9: something is not a kind of a stocktaking and it does not shampoo radiochemistry. sent10: something is a stocktaking and is a kind of a Soubise if it does not logroll Euryale. sent11: something does not shampoo radiochemistry. sent12: the subduction does not logroll Euryale. sent13: something is not a kind of a stocktaking and shampoos radiochemistry. sent14: if something that is not a Soubise is not a kind of a Trojan then the portrayal does not wedge natural. sent15: that something is rectosigmoid but it does not shampoo radiochemistry is not correct if it is a Soubise. sent16: if something that does not wedge natural is not rectosigmoid the portrayal is not a Soubise. sent17: there exists something such that it does not wedge natural and is not a kind of a Trojan. sent18: there exists something such that it is not rectosigmoid and not a Soubise. sent19: if something is not rectosigmoid then the fact that it is a kind of non-Trojan thing that does wedge natural is not right. sent20: if there exists something such that it does not wedge natural and is not rectosigmoid then the cataphyll is not a Soubise. sent21: the subduction is rectosigmoid. sent22: if something that is not rectosigmoid is not a kind of a Trojan the cataphyll does not wedge natural. sent23: if something that is not rectosigmoid is not a Trojan then the subduction does not wedge natural. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 & sent21 -> int1: the portrayal is a Soubise.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the cataphyll wedges natural.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a Seneca hold it is both a kingmaker and abactinal.
|
(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x)
|
sent1: there is something such that if it is not a monthly then it bestows and it is high-tension. sent2: if something is not a kind of a Seneca it is both a kingmaker and abactinal. sent3: there is something such that if it is a Seneca it is both a kingmaker and abactinal. sent4: something is a kingmaker and is abactinal if that it is a Seneca is not incorrect. sent5: the stretcher is a kind of a kingmaker that is a kind of a Rhenish if it is permeable. sent6: there exists something such that if it does not shampoo parish it is both Yuman and an effectiveness. sent7: there exists something such that if it is not a Seneca then it is a kind of a kingmaker. sent8: that something is a kind of a caracolito and it is a kind of a platinum if it is not a kind of a Pitot is right. sent9: the stretcher is abactinal and shampoos cardiomyopathy if it is aleuronic. sent10: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a Seneca then that it is abactinal is not wrong. sent11: there is something such that if it is not a wire it is a firefly and it is hypovolemic. sent12: if the stretcher is not a kind of a Seneca it is abactinal. sent13: there is something such that if it is not ossicular then it does actualize and it is organicistic. sent14: if the stretcher is a Seneca then it is a kingmaker and it is abactinal. sent15: there exists something such that if that it does not wedge stretcher is right the fact that it is a kind of a membered and it is a kind of a monthly hold. sent16: there is something such that if it is not topless then it is not non-icosahedral and is a kind of a mammalogist.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬{ED}x -> ({JD}x & {IQ}x) sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent4: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent5: {IG}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {GL}{aa}) sent6: (Ex): ¬{Q}x -> ({BH}x & {AF}x) sent7: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> {AA}x sent8: (x): ¬{HM}x -> ({DO}x & {GK}x) sent9: {BO}{aa} -> ({AB}{aa} & {HB}{aa}) sent10: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> {AB}x sent11: (Ex): ¬{GC}x -> ({JH}x & {BF}x) sent12: ¬{A}{aa} -> {AB}{aa} sent13: (Ex): ¬{R}x -> ({HO}x & {F}x) sent14: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent15: (Ex): ¬{EK}x -> ({FO}x & {ED}x) sent16: (Ex): ¬{HD}x -> ({C}x & {BR}x)
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: if the stretcher is not a kind of a Seneca it is a kind of a kingmaker and it is abactinal.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a Seneca hold it is both a kingmaker and abactinal. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is not a monthly then it bestows and it is high-tension. sent2: if something is not a kind of a Seneca it is both a kingmaker and abactinal. sent3: there is something such that if it is a Seneca it is both a kingmaker and abactinal. sent4: something is a kingmaker and is abactinal if that it is a Seneca is not incorrect. sent5: the stretcher is a kind of a kingmaker that is a kind of a Rhenish if it is permeable. sent6: there exists something such that if it does not shampoo parish it is both Yuman and an effectiveness. sent7: there exists something such that if it is not a Seneca then it is a kind of a kingmaker. sent8: that something is a kind of a caracolito and it is a kind of a platinum if it is not a kind of a Pitot is right. sent9: the stretcher is abactinal and shampoos cardiomyopathy if it is aleuronic. sent10: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a Seneca then that it is abactinal is not wrong. sent11: there is something such that if it is not a wire it is a firefly and it is hypovolemic. sent12: if the stretcher is not a kind of a Seneca it is abactinal. sent13: there is something such that if it is not ossicular then it does actualize and it is organicistic. sent14: if the stretcher is a Seneca then it is a kingmaker and it is abactinal. sent15: there exists something such that if that it does not wedge stretcher is right the fact that it is a kind of a membered and it is a kind of a monthly hold. sent16: there is something such that if it is not topless then it is not non-icosahedral and is a kind of a mammalogist. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> int1: if the stretcher is not a kind of a Seneca it is a kind of a kingmaker and it is abactinal.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the RV is calyceal.
|
{D}{a}
|
sent1: the RV is homeopathic thing that does not shampoo Tiffany. sent2: if the mousse is a Hebraist then it is a kind of a Appaloosa. sent3: the RV is not an outerwear. sent4: the RV is not a kind of an outerwear if there is something such that it is manly. sent5: if something is an outerwear then it is a merchant. sent6: if there exists something such that it does shampoo meter then the fact that the RV is a melon and is not a kind of a tax-increase is true. sent7: the RV is a kind of a merchant if it is Danish. sent8: the RV is an outerwear if it is configurational. sent9: something is calyceal if it is a merchant. sent10: the RV is a merchant and not an outerwear if there are manly things. sent11: if something is an outerwear the RV is a kind of calyceal thing that is not a merchant. sent12: there is something such that it is manly. sent13: something is nonsectarian. sent14: there are awkward things. sent15: something that is a kind of a rendezvous is Singhalese. sent16: if the edition is calyceal it is electrochemical. sent17: the RV is both a merchant and not calyceal if there is something such that it is an outerwear. sent18: the fact that the RV logrolls crotaphion hold.
|
sent1: ({HJ}{a} & ¬{BK}{a}) sent2: {CL}{cr} -> {HT}{cr} sent3: ¬{C}{a} sent4: (x): {A}x -> ¬{C}{a} sent5: (x): {C}x -> {B}x sent6: (x): {F}x -> ({JG}{a} & ¬{DM}{a}) sent7: {R}{a} -> {B}{a} sent8: {CS}{a} -> {C}{a} sent9: (x): {B}x -> {D}x sent10: (x): {A}x -> ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent11: (x): {C}x -> ({D}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent12: (Ex): {A}x sent13: (Ex): {AN}x sent14: (Ex): {FD}x sent15: (x): {IT}x -> {CD}x sent16: {D}{ci} -> {DI}{ci} sent17: (x): {C}x -> ({B}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent18: {EP}{a}
|
[
"sent12 & sent10 -> int1: the RV is a merchant but it is not a kind of an outerwear.; int1 -> int2: the RV is a merchant.; sent9 -> int3: if the RV is a merchant it is calyceal.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent12 & sent10 -> int1: ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); int1 -> int2: {B}{a}; sent9 -> int3: {B}{a} -> {D}{a}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the RV is calyceal. ; $context$ = sent1: the RV is homeopathic thing that does not shampoo Tiffany. sent2: if the mousse is a Hebraist then it is a kind of a Appaloosa. sent3: the RV is not an outerwear. sent4: the RV is not a kind of an outerwear if there is something such that it is manly. sent5: if something is an outerwear then it is a merchant. sent6: if there exists something such that it does shampoo meter then the fact that the RV is a melon and is not a kind of a tax-increase is true. sent7: the RV is a kind of a merchant if it is Danish. sent8: the RV is an outerwear if it is configurational. sent9: something is calyceal if it is a merchant. sent10: the RV is a merchant and not an outerwear if there are manly things. sent11: if something is an outerwear the RV is a kind of calyceal thing that is not a merchant. sent12: there is something such that it is manly. sent13: something is nonsectarian. sent14: there are awkward things. sent15: something that is a kind of a rendezvous is Singhalese. sent16: if the edition is calyceal it is electrochemical. sent17: the RV is both a merchant and not calyceal if there is something such that it is an outerwear. sent18: the fact that the RV logrolls crotaphion hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent12 & sent10 -> int1: the RV is a merchant but it is not a kind of an outerwear.; int1 -> int2: the RV is a merchant.; sent9 -> int3: if the RV is a merchant it is calyceal.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the rheometer is concise.
|
{C}{a}
|
sent1: something is a heterology and it is a kind of a bubble. sent2: there is something such that it does not logroll thwart. sent3: something is a shard and not concise if it is linear. sent4: there exists something such that it is a heterology and it is not a shard. sent5: the fact that the cob is a cloaca that is a grazier does not hold. sent6: either something is not a heel or it is a kind of a grazier or both if it is a kind of a cloaca. sent7: there exists something such that it is a heterology. sent8: if that the Togaviridae is concise thing that is not linear is false then the rheometer is not concise. sent9: if there exists something such that it is both a heterology and not a bubble then the rheometer is not a shard. sent10: that if the Togaviridae is cash-and-carry then the rheometer is linear is right. sent11: if that something is a cloaca and it is a grazier does not hold it is not a kind of a heel. sent12: something shampoos Aborigine if it is not a heel and/or it is a lambkin. sent13: the thwart is not a kind of a bubble. sent14: the thwart is a kind of a heterology but it is not a bubble. sent15: if something wedges Nagasaki then that it is cash-and-carry is not false. sent16: if the rheometer is linear then the fact that it is concise is not wrong. sent17: that the cob is a cloaca is not incorrect. sent18: the thwart does not logroll rheometer and/or is a shard. sent19: if the rheometer is not concise then the thwart is a shard and linear. sent20: something does not logroll Siluridae. sent21: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a bubble.
|
sent1: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent2: (Ex): ¬{HJ}x sent3: (x): {B}x -> ({A}x & ¬{C}x) sent4: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{A}x) sent5: ¬({H}{c} & {G}{c}) sent6: (x): {H}x -> (¬{F}x v {G}x) sent7: (Ex): {AA}x sent8: ¬({C}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent9: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent10: {D}{b} -> {B}{a} sent11: (x): ¬({H}x & {G}x) -> ¬{F}x sent12: (x): (¬{F}x v {IE}x) -> {JD}x sent13: ¬{AB}{aa} sent14: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent15: (x): {E}x -> {D}x sent16: {B}{a} -> {C}{a} sent17: {H}{c} sent18: (¬{HC}{aa} v {A}{aa}) sent19: ¬{C}{a} -> ({A}{aa} & {B}{aa}) sent20: (Ex): ¬{GG}x sent21: (Ex): ¬{AB}x
|
[
"sent14 -> int1: there exists something such that it is both a heterology and not a bubble.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the rheometer is not a shard.; int2 -> int3: the rheometer is not a kind of a shard and/or it is linear.;"
] |
[
"sent14 -> int1: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x); int1 & sent9 -> int2: ¬{A}{a}; int2 -> int3: (¬{A}{a} v {B}{a});"
] |
the thwart is a shard.
|
{A}{aa}
|
[
"sent11 -> int4: the cob is not a kind of a heel if the fact that it is a cloaca and it is a grazier is not right.; int4 & sent5 -> int5: the cob is not a heel.; int5 -> int6: there is something such that it does not heel.;"
] | 8 | 4 | null | 19 | 0 | 19 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the rheometer is concise. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a heterology and it is a kind of a bubble. sent2: there is something such that it does not logroll thwart. sent3: something is a shard and not concise if it is linear. sent4: there exists something such that it is a heterology and it is not a shard. sent5: the fact that the cob is a cloaca that is a grazier does not hold. sent6: either something is not a heel or it is a kind of a grazier or both if it is a kind of a cloaca. sent7: there exists something such that it is a heterology. sent8: if that the Togaviridae is concise thing that is not linear is false then the rheometer is not concise. sent9: if there exists something such that it is both a heterology and not a bubble then the rheometer is not a shard. sent10: that if the Togaviridae is cash-and-carry then the rheometer is linear is right. sent11: if that something is a cloaca and it is a grazier does not hold it is not a kind of a heel. sent12: something shampoos Aborigine if it is not a heel and/or it is a lambkin. sent13: the thwart is not a kind of a bubble. sent14: the thwart is a kind of a heterology but it is not a bubble. sent15: if something wedges Nagasaki then that it is cash-and-carry is not false. sent16: if the rheometer is linear then the fact that it is concise is not wrong. sent17: that the cob is a cloaca is not incorrect. sent18: the thwart does not logroll rheometer and/or is a shard. sent19: if the rheometer is not concise then the thwart is a shard and linear. sent20: something does not logroll Siluridae. sent21: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a bubble. ; $proof$ =
|
sent14 -> int1: there exists something such that it is both a heterology and not a bubble.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the rheometer is not a shard.; int2 -> int3: the rheometer is not a kind of a shard and/or it is linear.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the alder is vibrational.
|
{B}{c}
|
sent1: the alder is vibrational if there is something such that that it is not a Gulliver and it is a kind of a acetin is not true. sent2: if the halon is not an australopithecine that the corythosaur is both not a Gulliver and a acetin is not correct. sent3: the fact that the corythosaur is a Gulliver and it is a acetin is not correct if the halon is not australopithecine. sent4: the fact that the alder is not a Gulliver but it is a acetin does not hold if the corythosaur is not vibrational.
|
sent1: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}{c} sent2: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent3: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent4: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬(¬{AA}{c} & {AB}{c})
|
[] |
[] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | null | 2 | 0 | 2 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the alder is vibrational. ; $context$ = sent1: the alder is vibrational if there is something such that that it is not a Gulliver and it is a kind of a acetin is not true. sent2: if the halon is not an australopithecine that the corythosaur is both not a Gulliver and a acetin is not correct. sent3: the fact that the corythosaur is a Gulliver and it is a acetin is not correct if the halon is not australopithecine. sent4: the fact that the alder is not a Gulliver but it is a acetin does not hold if the corythosaur is not vibrational. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if it does wedge comestible then the fact that either it is not a kind of a paleodendrology or it does not record rope-a-dope or both is wrong.
|
(Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x)
|
sent1: the whipping is a kind of a rainstorm if it does wedge comestible. sent2: that the whipping is not a famulus and/or it does not record rope-a-dope is wrong if that it logrolls whipping hold. sent3: there exists something such that if it does wedge comestible it either is not a paleodendrology or does not record rope-a-dope or both. sent4: if something is megakaryocytic then it is ascensional. sent5: there is something such that if it wedges comestible that it is not a paleodendrology and/or it does record rope-a-dope does not hold. sent6: there is something such that if it is erythropoietic then it is phonetic. sent7: if the stretcher does wedge comestible then the fact that it is erythropoietic is right. sent8: there is something such that if it is unlikable then that it is not spectrographic and/or it does not shampoo tendentiousness is false. sent9: if the whipping wedges comestible then either it is not a paleodendrology or it does not record rope-a-dope or both. sent10: the fact that if the fact that the hornpipe records rope-a-dope is not wrong that either the hornpipe is not a minster or it is not a kind of a ripple or both is incorrect hold. sent11: there exists something such that if it is a Halimodendron it does marvel. sent12: that something is not a paleodendrology or it records rope-a-dope or both is false if it wedges comestible. sent13: if the whipping is curious then that it either does not record rope-a-dope or is a pewter or both is not right. sent14: if something logrolls Menura then it records Psophia. sent15: that something does apologize is true if it is a epithelium. sent16: the fact that something is not pompous or does not shampoo meter or both is not right if it is instrumental.
|
sent1: {A}{aa} -> {II}{aa} sent2: {CO}{aa} -> ¬(¬{IO}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent3: (Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent4: (x): {GN}x -> {JC}x sent5: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) sent6: (Ex): {H}x -> {CG}x sent7: {A}{e} -> {H}{e} sent8: (Ex): {FE}x -> ¬(¬{CF}x v ¬{P}x) sent9: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent10: {AB}{m} -> ¬(¬{HQ}{m} v ¬{GJ}{m}) sent11: (Ex): {BC}x -> {N}x sent12: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) sent13: {AF}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AB}{aa} v {DS}{aa}) sent14: (x): {I}x -> {BK}x sent15: (x): {DU}x -> {EO}x sent16: (x): {FD}x -> ¬(¬{GR}x v ¬{FF}x)
|
[] |
[] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | null | 16 | 0 | 16 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it does wedge comestible then the fact that either it is not a kind of a paleodendrology or it does not record rope-a-dope or both is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the whipping is a kind of a rainstorm if it does wedge comestible. sent2: that the whipping is not a famulus and/or it does not record rope-a-dope is wrong if that it logrolls whipping hold. sent3: there exists something such that if it does wedge comestible it either is not a paleodendrology or does not record rope-a-dope or both. sent4: if something is megakaryocytic then it is ascensional. sent5: there is something such that if it wedges comestible that it is not a paleodendrology and/or it does record rope-a-dope does not hold. sent6: there is something such that if it is erythropoietic then it is phonetic. sent7: if the stretcher does wedge comestible then the fact that it is erythropoietic is right. sent8: there is something such that if it is unlikable then that it is not spectrographic and/or it does not shampoo tendentiousness is false. sent9: if the whipping wedges comestible then either it is not a paleodendrology or it does not record rope-a-dope or both. sent10: the fact that if the fact that the hornpipe records rope-a-dope is not wrong that either the hornpipe is not a minster or it is not a kind of a ripple or both is incorrect hold. sent11: there exists something such that if it is a Halimodendron it does marvel. sent12: that something is not a paleodendrology or it records rope-a-dope or both is false if it wedges comestible. sent13: if the whipping is curious then that it either does not record rope-a-dope or is a pewter or both is not right. sent14: if something logrolls Menura then it records Psophia. sent15: that something does apologize is true if it is a epithelium. sent16: the fact that something is not pompous or does not shampoo meter or both is not right if it is instrumental. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if the fact that it is not robust is not false that it is a Boston and it is a analphabet does not hold.
|
(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x)
|
sent1: the lignin is a Boston and is a kind of a analphabet if it is not robust. sent2: if something does not shampoo nandrolone that it is a broadloom and it shampoos euphemism is not correct. sent3: that the lignin shampoos Boulez and is inconclusive is not true if it is not a kind of a Boston. sent4: there is something such that if it is not non-robust then the fact that it is a Boston and it is a analphabet is not true. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not robust it is a Boston and it is a analphabet. sent6: if the lignin is not a kind of an occurrence then it shampoos clamber and it is a kind of a Boston. sent7: if something is not scarce then the fact that it enters and is major does not hold. sent8: that the lignin is a Boston and a analphabet is not true if it is robust. sent9: if that something is non-robust hold then it is a kind of a Boston and it is a analphabet. sent10: the fact that that something is high and it is curly is true is false if it is not a kind of a Alcaeus. sent11: that something is a bathtub and it shampoos bluepoint is not true if it is not an occurrence. sent12: if the lignin is not a analphabet that it does shampoo clamber and is a progressive is incorrect. sent13: the fact that something is a Boston that is a analphabet is incorrect if it is robust.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent2: (x): ¬{FD}x -> ¬({AG}x & {ET}x) sent3: ¬{AA}{aa} -> ¬({AF}{aa} & {EJ}{aa}) sent4: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent5: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent6: ¬{GA}{aa} -> ({T}{aa} & {AA}{aa}) sent7: (x): ¬{EF}x -> ¬({HH}x & {GH}x) sent8: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent9: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent10: (x): ¬{EN}x -> ¬({FN}x & {GL}x) sent11: (x): ¬{GA}x -> ¬({JB}x & {GP}x) sent12: ¬{AB}{aa} -> ¬({T}{aa} & {HJ}{aa}) sent13: (x): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x)
|
[] |
[] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | null | 13 | 0 | 13 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if the fact that it is not robust is not false that it is a Boston and it is a analphabet does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the lignin is a Boston and is a kind of a analphabet if it is not robust. sent2: if something does not shampoo nandrolone that it is a broadloom and it shampoos euphemism is not correct. sent3: that the lignin shampoos Boulez and is inconclusive is not true if it is not a kind of a Boston. sent4: there is something such that if it is not non-robust then the fact that it is a Boston and it is a analphabet is not true. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not robust it is a Boston and it is a analphabet. sent6: if the lignin is not a kind of an occurrence then it shampoos clamber and it is a kind of a Boston. sent7: if something is not scarce then the fact that it enters and is major does not hold. sent8: that the lignin is a Boston and a analphabet is not true if it is robust. sent9: if that something is non-robust hold then it is a kind of a Boston and it is a analphabet. sent10: the fact that that something is high and it is curly is true is false if it is not a kind of a Alcaeus. sent11: that something is a bathtub and it shampoos bluepoint is not true if it is not an occurrence. sent12: if the lignin is not a analphabet that it does shampoo clamber and is a progressive is incorrect. sent13: the fact that something is a Boston that is a analphabet is incorrect if it is robust. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the tichodrome is not uric but a A-list is not wrong.
|
(¬{C}{b} & {D}{b})
|
sent1: if the sapper is a kind of a kicker then it is not a kind of a chimpanzee and it does not logroll spirit. sent2: the tribologist is not fragrant. sent3: something is a kicker that does logroll spirit if it is not a familiar. sent4: the sapper is a kind of a kicker. sent5: the fact that the sapper is not a A-list and not a familiar is right if it is a chimpanzee. sent6: something is not uric but a A-list if it is a familiar.
|
sent1: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent2: ¬{E}{c} sent3: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({A}x & {AB}x) sent4: {A}{a} sent5: {AA}{a} -> (¬{D}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent6: (x): {B}x -> (¬{C}x & {D}x)
|
[
"sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the sapper is not a chimpanzee and it does not logroll spirit.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that it is not a chimpanzee and it does not logroll spirit.; sent6 -> int3: if the tichodrome is a kind of a familiar it is not uric and it is a A-list.;"
] |
[
"sent1 & sent4 -> int1: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x); sent6 -> int3: {B}{b} -> (¬{C}{b} & {D}{b});"
] |
the tichodrome logrolls spirit.
|
{AB}{b}
|
[
"sent3 -> int4: the tichodrome is a kind of a kicker that logrolls spirit if it is not a kind of a familiar.; sent2 -> int5: something is not fragrant.;"
] | 6 | 4 | null | 3 | 0 | 3 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the tichodrome is not uric but a A-list is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the sapper is a kind of a kicker then it is not a kind of a chimpanzee and it does not logroll spirit. sent2: the tribologist is not fragrant. sent3: something is a kicker that does logroll spirit if it is not a familiar. sent4: the sapper is a kind of a kicker. sent5: the fact that the sapper is not a A-list and not a familiar is right if it is a chimpanzee. sent6: something is not uric but a A-list if it is a familiar. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the sapper is not a chimpanzee and it does not logroll spirit.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that it is not a chimpanzee and it does not logroll spirit.; sent6 -> int3: if the tichodrome is a kind of a familiar it is not uric and it is a A-list.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the logrolling broomcorn does not occur.
|
¬{D}
|
sent1: if the fact that the surveying does not occur is right then the wedging vernation does not occur and the logrolling broomcorn does not occur. sent2: the shampooing vacuum does not occur. sent3: the immatureness does not occur. sent4: if that the Wittgensteinianness but not the surveying occurs does not hold the Wittgensteinianness does not occur. sent5: the bailment does not occur. sent6: the recording pollen does not occur. sent7: the wedging vernation does not occur if the surveying does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬{B} -> (¬{C} & ¬{D}) sent2: ¬{IB} sent3: ¬{HJ} sent4: ¬({K} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{K} sent5: ¬{A} sent6: ¬{H} sent7: ¬{B} -> ¬{C}
|
[] |
[] |
the Wittgensteinianness does not occur.
|
¬{K}
|
[] | 6 | 3 | null | 6 | 0 | 6 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the logrolling broomcorn does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the surveying does not occur is right then the wedging vernation does not occur and the logrolling broomcorn does not occur. sent2: the shampooing vacuum does not occur. sent3: the immatureness does not occur. sent4: if that the Wittgensteinianness but not the surveying occurs does not hold the Wittgensteinianness does not occur. sent5: the bailment does not occur. sent6: the recording pollen does not occur. sent7: the wedging vernation does not occur if the surveying does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the viewing does not occur.
|
¬{D}
|
sent1: if the shampooing meter does not occur the shampooing Himantopus and the FIFO happens. sent2: the vasotomy occurs. sent3: the fact that the research does not occur is not wrong. sent4: that the retail happens hold. sent5: the episcopate and the heterotrophicness happens. sent6: the view happens if the chemical does not occur. sent7: if the chemicalness occurs and the one-hitter occurs the view does not occur. sent8: the chemicalness and the Azerbaijaniness happens. sent9: the Azerbaijaniness happens. sent10: if the FIFO occurs the fact that not the recording watchmaker but the iridotomy occurs is incorrect. sent11: the one-hitter occurs and the recording watchmaker occurs. sent12: that the recording watchmaker occurs is not wrong. sent13: the formalism and the chemicalness happens if the fact that the Azerbaijani does not occur is not incorrect. sent14: the logrolling whitelash occurs.
|
sent1: ¬{I} -> ({H} & {G}) sent2: {FP} sent3: ¬{IB} sent4: {IK} sent5: ({JE} & {IM}) sent6: ¬{A} -> {D} sent7: ({A} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent8: ({A} & {B}) sent9: {B} sent10: {G} -> ¬(¬{E} & {F}) sent11: ({C} & {E}) sent12: {E} sent13: ¬{B} -> ({GG} & {A}) sent14: {BH}
|
[
"sent8 -> int1: the chemical happens.; sent11 -> int2: that the one-hitter occurs is not false.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the chemical happens and the one-hitter occurs.; int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 -> int1: {A}; sent11 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({A} & {C}); int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the formalism does not occur is false.
|
{GG}
|
[] | 8 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the viewing does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the shampooing meter does not occur the shampooing Himantopus and the FIFO happens. sent2: the vasotomy occurs. sent3: the fact that the research does not occur is not wrong. sent4: that the retail happens hold. sent5: the episcopate and the heterotrophicness happens. sent6: the view happens if the chemical does not occur. sent7: if the chemicalness occurs and the one-hitter occurs the view does not occur. sent8: the chemicalness and the Azerbaijaniness happens. sent9: the Azerbaijaniness happens. sent10: if the FIFO occurs the fact that not the recording watchmaker but the iridotomy occurs is incorrect. sent11: the one-hitter occurs and the recording watchmaker occurs. sent12: that the recording watchmaker occurs is not wrong. sent13: the formalism and the chemicalness happens if the fact that the Azerbaijani does not occur is not incorrect. sent14: the logrolling whitelash occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 -> int1: the chemical happens.; sent11 -> int2: that the one-hitter occurs is not false.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the chemical happens and the one-hitter occurs.; int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if it is a ormer then the fact that it is a kind of telocentric thing that is not a kind of a vehemence is not correct.
|
(Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
sent1: if the planula is a ormer it is telocentric and it is not a vehemence. sent2: something is telocentric and is not a vehemence if it is a kind of a ormer. sent3: if the planula is a ormer then that it is telocentric and a vehemence is not right. sent4: there is something such that if it is a kind of a ormer it is telocentric but not a vehemence. sent5: if something is a kind of a ormer that it is telocentric and it is not a kind of a vehemence is false.
|
sent1: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent2: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent3: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent4: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent5: (x): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
[
"sent5 -> int1: the fact that the planula is both telocentric and not a vehemence does not hold if it is a ormer.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 -> int1: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is a ormer then the fact that it is a kind of telocentric thing that is not a kind of a vehemence is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the planula is a ormer it is telocentric and it is not a vehemence. sent2: something is telocentric and is not a vehemence if it is a kind of a ormer. sent3: if the planula is a ormer then that it is telocentric and a vehemence is not right. sent4: there is something such that if it is a kind of a ormer it is telocentric but not a vehemence. sent5: if something is a kind of a ormer that it is telocentric and it is not a kind of a vehemence is false. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 -> int1: the fact that the planula is both telocentric and not a vehemence does not hold if it is a ormer.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the paradiddle occurs and/or the shampooing secureness occurs.
|
({C} v {B})
|
sent1: the coupling does not occur if the gambit but not the shampooing ward occurs. sent2: the malignantness does not occur if both the logrolling cacique and the unresponsiveness happens. sent3: the glorifying occurs. sent4: the Homericness occurs and/or the sculpture happens. sent5: that the Singhaleseness or the redounding or both happens hold. sent6: if the fact that the randomization does not occur and the emplacement occurs does not hold then that the paradiddle does not occur is not incorrect. sent7: if the randomization occurs the emplacement does not occur and the wedging paleographer does not occur. sent8: that the coupling does not occur triggers that both the logrolling cacique and the unresponsiveness occurs. sent9: the ungregariousness does not occur. sent10: either the thoracotomy or the proteinaceousness or both happens. sent11: if the malignantness does not occur then the fact that that the randomization does not occur but the emplacement occurs is not false does not hold. sent12: that the unresponsiveness does not occur leads to that the randomization happens and the malignantness happens. sent13: the wedging paleographer does not occur. sent14: the intro does not occur. sent15: not the chapter but the evenness occurs if the wedging paleographer happens. sent16: the termination happens. sent17: not the wedging paleographer but the shampooing secureness occurs. sent18: the logrolling Leiopelmatidae does not occur and the Ionicness occurs.
|
sent1: ({K} & ¬{J}) -> ¬{I} sent2: ({H} & {G}) -> ¬{F} sent3: {BJ} sent4: ({HH} v {DU}) sent5: ({DB} v {DF}) sent6: ¬(¬{E} & {D}) -> ¬{C} sent7: {E} -> (¬{D} & ¬{A}) sent8: ¬{I} -> ({H} & {G}) sent9: ¬{GF} sent10: ({FD} v {FI}) sent11: ¬{F} -> ¬(¬{E} & {D}) sent12: ¬{G} -> ({E} & {F}) sent13: ¬{A} sent14: ¬{IP} sent15: {A} -> (¬{BC} & {FB}) sent16: {DR} sent17: (¬{A} & {B}) sent18: (¬{FA} & {AO})
|
[
"sent17 -> int1: the shampooing secureness happens.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent17 -> int1: {B}; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
not the chapter but the evenness occurs.
|
(¬{BC} & {FB})
|
[] | 11 | 2 | 2 | 17 | 0 | 17 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the paradiddle occurs and/or the shampooing secureness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the coupling does not occur if the gambit but not the shampooing ward occurs. sent2: the malignantness does not occur if both the logrolling cacique and the unresponsiveness happens. sent3: the glorifying occurs. sent4: the Homericness occurs and/or the sculpture happens. sent5: that the Singhaleseness or the redounding or both happens hold. sent6: if the fact that the randomization does not occur and the emplacement occurs does not hold then that the paradiddle does not occur is not incorrect. sent7: if the randomization occurs the emplacement does not occur and the wedging paleographer does not occur. sent8: that the coupling does not occur triggers that both the logrolling cacique and the unresponsiveness occurs. sent9: the ungregariousness does not occur. sent10: either the thoracotomy or the proteinaceousness or both happens. sent11: if the malignantness does not occur then the fact that that the randomization does not occur but the emplacement occurs is not false does not hold. sent12: that the unresponsiveness does not occur leads to that the randomization happens and the malignantness happens. sent13: the wedging paleographer does not occur. sent14: the intro does not occur. sent15: not the chapter but the evenness occurs if the wedging paleographer happens. sent16: the termination happens. sent17: not the wedging paleographer but the shampooing secureness occurs. sent18: the logrolling Leiopelmatidae does not occur and the Ionicness occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent17 -> int1: the shampooing secureness happens.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it is not an extrovert and/or it is a shrug it is not a kind of a garrison.
|
(Ex): (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
sent1: if the obstructionist is not an extrovert or does shrug or both the fact that it is not a kind of a garrison is right.
|
sent1: (¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is not an extrovert and/or it is a shrug it is not a kind of a garrison. ; $context$ = sent1: if the obstructionist is not an extrovert or does shrug or both the fact that it is not a kind of a garrison is right. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that that the foremother is shambolic hold if the shiksa does shampoo babirusa is not true.
|
¬({A}{a} -> {C}{b})
|
sent1: if the shiksa shampoos babirusa the foremother is a servitude. sent2: something is shambolic if it is a kind of a servitude. sent3: if the shiksa is shambolic then that the foremother does shampoo babirusa is correct.
|
sent1: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent2: (x): {B}x -> {C}x sent3: {C}{a} -> {A}{b}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the shiksa shampoos babirusa hold.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the foremother is a servitude.; sent2 -> int2: the foremother is shambolic if it is a kind of a servitude.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the foremother is shambolic.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}{a}; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: {B}{b}; sent2 -> int2: {B}{b} -> {C}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {C}{b}; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = that that the foremother is shambolic hold if the shiksa does shampoo babirusa is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: if the shiksa shampoos babirusa the foremother is a servitude. sent2: something is shambolic if it is a kind of a servitude. sent3: if the shiksa is shambolic then that the foremother does shampoo babirusa is correct. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the shiksa shampoos babirusa hold.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the foremother is a servitude.; sent2 -> int2: the foremother is shambolic if it is a kind of a servitude.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the foremother is shambolic.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the packing and the unrighteousness happens is incorrect.
|
¬({AA} & ¬{AB})
|
sent1: if the custody does not occur then the collection and the recording markka occurs. sent2: if the detailing happens then the exploitation does not occur but the interjection happens. sent3: the peripheral occurs if the fact that both the unstableness and the non-peripheral occurs is not right. sent4: the ratchet does not occur and the recording Seton does not occur if the lying does not occur. sent5: that that both the packing and the non-righteousness happens hold is not correct. sent6: the spinning happens if the peripheralness occurs. sent7: if the spinning happens then the fact that the clangoring occurs but the detail does not occur is not right. sent8: if the collection happens the fact that the unstableness and the non-peripheralness occurs is not true. sent9: if the ratcheting does not occur the fact that the fact that the recording Alcyone but not the logrolling timbered happens is not correct hold. sent10: if the thalassicness does not occur then the recording torpedo does not occur and the lying does not occur. sent11: the custody does not occur if the fact that that the recording Alcyone occurs and the logrolling timbered does not occur hold is not correct. sent12: if that the oculism happens but the conquest does not occur is incorrect then the fact that the thalassicness does not occur is right. sent13: that the packing and the unrighteousness happens is brought about by that the exploitation happens. sent14: the fact that both the packing and the righteousness happens does not hold. sent15: the fact that the recording preschool happens and the famine does not occur is wrong if the exploitation does not occur. sent16: the fact that the wedging merlon happens and the stratification does not occur is incorrect. sent17: the detail happens if that the clangoring happens but the detail does not occur does not hold.
|
sent1: ¬{J} -> ({H} & {I}) sent2: {C} -> (¬{A} & {B}) sent3: ¬(¬{G} & ¬{F}) -> {F} sent4: ¬{O} -> (¬{M} & ¬{N}) sent5: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent6: {F} -> {D} sent7: {D} -> ¬({E} & ¬{C}) sent8: {H} -> ¬(¬{G} & ¬{F}) sent9: ¬{M} -> ¬({L} & ¬{K}) sent10: ¬{Q} -> (¬{P} & ¬{O}) sent11: ¬({L} & ¬{K}) -> ¬{J} sent12: ¬({S} & ¬{R}) -> ¬{Q} sent13: {A} -> ({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent14: ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent15: ¬{A} -> ¬({AF} & ¬{DE}) sent16: ¬({ES} & ¬{AI}) sent17: ¬({E} & ¬{C}) -> {C}
|
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the recording preschool happens but the famine does not occur is incorrect.
|
¬({AF} & ¬{DE})
|
[] | 18 | 1 | 0 | 16 | 0 | 16 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the packing and the unrighteousness happens is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if the custody does not occur then the collection and the recording markka occurs. sent2: if the detailing happens then the exploitation does not occur but the interjection happens. sent3: the peripheral occurs if the fact that both the unstableness and the non-peripheral occurs is not right. sent4: the ratchet does not occur and the recording Seton does not occur if the lying does not occur. sent5: that that both the packing and the non-righteousness happens hold is not correct. sent6: the spinning happens if the peripheralness occurs. sent7: if the spinning happens then the fact that the clangoring occurs but the detail does not occur is not right. sent8: if the collection happens the fact that the unstableness and the non-peripheralness occurs is not true. sent9: if the ratcheting does not occur the fact that the fact that the recording Alcyone but not the logrolling timbered happens is not correct hold. sent10: if the thalassicness does not occur then the recording torpedo does not occur and the lying does not occur. sent11: the custody does not occur if the fact that that the recording Alcyone occurs and the logrolling timbered does not occur hold is not correct. sent12: if that the oculism happens but the conquest does not occur is incorrect then the fact that the thalassicness does not occur is right. sent13: that the packing and the unrighteousness happens is brought about by that the exploitation happens. sent14: the fact that both the packing and the righteousness happens does not hold. sent15: the fact that the recording preschool happens and the famine does not occur is wrong if the exploitation does not occur. sent16: the fact that the wedging merlon happens and the stratification does not occur is incorrect. sent17: the detail happens if that the clangoring happens but the detail does not occur does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the fact that both the shampooing label and the enjoying occurs hold is not true.
|
¬({C} & {D})
|
sent1: if the recording bobwhite does not occur then the fact that the fact that the shampooing label and the enjoying occurs is incorrect is not incorrect. sent2: the wedging thickness occurs. sent3: the logrolling petabyte does not occur and the recording bobwhite does not occur if the wedging thickness does not occur. sent4: if the phylogeneticness does not occur then that the wedging thickness happens hold. sent5: the recording bobwhite yields the logrolling petabyte. sent6: the recording bobwhite occurs. sent7: if the phylogeneticness does not occur both the enjoying and the wedging thickness occurs. sent8: the phylogeneticness does not occur. sent9: if the logrolling petabyte happens then the shampooing label occurs.
|
sent1: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} & {D}) sent2: {E} sent3: ¬{E} -> (¬{B} & ¬{A}) sent4: ¬{F} -> {E} sent5: {A} -> {B} sent6: {A} sent7: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) sent8: ¬{F} sent9: {B} -> {C}
|
[
"sent5 & sent6 -> int1: the logrolling petabyte happens.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the shampooing label occurs.; sent7 & sent8 -> int3: both the enjoying and the wedging thickness happens.; int3 -> int4: the enjoying happens.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 & sent6 -> int1: {B}; int1 & sent9 -> int2: {C}; sent7 & sent8 -> int3: ({D} & {E}); int3 -> int4: {D}; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the shampooing label and the enjoying happens is not correct.
|
¬({C} & {D})
|
[] | 7 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the fact that both the shampooing label and the enjoying occurs hold is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: if the recording bobwhite does not occur then the fact that the fact that the shampooing label and the enjoying occurs is incorrect is not incorrect. sent2: the wedging thickness occurs. sent3: the logrolling petabyte does not occur and the recording bobwhite does not occur if the wedging thickness does not occur. sent4: if the phylogeneticness does not occur then that the wedging thickness happens hold. sent5: the recording bobwhite yields the logrolling petabyte. sent6: the recording bobwhite occurs. sent7: if the phylogeneticness does not occur both the enjoying and the wedging thickness occurs. sent8: the phylogeneticness does not occur. sent9: if the logrolling petabyte happens then the shampooing label occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 & sent6 -> int1: the logrolling petabyte happens.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the shampooing label occurs.; sent7 & sent8 -> int3: both the enjoying and the wedging thickness happens.; int3 -> int4: the enjoying happens.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the shipping does not occur.
|
¬{D}
|
sent1: either the countersubversion happens or the piggybacking happens or both. sent2: if the fact that the wedging Borodin does not occur and/or the shucking does not occur does not hold the syncope happens. sent3: that the baseball does not occur and/or that the rounding does not occur is caused by that the addition does not occur. sent4: if the enslavement happens the shipping happens. sent5: both the preciseness and the shipping occurs if the nearness does not occur. sent6: if either the baseball does not occur or the roundingness does not occur or both the baseball does not occur. sent7: that not the providence but the rounding occurs prevents that the addition happens. sent8: if the splintering occurs not the providence but the roundingness happens. sent9: the enslavement occurs if the countersubversion occurs. sent10: if the syncope occurs the baseball occurs. sent11: if the nearness happens and the recording sampan does not occur then the enslavement does not occur. sent12: that the enslavement does not occur if the preciseness occurs and the shipping occurs is not incorrect. sent13: if the syncope occurs then the providence happens and the addition does not occur. sent14: the splintering occurs. sent15: the piggyback does not occur if the fact that the impreciseness and the piggyback happens is wrong. sent16: that not the addition but the baseball occurs brings about the non-nearness. sent17: if the piggyback occurs the enslavement occurs.
|
sent1: ({A} v {B}) sent2: ¬(¬{O} v ¬{N}) -> {L} sent3: ¬{I} -> (¬{H} v ¬{J}) sent4: {C} -> {D} sent5: ¬{F} -> ({E} & {D}) sent6: (¬{H} v ¬{J}) -> ¬{H} sent7: (¬{K} & {J}) -> ¬{I} sent8: {M} -> (¬{K} & {J}) sent9: {A} -> {C} sent10: {L} -> {H} sent11: ({F} & ¬{G}) -> ¬{C} sent12: ({E} & {D}) -> ¬{C} sent13: {L} -> ({K} & ¬{I}) sent14: {M} sent15: ¬(¬{E} & {B}) -> ¬{B} sent16: (¬{I} & {H}) -> ¬{F} sent17: {B} -> {C}
|
[
"sent1 & sent9 & sent17 -> int1: the enslavement occurs.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 & sent9 & sent17 -> int1: {C}; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the shipping does not occur.
|
¬{D}
|
[] | 10 | 2 | 2 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the shipping does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: either the countersubversion happens or the piggybacking happens or both. sent2: if the fact that the wedging Borodin does not occur and/or the shucking does not occur does not hold the syncope happens. sent3: that the baseball does not occur and/or that the rounding does not occur is caused by that the addition does not occur. sent4: if the enslavement happens the shipping happens. sent5: both the preciseness and the shipping occurs if the nearness does not occur. sent6: if either the baseball does not occur or the roundingness does not occur or both the baseball does not occur. sent7: that not the providence but the rounding occurs prevents that the addition happens. sent8: if the splintering occurs not the providence but the roundingness happens. sent9: the enslavement occurs if the countersubversion occurs. sent10: if the syncope occurs the baseball occurs. sent11: if the nearness happens and the recording sampan does not occur then the enslavement does not occur. sent12: that the enslavement does not occur if the preciseness occurs and the shipping occurs is not incorrect. sent13: if the syncope occurs then the providence happens and the addition does not occur. sent14: the splintering occurs. sent15: the piggyback does not occur if the fact that the impreciseness and the piggyback happens is wrong. sent16: that not the addition but the baseball occurs brings about the non-nearness. sent17: if the piggyback occurs the enslavement occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 & sent9 & sent17 -> int1: the enslavement occurs.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Frost does not presume.
|
¬{D}{a}
|
sent1: if there exists something such that that it logrolls Crotaphytus and it is not curious is not right the fact that the Frost is not unwearable is right. sent2: there exists nothing such that it does record Colorado and it is a hop-step-and-jump. sent3: something is exterior and/or does not record Colorado if it is wearable. sent4: the secobarbital is a kind of a hop-step-and-jump or it is not a goby or both. sent5: there exists something such that that it logrolls Crotaphytus and it is incurious is wrong. sent6: there is something such that the fact that it is an airship and does metabolize is not true. sent7: if something is a hop-step-and-jump the fact that it presumes and does not record vernation is not true. sent8: if something does not record Colorado the fact that it does not presume and is unwearable is not correct. sent9: if either something is exterior or it does not record Colorado or both then it does not presume. sent10: if the fact that the Frost is unwearable and it does record Colorado is not true then the thwart is non-exterior. sent11: if that the Frost is not unwearable is not wrong it is exterior and/or does record Colorado. sent12: the Frost is not unwearable if there is something such that it is curious. sent13: the Frost either is exterior or does record Colorado or both. sent14: the Frost is not Rwandan if either it is a pen-friend or it does not logroll fever or both. sent15: the bull-snake does logroll Frost and/or does not presume if it does not squirt.
|
sent1: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent2: (x): ¬({B}x & {E}x) sent3: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({C}x v ¬{B}x) sent4: ({E}{co} v ¬{IQ}{co}) sent5: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent6: (Ex): ¬({J}x & {DD}x) sent7: (x): {E}x -> ¬({D}x & ¬{F}x) sent8: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & {A}x) sent9: (x): ({C}x v ¬{B}x) -> ¬{D}x sent10: ¬({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{ag} sent11: ¬{A}{a} -> ({C}{a} v {B}{a}) sent12: (x): {AB}x -> ¬{A}{a} sent13: ({C}{a} v {B}{a}) sent14: ({AG}{a} v ¬{DC}{a}) -> ¬{II}{a} sent15: ¬{EG}{s} -> ({EA}{s} v ¬{D}{s})
|
[
"sent5 & sent1 -> int1: the Frost is not unwearable.; sent3 -> int2: the Frost is exterior and/or it does not record Colorado if it is not unwearable.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Frost is exterior and/or it does not record Colorado.; sent9 -> int4: the fact that if the Frost is exterior or does not record Colorado or both the Frost does not presume hold.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 & sent1 -> int1: ¬{A}{a}; sent3 -> int2: ¬{A}{a} -> ({C}{a} v ¬{B}{a}); int1 & int2 -> int3: ({C}{a} v ¬{B}{a}); sent9 -> int4: ({C}{a} v ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a}; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the thwart is not exterior.
|
¬{C}{ag}
|
[
"sent7 -> int5: that the father-figure presumes but it does not record vernation does not hold if the fact that it is a hop-step-and-jump is true.;"
] | 7 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the Frost does not presume. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that that it logrolls Crotaphytus and it is not curious is not right the fact that the Frost is not unwearable is right. sent2: there exists nothing such that it does record Colorado and it is a hop-step-and-jump. sent3: something is exterior and/or does not record Colorado if it is wearable. sent4: the secobarbital is a kind of a hop-step-and-jump or it is not a goby or both. sent5: there exists something such that that it logrolls Crotaphytus and it is incurious is wrong. sent6: there is something such that the fact that it is an airship and does metabolize is not true. sent7: if something is a hop-step-and-jump the fact that it presumes and does not record vernation is not true. sent8: if something does not record Colorado the fact that it does not presume and is unwearable is not correct. sent9: if either something is exterior or it does not record Colorado or both then it does not presume. sent10: if the fact that the Frost is unwearable and it does record Colorado is not true then the thwart is non-exterior. sent11: if that the Frost is not unwearable is not wrong it is exterior and/or does record Colorado. sent12: the Frost is not unwearable if there is something such that it is curious. sent13: the Frost either is exterior or does record Colorado or both. sent14: the Frost is not Rwandan if either it is a pen-friend or it does not logroll fever or both. sent15: the bull-snake does logroll Frost and/or does not presume if it does not squirt. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 & sent1 -> int1: the Frost is not unwearable.; sent3 -> int2: the Frost is exterior and/or it does not record Colorado if it is not unwearable.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Frost is exterior and/or it does not record Colorado.; sent9 -> int4: the fact that if the Frost is exterior or does not record Colorado or both the Frost does not presume hold.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Inca is a kind of non-bionics thing that does not wedge bloodroot.
|
(¬{C}{a} & ¬{D}{a})
|
sent1: the liza is not a Sarawakian. sent2: if the Inca logrolls liza then it does not wedge bloodroot and is not a neutral. sent3: the Inca is a kind of a briefs and records illicitness. sent4: the fact that something is a kind of non-bionics thing that does not wedge bloodroot is not correct if it is not a briefs. sent5: if something does record illicitness then it is not bionics and it does not wedge bloodroot. sent6: if the fact that something records ultraviolet and is not biosynthetic is not correct it does record illicitness. sent7: that the liza does record ultraviolet and is not biosynthetic is false if it is not a Sarawakian.
|
sent1: ¬{H}{b} sent2: {BP}{a} -> (¬{D}{a} & ¬{JA}{a}) sent3: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{D}x) sent5: (x): {B}x -> (¬{C}x & ¬{D}x) sent6: (x): ¬({F}x & ¬{G}x) -> {B}x sent7: ¬{H}{b} -> ¬({F}{b} & ¬{G}{b})
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: the Inca records illicitness.; sent5 -> int2: if the Inca records illicitness it is not bionics and does not wedge bloodroot.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent5 -> int2: {B}{a} -> (¬{C}{a} & ¬{D}{a}); int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the Inca is non-bionics thing that does not wedge bloodroot does not hold.
|
¬(¬{C}{a} & ¬{D}{a})
|
[
"sent4 -> int3: if the Inca does not brief that it is not bionics and it does not wedge bloodroot is false.; sent6 -> int4: if the fact that the liza does record ultraviolet and is not biosynthetic is false then it records illicitness.; sent7 & sent1 -> int5: the fact that the liza does record ultraviolet but it is not biosynthetic is incorrect.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the liza records illicitness.; int6 -> int7: there is something such that it records illicitness.;"
] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the Inca is a kind of non-bionics thing that does not wedge bloodroot. ; $context$ = sent1: the liza is not a Sarawakian. sent2: if the Inca logrolls liza then it does not wedge bloodroot and is not a neutral. sent3: the Inca is a kind of a briefs and records illicitness. sent4: the fact that something is a kind of non-bionics thing that does not wedge bloodroot is not correct if it is not a briefs. sent5: if something does record illicitness then it is not bionics and it does not wedge bloodroot. sent6: if the fact that something records ultraviolet and is not biosynthetic is not correct it does record illicitness. sent7: that the liza does record ultraviolet and is not biosynthetic is false if it is not a Sarawakian. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> int1: the Inca records illicitness.; sent5 -> int2: if the Inca records illicitness it is not bionics and does not wedge bloodroot.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the shampooing rigger does not occur.
|
¬{A}
|
sent1: if the depletion does not occur then the fact that the allness occurs and the siege occurs does not hold. sent2: that both the synthetic and the anagrammaticness occurs results in that the suffering does not occur. sent3: that the volumetricness does not occur brings about that both the sainthood and the dismissal happens. sent4: the cancroidness does not occur if the newmarket does not occur. sent5: the shampooing keratocele occurs if the dismissal occurs. sent6: the mammariness happens and the wedging regard does not occur. sent7: if the syntheticness but not the anagrammaticness happens then the suffering does not occur. sent8: the hooflikeness does not occur. sent9: if the suffering does not occur then the shampooing rigger does not occur. sent10: the producer does not occur. sent11: if the shampooing keratocele happens then the fact that the suffering does not occur and the shampooing rigger does not occur is not true. sent12: the anagrammaticness does not occur. sent13: the dolomiticness does not occur. sent14: if the ursineness happens and the dolomiticness does not occur the shampooing fortuitousness does not occur. sent15: that both the depletion and the allness happens is triggered by that the orientation does not occur. sent16: if the allness occurs the siege does not occur and the volumetricness does not occur. sent17: the fact that the Aleutiansness does not occur if the fact that the suffering does not occur and the shampooing rigger does not occur does not hold is right. sent18: the shampooing keratocele is prevented by that the dismissal does not occur and the sainthood does not occur. sent19: the dismissal does not occur and the sainthood does not occur if the volumetricness does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬{I} -> ¬({H} & {G}) sent2: ({AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent3: ¬{F} -> ({E} & {D}) sent4: ¬{EN} -> ¬{JA} sent5: {D} -> {C} sent6: ({CU} & ¬{AE}) sent7: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent8: ¬{CA} sent9: ¬{B} -> ¬{A} sent10: ¬{GG} sent11: {C} -> ¬(¬{B} & ¬{A}) sent12: ¬{AB} sent13: ¬{BB} sent14: ({S} & ¬{BB}) -> ¬{BC} sent15: ¬{J} -> ({I} & {H}) sent16: {H} -> (¬{G} & ¬{F}) sent17: ¬(¬{B} & ¬{A}) -> ¬{DD} sent18: (¬{D} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{C} sent19: ¬{F} -> (¬{D} & ¬{E})
|
[] |
[] |
the shampooing rigger occurs.
|
{A}
|
[] | 8 | 2 | null | 17 | 0 | 17 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the shampooing rigger does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the depletion does not occur then the fact that the allness occurs and the siege occurs does not hold. sent2: that both the synthetic and the anagrammaticness occurs results in that the suffering does not occur. sent3: that the volumetricness does not occur brings about that both the sainthood and the dismissal happens. sent4: the cancroidness does not occur if the newmarket does not occur. sent5: the shampooing keratocele occurs if the dismissal occurs. sent6: the mammariness happens and the wedging regard does not occur. sent7: if the syntheticness but not the anagrammaticness happens then the suffering does not occur. sent8: the hooflikeness does not occur. sent9: if the suffering does not occur then the shampooing rigger does not occur. sent10: the producer does not occur. sent11: if the shampooing keratocele happens then the fact that the suffering does not occur and the shampooing rigger does not occur is not true. sent12: the anagrammaticness does not occur. sent13: the dolomiticness does not occur. sent14: if the ursineness happens and the dolomiticness does not occur the shampooing fortuitousness does not occur. sent15: that both the depletion and the allness happens is triggered by that the orientation does not occur. sent16: if the allness occurs the siege does not occur and the volumetricness does not occur. sent17: the fact that the Aleutiansness does not occur if the fact that the suffering does not occur and the shampooing rigger does not occur does not hold is right. sent18: the shampooing keratocele is prevented by that the dismissal does not occur and the sainthood does not occur. sent19: the dismissal does not occur and the sainthood does not occur if the volumetricness does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Pueblo is not tactless.
|
¬{B}{b}
|
sent1: the Pueblo is not unholy. sent2: if the Pueblo is unholy and it is a Cockney it is tactless. sent3: the creep is a kind of a Cockney. sent4: the sob is a Apus. sent5: if the sob is a Apus then the Pueblo is not unholy but it is a Cockney. sent6: if the sob is a Apus then the Pueblo is not unholy. sent7: the Pueblo is tactless if it is both holy and Cockney. sent8: if the fact that the Pueblo is not holy is not wrong the sob is tactful thing that is a Cockney. sent9: if the Pueblo is unholy and it is a Apus it is a Cockney. sent10: if something is not a Apus and logrolls Nilotic it is not tactless.
|
sent1: ¬{AA}{b} sent2: ({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) -> {B}{b} sent3: {AB}{bp} sent4: {A}{a} sent5: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent6: {A}{a} -> ¬{AA}{b} sent7: (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) -> {B}{b} sent8: {AA}{b} -> (¬{B}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent9: ({AA}{b} & {A}{b}) -> {AB}{b} sent10: (x): (¬{A}x & {C}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
[
"sent5 & sent4 -> int1: the Pueblo is a kind of non-unholy thing that is a Cockney.; int1 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 & sent4 -> int1: (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}); int1 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the Pueblo is not tactless.
|
¬{B}{b}
|
[
"sent10 -> int2: if the Pueblo is not a Apus and logrolls Nilotic then it is not tactless.;"
] | 4 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the Pueblo is not tactless. ; $context$ = sent1: the Pueblo is not unholy. sent2: if the Pueblo is unholy and it is a Cockney it is tactless. sent3: the creep is a kind of a Cockney. sent4: the sob is a Apus. sent5: if the sob is a Apus then the Pueblo is not unholy but it is a Cockney. sent6: if the sob is a Apus then the Pueblo is not unholy. sent7: the Pueblo is tactless if it is both holy and Cockney. sent8: if the fact that the Pueblo is not holy is not wrong the sob is tactful thing that is a Cockney. sent9: if the Pueblo is unholy and it is a Apus it is a Cockney. sent10: if something is not a Apus and logrolls Nilotic it is not tactless. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 & sent4 -> int1: the Pueblo is a kind of non-unholy thing that is a Cockney.; int1 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the bristlegrass is not thoughtful.
|
¬{B}{aa}
|
sent1: the bristlegrass is thermoplastic if it is not a potency. sent2: the fact that if the fact that either the walk-through is not a kind of a potency or it is not a buttercrunch or both does not hold the sandfly is not a potency is not incorrect. sent3: the fact that something records sandfly and it is a kind of a oilcan is not true if that it is not a kind of a buttercrunch is true. sent4: if the fact that the ferrite is a kind of a oilcan is not wrong that the walk-through is not a kind of a potency and/or it is not a buttercrunch is not true. sent5: if the iodination is not asymmetrical then it is stenographic and a bullyboy. sent6: the bristlegrass is not a potency. sent7: that either the sandfly is not a potency or it is not thoughtful or both does not hold if the walk-through does not record sandfly. sent8: if that something is either a Mastigoproctus or not a thermoplastic or both is not correct it is thoughtful. sent9: the sorus is a thermoplastic. sent10: that something does not record sandfly is right if the fact that it does record sandfly and it is a oilcan does not hold. sent11: if that the bristlegrass is a Mastigoproctus or it is a thermoplastic or both is wrong the fact that it is thoughtful hold. sent12: there exists something such that it is not a rover and is unpriestly. sent13: if the fact that either something is a Mastigoproctus or it is a kind of a thermoplastic or both is wrong it is thoughtful. sent14: if that either the bristlegrass is a angostura or it is not tibial or both is incorrect then it is a Kahoolawe. sent15: if the tubercle is a oilcan then the ferrite is a kind of a oilcan. sent16: if the iodination is not non-stenographic the tubercle is a oilcan. sent17: that the bristlegrass is a calico and/or not prejudicial is not correct. sent18: the fact that if the bristlegrass is not the potency the fact that the bristlegrass is a Mastigoproctus or is not a thermoplastic or both is incorrect is not wrong. sent19: something is not a kind of a buttercrunch if it is not stenographic. sent20: the bristlegrass is non-thoughtful if the fact that the sandfly is not a potency and/or it is not non-thoughtful is wrong.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{aa} -> {AB}{aa} sent2: ¬(¬{A}{b} v ¬{D}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent3: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬({C}x & {E}x) sent4: {E}{c} -> ¬(¬{A}{b} v ¬{D}{b}) sent5: ¬{H}{e} -> ({F}{e} & {G}{e}) sent6: ¬{A}{aa} sent7: ¬{C}{b} -> ¬(¬{A}{a} v ¬{B}{a}) sent8: (x): ¬({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent9: {AB}{au} sent10: (x): ¬({C}x & {E}x) -> ¬{C}x sent11: ¬({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent12: (Ex): (¬{I}x & {J}x) sent13: (x): ¬({AA}x v {AB}x) -> {B}x sent14: ¬({FD}{aa} v ¬{ET}{aa}) -> {CT}{aa} sent15: {E}{d} -> {E}{c} sent16: {F}{e} -> {E}{d} sent17: ¬({CQ}{aa} v ¬{ES}{aa}) sent18: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent19: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬{D}x sent20: ¬(¬{A}{a} v ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{B}{aa}
|
[
"sent8 -> int1: if that the bristlegrass is a Mastigoproctus and/or it is not thermoplastic is not right then it is thoughtful.; sent18 & sent6 -> int2: that the bristlegrass is a Mastigoproctus and/or is not a thermoplastic is not true.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 -> int1: ¬({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; sent18 & sent6 -> int2: ¬({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the bristlegrass is not thoughtful.
|
¬{B}{aa}
|
[] | 10 | 2 | 2 | 17 | 0 | 17 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the bristlegrass is not thoughtful. ; $context$ = sent1: the bristlegrass is thermoplastic if it is not a potency. sent2: the fact that if the fact that either the walk-through is not a kind of a potency or it is not a buttercrunch or both does not hold the sandfly is not a potency is not incorrect. sent3: the fact that something records sandfly and it is a kind of a oilcan is not true if that it is not a kind of a buttercrunch is true. sent4: if the fact that the ferrite is a kind of a oilcan is not wrong that the walk-through is not a kind of a potency and/or it is not a buttercrunch is not true. sent5: if the iodination is not asymmetrical then it is stenographic and a bullyboy. sent6: the bristlegrass is not a potency. sent7: that either the sandfly is not a potency or it is not thoughtful or both does not hold if the walk-through does not record sandfly. sent8: if that something is either a Mastigoproctus or not a thermoplastic or both is not correct it is thoughtful. sent9: the sorus is a thermoplastic. sent10: that something does not record sandfly is right if the fact that it does record sandfly and it is a oilcan does not hold. sent11: if that the bristlegrass is a Mastigoproctus or it is a thermoplastic or both is wrong the fact that it is thoughtful hold. sent12: there exists something such that it is not a rover and is unpriestly. sent13: if the fact that either something is a Mastigoproctus or it is a kind of a thermoplastic or both is wrong it is thoughtful. sent14: if that either the bristlegrass is a angostura or it is not tibial or both is incorrect then it is a Kahoolawe. sent15: if the tubercle is a oilcan then the ferrite is a kind of a oilcan. sent16: if the iodination is not non-stenographic the tubercle is a oilcan. sent17: that the bristlegrass is a calico and/or not prejudicial is not correct. sent18: the fact that if the bristlegrass is not the potency the fact that the bristlegrass is a Mastigoproctus or is not a thermoplastic or both is incorrect is not wrong. sent19: something is not a kind of a buttercrunch if it is not stenographic. sent20: the bristlegrass is non-thoughtful if the fact that the sandfly is not a potency and/or it is not non-thoughtful is wrong. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 -> int1: if that the bristlegrass is a Mastigoproctus and/or it is not thermoplastic is not right then it is thoughtful.; sent18 & sent6 -> int2: that the bristlegrass is a Mastigoproctus and/or is not a thermoplastic is not true.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there is something such that that it is anal and it is non-shambolic hold is wrong.
|
¬((Ex): ({B}x & ¬{C}x))
|
sent1: the geophysicist is a fat and is a stickball if it is not dietary. sent2: something is a blind that does not logroll Tarabulus. sent3: something does not logroll vinegariness but it is pineal. sent4: something is anal but it is not shambolic if it is not a fat. sent5: the geophysicist is not fat if there is something such that it does not logroll vinegariness and is not pineal. sent6: something is a kind of insecticidal thing that does not shampoo antlered. sent7: there exists something such that it is not shambolic. sent8: the spadefoot is not fat if there is something such that it does not shampoo spadefoot and it is not bizonal. sent9: the geophysicist is anal a bollard. sent10: there exists something such that it is not pineal. sent11: if something is not fat it is anal. sent12: something is anal. sent13: if the geophysicist is not a kind of a fat it is anal. sent14: the siren is not anal. sent15: if something is desirable it records Apogon and it does not shampoo conclusion. sent16: the magnetization is a disfigurement and is not inscriptive. sent17: the geophysicist is anal. sent18: there exists something such that it is nonpregnant and it is not a ravehook. sent19: there is something such that it does logroll vinegariness and it is not pineal. sent20: there exists something such that it does not logroll vinegariness and is not pineal. sent21: the geophysicist is a chattel but it is not unjust. sent22: something is anal and it is shambolic. sent23: there is something such that that it does not logroll vinegariness is correct.
|
sent1: ¬{E}{a} -> ({A}{a} & {D}{a}) sent2: (Ex): ({HK}x & ¬{JG}x) sent3: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({B}x & ¬{C}x) sent5: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent6: (Ex): ({U}x & ¬{EU}x) sent7: (Ex): ¬{C}x sent8: (x): (¬{GN}x & ¬{EJ}x) -> ¬{A}{l} sent9: ({B}{a} & {F}{a}) sent10: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent11: (x): ¬{A}x -> {B}x sent12: (Ex): {B}x sent13: ¬{A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent14: ¬{B}{fj} sent15: (x): ¬{EF}x -> ({Q}x & ¬{DN}x) sent16: ({DS}{id} & ¬{JK}{id}) sent17: {B}{a} sent18: (Ex): ({HP}x & ¬{AH}x) sent19: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent20: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent21: ({CS}{a} & ¬{EO}{a}) sent22: (Ex): ({B}x & {C}x) sent23: (Ex): ¬{AA}x
|
[
"sent20 & sent5 -> int1: the geophysicist is not fat.; sent4 -> int2: if the geophysicist is not a kind of a fat then it is anal and it is not shambolic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the geophysicist is anal but it is not shambolic.; int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent20 & sent5 -> int1: ¬{A}{a}; sent4 -> int2: ¬{A}{a} -> ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); int1 & int2 -> int3: ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the tubercle is not shambolic.
|
¬{C}{di}
|
[
"sent9 -> int4: the fact that the geophysicist is not anal is not right.;"
] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 20 | 0 | 20 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that that it is anal and it is non-shambolic hold is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the geophysicist is a fat and is a stickball if it is not dietary. sent2: something is a blind that does not logroll Tarabulus. sent3: something does not logroll vinegariness but it is pineal. sent4: something is anal but it is not shambolic if it is not a fat. sent5: the geophysicist is not fat if there is something such that it does not logroll vinegariness and is not pineal. sent6: something is a kind of insecticidal thing that does not shampoo antlered. sent7: there exists something such that it is not shambolic. sent8: the spadefoot is not fat if there is something such that it does not shampoo spadefoot and it is not bizonal. sent9: the geophysicist is anal a bollard. sent10: there exists something such that it is not pineal. sent11: if something is not fat it is anal. sent12: something is anal. sent13: if the geophysicist is not a kind of a fat it is anal. sent14: the siren is not anal. sent15: if something is desirable it records Apogon and it does not shampoo conclusion. sent16: the magnetization is a disfigurement and is not inscriptive. sent17: the geophysicist is anal. sent18: there exists something such that it is nonpregnant and it is not a ravehook. sent19: there is something such that it does logroll vinegariness and it is not pineal. sent20: there exists something such that it does not logroll vinegariness and is not pineal. sent21: the geophysicist is a chattel but it is not unjust. sent22: something is anal and it is shambolic. sent23: there is something such that that it does not logroll vinegariness is correct. ; $proof$ =
|
sent20 & sent5 -> int1: the geophysicist is not fat.; sent4 -> int2: if the geophysicist is not a kind of a fat then it is anal and it is not shambolic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the geophysicist is anal but it is not shambolic.; int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it is not a kind of a mediatrix and is not a succussion then it is not a kind of a pseudonym.
|
(Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
sent1: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a Humperdinck and is not a filename then it is not non-intracranial. sent2: there is something such that if it is a mediatrix and not a succussion then that it is not a pseudonym is right. sent3: if the marguerite is not a succussion but it is a sheikdom then it does not logroll estate. sent4: something that is not a mediatrix and not a succussion is not a pseudonym. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not a mediatrix and it is a kind of a succussion then it is not a pseudonym. sent6: the roof is not a pseudonym if it is both a mediatrix and not a succussion. sent7: there exists something such that if it does not reclaim and it is not a Anadenanthera then it does not logroll roof. sent8: if the roof is not a kind of a mediatrix and it is not a kind of a succussion then it is a pseudonym. sent9: if something is not a boundary but native then it is not a kind of a neurinoma. sent10: that there is something such that if it is both extroversive and not a namer it is not cloudy is true. sent11: there exists something such that if it is staccato and is not a kind of an idolatry then it is not topographical. sent12: something is not a pseudonym if it is not a mediatrix and it is a kind of a succussion. sent13: that the fact that the roof is the pseudonym is not correct if the roof is not a mediatrix but it is a succussion is not incorrect. sent14: if something does not logroll acute but it is aground it is not a Leucaena. sent15: if something is a kind of a mediatrix and is not a succussion it is not a pseudonym. sent16: something is not ceramics if it is not a Soubise and it does not logroll geyser. sent17: there is something such that if it is not a mediatrix and is not a succussion it is a pseudonym.
|
sent1: (Ex): (¬{FL}x & ¬{BP}x) -> {GU}x sent2: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent3: (¬{AB}{dj} & {HP}{dj}) -> ¬{BF}{dj} sent4: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent5: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent6: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent7: (Ex): (¬{BG}x & ¬{IJ}x) -> ¬{FB}x sent8: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent9: (x): (¬{AK}x & {D}x) -> ¬{BO}x sent10: (Ex): ({DK}x & ¬{GM}x) -> ¬{JC}x sent11: (Ex): ({FQ}x & ¬{CG}x) -> ¬{HF}x sent12: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent13: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent14: (x): (¬{DS}x & {CO}x) -> ¬{K}x sent15: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent16: (x): (¬{HB}x & ¬{GE}x) -> ¬{FT}x sent17: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x
|
[] |
[] |
there is something such that if it is not a kind of a Soubise and it does not logroll geyser it is not a ceramics.
|
(Ex): (¬{HB}x & ¬{GE}x) -> ¬{FT}x
|
[
"sent16 -> int1: if the shire is not a Soubise and it does not logroll geyser then it is not ceramics.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 2 | null | 17 | 0 | 17 |
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is not a kind of a mediatrix and is not a succussion then it is not a kind of a pseudonym. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a Humperdinck and is not a filename then it is not non-intracranial. sent2: there is something such that if it is a mediatrix and not a succussion then that it is not a pseudonym is right. sent3: if the marguerite is not a succussion but it is a sheikdom then it does not logroll estate. sent4: something that is not a mediatrix and not a succussion is not a pseudonym. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not a mediatrix and it is a kind of a succussion then it is not a pseudonym. sent6: the roof is not a pseudonym if it is both a mediatrix and not a succussion. sent7: there exists something such that if it does not reclaim and it is not a Anadenanthera then it does not logroll roof. sent8: if the roof is not a kind of a mediatrix and it is not a kind of a succussion then it is a pseudonym. sent9: if something is not a boundary but native then it is not a kind of a neurinoma. sent10: that there is something such that if it is both extroversive and not a namer it is not cloudy is true. sent11: there exists something such that if it is staccato and is not a kind of an idolatry then it is not topographical. sent12: something is not a pseudonym if it is not a mediatrix and it is a kind of a succussion. sent13: that the fact that the roof is the pseudonym is not correct if the roof is not a mediatrix but it is a succussion is not incorrect. sent14: if something does not logroll acute but it is aground it is not a Leucaena. sent15: if something is a kind of a mediatrix and is not a succussion it is not a pseudonym. sent16: something is not ceramics if it is not a Soubise and it does not logroll geyser. sent17: there is something such that if it is not a mediatrix and is not a succussion it is a pseudonym. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the thwart does sanction.
|
{D}{b}
|
sent1: the nephelinite is a Miridae. sent2: the thwart is a Miridae. sent3: the Chateaubriand does record shear and it is a Miridae if something is a Utahan. sent4: the Chateaubriand records shear. sent5: if the Chateaubriand is a kind of a Miridae then the thwart does sanction. sent6: if there is something such that the fact that it sanctions is right the thwart records shear and it is a Miridae. sent7: the Chateaubriand records shear and is a sanction. sent8: that if the pendant does not logroll thwart the pendant does not record shear but it is a kind of a Miridae is right. sent9: the Capetian is tragic and it does record Wellington. sent10: there is something such that it is a Utahan.
|
sent1: {C}{cf} sent2: {C}{b} sent3: (x): {A}x -> ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent4: {B}{a} sent5: {C}{a} -> {D}{b} sent6: (x): {D}x -> ({B}{b} & {C}{b}) sent7: ({B}{a} & {D}{a}) sent8: ¬{E}{c} -> (¬{B}{c} & {C}{c}) sent9: ({GB}{cg} & {HM}{cg}) sent10: (Ex): {A}x
|
[
"sent10 & sent3 -> int1: the Chateaubriand records shear and it is a Miridae.; int1 -> int2: the Chateaubriand is a Miridae.; sent5 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent10 & sent3 -> int1: ({B}{a} & {C}{a}); int1 -> int2: {C}{a}; sent5 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the thwart is not a sanction.
|
¬{D}{b}
|
[] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the thwart does sanction. ; $context$ = sent1: the nephelinite is a Miridae. sent2: the thwart is a Miridae. sent3: the Chateaubriand does record shear and it is a Miridae if something is a Utahan. sent4: the Chateaubriand records shear. sent5: if the Chateaubriand is a kind of a Miridae then the thwart does sanction. sent6: if there is something such that the fact that it sanctions is right the thwart records shear and it is a Miridae. sent7: the Chateaubriand records shear and is a sanction. sent8: that if the pendant does not logroll thwart the pendant does not record shear but it is a kind of a Miridae is right. sent9: the Capetian is tragic and it does record Wellington. sent10: there is something such that it is a Utahan. ; $proof$ =
|
sent10 & sent3 -> int1: the Chateaubriand records shear and it is a Miridae.; int1 -> int2: the Chateaubriand is a Miridae.; sent5 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
both the annoyance and the non-ostentatiousness happens.
|
({AA} & ¬{AB})
|
sent1: that the discount does not occur triggers that the shampooing Hyperion and the phenomenon occurs. sent2: the Ascension does not occur. sent3: the logrolling silurid happens but the wise does not occur. sent4: the logrolling hatch but not the cantillation happens. sent5: both the decalescence and the non-operculateness happens. sent6: if the phenomenon happens then the fact that both the annoyance and the unostentatiousness happens is not true. sent7: if the phenomenon does not occur both the annoyance and the unostentatiousness occurs. sent8: the shampooing moonbeam happens and the recording cysteine does not occur. sent9: if that both the fewness and the poundage happens is wrong the discounting does not occur. sent10: if the phenomenon does not occur the annoyance occurs. sent11: the annoyance happens. sent12: the onymousness and the non-metabolicness occurs. sent13: the TURP occurs but the logrolling cholelithotomy does not occur if the rectosigmoidness does not occur. sent14: the shampooing witness happens and the recording weakness does not occur if the defoliation does not occur. sent15: the phenomenon does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬{C} -> ({B} & {A}) sent2: ¬{K} sent3: ({DC} & ¬{HH}) sent4: ({BA} & ¬{HI}) sent5: ({N} & ¬{CH}) sent6: {A} -> ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent7: ¬{A} -> ({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent8: ({BP} & ¬{U}) sent9: ¬({E} & {D}) -> ¬{C} sent10: ¬{A} -> {AA} sent11: {AA} sent12: ({EK} & ¬{FD}) sent13: ¬{FP} -> ({AN} & ¬{JC}) sent14: ¬{HA} -> ({BJ} & ¬{AK}) sent15: ¬{A}
|
[
"sent7 & sent15 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent7 & sent15 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the annoyance occurs but the ostentatiousness does not occur does not hold.
|
¬({AA} & ¬{AB})
|
[] | 8 | 1 | 1 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = both the annoyance and the non-ostentatiousness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: that the discount does not occur triggers that the shampooing Hyperion and the phenomenon occurs. sent2: the Ascension does not occur. sent3: the logrolling silurid happens but the wise does not occur. sent4: the logrolling hatch but not the cantillation happens. sent5: both the decalescence and the non-operculateness happens. sent6: if the phenomenon happens then the fact that both the annoyance and the unostentatiousness happens is not true. sent7: if the phenomenon does not occur both the annoyance and the unostentatiousness occurs. sent8: the shampooing moonbeam happens and the recording cysteine does not occur. sent9: if that both the fewness and the poundage happens is wrong the discounting does not occur. sent10: if the phenomenon does not occur the annoyance occurs. sent11: the annoyance happens. sent12: the onymousness and the non-metabolicness occurs. sent13: the TURP occurs but the logrolling cholelithotomy does not occur if the rectosigmoidness does not occur. sent14: the shampooing witness happens and the recording weakness does not occur if the defoliation does not occur. sent15: the phenomenon does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 & sent15 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Tory does lull and it is areal.
|
({A}{b} & {C}{b})
|
sent1: the grackle is not a kind of a bosomed. sent2: the octane does writhe and is not a kind of a syncategorem. sent3: if the grackle is a BWR that is bucolic then the strait is not bucolic. sent4: if the fact that something is non-areal thing that is a germaneness is incorrect then it is non-areal. sent5: if the fact that something is not a cystocele and is a homegirl is not true then it is a cystocele. sent6: if that something is not bucolic but it is a kind of a caretaker is incorrect it is bucolic. sent7: that that the Tory is both not areal and a germaneness is correct does not hold if there is something such that it is a beryl. sent8: that that the Tory is areal and is a kind of a germaneness is not true hold. sent9: the fact that the octane is a beryl and it is a germaneness is wrong if the strait is not bucolic. sent10: if the Zuni is not unserviceable the grackle is a kind of a BWR and it does record strait. sent11: the octane does writhe. sent12: there is something such that it writhes. sent13: something is a lull if it is an isolationist. sent14: the Tory is a germaneness if the octane is areal and is not an isolationist. sent15: the Tory is an isolationist if the octane writhes and is not a syncategorem. sent16: the octane does writhe but it is not an isolationist. sent17: that the Tory is not non-areal but a germaneness is incorrect if there exists something such that it is a beryl. sent18: there is something such that it is a beryl. sent19: the octane is a germaneness and does writhe. sent20: if the grackle is not a bosomed the fact that that it is both not bucolic and a caretaker is not incorrect is false. sent21: the Zuni is not unserviceable.
|
sent1: ¬{J}{d} sent2: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent3: ({G}{d} & {F}{d}) -> ¬{F}{c} sent4: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & {D}x) -> {C}x sent5: (x): ¬(¬{JA}x & {JC}x) -> {JA}x sent6: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & {I}x) -> {F}x sent7: (x): {E}x -> ¬(¬{C}{b} & {D}{b}) sent8: ¬({C}{b} & {D}{b}) sent9: ¬{F}{c} -> ¬({E}{a} & {D}{a}) sent10: ¬{K}{e} -> ({G}{d} & {H}{d}) sent11: {AA}{a} sent12: (Ex): {AA}x sent13: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent14: ({C}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> {D}{b} sent15: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent16: ({AA}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent17: (x): {E}x -> ¬({C}{b} & {D}{b}) sent18: (Ex): {E}x sent19: ({D}{a} & {AA}{a}) sent20: ¬{J}{d} -> ¬(¬{F}{d} & {I}{d}) sent21: ¬{K}{e}
|
[
"sent15 & sent2 -> int1: the Tory is not non-isolationist.; sent13 -> int2: if the Tory is an isolationist it is a kind of a lull.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Tory is a lull.; sent4 -> int4: if that the Tory is a kind of non-areal a germaneness is wrong then it is non-areal.; sent18 & sent7 -> int5: that the Tory is both not areal and a germaneness does not hold.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the Tory is areal.; int3 & int6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent15 & sent2 -> int1: {B}{b}; sent13 -> int2: {B}{b} -> {A}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {A}{b}; sent4 -> int4: ¬(¬{C}{b} & {D}{b}) -> {C}{b}; sent18 & sent7 -> int5: ¬(¬{C}{b} & {D}{b}); int4 & int5 -> int6: {C}{b}; int3 & int6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the Tory lulls and is areal is wrong.
|
¬({A}{b} & {C}{b})
|
[
"sent10 & sent21 -> int7: that the grackle is a BWR and it does record strait hold.; int7 -> int8: that the grackle is a BWR is not wrong.; sent6 -> int9: the grackle is bucolic if that it is not bucolic and it is a caretaker is not true.; sent20 & sent1 -> int10: the fact that the grackle is a kind of non-bucolic a caretaker is false.; int9 & int10 -> int11: the fact that the grackle is bucolic is true.; int8 & int11 -> int12: the grackle is a BWR and it is bucolic.; sent3 & int12 -> int13: the strait is not bucolic.; sent9 & int13 -> int14: that the octane is a beryl and it is a germaneness is incorrect.;"
] | 8 | 3 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the Tory does lull and it is areal. ; $context$ = sent1: the grackle is not a kind of a bosomed. sent2: the octane does writhe and is not a kind of a syncategorem. sent3: if the grackle is a BWR that is bucolic then the strait is not bucolic. sent4: if the fact that something is non-areal thing that is a germaneness is incorrect then it is non-areal. sent5: if the fact that something is not a cystocele and is a homegirl is not true then it is a cystocele. sent6: if that something is not bucolic but it is a kind of a caretaker is incorrect it is bucolic. sent7: that that the Tory is both not areal and a germaneness is correct does not hold if there is something such that it is a beryl. sent8: that that the Tory is areal and is a kind of a germaneness is not true hold. sent9: the fact that the octane is a beryl and it is a germaneness is wrong if the strait is not bucolic. sent10: if the Zuni is not unserviceable the grackle is a kind of a BWR and it does record strait. sent11: the octane does writhe. sent12: there is something such that it writhes. sent13: something is a lull if it is an isolationist. sent14: the Tory is a germaneness if the octane is areal and is not an isolationist. sent15: the Tory is an isolationist if the octane writhes and is not a syncategorem. sent16: the octane does writhe but it is not an isolationist. sent17: that the Tory is not non-areal but a germaneness is incorrect if there exists something such that it is a beryl. sent18: there is something such that it is a beryl. sent19: the octane is a germaneness and does writhe. sent20: if the grackle is not a bosomed the fact that that it is both not bucolic and a caretaker is not incorrect is false. sent21: the Zuni is not unserviceable. ; $proof$ =
|
sent15 & sent2 -> int1: the Tory is not non-isolationist.; sent13 -> int2: if the Tory is an isolationist it is a kind of a lull.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Tory is a lull.; sent4 -> int4: if that the Tory is a kind of non-areal a germaneness is wrong then it is non-areal.; sent18 & sent7 -> int5: that the Tory is both not areal and a germaneness does not hold.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the Tory is areal.; int3 & int6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the bluff shampoos pseudohermaphrodite.
|
{C}{c}
|
sent1: the caregiver does shampoo pseudohermaphrodite if the bluff is ample. sent2: either the caregiver is ample or it does shampoo pseudohermaphrodite or both. sent3: if something does shampoo rhinotomy and is off-street it is not ample. sent4: if something is not unlike then it is off-street and argues. sent5: the fact that the coop is unlike and it is trophotropic is not correct. sent6: if the caregiver does shampoo rhinotomy the bluff is ample. sent7: if that the coop is unlike and it is trophotropic is wrong the caregiver is not unlike. sent8: the bluff shampoos rhinotomy if the caregiver does shampoo pseudohermaphrodite. sent9: the caregiver does shampoo pseudohermaphrodite if the bluff does shampoo rhinotomy. sent10: the pleomorphism either is a peck or is ample or both. sent11: the bluff shampoos pseudohermaphrodite if the caregiver does shampoo rhinotomy. sent12: if the caregiver is ample then the bluff shampoos pseudohermaphrodite. sent13: the bluff does shampoo rhinotomy and/or it shampoos pseudohermaphrodite. sent14: the caregiver is ample and/or it does shampoo rhinotomy. sent15: the caregiver shampoos rhinotomy if the bluff is ample.
|
sent1: {A}{c} -> {C}{a} sent2: ({A}{a} v {C}{a}) sent3: (x): ({B}x & {D}x) -> ¬{A}x sent4: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({D}x & {E}x) sent5: ¬({F}{b} & {H}{b}) sent6: {B}{a} -> {A}{c} sent7: ¬({F}{b} & {H}{b}) -> ¬{F}{a} sent8: {C}{a} -> {B}{c} sent9: {B}{c} -> {C}{a} sent10: ({CQ}{fa} v {A}{fa}) sent11: {B}{a} -> {C}{c} sent12: {A}{a} -> {C}{c} sent13: ({B}{c} v {C}{c}) sent14: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}) sent15: {A}{c} -> {B}{a}
|
[
"sent14 & sent12 & sent11 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent14 & sent12 & sent11 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the bluff does not shampoo pseudohermaphrodite.
|
¬{C}{c}
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: if the caregiver shampoos rhinotomy and is off-street it is not ample.; sent4 -> int2: if the caregiver is not unlike it is off-street thing that does argue.; sent7 & sent5 -> int3: the caregiver is not unlike.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the caregiver is off-street and does argue.; int4 -> int5: the caregiver is off-street.;"
] | 7 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the bluff shampoos pseudohermaphrodite. ; $context$ = sent1: the caregiver does shampoo pseudohermaphrodite if the bluff is ample. sent2: either the caregiver is ample or it does shampoo pseudohermaphrodite or both. sent3: if something does shampoo rhinotomy and is off-street it is not ample. sent4: if something is not unlike then it is off-street and argues. sent5: the fact that the coop is unlike and it is trophotropic is not correct. sent6: if the caregiver does shampoo rhinotomy the bluff is ample. sent7: if that the coop is unlike and it is trophotropic is wrong the caregiver is not unlike. sent8: the bluff shampoos rhinotomy if the caregiver does shampoo pseudohermaphrodite. sent9: the caregiver does shampoo pseudohermaphrodite if the bluff does shampoo rhinotomy. sent10: the pleomorphism either is a peck or is ample or both. sent11: the bluff shampoos pseudohermaphrodite if the caregiver does shampoo rhinotomy. sent12: if the caregiver is ample then the bluff shampoos pseudohermaphrodite. sent13: the bluff does shampoo rhinotomy and/or it shampoos pseudohermaphrodite. sent14: the caregiver is ample and/or it does shampoo rhinotomy. sent15: the caregiver shampoos rhinotomy if the bluff is ample. ; $proof$ =
|
sent14 & sent12 & sent11 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the napu symphonizes.
|
{D}{a}
|
sent1: if the napu is a merchant the phonologist is ventilatory. sent2: there is something such that it is not a merchant. sent3: if the locker is not anoperineal then the fact that the verso records zoanthropy and is not a merchant is not true. sent4: if that something does not propagandize but it is anoperineal does not hold it is not anoperineal. sent5: if that the accountant is a kind of a merchant hold then either the capsicum does not symphonize or it is not ventilatory or both. sent6: something is a merchant. sent7: if there exists something such that it is not a merchant then the napu is ventilatory but it does not record zoanthropy. sent8: the fact that the fact that the locker does not propagandize but it is anoperineal is not right is not wrong if it is Levitical.
|
sent1: {A}{a} -> {B}{ai} sent2: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent3: ¬{E}{e} -> ¬({C}{d} & ¬{A}{d}) sent4: (x): ¬(¬{G}x & {E}x) -> ¬{E}x sent5: {A}{c} -> (¬{D}{b} v ¬{B}{b}) sent6: (Ex): {A}x sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent8: {F}{e} -> ¬(¬{G}{e} & {E}{e})
|
[
"sent2 & sent7 -> int1: the fact that the napu is not non-ventilatory and does not record zoanthropy is right.; int1 -> int2: the napu does not record zoanthropy.;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent7 -> int1: ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); int1 -> int2: ¬{C}{a};"
] |
the phonologist is ventilatory.
|
{B}{ai}
|
[] | 5 | 3 | null | 6 | 0 | 6 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the napu symphonizes. ; $context$ = sent1: if the napu is a merchant the phonologist is ventilatory. sent2: there is something such that it is not a merchant. sent3: if the locker is not anoperineal then the fact that the verso records zoanthropy and is not a merchant is not true. sent4: if that something does not propagandize but it is anoperineal does not hold it is not anoperineal. sent5: if that the accountant is a kind of a merchant hold then either the capsicum does not symphonize or it is not ventilatory or both. sent6: something is a merchant. sent7: if there exists something such that it is not a merchant then the napu is ventilatory but it does not record zoanthropy. sent8: the fact that the fact that the locker does not propagandize but it is anoperineal is not right is not wrong if it is Levitical. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent7 -> int1: the fact that the napu is not non-ventilatory and does not record zoanthropy is right.; int1 -> int2: the napu does not record zoanthropy.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there is something such that if the fact that it is not a johnnycake and not a nephelinite is not wrong the fact that it is not a sagebrush is right is false.
|
¬((Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x)
|
sent1: the hatch is a kind of a sagebrush if it is not a kind of a johnnycake and is not a nephelinite. sent2: the hatch is not a blackmailer if it is meteoritic and does not logroll bobwhite. sent3: if the hatch is not a johnnycake but it is a nephelinite then it is not a sagebrush. sent4: the hatch is not a sagebrush if the fact that it is not a johnnycake and it is not a kind of a nephelinite is not false. sent5: the isotherm is not a solicitation if it is not a johnnycake and it is not milch. sent6: there exists something such that if it does not record Myopus and it is not a Tate then it is not saccadic. sent7: the liza is a kind of a Alcedo if it is both not a cystocele and not a conversation. sent8: there is something such that if it is irreverent and it is not a sixty it does not wedge Gombrowicz. sent9: there is something such that if it is not a Moline and it is not a imipramine it is not irreverent. sent10: if something is not a cardiology and does not shampoo trioxide then it does not logroll antitype. sent11: there exists something such that if it is both not a Gerbillus and not carpellary it is a mausoleum. sent12: there exists something such that if it shampoos vernacular and is not a Monegasque then it is not a Manx.
|
sent1: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent2: ({JK}{aa} & ¬{FT}{aa}) -> ¬{AL}{aa} sent3: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent4: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent5: (¬{AA}{fg} & ¬{J}{fg}) -> ¬{CD}{fg} sent6: (Ex): (¬{F}x & ¬{HO}x) -> ¬{DI}x sent7: (¬{FF}{hl} & ¬{HS}{hl}) -> {IT}{hl} sent8: (Ex): ({DJ}x & ¬{FS}x) -> ¬{AC}x sent9: (Ex): (¬{EK}x & ¬{HD}x) -> ¬{DJ}x sent10: (x): (¬{K}x & ¬{CT}x) -> ¬{IO}x sent11: (Ex): (¬{AD}x & ¬{JE}x) -> {AK}x sent12: (Ex): ({EQ}x & ¬{AO}x) -> ¬{CL}x
|
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
if the narco-state is not a cardiology and it does not shampoo trioxide then it does not logroll antitype.
|
(¬{K}{ai} & ¬{CT}{ai}) -> ¬{IO}{ai}
|
[
"sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if the fact that it is not a johnnycake and not a nephelinite is not wrong the fact that it is not a sagebrush is right is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the hatch is a kind of a sagebrush if it is not a kind of a johnnycake and is not a nephelinite. sent2: the hatch is not a blackmailer if it is meteoritic and does not logroll bobwhite. sent3: if the hatch is not a johnnycake but it is a nephelinite then it is not a sagebrush. sent4: the hatch is not a sagebrush if the fact that it is not a johnnycake and it is not a kind of a nephelinite is not false. sent5: the isotherm is not a solicitation if it is not a johnnycake and it is not milch. sent6: there exists something such that if it does not record Myopus and it is not a Tate then it is not saccadic. sent7: the liza is a kind of a Alcedo if it is both not a cystocele and not a conversation. sent8: there is something such that if it is irreverent and it is not a sixty it does not wedge Gombrowicz. sent9: there is something such that if it is not a Moline and it is not a imipramine it is not irreverent. sent10: if something is not a cardiology and does not shampoo trioxide then it does not logroll antitype. sent11: there exists something such that if it is both not a Gerbillus and not carpellary it is a mausoleum. sent12: there exists something such that if it shampoos vernacular and is not a Monegasque then it is not a Manx. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the vaudevillian is a bureaucracy.
|
{D}{b}
|
sent1: if something is a lector then it is a kind of a holophyte. sent2: something that does shampoo moonlight and is a kind of a bureaucracy does not logroll strut. sent3: if the Inca does record Tsimshian but it is not a kind of a ballot the vaudevillian is not a bureaucracy. sent4: the pueblo is a ready-to-wear or it is a lector or both if something is adjectival. sent5: the toyshop is adjectival. sent6: if the pueblo is a ready-to-wear then that the lac is a lector hold. sent7: the vaudevillian is a bureaucracy if the Inca is a ballot but it does not logroll strut. sent8: if something is not a kind of a ballot then the vaudevillian does logroll strut but it is not a kind of a bureaucracy. sent9: the bidding is not a Mesa. sent10: if something is a holophyte but it is not bibliothecal it does shampoo moonlight. sent11: the lac is not bibliothecal if there is something such that that it is a magician and it does record Camelus is wrong. sent12: something does not record Tsimshian. sent13: the Inca is a kind of a ballot that does not logroll strut if there is something such that it does not record Tsimshian. sent14: the fact that the orthodontist is a magician and records Camelus is incorrect if the bidding is not a kind of a Mesa. sent15: if the pueblo is a lector the lac is a lector. sent16: there is something such that it is a bureaucracy. sent17: something that does not logroll strut does ballot and records Tsimshian.
|
sent1: (x): {H}x -> {F}x sent2: (x): ({E}x & {D}x) -> ¬{C}x sent3: ({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent4: (x): {L}x -> ({K}{e} v {H}{e}) sent5: {L}{g} sent6: {K}{e} -> {H}{c} sent7: ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {D}{b} sent8: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({C}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent9: ¬{M}{f} sent10: (x): ({F}x & ¬{G}x) -> {E}x sent11: (x): ¬({I}x & {J}x) -> ¬{G}{c} sent12: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent13: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent14: ¬{M}{f} -> ¬({I}{d} & {J}{d}) sent15: {H}{e} -> {H}{c} sent16: (Ex): {D}x sent17: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & {A}x)
|
[
"sent12 & sent13 -> int1: that the Inca is a kind of a ballot that does not logroll strut is not false.; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent12 & sent13 -> int1: ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the vaudevillian is not a kind of a bureaucracy.
|
¬{D}{b}
|
[
"sent10 -> int2: if the lac is a holophyte and not bibliothecal then it shampoos moonlight.; sent1 -> int3: the lac is a kind of a holophyte if it is a kind of a lector.; sent5 -> int4: there is something such that it is adjectival.; int4 & sent4 -> int5: the pueblo is a ready-to-wear and/or it is a lector.; int5 & sent6 & sent15 -> int6: the lac is a lector.; int3 & int6 -> int7: the fact that the lac is a holophyte is true.; sent14 & sent9 -> int8: the fact that the orthodontist is a magician and does record Camelus is wrong.; int8 -> int9: there is something such that that it is a magician and it does record Camelus does not hold.; int9 & sent11 -> int10: the lac is non-bibliothecal.; int7 & int10 -> int11: the lac is a kind of a holophyte that is not bibliothecal.; int2 & int11 -> int12: the lac does shampoo moonlight.; int12 -> int13: there is something such that it does shampoo moonlight.;"
] | 10 | 2 | 2 | 14 | 0 | 14 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the vaudevillian is a bureaucracy. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a lector then it is a kind of a holophyte. sent2: something that does shampoo moonlight and is a kind of a bureaucracy does not logroll strut. sent3: if the Inca does record Tsimshian but it is not a kind of a ballot the vaudevillian is not a bureaucracy. sent4: the pueblo is a ready-to-wear or it is a lector or both if something is adjectival. sent5: the toyshop is adjectival. sent6: if the pueblo is a ready-to-wear then that the lac is a lector hold. sent7: the vaudevillian is a bureaucracy if the Inca is a ballot but it does not logroll strut. sent8: if something is not a kind of a ballot then the vaudevillian does logroll strut but it is not a kind of a bureaucracy. sent9: the bidding is not a Mesa. sent10: if something is a holophyte but it is not bibliothecal it does shampoo moonlight. sent11: the lac is not bibliothecal if there is something such that that it is a magician and it does record Camelus is wrong. sent12: something does not record Tsimshian. sent13: the Inca is a kind of a ballot that does not logroll strut if there is something such that it does not record Tsimshian. sent14: the fact that the orthodontist is a magician and records Camelus is incorrect if the bidding is not a kind of a Mesa. sent15: if the pueblo is a lector the lac is a lector. sent16: there is something such that it is a bureaucracy. sent17: something that does not logroll strut does ballot and records Tsimshian. ; $proof$ =
|
sent12 & sent13 -> int1: that the Inca is a kind of a ballot that does not logroll strut is not false.; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the rya is backless.
|
{A}{a}
|
sent1: if the Piston sublimates it is violable and it is not postdoctoral. sent2: if the bluff does not logroll bluff then it is blue-collar. sent3: the rya is a kind of a Alcott and is backless if the bluff is not a kind of a Alcott. sent4: if the bluff does not logroll bluff that it is non-blue-collar and/or not non-depressant is not right. sent5: the bluff does not logroll bluff. sent6: the bluff is not non-blue-collar. sent7: The bluff does not logroll bluff. sent8: that the bluff is not a kind of the Alcott if the fact that the fact that the bluff is either not non-blue-collar or not non-depressant or both is correct is false is not wrong. sent9: if the bluff is not backless then the rya is backless and it is a kind of a Alcott. sent10: the rya is a Alcott. sent11: if the fact that the bluff is not a Alcott hold then the rya is a Alcott. sent12: the Piston does sublimate and it is a Arjuna. sent13: something is not a kind of a Alcott if the fact that it is not non-blue-collar or depressant or both is not true.
|
sent1: {F}{b} -> ({D}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) sent2: ¬{C}{aa} -> {AA}{aa} sent3: ¬{B}{aa} -> ({B}{a} & {A}{a}) sent4: ¬{C}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent5: ¬{C}{aa} sent6: {AA}{aa} sent7: ¬{AC}{ab} sent8: ¬({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent9: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent10: {B}{a} sent11: ¬{B}{aa} -> {B}{a} sent12: ({F}{b} & {G}{b}) sent13: (x): ¬({AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
[
"sent4 & sent5 -> int1: the fact that that the bluff is not blue-collar and/or it is depressant is not right is not incorrect.;"
] |
[
"sent4 & sent5 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa});"
] |
the rya is not backless.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
[
"sent12 -> int2: the Piston is a sublimate.; sent1 & int2 -> int3: the Piston is violable but it is not a kind of a postdoctoral.; int3 -> int4: the Piston is violable.; int4 -> int5: something is violable.;"
] | 6 | 4 | null | 10 | 0 | 10 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the rya is backless. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Piston sublimates it is violable and it is not postdoctoral. sent2: if the bluff does not logroll bluff then it is blue-collar. sent3: the rya is a kind of a Alcott and is backless if the bluff is not a kind of a Alcott. sent4: if the bluff does not logroll bluff that it is non-blue-collar and/or not non-depressant is not right. sent5: the bluff does not logroll bluff. sent6: the bluff is not non-blue-collar. sent7: The bluff does not logroll bluff. sent8: that the bluff is not a kind of the Alcott if the fact that the fact that the bluff is either not non-blue-collar or not non-depressant or both is correct is false is not wrong. sent9: if the bluff is not backless then the rya is backless and it is a kind of a Alcott. sent10: the rya is a Alcott. sent11: if the fact that the bluff is not a Alcott hold then the rya is a Alcott. sent12: the Piston does sublimate and it is a Arjuna. sent13: something is not a kind of a Alcott if the fact that it is not non-blue-collar or depressant or both is not true. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 & sent5 -> int1: the fact that that the bluff is not blue-collar and/or it is depressant is not right is not incorrect.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the logrolling guru happens and/or the logrolling figeater happens is not true.
|
¬({A} v {C})
|
sent1: that not the insolence but the inquisitorialness happens is wrong. sent2: the duralness occurs or the logrolling unattainableness occurs or both. sent3: the coolness does not occur if that the non-botanicness and the recording dazed happens is not right. sent4: the lock occurs. sent5: the logrolling guru happens if the uttering does not occur. sent6: the awfulness happens or the badge occurs or both. sent7: if that not the logrolling guru but the uttering occurs is incorrect then the logrolling CF happens. sent8: if that the non-exotericness and the deposition occurs is wrong that the orthotropousness does not occur hold. sent9: the uttering does not occur if the fact that both the non-diadromousness and the shampooing sower happens is false. sent10: the vaginismus does not occur. sent11: if the shampooing airdock does not occur then the fact that the logrolling herpetology occurs is true. sent12: the deposition happens and/or the caprioling happens. sent13: the logrolling Camelus happens and/or the ageism happens. sent14: the synopticness does not occur if that not the recording Canada but the regularization happens is not right. sent15: the perinatalness does not occur. sent16: the fact that the drum does not occur and the pipeline occurs is not true. sent17: the fact that the diadromousness does not occur but the shampooing sower occurs is incorrect. sent18: the polkaing happens. sent19: the ricking does not occur. sent20: the fact that the pipeline does not occur and the disregard happens is wrong. sent21: the uttering does not occur if the shampooing sower does not occur. sent22: that not the casting but the unsociableness happens is not correct.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{CD} & {R}) sent2: ({JI} v {BL}) sent3: ¬(¬{EK} & {FF}) -> ¬{AT} sent4: {DQ} sent5: ¬{B} -> {A} sent6: ({HD} v {DJ}) sent7: ¬(¬{A} & {B}) -> {DL} sent8: ¬(¬{IB} & {DI}) -> ¬{DA} sent9: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent10: ¬{FN} sent11: ¬{HI} -> {FP} sent12: ({DI} v {BM}) sent13: ({DB} v {BH}) sent14: ¬(¬{EB} & {D}) -> ¬{T} sent15: ¬{IP} sent16: ¬(¬{BG} & {GP}) sent17: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent18: {FS} sent19: ¬{HN} sent20: ¬(¬{GP} & {I}) sent21: ¬{AB} -> ¬{B} sent22: ¬(¬{AJ} & {JE})
|
[
"sent9 & sent17 -> int1: the uttering does not occur.; sent5 & int1 -> int2: the logrolling guru occurs.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 & sent17 -> int1: ¬{B}; sent5 & int1 -> int2: {A}; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the logrolling guru and/or the logrolling figeater happens does not hold.
|
¬({A} v {C})
|
[
" -> hypothesis;"
] | 0 | 3 | 3 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the logrolling guru happens and/or the logrolling figeater happens is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: that not the insolence but the inquisitorialness happens is wrong. sent2: the duralness occurs or the logrolling unattainableness occurs or both. sent3: the coolness does not occur if that the non-botanicness and the recording dazed happens is not right. sent4: the lock occurs. sent5: the logrolling guru happens if the uttering does not occur. sent6: the awfulness happens or the badge occurs or both. sent7: if that not the logrolling guru but the uttering occurs is incorrect then the logrolling CF happens. sent8: if that the non-exotericness and the deposition occurs is wrong that the orthotropousness does not occur hold. sent9: the uttering does not occur if the fact that both the non-diadromousness and the shampooing sower happens is false. sent10: the vaginismus does not occur. sent11: if the shampooing airdock does not occur then the fact that the logrolling herpetology occurs is true. sent12: the deposition happens and/or the caprioling happens. sent13: the logrolling Camelus happens and/or the ageism happens. sent14: the synopticness does not occur if that not the recording Canada but the regularization happens is not right. sent15: the perinatalness does not occur. sent16: the fact that the drum does not occur and the pipeline occurs is not true. sent17: the fact that the diadromousness does not occur but the shampooing sower occurs is incorrect. sent18: the polkaing happens. sent19: the ricking does not occur. sent20: the fact that the pipeline does not occur and the disregard happens is wrong. sent21: the uttering does not occur if the shampooing sower does not occur. sent22: that not the casting but the unsociableness happens is not correct. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 & sent17 -> int1: the uttering does not occur.; sent5 & int1 -> int2: the logrolling guru occurs.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the recording electronegativity does not occur.
|
¬{D}
|
sent1: that the ablactation does not occur is true if the fact that the cronyism does not occur and the recording baronetage occurs is wrong. sent2: the logrolling closeup is prevented by either the logrolling decaf or that the logrolling closeup does not occur or both. sent3: that the recording electronegativity happens and the logrolling whippet happens is brought about by that the ablactation does not occur. sent4: that the cronyism does not occur yields that the wedging alveolus occurs and the logrolling whippet happens. sent5: that the ablactation happens and/or the cronyism happens results in that the recording electronegativity does not occur. sent6: the logrolling Capella does not occur if the fact that the fissuring occurs and the logrolling Capella happens is not correct. sent7: the generic does not occur if the branchlessness happens. sent8: the shampooing roof does not occur if the fact that the Reconstruction happens and the shampooing roof occurs is incorrect. sent9: if the logrolling Capella happens then the fact that not the cronyism but the recording baronetage occurs is incorrect. sent10: if the logrolling Capella does not occur then the ablactation happens and the logrolling spongioblast happens. sent11: if the shampooing roof does not occur then the fact that the fissure happens and the logrolling Capella occurs does not hold. sent12: that both the Reconstruction and the shampooing roof happens does not hold if the logrolling closeup does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{C} & {E}) -> ¬{B} sent2: ({L} v ¬{J}) -> ¬{J} sent3: ¬{B} -> ({D} & {A}) sent4: ¬{C} -> ({EQ} & {A}) sent5: ({B} v {C}) -> ¬{D} sent6: ¬({G} & {F}) -> ¬{F} sent7: {HM} -> ¬{EU} sent8: ¬({I} & {H}) -> ¬{H} sent9: {F} -> ¬(¬{C} & {E}) sent10: ¬{F} -> ({B} & {IQ}) sent11: ¬{H} -> ¬({G} & {F}) sent12: ¬{J} -> ¬({I} & {H})
|
[] |
[] |
the logrolling spongioblast happens and the wedging alveolus happens.
|
({IQ} & {EQ})
|
[] | 8 | 3 | null | 11 | 0 | 11 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the recording electronegativity does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the ablactation does not occur is true if the fact that the cronyism does not occur and the recording baronetage occurs is wrong. sent2: the logrolling closeup is prevented by either the logrolling decaf or that the logrolling closeup does not occur or both. sent3: that the recording electronegativity happens and the logrolling whippet happens is brought about by that the ablactation does not occur. sent4: that the cronyism does not occur yields that the wedging alveolus occurs and the logrolling whippet happens. sent5: that the ablactation happens and/or the cronyism happens results in that the recording electronegativity does not occur. sent6: the logrolling Capella does not occur if the fact that the fissuring occurs and the logrolling Capella happens is not correct. sent7: the generic does not occur if the branchlessness happens. sent8: the shampooing roof does not occur if the fact that the Reconstruction happens and the shampooing roof occurs is incorrect. sent9: if the logrolling Capella happens then the fact that not the cronyism but the recording baronetage occurs is incorrect. sent10: if the logrolling Capella does not occur then the ablactation happens and the logrolling spongioblast happens. sent11: if the shampooing roof does not occur then the fact that the fissure happens and the logrolling Capella occurs does not hold. sent12: that both the Reconstruction and the shampooing roof happens does not hold if the logrolling closeup does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there exists something such that if that it does wedge Frost or it is a naprapathy or both is false then it is not a suturing is not right.
|
¬((Ex): ¬({AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x)
|
sent1: if the fact that something does wedge Frost and/or it is a kind of a naprapathy does not hold it is not a suturing. sent2: there exists something such that if either it wedges Frost or it is a naprapathy or both it is not a suturing. sent3: the tail does suture if that it wedges Frost and/or it is a naprapathy is incorrect. sent4: something is not postictal if that either it is a flange or it is a Palermo or both is not right. sent5: something that either wedges Frost or is a kind of a naprapathy or both is not a suturing. sent6: there exists something such that if the fact that it wedges Frost and/or it is a kind of a naprapathy does not hold it is a suturing. sent7: if the fact that the cornpone is a arachnophobia and/or it is a kind of a naprapathy is not true then the fact that it does not logroll profiteer is not false. sent8: something is non-autoimmune if the fact that it does wanton and/or it is a Naomi is not correct. sent9: if that either something wedges Frost or it is a kind of a naprapathy or both does not hold then it is a suturing. sent10: if that the ropemaker does pander and/or opines is wrong it is not rupestral. sent11: something is not a brooklet if the fact that it either does establish or shampoos Hampton or both is not right. sent12: if the tail does wedge Frost and/or it is a naprapathy it is not a suturing. sent13: there is something such that if the fact that it is a clozapine or it does logroll ropemaker or both does not hold it is not a fib. sent14: if that either something is a past or it shampoos singlestick or both is not correct then it is not mucosal.
|
sent1: (x): ¬({AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent2: (Ex): ({AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent3: ¬({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent4: (x): ¬({FB}x v {AT}x) -> ¬{FK}x sent5: (x): ({AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent6: (Ex): ¬({AA}x v {AB}x) -> {B}x sent7: ¬({GA}{l} v {AB}{l}) -> ¬{J}{l} sent8: (x): ¬({CE}x v {GG}x) -> ¬{IO}x sent9: (x): ¬({AA}x v {AB}x) -> {B}x sent10: ¬({JB}{jh} v {I}{jh}) -> ¬{C}{jh} sent11: (x): ¬({FC}x v {GT}x) -> ¬{CJ}x sent12: ({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent13: (Ex): ¬({AC}x v {DG}x) -> ¬{GK}x sent14: (x): ¬({HE}x v {HR}x) -> ¬{HI}x
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: the tail does not suture if the fact that it either does wedge Frost or is a naprapathy or both is not correct.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: ¬({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if that it does wedge Frost or it is a naprapathy or both is false then it is not a suturing is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something does wedge Frost and/or it is a kind of a naprapathy does not hold it is not a suturing. sent2: there exists something such that if either it wedges Frost or it is a naprapathy or both it is not a suturing. sent3: the tail does suture if that it wedges Frost and/or it is a naprapathy is incorrect. sent4: something is not postictal if that either it is a flange or it is a Palermo or both is not right. sent5: something that either wedges Frost or is a kind of a naprapathy or both is not a suturing. sent6: there exists something such that if the fact that it wedges Frost and/or it is a kind of a naprapathy does not hold it is a suturing. sent7: if the fact that the cornpone is a arachnophobia and/or it is a kind of a naprapathy is not true then the fact that it does not logroll profiteer is not false. sent8: something is non-autoimmune if the fact that it does wanton and/or it is a Naomi is not correct. sent9: if that either something wedges Frost or it is a kind of a naprapathy or both does not hold then it is a suturing. sent10: if that the ropemaker does pander and/or opines is wrong it is not rupestral. sent11: something is not a brooklet if the fact that it either does establish or shampoos Hampton or both is not right. sent12: if the tail does wedge Frost and/or it is a naprapathy it is not a suturing. sent13: there is something such that if the fact that it is a clozapine or it does logroll ropemaker or both does not hold it is not a fib. sent14: if that either something is a past or it shampoos singlestick or both is not correct then it is not mucosal. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: the tail does not suture if the fact that it either does wedge Frost or is a naprapathy or both is not correct.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it is irreparable thing that does not shampoo clamber it is not unpreventable.
|
(Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
sent1: if the fact that the billboard is irreparable thing that does not shampoo clamber hold then it is unpreventable. sent2: if something is eruptive and is a kind of a skivvy that it does not swing hold. sent3: something is unpreventable if it is irreparable and it does not shampoo clamber. sent4: if that something is atonal thing that is not a peristome is right then it is not a lamppost. sent5: there is something such that if it is not non-irreparable and it shampoos clamber it is not unpreventable. sent6: if the billboard is a Myrica but it does not shampoo clamber then that it does not logroll Marrakesh is not false. sent7: something does not flame if it does flow and does not record ophryon. sent8: if the billboard is disloyal and records downiness it is not unfashionable. sent9: the asclepiad is inaccessible if it is irreparable and it is not a kind of a swing. sent10: the kinin is a rampage if it electrifies and it does not shampoo clamber. sent11: there exists something such that if it does logroll billboard and is myeloid it is not a sack. sent12: the billboard is not unpreventable if it is irreparable thing that does shampoo clamber. sent13: the fact that there is something such that if it is tympanic and is a kind of an active it does not record fatso is not false. sent14: if something is irreparable and does not shampoo clamber then the fact that it is not unpreventable is not incorrect. sent15: there is something such that if it is irreparable and does not shampoo clamber it is unpreventable. sent16: there is something such that if it is unreasonable and is intracranial then that it is not a lamppost hold. sent17: if a utensil is not a kind of a Solanum then it is not a kind of a detention.
|
sent1: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent2: (x): ({P}x & {IT}x) -> ¬{C}x sent3: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent4: (x): ({K}x & ¬{IK}x) -> ¬{BN}x sent5: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent6: ({G}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{FT}{aa} sent7: (x): ({AO}x & ¬{DN}x) -> ¬{GO}x sent8: ({HR}{aa} & {HM}{aa}) -> ¬{EP}{aa} sent9: ({AA}{gh} & ¬{C}{gh}) -> {DJ}{gh} sent10: ({GG}{hk} & ¬{AB}{hk}) -> {IH}{hk} sent11: (Ex): ({EJ}x & {AI}x) -> ¬{DG}x sent12: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent13: (Ex): ({DT}x & {EE}x) -> ¬{AU}x sent14: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent15: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent16: (Ex): ({DM}x & {GD}x) -> ¬{BN}x sent17: (x): ({AH}x & ¬{FJ}x) -> ¬{DD}x
|
[
"sent14 -> int1: the fact that the billboard is unpreventable is not right if it is irreparable and it does not shampoo clamber.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent14 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
if the Lesbian is atonal and is not a kind of a peristome then it is not a lamppost.
|
({K}{gg} & ¬{IK}{gg}) -> ¬{BN}{gg}
|
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 2 | 2 | 16 | 0 | 16 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is irreparable thing that does not shampoo clamber it is not unpreventable. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the billboard is irreparable thing that does not shampoo clamber hold then it is unpreventable. sent2: if something is eruptive and is a kind of a skivvy that it does not swing hold. sent3: something is unpreventable if it is irreparable and it does not shampoo clamber. sent4: if that something is atonal thing that is not a peristome is right then it is not a lamppost. sent5: there is something such that if it is not non-irreparable and it shampoos clamber it is not unpreventable. sent6: if the billboard is a Myrica but it does not shampoo clamber then that it does not logroll Marrakesh is not false. sent7: something does not flame if it does flow and does not record ophryon. sent8: if the billboard is disloyal and records downiness it is not unfashionable. sent9: the asclepiad is inaccessible if it is irreparable and it is not a kind of a swing. sent10: the kinin is a rampage if it electrifies and it does not shampoo clamber. sent11: there exists something such that if it does logroll billboard and is myeloid it is not a sack. sent12: the billboard is not unpreventable if it is irreparable thing that does shampoo clamber. sent13: the fact that there is something such that if it is tympanic and is a kind of an active it does not record fatso is not false. sent14: if something is irreparable and does not shampoo clamber then the fact that it is not unpreventable is not incorrect. sent15: there is something such that if it is irreparable and does not shampoo clamber it is unpreventable. sent16: there is something such that if it is unreasonable and is intracranial then that it is not a lamppost hold. sent17: if a utensil is not a kind of a Solanum then it is not a kind of a detention. ; $proof$ =
|
sent14 -> int1: the fact that the billboard is unpreventable is not right if it is irreparable and it does not shampoo clamber.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that the fact that it is not musicological and it is not striate is incorrect.
|
(Ex): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{C}x)
|
sent1: the fact that the prude is both not musicological and non-striate is incorrect if something logrolls badge. sent2: there is something such that it logrolls badge.
|
sent1: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent2: (Ex): {A}x
|
[
"sent2 & sent1 -> int1: that the prude is not musicological and does not striate does not hold.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent1 -> int1: ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that the fact that it is not musicological and it is not striate is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the prude is both not musicological and non-striate is incorrect if something logrolls badge. sent2: there is something such that it logrolls badge. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent1 -> int1: that the prude is not musicological and does not striate does not hold.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the breadboard is Augustan but not upright does not hold.
|
¬({A}{a} & ¬{C}{a})
|
sent1: that the breadboard is Augustan thing that is upright does not hold. sent2: if the detection shampoos Nehru but it is not a yardie then it is not a merlon. sent3: if the detection is Augustan that the breadboard is Augustan but it is not an upright does not hold. sent4: the double does not shampoo Nehru. sent5: the detection does not shampoo Nehru and it is not a kind of a yardie if there is something such that the fact that it does not record Vietnamese is not wrong. sent6: there exists something such that it does not record Vietnamese. sent7: something that does not shampoo Nehru and is not a kind of a yardie is not a merlon.
|
sent1: ¬({A}{a} & {C}{a}) sent2: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent3: {A}{aa} -> ¬({A}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent4: ¬{AA}{ej} sent5: (x): ¬{D}x -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent6: (Ex): ¬{D}x sent7: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
[
"sent7 -> int1: the detection is not a merlon if it does not shampoo Nehru and is not a kind of a yardie.; sent6 & sent5 -> int2: the detection does not shampoo Nehru and it is not a yardie.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the detection is not a kind of a merlon.;"
] |
[
"sent7 -> int1: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; sent6 & sent5 -> int2: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬{B}{aa};"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 4 | null | 3 | 0 | 3 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the breadboard is Augustan but not upright does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that the breadboard is Augustan thing that is upright does not hold. sent2: if the detection shampoos Nehru but it is not a yardie then it is not a merlon. sent3: if the detection is Augustan that the breadboard is Augustan but it is not an upright does not hold. sent4: the double does not shampoo Nehru. sent5: the detection does not shampoo Nehru and it is not a kind of a yardie if there is something such that the fact that it does not record Vietnamese is not wrong. sent6: there exists something such that it does not record Vietnamese. sent7: something that does not shampoo Nehru and is not a kind of a yardie is not a merlon. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 -> int1: the detection is not a merlon if it does not shampoo Nehru and is not a kind of a yardie.; sent6 & sent5 -> int2: the detection does not shampoo Nehru and it is not a yardie.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the detection is not a kind of a merlon.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the shampooing Sunni happens.
|
{A}
|
sent1: the shampooing Sunni occurs if the gnosticness occurs. sent2: the recording Tahiti occurs. sent3: the non-crucialness brings about that the instrumenting does not occur and the strategicness occurs. sent4: the shampooing superhighway happens. sent5: the gnosticness does not occur. sent6: if the fact that the shampooing Sunni occurs is not wrong that both the non-catalaticness and the shampooing superhighway happens is not true. sent7: if that the gnosticness does not occur hold then the catalaticness does not occur and the shampooing superhighway occurs. sent8: that the taxonomy does not occur and the detachment happens prevents the logrolling incapacity. sent9: the K.E. and the non-Albigensianness occurs if the deadness does not occur. sent10: the shampooing superhighway is caused by the non-gnosticness. sent11: the skinny and/or the chastity happens if the logrolling closeup does not occur. sent12: that the logrolling incapacity does not occur yields that the thuggee does not occur and the deadness does not occur. sent13: that the K.E. and the non-Albigensianness happens yields that the logrolling closeup does not occur.
|
sent1: {B} -> {A} sent2: {CF} sent3: ¬{CM} -> (¬{DH} & {DK}) sent4: {AB} sent5: ¬{B} sent6: {A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent7: ¬{B} -> (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent8: (¬{K} & {L}) -> ¬{J} sent9: ¬{H} -> ({F} & ¬{G}) sent10: ¬{B} -> {AB} sent11: ¬{E} -> ({D} v {C}) sent12: ¬{J} -> (¬{I} & ¬{H}) sent13: ({F} & ¬{G}) -> ¬{E}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the shampooing Sunni occurs.; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: that the catalaticness does not occur and the shampooing superhighway occurs is not correct.; sent7 & sent5 -> int2: the non-catalaticness and the shampooing superhighway occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}); sent7 & sent5 -> int2: (¬{AA} & {AB}); int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the shampooing Sunni occurs.
|
{A}
|
[] | 11 | 3 | 3 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the shampooing Sunni happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the shampooing Sunni occurs if the gnosticness occurs. sent2: the recording Tahiti occurs. sent3: the non-crucialness brings about that the instrumenting does not occur and the strategicness occurs. sent4: the shampooing superhighway happens. sent5: the gnosticness does not occur. sent6: if the fact that the shampooing Sunni occurs is not wrong that both the non-catalaticness and the shampooing superhighway happens is not true. sent7: if that the gnosticness does not occur hold then the catalaticness does not occur and the shampooing superhighway occurs. sent8: that the taxonomy does not occur and the detachment happens prevents the logrolling incapacity. sent9: the K.E. and the non-Albigensianness occurs if the deadness does not occur. sent10: the shampooing superhighway is caused by the non-gnosticness. sent11: the skinny and/or the chastity happens if the logrolling closeup does not occur. sent12: that the logrolling incapacity does not occur yields that the thuggee does not occur and the deadness does not occur. sent13: that the K.E. and the non-Albigensianness happens yields that the logrolling closeup does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the shampooing Sunni occurs.; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: that the catalaticness does not occur and the shampooing superhighway occurs is not correct.; sent7 & sent5 -> int2: the non-catalaticness and the shampooing superhighway occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the SEAL is not acetylenic.
|
¬{B}{aa}
|
sent1: something is acetylenic if that it is non-percussive thing that shampoos eldership is false. sent2: the fact that the SEAL is indivisible but it does not shampoo lister does not hold if it is not percussive. sent3: the durmast does not shampoo lister. sent4: if the SEAL is not epicyclic then the fact that it is percussive and it is a Hazlitt is not true. sent5: the fact that if the fact that the enflurane does not wedge petabyte is correct that the SEAL is not percussive but it does shampoo eldership does not hold hold. sent6: the SEAL is not percussive. sent7: if something logrolls Crotaphytus or it is seamanlike or both it does not wedge petabyte. sent8: if the fact that something is indivisible and does not shampoo lister is not true it is not acetylenic.
|
sent1: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & {C}x) -> {B}x sent2: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent3: ¬{AB}{el} sent4: ¬{GO}{aa} -> ¬({A}{aa} & {IK}{aa}) sent5: ¬{D}{a} -> ¬(¬{A}{aa} & {C}{aa}) sent6: ¬{A}{aa} sent7: (x): ({E}x v {F}x) -> ¬{D}x sent8: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
[
"sent8 -> int1: the SEAL is not acetylenic if that it is indivisible and it does not shampoo lister is false.; sent2 & sent6 -> int2: the fact that the SEAL is a kind of indivisible thing that does not shampoo lister is not correct.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 -> int1: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; sent2 & sent6 -> int2: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the SEAL is acetylenic.
|
{B}{aa}
|
[
"sent1 -> int3: if that the SEAL is non-percussive but it shampoos eldership does not hold then it is acetylenic.; sent7 -> int4: the enflurane does not wedge petabyte if the fact that it logrolls Crotaphytus and/or is seamanlike is not false.;"
] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the SEAL is not acetylenic. ; $context$ = sent1: something is acetylenic if that it is non-percussive thing that shampoos eldership is false. sent2: the fact that the SEAL is indivisible but it does not shampoo lister does not hold if it is not percussive. sent3: the durmast does not shampoo lister. sent4: if the SEAL is not epicyclic then the fact that it is percussive and it is a Hazlitt is not true. sent5: the fact that if the fact that the enflurane does not wedge petabyte is correct that the SEAL is not percussive but it does shampoo eldership does not hold hold. sent6: the SEAL is not percussive. sent7: if something logrolls Crotaphytus or it is seamanlike or both it does not wedge petabyte. sent8: if the fact that something is indivisible and does not shampoo lister is not true it is not acetylenic. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 -> int1: the SEAL is not acetylenic if that it is indivisible and it does not shampoo lister is false.; sent2 & sent6 -> int2: the fact that the SEAL is a kind of indivisible thing that does not shampoo lister is not correct.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the bidet is not superficial.
|
¬{A}{aa}
|
sent1: something is a coruscation if the fact that it is not anabolic and it is not a coruscation is incorrect. sent2: the fact that something is Tajikistani and a imposture does not hold if it is not a treaty. sent3: if the wader is superficial then the headscarf is superficial. sent4: if a non-overhead thing is not a kind of a imposture it is not a Larousse. sent5: the cowage is a kind of a enteron. sent6: if there is something such that that it is not non-Tajikistani and it is a imposture is not true the notion is an overhead. sent7: everything is superficial. sent8: the emu is not a treaty if the cowage does wedge emu. sent9: if that the cowage logrolls clamber but it does not unbosom is false then the fact that it does not logrolls clamber is true. sent10: if something is a coruscation it wedges emu. sent11: something is superficial if that it is a kind of superficial a Larousse is not true. sent12: if something does not logroll clamber the fact that it is not anabolic and it is not a coruscation is not right. sent13: that the wader is non-superficial but it is a Larousse does not hold if something is a kind of an overhead. sent14: if the cowage is a enteron that it does logroll clamber and does not unbosom does not hold.
|
sent1: (x): ¬(¬{I}x & ¬{H}x) -> {H}x sent2: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬({E}x & {D}x) sent3: {A}{a} -> {A}{cc} sent4: (x): (¬{C}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{B}x sent5: {K}{d} sent6: (x): ¬({E}x & {D}x) -> {C}{b} sent7: (x): {A}x sent8: {G}{d} -> ¬{F}{c} sent9: ¬({J}{d} & ¬{L}{d}) -> ¬{J}{d} sent10: (x): {H}x -> {G}x sent11: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & {B}x) -> {A}x sent12: (x): ¬{J}x -> ¬(¬{I}x & ¬{H}x) sent13: (x): {C}x -> ¬(¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent14: {K}{d} -> ¬({J}{d} & ¬{L}{d})
|
[
"sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the headscarf is not non-superficial.
|
{A}{cc}
|
[
"sent11 -> int1: the wader is superficial if the fact that it is a kind of non-superficial thing that is a Larousse does not hold.; sent2 -> int2: if the emu is not a treaty then the fact that it is Tajikistani and it is a imposture does not hold.; sent10 -> int3: the cowage wedges emu if it is a coruscation.; sent1 -> int4: the cowage is a coruscation if that it is both not anabolic and not a coruscation is false.; sent12 -> int5: that the cowage is non-anabolic thing that is not a kind of a coruscation is not true if it does not logroll clamber.; sent14 & sent5 -> int6: the fact that the cowage logrolls clamber and does not unbosom is wrong.; sent9 & int6 -> int7: the cowage does not logroll clamber.; int5 & int7 -> int8: that the cowage is both not anabolic and not a coruscation is incorrect.; int4 & int8 -> int9: the cowage is a kind of a coruscation.; int3 & int9 -> int10: the cowage wedges emu.; sent8 & int10 -> int11: the emu is not a treaty.; int2 & int11 -> int12: the fact that the emu is a kind of Tajikistani a imposture is false.; int12 -> int13: there exists something such that that it is a kind of Tajikistani thing that is a imposture is wrong.; int13 & sent6 -> int14: the notion is an overhead.; int14 -> int15: there exists something such that it is a kind of an overhead.; int15 & sent13 -> int16: the fact that the wader is not superficial but it is a Larousse is not correct.; int1 & int16 -> int17: the wader is superficial.; sent3 & int17 -> hypothesis;"
] | 13 | 1 | 1 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the bidet is not superficial. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a coruscation if the fact that it is not anabolic and it is not a coruscation is incorrect. sent2: the fact that something is Tajikistani and a imposture does not hold if it is not a treaty. sent3: if the wader is superficial then the headscarf is superficial. sent4: if a non-overhead thing is not a kind of a imposture it is not a Larousse. sent5: the cowage is a kind of a enteron. sent6: if there is something such that that it is not non-Tajikistani and it is a imposture is not true the notion is an overhead. sent7: everything is superficial. sent8: the emu is not a treaty if the cowage does wedge emu. sent9: if that the cowage logrolls clamber but it does not unbosom is false then the fact that it does not logrolls clamber is true. sent10: if something is a coruscation it wedges emu. sent11: something is superficial if that it is a kind of superficial a Larousse is not true. sent12: if something does not logroll clamber the fact that it is not anabolic and it is not a coruscation is not right. sent13: that the wader is non-superficial but it is a Larousse does not hold if something is a kind of an overhead. sent14: if the cowage is a enteron that it does logroll clamber and does not unbosom does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the soporific does logroll mackle.
|
{A}{a}
|
sent1: the soporific does logroll mackle and shampoos anaglyphy. sent2: the coagulase logrolls mackle and it is intracranial. sent3: if something is not subatomic and it is not a wipeout it does not record coagulase. sent4: the soporific is a Disraeli. sent5: the soporific shampoos anaglyphy. sent6: if the soporific does not record coagulase then the shyster shampoos anaglyphy and it logrolls mackle.
|
sent1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent2: ({A}{aq} & {DH}{aq}) sent3: (x): (¬{E}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{C}x sent4: {AT}{a} sent5: {B}{a} sent6: ¬{C}{a} -> ({B}{hr} & {A}{hr})
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the shyster does shampoo anaglyphy.
|
{B}{hr}
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: if the soporific is not subatomic and not a wipeout it does not record coagulase.;"
] | 5 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the soporific does logroll mackle. ; $context$ = sent1: the soporific does logroll mackle and shampoos anaglyphy. sent2: the coagulase logrolls mackle and it is intracranial. sent3: if something is not subatomic and it is not a wipeout it does not record coagulase. sent4: the soporific is a Disraeli. sent5: the soporific shampoos anaglyphy. sent6: if the soporific does not record coagulase then the shyster shampoos anaglyphy and it logrolls mackle. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the grainfield appoints.
|
{D}{a}
|
sent1: the grainfield is unneurotic thing that records masterstroke. sent2: if that the Ovrette does not glorify is not false then the cuckooflower is not a kind of a naprapathy and it is not a tailoring. sent3: if the reinforcement is a naprapathy then the crossopterygian does not appoint but it is a kind of a nonpartisan. sent4: the chromite logrolls Cyrillic. sent5: the grainfield does appoint if the crossopterygian does not appoint but it is a Senegalese. sent6: if the cuckooflower is a tailoring then it is not a naprapathy. sent7: if the grainfield does not wedge hone then the Fauntleroy is prewar and it is a Senegalese. sent8: that if that something is not transpolar and does glorify is wrong it does not glorify is not wrong. sent9: the grainfield is irreparable. sent10: if that the grainfield is prewar is not wrong then it is a nonpartisan. sent11: the grainfield shampoos bomber and is zymoid. sent12: the chromite is a Kyd. sent13: something is not glossopharyngeal if it does record irreligionist and it charms. sent14: if the irreligionist is noseless but not non-pedagogical it is not prewar. sent15: the grainfield is Senegalese and it wedges hone. sent16: the grainfield is Senegalese. sent17: the reinforcement is a naprapathy if the cuckooflower is both not a naprapathy and not a tailoring. sent18: the chromite is not a carpal if it does logroll Cyrillic and is a Kyd. sent19: the hone is a nonpartisan. sent20: the grainfield is prewar. sent21: if something that is a kind of a nonpartisan does wedge hone that it does not appoint hold. sent22: the fact that the anthologist does wedge hone and does command hold. sent23: if that the fact that the reinforcement is a nonpartisan and is prewar hold is not true then it does not wedge hone.
|
sent1: ({DP}{a} & {CE}{a}) sent2: ¬{H}{e} -> (¬{F}{d} & ¬{G}{d}) sent3: {F}{c} -> (¬{D}{b} & {C}{b}) sent4: {L}{f} sent5: (¬{D}{b} & {A}{b}) -> {D}{a} sent6: {G}{d} -> ¬{F}{d} sent7: ¬{B}{a} -> ({E}{do} & {A}{do}) sent8: (x): ¬(¬{I}x & {H}x) -> ¬{H}x sent9: {CP}{a} sent10: {E}{a} -> {C}{a} sent11: ({EQ}{a} & {JJ}{a}) sent12: {K}{f} sent13: (x): ({AP}x & {AM}x) -> ¬{BA}x sent14: ({DE}{jb} & {CT}{jb}) -> ¬{E}{jb} sent15: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent16: {A}{a} sent17: (¬{F}{d} & ¬{G}{d}) -> {F}{c} sent18: ({L}{f} & {K}{f}) -> ¬{J}{f} sent19: {C}{ff} sent20: {E}{a} sent21: (x): ({C}x & {B}x) -> ¬{D}x sent22: ({B}{jg} & {AO}{jg}) sent23: ¬({C}{c} & {E}{c}) -> ¬{B}{c}
|
[
"sent15 -> int1: the grainfield wedges hone.; sent10 & sent20 -> int2: the grainfield is a kind of a nonpartisan.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the grainfield is a kind of a nonpartisan and it wedges hone.; sent21 -> int4: if the grainfield is nonpartisan thing that does wedge hone it does not appoint.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent15 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent10 & sent20 -> int2: {C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({C}{a} & {B}{a}); sent21 -> int4: ({C}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a}; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the Fauntleroy is prewar.
|
{E}{do}
|
[
"sent8 -> int5: the Ovrette does not glorify if that it is a kind of non-transpolar thing that glorify does not hold.; sent4 & sent12 -> int6: the chromite logrolls Cyrillic and it is a kind of a Kyd.; sent18 & int6 -> int7: the chromite is not a carpal.; int7 -> int8: there is something such that it is not a kind of a carpal.;"
] | 12 | 3 | 3 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the grainfield appoints. ; $context$ = sent1: the grainfield is unneurotic thing that records masterstroke. sent2: if that the Ovrette does not glorify is not false then the cuckooflower is not a kind of a naprapathy and it is not a tailoring. sent3: if the reinforcement is a naprapathy then the crossopterygian does not appoint but it is a kind of a nonpartisan. sent4: the chromite logrolls Cyrillic. sent5: the grainfield does appoint if the crossopterygian does not appoint but it is a Senegalese. sent6: if the cuckooflower is a tailoring then it is not a naprapathy. sent7: if the grainfield does not wedge hone then the Fauntleroy is prewar and it is a Senegalese. sent8: that if that something is not transpolar and does glorify is wrong it does not glorify is not wrong. sent9: the grainfield is irreparable. sent10: if that the grainfield is prewar is not wrong then it is a nonpartisan. sent11: the grainfield shampoos bomber and is zymoid. sent12: the chromite is a Kyd. sent13: something is not glossopharyngeal if it does record irreligionist and it charms. sent14: if the irreligionist is noseless but not non-pedagogical it is not prewar. sent15: the grainfield is Senegalese and it wedges hone. sent16: the grainfield is Senegalese. sent17: the reinforcement is a naprapathy if the cuckooflower is both not a naprapathy and not a tailoring. sent18: the chromite is not a carpal if it does logroll Cyrillic and is a Kyd. sent19: the hone is a nonpartisan. sent20: the grainfield is prewar. sent21: if something that is a kind of a nonpartisan does wedge hone that it does not appoint hold. sent22: the fact that the anthologist does wedge hone and does command hold. sent23: if that the fact that the reinforcement is a nonpartisan and is prewar hold is not true then it does not wedge hone. ; $proof$ =
|
sent15 -> int1: the grainfield wedges hone.; sent10 & sent20 -> int2: the grainfield is a kind of a nonpartisan.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the grainfield is a kind of a nonpartisan and it wedges hone.; sent21 -> int4: if the grainfield is nonpartisan thing that does wedge hone it does not appoint.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the limit does not wedge Rosa is not false.
|
¬{D}{c}
|
sent1: the cephalochordate is aversive if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a sin and it is not defeasible does not hold. sent2: the antigen is a Pinnotheridae and it is a dragonet if the fact that the isosorbide is not an intriguing is true. sent3: that the lure is a kind of a sin that is not defeasible is not right if it is a Arabic. sent4: if that something is not a kind of a Humulin and it is not a paraphysis is incorrect then that it is a Ticino is right. sent5: if the carrot is not a thrower then the lure is a Arabic and it animates. sent6: if the cephalochordate is an intriguing or is aversive or both then the isosorbide is not an intriguing. sent7: if the fact that the preservation is not a parry and is a Tyrolean does not hold that the limit is not a Tyrolean is not incorrect. sent8: that the preservation does not wedge Rosa hold if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a coalpit and it does wedge Rosa does not hold. sent9: if the preservation is Tyrolean then the obscurantist records baronetage. sent10: the obscurantist is not imperative. sent11: something does not wedge Rosa if it is not a Tyrolean. sent12: if the antigen is a kind of a Ticino then the obscurantist is not an imperative and it is not a kind of a coalpit. sent13: if something does record baronetage then it does parry. sent14: the limit is clement. sent15: the limit is a Tyrolean if the preservation does wedge Rosa. sent16: the preservation is a Tyrolean. sent17: if the fact that the carrot is non-expiratory but it is a thrower is not correct then it is not a thrower. sent18: the limit is a parry if the obscurantist wedges Rosa. sent19: if the obscurantist is non-imperative then that it is not a coalpit and wedges Rosa is not true. sent20: the fact that the carrot is both not expiratory and a thrower is not right. sent21: that something is not a Humulin and not a paraphysis is wrong if it is a Pinnotheridae. sent22: the limit wedges Rosa if the fact that the obscurantist parries is right.
|
sent1: (x): ¬({O}x & ¬{M}x) -> {N}{f} sent2: ¬{L}{e} -> ({J}{d} & {K}{d}) sent3: {P}{g} -> ¬({O}{g} & ¬{M}{g}) sent4: (x): ¬(¬{H}x & ¬{I}x) -> {G}x sent5: ¬{R}{h} -> ({P}{g} & {Q}{g}) sent6: ({L}{f} v {N}{f}) -> ¬{L}{e} sent7: ¬(¬{C}{a} & {A}{a}) -> ¬{A}{c} sent8: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & {D}x) -> ¬{D}{a} sent9: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent10: ¬{F}{b} sent11: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{D}x sent12: {G}{d} -> (¬{F}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) sent13: (x): {B}x -> {C}x sent14: {IA}{c} sent15: {D}{a} -> {A}{c} sent16: {A}{a} sent17: ¬(¬{S}{h} & {R}{h}) -> ¬{R}{h} sent18: {D}{b} -> {C}{c} sent19: ¬{F}{b} -> ¬(¬{E}{b} & {D}{b}) sent20: ¬(¬{S}{h} & {R}{h}) sent21: (x): {J}x -> ¬(¬{H}x & ¬{I}x) sent22: {C}{b} -> {D}{c}
|
[
"sent9 & sent16 -> int1: that the obscurantist records baronetage is right.; sent13 -> int2: the obscurantist is a parry if that it does record baronetage is not wrong.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the obscurantist does parry.; int3 & sent22 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 & sent16 -> int1: {B}{b}; sent13 -> int2: {B}{b} -> {C}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {C}{b}; int3 & sent22 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the krait is a parry.
|
{C}{go}
|
[
"sent19 & sent10 -> int4: the fact that the obscurantist is not a coalpit but it wedges Rosa is false.; int4 -> int5: there exists something such that that it is not a coalpit and it wedges Rosa does not hold.; int5 & sent8 -> int6: the preservation does not wedge Rosa.; int6 -> int7: there exists something such that it does not wedge Rosa.;"
] | 7 | 3 | 3 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the limit does not wedge Rosa is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: the cephalochordate is aversive if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a sin and it is not defeasible does not hold. sent2: the antigen is a Pinnotheridae and it is a dragonet if the fact that the isosorbide is not an intriguing is true. sent3: that the lure is a kind of a sin that is not defeasible is not right if it is a Arabic. sent4: if that something is not a kind of a Humulin and it is not a paraphysis is incorrect then that it is a Ticino is right. sent5: if the carrot is not a thrower then the lure is a Arabic and it animates. sent6: if the cephalochordate is an intriguing or is aversive or both then the isosorbide is not an intriguing. sent7: if the fact that the preservation is not a parry and is a Tyrolean does not hold that the limit is not a Tyrolean is not incorrect. sent8: that the preservation does not wedge Rosa hold if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a coalpit and it does wedge Rosa does not hold. sent9: if the preservation is Tyrolean then the obscurantist records baronetage. sent10: the obscurantist is not imperative. sent11: something does not wedge Rosa if it is not a Tyrolean. sent12: if the antigen is a kind of a Ticino then the obscurantist is not an imperative and it is not a kind of a coalpit. sent13: if something does record baronetage then it does parry. sent14: the limit is clement. sent15: the limit is a Tyrolean if the preservation does wedge Rosa. sent16: the preservation is a Tyrolean. sent17: if the fact that the carrot is non-expiratory but it is a thrower is not correct then it is not a thrower. sent18: the limit is a parry if the obscurantist wedges Rosa. sent19: if the obscurantist is non-imperative then that it is not a coalpit and wedges Rosa is not true. sent20: the fact that the carrot is both not expiratory and a thrower is not right. sent21: that something is not a Humulin and not a paraphysis is wrong if it is a Pinnotheridae. sent22: the limit wedges Rosa if the fact that the obscurantist parries is right. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 & sent16 -> int1: that the obscurantist records baronetage is right.; sent13 -> int2: the obscurantist is a parry if that it does record baronetage is not wrong.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the obscurantist does parry.; int3 & sent22 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there is something such that if it is universalistic and does not logroll clamber then it does sober is true.
|
(Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x
|
sent1: there is something such that if it is universalistic thing that logrolls clamber it sobers. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a kind of perceptive thing that does not plummet it is a bisexual. sent3: there is something such that if it is annalistic thing that is a drumbeat then it is chlorophyllose. sent4: if something is a counterbalance but it does not shampoo ayin it is a kind of an ethics. sent5: something is sober if it is universalistic and it does not logroll clamber. sent6: if the orthodontist does sober but it is not brassy it is away. sent7: if a caressing is a Haredi then it is cesarean. sent8: there exists something such that if the fact that it is testate and it is not a kind of a sewellel is not false it is a success. sent9: the fact that there exists something such that if it is a tangency and is not a Fistulariidae then the fact that it is asphaltic is correct is right. sent10: if something is universalistic and it logrolls clamber it does sober. sent11: the yawl is sober if it is a kind of universalistic thing that does logroll clamber. sent12: there is something such that if it is a kind of a chalaza and it is not a kind of a wireworm it is Churchillian.
|
sent1: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent2: (Ex): ({EL}x & ¬{CB}x) -> {DS}x sent3: (Ex): ({D}x & {GD}x) -> {AG}x sent4: (x): ({GC}x & ¬{DC}x) -> {BR}x sent5: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent6: ({B}{ar} & ¬{IH}{ar}) -> {EG}{ar} sent7: (x): ({DU}x & {EU}x) -> {AL}x sent8: (Ex): ({CD}x & ¬{GB}x) -> {AH}x sent9: (Ex): ({HO}x & ¬{JC}x) -> {GG}x sent10: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent11: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent12: (Ex): ({HH}x & ¬{DA}x) -> {BA}x
|
[
"sent5 -> int1: the yawl does sober if it is universalistic and does not logroll clamber.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if it is universalistic and does not logroll clamber then it does sober is true. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is universalistic thing that logrolls clamber it sobers. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a kind of perceptive thing that does not plummet it is a bisexual. sent3: there is something such that if it is annalistic thing that is a drumbeat then it is chlorophyllose. sent4: if something is a counterbalance but it does not shampoo ayin it is a kind of an ethics. sent5: something is sober if it is universalistic and it does not logroll clamber. sent6: if the orthodontist does sober but it is not brassy it is away. sent7: if a caressing is a Haredi then it is cesarean. sent8: there exists something such that if the fact that it is testate and it is not a kind of a sewellel is not false it is a success. sent9: the fact that there exists something such that if it is a tangency and is not a Fistulariidae then the fact that it is asphaltic is correct is right. sent10: if something is universalistic and it logrolls clamber it does sober. sent11: the yawl is sober if it is a kind of universalistic thing that does logroll clamber. sent12: there is something such that if it is a kind of a chalaza and it is not a kind of a wireworm it is Churchillian. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 -> int1: the yawl does sober if it is universalistic and does not logroll clamber.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the parricide does not wedge Astrophyton if it is a palpebration and it shampoos benison.
|
({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}
|
sent1: something that logrolls billboard and is a Tonga is not dangerous. sent2: if the medroxyprogesterone is a kind of an rpm that is a palpebration it does not quarter. sent3: the mifepristone is not a palpebration if it is obligate a scar. sent4: if the sclera is a Italic and it is a Calvinist then it does not shampoo markka. sent5: the billboard is cyclopean if it is not non-cellulosid but a bobwhite. sent6: if something is a paroxytone and it is febrile then it does not logroll Disraeli. sent7: the parricide is not a kind of a paroxytone if it is monozygotic and it does wedge Astrophyton. sent8: if something that records flavorlessness does record sclera then it does not shampoo unattainableness. sent9: something is not ectopic if it is both a millivolt and a prattler. sent10: if something is a molester and it is hircine it is a kind of a entoproct. sent11: if the parricide is a kind of a palpebration and it shampoos benison then it wedges Astrophyton. sent12: if a palpebration shampoos benison then it does not wedge Astrophyton. sent13: if the parricide is a kind of a palpebration and does logroll cooter the fact that it is not a kind of a Ticino is not false. sent14: the parricide does not shampoo benison if it does record sclera and it is a chauvinist. sent15: something that is a kind of a palpebration that does shampoo benison does wedge Astrophyton. sent16: something does not shampoo markka if it is a greengage and it welds. sent17: something does not stretch if it is ossicular and a vault. sent18: if something that does wedge Maclura is a Tonga it is not a pack. sent19: if the parricide wedges Astrophyton and it is a purpose then it does not shampoo sweatbox. sent20: something red-eyes if it is both not unsociable and not non-postnuptial. sent21: the parricide is not a nonpartisan if it is a kind of a matriculate and does shampoo benison.
|
sent1: (x): ({DU}x & {FQ}x) -> ¬{GS}x sent2: ({FP}{em} & {AA}{em}) -> ¬{EJ}{em} sent3: ({FN}{bc} & {DI}{bc}) -> ¬{AA}{bc} sent4: ({AU}{hb} & {GC}{hb}) -> ¬{DH}{hb} sent5: ({FH}{ih} & {FR}{ih}) -> {GH}{ih} sent6: (x): ({CN}x & {IH}x) -> ¬{GO}x sent7: ({FS}{aa} & {B}{aa}) -> ¬{CN}{aa} sent8: (x): ({FO}x & {GT}x) -> ¬{HS}x sent9: (x): ({O}x & {GD}x) -> ¬{BO}x sent10: (x): ({R}x & {CG}x) -> {IC}x sent11: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent12: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent13: ({AA}{aa} & {BJ}{aa}) -> ¬{FJ}{aa} sent14: ({GT}{aa} & {U}{aa}) -> ¬{AB}{aa} sent15: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent16: (x): ({CD}x & {EQ}x) -> ¬{DH}x sent17: (x): ({FF}x & {BU}x) -> ¬{CR}x sent18: (x): ({EA}x & {FQ}x) -> ¬{AI}x sent19: ({B}{aa} & {JK}{aa}) -> ¬{GQ}{aa} sent20: (x): ({IS}x & {DS}x) -> {HU}x sent21: ({GR}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{IA}{aa}
|
[
"sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 20 | 0 | 20 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the parricide does not wedge Astrophyton if it is a palpebration and it shampoos benison. ; $context$ = sent1: something that logrolls billboard and is a Tonga is not dangerous. sent2: if the medroxyprogesterone is a kind of an rpm that is a palpebration it does not quarter. sent3: the mifepristone is not a palpebration if it is obligate a scar. sent4: if the sclera is a Italic and it is a Calvinist then it does not shampoo markka. sent5: the billboard is cyclopean if it is not non-cellulosid but a bobwhite. sent6: if something is a paroxytone and it is febrile then it does not logroll Disraeli. sent7: the parricide is not a kind of a paroxytone if it is monozygotic and it does wedge Astrophyton. sent8: if something that records flavorlessness does record sclera then it does not shampoo unattainableness. sent9: something is not ectopic if it is both a millivolt and a prattler. sent10: if something is a molester and it is hircine it is a kind of a entoproct. sent11: if the parricide is a kind of a palpebration and it shampoos benison then it wedges Astrophyton. sent12: if a palpebration shampoos benison then it does not wedge Astrophyton. sent13: if the parricide is a kind of a palpebration and does logroll cooter the fact that it is not a kind of a Ticino is not false. sent14: the parricide does not shampoo benison if it does record sclera and it is a chauvinist. sent15: something that is a kind of a palpebration that does shampoo benison does wedge Astrophyton. sent16: something does not shampoo markka if it is a greengage and it welds. sent17: something does not stretch if it is ossicular and a vault. sent18: if something that does wedge Maclura is a Tonga it is not a pack. sent19: if the parricide wedges Astrophyton and it is a purpose then it does not shampoo sweatbox. sent20: something red-eyes if it is both not unsociable and not non-postnuptial. sent21: the parricide is not a nonpartisan if it is a kind of a matriculate and does shampoo benison. ; $proof$ =
|
sent12 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the warmness happens.
|
{C}
|
sent1: if the cantonalness does not occur the vest occurs and the shampooing taka happens. sent2: if that the mnemonicness does not occur but the urogenitalness occurs does not hold then the urogenitalness does not occur. sent3: that the inactivity does not occur is not false. sent4: the racism happens. sent5: if the logrolling Nintu happens the biotypicness happens. sent6: the intimidation does not occur and the recording roentgenium does not occur. sent7: the logrolling huddler does not occur. sent8: if the clinching happens the pant-hooting does not occur and the cantonalness does not occur. sent9: that the urogenitalness does not occur brings about that the shampooing ola and the recording rock occurs. sent10: the biotypicness brings about that the stinking does not occur. sent11: the stinking does not occur and the streamer does not occur. sent12: the logrolling Nintu occurs if the shampooing taka occurs. sent13: that the intimidation does not occur and the recording roentgenium does not occur triggers that the shampooing cornpone does not occur. sent14: if the shampooing ola happens the clinching occurs. sent15: if the flock but not the convolution occurs then the fact that the explanation does not occur is true. sent16: if the streamer happens then the recording natural happens. sent17: that not the shampooing cornpone but the streamer happens yields the non-warmness. sent18: the vitality does not occur if the vest does not occur and the uniformedness does not occur. sent19: that the intimidation does not occur but the recording roentgenium occurs prevents that the shampooing cornpone happens. sent20: the warmness is triggered by the fact that that the shampooing cornpone does not occur and the streamer does not occur is true. sent21: if the clinch does not occur and the vascularness does not occur then the fact that the wedging enrollee does not occur hold.
|
sent1: ¬{I} -> ({H} & {G}) sent2: ¬(¬{P} & {N}) -> ¬{N} sent3: ¬{EK} sent4: {FM} sent5: {F} -> {E} sent6: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent7: ¬{HU} sent8: {K} -> (¬{J} & ¬{I}) sent9: ¬{N} -> ({L} & {M}) sent10: {E} -> ¬{D} sent11: (¬{D} & ¬{A}) sent12: {G} -> {F} sent13: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent14: {L} -> {K} sent15: ({GN} & ¬{CA}) -> ¬{GJ} sent16: {A} -> {JJ} sent17: (¬{B} & {A}) -> ¬{C} sent18: (¬{H} & ¬{FU}) -> ¬{JH} sent19: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent20: (¬{B} & ¬{A}) -> {C} sent21: (¬{K} & ¬{JI}) -> ¬{CK}
|
[
"sent13 & sent6 -> int1: that the shampooing cornpone does not occur is true.; sent11 -> int2: the streamer does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the shampooing cornpone does not occur and the streamer does not occur.; int3 & sent20 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent13 & sent6 -> int1: ¬{B}; sent11 -> int2: ¬{A}; int1 & int2 -> int3: (¬{B} & ¬{A}); int3 & sent20 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the recording natural happens.
|
{JJ}
|
[] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 17 | 0 | 17 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the warmness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if the cantonalness does not occur the vest occurs and the shampooing taka happens. sent2: if that the mnemonicness does not occur but the urogenitalness occurs does not hold then the urogenitalness does not occur. sent3: that the inactivity does not occur is not false. sent4: the racism happens. sent5: if the logrolling Nintu happens the biotypicness happens. sent6: the intimidation does not occur and the recording roentgenium does not occur. sent7: the logrolling huddler does not occur. sent8: if the clinching happens the pant-hooting does not occur and the cantonalness does not occur. sent9: that the urogenitalness does not occur brings about that the shampooing ola and the recording rock occurs. sent10: the biotypicness brings about that the stinking does not occur. sent11: the stinking does not occur and the streamer does not occur. sent12: the logrolling Nintu occurs if the shampooing taka occurs. sent13: that the intimidation does not occur and the recording roentgenium does not occur triggers that the shampooing cornpone does not occur. sent14: if the shampooing ola happens the clinching occurs. sent15: if the flock but not the convolution occurs then the fact that the explanation does not occur is true. sent16: if the streamer happens then the recording natural happens. sent17: that not the shampooing cornpone but the streamer happens yields the non-warmness. sent18: the vitality does not occur if the vest does not occur and the uniformedness does not occur. sent19: that the intimidation does not occur but the recording roentgenium occurs prevents that the shampooing cornpone happens. sent20: the warmness is triggered by the fact that that the shampooing cornpone does not occur and the streamer does not occur is true. sent21: if the clinch does not occur and the vascularness does not occur then the fact that the wedging enrollee does not occur hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent13 & sent6 -> int1: that the shampooing cornpone does not occur is true.; sent11 -> int2: the streamer does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the shampooing cornpone does not occur and the streamer does not occur.; int3 & sent20 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there is something such that if it is not handless then it is not woody and it shampoos mifepristone does not hold.
|
¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x))
|
sent1: if the mifepristone is not handless then it is woody and it does shampoo mifepristone. sent2: there is something such that if it is not handless it is woody and shampoos mifepristone. sent3: there is something such that if it is not handless it is not woody. sent4: the mifepristone does shampoo mifepristone if it is handed. sent5: there exists something such that if that it is handed hold it does shampoo mifepristone. sent6: if something is not a elderberry then it is not woody and shampoos shoulder. sent7: if the mifepristone is not handless it is nonwoody thing that does shampoo mifepristone.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent2: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬{AA}x sent4: ¬{A}{aa} -> {AB}{aa} sent5: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> {AB}x sent6: (x): ¬{FK}x -> (¬{AA}x & {EG}x) sent7: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})
|
[
"sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
if the kawaka is not a elderberry then it is a kind of non-woody thing that does shampoo shoulder.
|
¬{FK}{c} -> (¬{AA}{c} & {EG}{c})
|
[
"sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 6 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if it is not handless then it is not woody and it shampoos mifepristone does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the mifepristone is not handless then it is woody and it does shampoo mifepristone. sent2: there is something such that if it is not handless it is woody and shampoos mifepristone. sent3: there is something such that if it is not handless it is not woody. sent4: the mifepristone does shampoo mifepristone if it is handed. sent5: there exists something such that if that it is handed hold it does shampoo mifepristone. sent6: if something is not a elderberry then it is not woody and shampoos shoulder. sent7: if the mifepristone is not handless it is nonwoody thing that does shampoo mifepristone. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the paddock does not wedge taka and is not a kind of a recall is not right.
|
¬(¬{D}{b} & ¬{E}{b})
|
sent1: if that something is a recall that shampoos tonnage is incorrect then it does not recall. sent2: that the paddock does wedge taka and does not recall does not hold if the track shampoos tonnage. sent3: the track is insufficient and a sugar-bush. sent4: the track is insufficient. sent5: that the coastguardsman is both not a recall and not a driving is not correct. sent6: the fact that the track is a sanction is not wrong. sent7: the fact that the paddock does not wedge taka but it is a kind of a recall is wrong if the track does shampoo tonnage. sent8: the cliff does shampoo tonnage. sent9: that the paddock wedges taka but it does not recall is not true. sent10: something shampoos tonnage if it is a sugar-bush. sent11: the fact that the paddock does not wedge taka but it is a recall is incorrect.
|
sent1: (x): ¬({E}x & {C}x) -> ¬{E}x sent2: {C}{a} -> ¬({D}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) sent3: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent4: {A}{a} sent5: ¬(¬{E}{bn} & ¬{JH}{bn}) sent6: {FJ}{a} sent7: {C}{a} -> ¬(¬{D}{b} & {E}{b}) sent8: {C}{ha} sent9: ¬({D}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) sent10: (x): {B}x -> {C}x sent11: ¬(¬{D}{b} & {E}{b})
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: the track is a sugar-bush.; sent10 -> int2: the track does shampoo tonnage if it is a sugar-bush.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the track does shampoo tonnage.;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent10 -> int2: {B}{a} -> {C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {C}{a};"
] |
the fact that the paddock does not wedge taka and it does not recall is correct.
|
(¬{D}{b} & ¬{E}{b})
|
[
"sent1 -> int4: if the fact that the paddock is a recall and it shampoos tonnage is not correct then it does not recall.;"
] | 12 | 3 | null | 9 | 0 | 9 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the paddock does not wedge taka and is not a kind of a recall is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something is a recall that shampoos tonnage is incorrect then it does not recall. sent2: that the paddock does wedge taka and does not recall does not hold if the track shampoos tonnage. sent3: the track is insufficient and a sugar-bush. sent4: the track is insufficient. sent5: that the coastguardsman is both not a recall and not a driving is not correct. sent6: the fact that the track is a sanction is not wrong. sent7: the fact that the paddock does not wedge taka but it is a kind of a recall is wrong if the track does shampoo tonnage. sent8: the cliff does shampoo tonnage. sent9: that the paddock wedges taka but it does not recall is not true. sent10: something shampoos tonnage if it is a sugar-bush. sent11: the fact that the paddock does not wedge taka but it is a recall is incorrect. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> int1: the track is a sugar-bush.; sent10 -> int2: the track does shampoo tonnage if it is a sugar-bush.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the track does shampoo tonnage.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the confederating does not occur.
|
¬{D}
|
sent1: that the logrolling secureness happens prevents that the scamper does not occur. sent2: the logrolling secureness occurs. sent3: that the metrification does not occur or the logrolling abomasum happens or both brings about the non-meatyness. sent4: the recording Pandion occurs. sent5: if the enthroning happens then the splintering does not occur but the plebiscite occurs. sent6: the absenteeism does not occur. sent7: the fact that that the logrolling abomasum does not occur yields that the confederate does not occur hold. sent8: the commemoration does not occur if the splinter does not occur. sent9: both the confederating and the logrolling secureness occurs if the commemoration does not occur.
|
sent1: {E} -> {C} sent2: {E} sent3: (¬{B} v {A}) -> ¬{L} sent4: {U} sent5: {I} -> (¬{G} & {H}) sent6: ¬{GQ} sent7: ¬{A} -> ¬{D} sent8: ¬{G} -> ¬{F} sent9: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the logrolling abomasum occurs.; assump1 -> int1: the logrolling abomasum occurs or the metrification occurs or both.; sent1 & sent2 -> int2: the scamper occurs.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}; assump1 -> int1: ({A} v {B}); sent1 & sent2 -> int2: {C};"
] |
the meatiness does not occur.
|
¬{L}
|
[] | 9 | 4 | null | 6 | 0 | 6 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the confederating does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the logrolling secureness happens prevents that the scamper does not occur. sent2: the logrolling secureness occurs. sent3: that the metrification does not occur or the logrolling abomasum happens or both brings about the non-meatyness. sent4: the recording Pandion occurs. sent5: if the enthroning happens then the splintering does not occur but the plebiscite occurs. sent6: the absenteeism does not occur. sent7: the fact that that the logrolling abomasum does not occur yields that the confederate does not occur hold. sent8: the commemoration does not occur if the splinter does not occur. sent9: both the confederating and the logrolling secureness occurs if the commemoration does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the logrolling abomasum occurs.; assump1 -> int1: the logrolling abomasum occurs or the metrification occurs or both.; sent1 & sent2 -> int2: the scamper occurs.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the proverbialness occurs.
|
{B}
|
sent1: the thrombectomy does not occur. sent2: not the phototherapy but the contextualness happens. sent3: if the haploidness occurs and the dysgenicness happens the proverbialness does not occur. sent4: if the oatenness does not occur the fact that both the non-psychologicalness and the industry occurs does not hold. sent5: the pleasing redbird does not occur. sent6: the non-haploidness and the dysgenicness happens. sent7: the drudgery does not occur. sent8: the triggering does not occur. sent9: the Spark does not occur and the salvo happens. sent10: the oatenness does not occur if the fact that the catching lechwe and the shooing greengrocery occurs is not correct. sent11: the paranormalness does not occur. sent12: the high-interestness is prevented by that the non-Albigensianness and the Rhodesianness occurs. sent13: if the quarterliness does not occur then that the catching lechwe and the shooing greengrocery happens does not hold. sent14: that the haploidness does not occur but the dysgenicness occurs causes the non-proverbialness. sent15: the haploidness does not occur. sent16: the quarterly does not occur if that the Dostoevskianness happens and the baring wonderer occurs is not true. sent17: the fact that the fact that the Dostoevskianness happens and the baring wonderer happens is not correct if the macroeconomicness does not occur is correct. sent18: not the howler but the obfuscation happens. sent19: if that the non-psychologicalness and the industry happens is not true the proverbialness occurs. sent20: if the non-syphiliticness and the feat happens then the ATM does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬{HB} sent2: (¬{FL} & {FH}) sent3: ({AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent4: ¬{D} -> ¬(¬{C} & {A}) sent5: ¬{CS} sent6: (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent7: ¬{JF} sent8: ¬{GP} sent9: (¬{EL} & {JB}) sent10: ¬({E} & {F}) -> ¬{D} sent11: ¬{IR} sent12: (¬{ER} & {Q}) -> ¬{CR} sent13: ¬{G} -> ¬({E} & {F}) sent14: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent15: ¬{AA} sent16: ¬({H} & {I}) -> ¬{G} sent17: ¬{J} -> ¬({H} & {I}) sent18: (¬{CN} & {HI}) sent19: ¬(¬{C} & {A}) -> {B} sent20: (¬{IS} & {BI}) -> ¬{FS}
|
[
"sent14 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent14 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the proverbialness happens.
|
{B}
|
[] | 11 | 1 | 1 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the proverbialness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the thrombectomy does not occur. sent2: not the phototherapy but the contextualness happens. sent3: if the haploidness occurs and the dysgenicness happens the proverbialness does not occur. sent4: if the oatenness does not occur the fact that both the non-psychologicalness and the industry occurs does not hold. sent5: the pleasing redbird does not occur. sent6: the non-haploidness and the dysgenicness happens. sent7: the drudgery does not occur. sent8: the triggering does not occur. sent9: the Spark does not occur and the salvo happens. sent10: the oatenness does not occur if the fact that the catching lechwe and the shooing greengrocery occurs is not correct. sent11: the paranormalness does not occur. sent12: the high-interestness is prevented by that the non-Albigensianness and the Rhodesianness occurs. sent13: if the quarterliness does not occur then that the catching lechwe and the shooing greengrocery happens does not hold. sent14: that the haploidness does not occur but the dysgenicness occurs causes the non-proverbialness. sent15: the haploidness does not occur. sent16: the quarterly does not occur if that the Dostoevskianness happens and the baring wonderer occurs is not true. sent17: the fact that the fact that the Dostoevskianness happens and the baring wonderer happens is not correct if the macroeconomicness does not occur is correct. sent18: not the howler but the obfuscation happens. sent19: if that the non-psychologicalness and the industry happens is not true the proverbialness occurs. sent20: if the non-syphiliticness and the feat happens then the ATM does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent14 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
not the saponifying but the zodiacalness happens.
|
(¬{D} & {C})
|
sent1: the Abkhazness happens and the convention occurs. sent2: if the convention happens then not the saponifying but the zodiacalness occurs.
|
sent1: ({A} & {B}) sent2: {B} -> (¬{D} & {C})
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: the convention happens.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: {B}; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = not the saponifying but the zodiacalness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the Abkhazness happens and the convention occurs. sent2: if the convention happens then not the saponifying but the zodiacalness occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: the convention happens.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the nonpayment does not occur.
|
¬{A}
|
sent1: the fact that the recidivism occurs is right if the fact that the recidivism does not occur and the shooing Galilee does not occur is not correct. sent2: the nonpayment happens. sent3: the percussiveness occurs. sent4: if that not the dormancy but the nonpayment happens is not correct the nonpayment does not occur. sent5: the shooing centenarian occurs. sent6: if the fact that the electrocautery does not occur is right then the catching graduate does not occur and the baring harvest-lice happens. sent7: if the baring tapioca or the tracheostomy or both occurs then the Glaswegian does not occur. sent8: that the shooing sage happens is correct. sent9: the affixalness does not occur if that the pleasing bettor occurs but the anthropolatry does not occur is false. sent10: the recidivism yields that the Jesuiticalness happens. sent11: the typicalness happens. sent12: if the Jesuiticalness happens the quickie and the non-Jewishness happens. sent13: if the Glaswegian does not occur then that the recidivism does not occur and the shooing Galilee does not occur does not hold. sent14: that if the baring pinner occurs and/or the mammography does not occur the stop does not occur is right. sent15: the characteristicness happens and the heartbreaker occurs if the affixalness does not occur. sent16: the catching graduate occurs if the fact that the dormancy happens and the baring harvest-lice does not occur does not hold. sent17: the non-Jewishness brings about that the baring pinner occurs or that the mammography does not occur or both. sent18: the fact that the pleasing bettor happens and the anthropolatry does not occur is false if the fact that the stopping does not occur is right. sent19: if the catching graduate does not occur that not the dormancy but the nonpayment occurs is wrong. sent20: the concoction does not occur and the electrocautery does not occur if the characteristic happens.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{R} & ¬{S}) -> {R} sent2: {A} sent3: {FR} sent4: ¬(¬{C} & {A}) -> ¬{A} sent5: {CA} sent6: ¬{E} -> (¬{B} & {D}) sent7: ({AA} v {U}) -> ¬{T} sent8: {IQ} sent9: ¬({J} & ¬{K}) -> ¬{I} sent10: {R} -> {Q} sent11: {HN} sent12: {Q} -> ({P} & ¬{O}) sent13: ¬{T} -> ¬(¬{R} & ¬{S}) sent14: ({N} v ¬{M}) -> ¬{L} sent15: ¬{I} -> ({G} & {H}) sent16: ¬({C} & ¬{D}) -> {B} sent17: ¬{O} -> ({N} v ¬{M}) sent18: ¬{L} -> ¬({J} & ¬{K}) sent19: ¬{B} -> ¬(¬{C} & {A}) sent20: {G} -> (¬{F} & ¬{E})
|
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the adaptation happens.
|
{CH}
|
[] | 6 | 1 | 0 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the nonpayment does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the recidivism occurs is right if the fact that the recidivism does not occur and the shooing Galilee does not occur is not correct. sent2: the nonpayment happens. sent3: the percussiveness occurs. sent4: if that not the dormancy but the nonpayment happens is not correct the nonpayment does not occur. sent5: the shooing centenarian occurs. sent6: if the fact that the electrocautery does not occur is right then the catching graduate does not occur and the baring harvest-lice happens. sent7: if the baring tapioca or the tracheostomy or both occurs then the Glaswegian does not occur. sent8: that the shooing sage happens is correct. sent9: the affixalness does not occur if that the pleasing bettor occurs but the anthropolatry does not occur is false. sent10: the recidivism yields that the Jesuiticalness happens. sent11: the typicalness happens. sent12: if the Jesuiticalness happens the quickie and the non-Jewishness happens. sent13: if the Glaswegian does not occur then that the recidivism does not occur and the shooing Galilee does not occur does not hold. sent14: that if the baring pinner occurs and/or the mammography does not occur the stop does not occur is right. sent15: the characteristicness happens and the heartbreaker occurs if the affixalness does not occur. sent16: the catching graduate occurs if the fact that the dormancy happens and the baring harvest-lice does not occur does not hold. sent17: the non-Jewishness brings about that the baring pinner occurs or that the mammography does not occur or both. sent18: the fact that the pleasing bettor happens and the anthropolatry does not occur is false if the fact that the stopping does not occur is right. sent19: if the catching graduate does not occur that not the dormancy but the nonpayment occurs is wrong. sent20: the concoction does not occur and the electrocautery does not occur if the characteristic happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the Parisian is topical but it is not a interposition does not hold.
|
¬({D}{b} & ¬{F}{b})
|
sent1: the cranberry is not a kind of an intangible. sent2: the Parisian is topical if the laurel is not topical. sent3: the spam is a midbrain if the cranberry is both not a interposition and not a midbrain. sent4: that the spam is a patter and it is a midbrain is not true if the cranberry does not bare preschooler. sent5: that something bares preschooler and is not a kind of a Stoic is not true if that it catches used-car is not wrong. sent6: the laurel is not topical if it bares rat and it is porcine. sent7: the laurel is not porcine. sent8: if the laurel does not bare homeopathy then the Parisian does please femininity and is not a coastguardsman. sent9: the Parisian is topical. sent10: if something bares rat and is not porcine it is not topical. sent11: the fact that the laurel bares rat but it is not porcine is not incorrect if something bares homeopathy. sent12: if something bares rat and it is porcine then it is not topical. sent13: the fact that the Parisian is topical but it is not a kind of a interposition is incorrect if the laurel bares homeopathy. sent14: that the cranberry does please cranberry and is not Proustian is not correct if it is not intangible. sent15: if the fact that something does please cranberry and is not Proustian is wrong that it does catch used-car is not incorrect. sent16: if there exists something such that it does bare homeopathy then the laurel is not porcine. sent17: if that the fact that something does bare preschooler but it is not a kind of a Stoic is not incorrect is wrong the fact that it does not bare preschooler hold. sent18: the cranberry is not a interposition and it is not a midbrain if it does patter. sent19: there exists something such that it does bare homeopathy. sent20: the cranberry does patter if it does bare preschooler. sent21: if something is a midbrain then it is topical. sent22: the Parisian is topical and is not a interposition if the laurel is not topical.
|
sent1: ¬{M}{d} sent2: ¬{D}{a} -> {D}{b} sent3: (¬{F}{d} & ¬{E}{d}) -> {E}{c} sent4: ¬{H}{d} -> ¬({G}{c} & {E}{c}) sent5: (x): {I}x -> ¬({H}x & ¬{J}x) sent6: ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent7: ¬{C}{a} sent8: ¬{A}{a} -> ({DR}{b} & ¬{CA}{b}) sent9: {D}{b} sent10: (x): ({B}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{D}x sent11: (x): {A}x -> ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent12: (x): ({B}x & {C}x) -> ¬{D}x sent13: {A}{a} -> ¬({D}{b} & ¬{F}{b}) sent14: ¬{M}{d} -> ¬({L}{d} & ¬{K}{d}) sent15: (x): ¬({L}x & ¬{K}x) -> {I}x sent16: (x): {A}x -> ¬{C}{a} sent17: (x): ¬({H}x & ¬{J}x) -> ¬{H}x sent18: {G}{d} -> (¬{F}{d} & ¬{E}{d}) sent19: (Ex): {A}x sent20: {H}{d} -> {G}{d} sent21: (x): {E}x -> {D}x sent22: ¬{D}{a} -> ({D}{b} & ¬{F}{b})
|
[
"sent19 & sent11 -> int1: the laurel bares rat but it is not porcine.; sent10 -> int2: if the laurel bares rat and is not porcine then it is not topical.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the laurel is not topical.; int3 & sent22 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent19 & sent11 -> int1: ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); sent10 -> int2: ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬{D}{a}; int3 & sent22 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the Parisian is both topical and not a interposition does not hold.
|
¬({D}{b} & ¬{F}{b})
|
[
"sent17 -> int4: the cranberry does not bare preschooler if the fact that it bare preschooler and it is not a Stoic is not true.; sent5 -> int5: that the cranberry bares preschooler but it is not a kind of a Stoic does not hold if it does catch used-car.; sent15 -> int6: if that the cranberry pleases cranberry but it is not Proustian is not true it does catch used-car.; sent14 & sent1 -> int7: the fact that the fact that the cranberry pleases cranberry and is not Proustian is incorrect is correct.; int6 & int7 -> int8: the cranberry does catch used-car.; int5 & int8 -> int9: the fact that the cranberry bares preschooler and is not a kind of a Stoic is not correct.; int4 & int9 -> int10: the cranberry does not bare preschooler.; sent4 & int10 -> int11: that the spam does patter and it is a midbrain is not correct.; int11 -> int12: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a patter that is a kind of a midbrain is not correct.;"
] | 10 | 3 | 3 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the Parisian is topical but it is not a interposition does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the cranberry is not a kind of an intangible. sent2: the Parisian is topical if the laurel is not topical. sent3: the spam is a midbrain if the cranberry is both not a interposition and not a midbrain. sent4: that the spam is a patter and it is a midbrain is not true if the cranberry does not bare preschooler. sent5: that something bares preschooler and is not a kind of a Stoic is not true if that it catches used-car is not wrong. sent6: the laurel is not topical if it bares rat and it is porcine. sent7: the laurel is not porcine. sent8: if the laurel does not bare homeopathy then the Parisian does please femininity and is not a coastguardsman. sent9: the Parisian is topical. sent10: if something bares rat and is not porcine it is not topical. sent11: the fact that the laurel bares rat but it is not porcine is not incorrect if something bares homeopathy. sent12: if something bares rat and it is porcine then it is not topical. sent13: the fact that the Parisian is topical but it is not a kind of a interposition is incorrect if the laurel bares homeopathy. sent14: that the cranberry does please cranberry and is not Proustian is not correct if it is not intangible. sent15: if the fact that something does please cranberry and is not Proustian is wrong that it does catch used-car is not incorrect. sent16: if there exists something such that it does bare homeopathy then the laurel is not porcine. sent17: if that the fact that something does bare preschooler but it is not a kind of a Stoic is not incorrect is wrong the fact that it does not bare preschooler hold. sent18: the cranberry is not a interposition and it is not a midbrain if it does patter. sent19: there exists something such that it does bare homeopathy. sent20: the cranberry does patter if it does bare preschooler. sent21: if something is a midbrain then it is topical. sent22: the Parisian is topical and is not a interposition if the laurel is not topical. ; $proof$ =
|
sent19 & sent11 -> int1: the laurel bares rat but it is not porcine.; sent10 -> int2: if the laurel bares rat and is not porcine then it is not topical.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the laurel is not topical.; int3 & sent22 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Tuscan does please Hawaii.
|
{A}{a}
|
sent1: the cannikin does not please Hawaii. sent2: that something pleases Hawaii and it is unshockable is not right if it is not ornithological. sent3: that the Tuscan does not please Hawaii is not wrong. sent4: if the weld does not catch pepsin the gamp catch pepsin. sent5: the tragacanth is altruistic. sent6: the Tuscan is non-Lamarckian. sent7: the eland does please escaped and it is a beryllium if that it does not bottleneck is correct. sent8: the gamp is not unwelcome but it bares pep if it does catch pepsin. sent9: the emporium is unshockable if the accomplice does separate. sent10: something is not ornithological if that it does not bare pep and/or it does separate is not true. sent11: if something is unshockable then it does not please Hawaii and it is ornithological. sent12: the radius does not please Hawaii. sent13: That the Hawaii does not please Tuscan is not wrong. sent14: if the tragacanth is altruistic it does please panoply. sent15: the eland is not a bottleneck. sent16: the Tuscan is not Essene. sent17: the fact that the Tuscan does not bare pep and/or it does separate is false if it is not unwelcome. sent18: the eland does please panoply if the tragacanth please panoply. sent19: the alkane does not please Hawaii. sent20: if the emporium does not please Hawaii and is ornithological then the Tuscan does please Hawaii.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{ha} sent2: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({A}x & {C}x) sent3: ¬{A}{a} sent4: ¬{G}{e} -> {G}{d} sent5: {L}{g} sent6: ¬{EE}{a} sent7: ¬{K}{f} -> ({I}{f} & {J}{f}) sent8: {G}{d} -> (¬{F}{d} & {E}{d}) sent9: {D}{c} -> {C}{b} sent10: (x): ¬(¬{E}x v {D}x) -> ¬{B}x sent11: (x): {C}x -> (¬{A}x & {B}x) sent12: ¬{A}{bd} sent13: ¬{AA}{aa} sent14: {L}{g} -> {H}{g} sent15: ¬{K}{f} sent16: ¬{CQ}{a} sent17: ¬{F}{a} -> ¬(¬{E}{a} v {D}{a}) sent18: {H}{g} -> {H}{f} sent19: ¬{A}{t} sent20: (¬{A}{b} & {B}{b}) -> {A}{a}
|
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the Tuscan does please Hawaii.
|
{A}{a}
|
[
"sent11 -> int1: if that the emporium is unshockable is true then it does not please Hawaii and it is not non-ornithological.; sent14 & sent5 -> int2: the tragacanth does please panoply.; sent18 & int2 -> int3: the eland does please panoply.; sent7 & sent15 -> int4: the eland pleases escaped and is a beryllium.; int4 -> int5: the fact that the eland does please escaped is true.; int3 & int5 -> int6: the eland does please panoply and does please escaped.; int6 -> int7: something pleases panoply and it does please escaped.;"
] | 12 | 1 | 0 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the Tuscan does please Hawaii. ; $context$ = sent1: the cannikin does not please Hawaii. sent2: that something pleases Hawaii and it is unshockable is not right if it is not ornithological. sent3: that the Tuscan does not please Hawaii is not wrong. sent4: if the weld does not catch pepsin the gamp catch pepsin. sent5: the tragacanth is altruistic. sent6: the Tuscan is non-Lamarckian. sent7: the eland does please escaped and it is a beryllium if that it does not bottleneck is correct. sent8: the gamp is not unwelcome but it bares pep if it does catch pepsin. sent9: the emporium is unshockable if the accomplice does separate. sent10: something is not ornithological if that it does not bare pep and/or it does separate is not true. sent11: if something is unshockable then it does not please Hawaii and it is ornithological. sent12: the radius does not please Hawaii. sent13: That the Hawaii does not please Tuscan is not wrong. sent14: if the tragacanth is altruistic it does please panoply. sent15: the eland is not a bottleneck. sent16: the Tuscan is not Essene. sent17: the fact that the Tuscan does not bare pep and/or it does separate is false if it is not unwelcome. sent18: the eland does please panoply if the tragacanth please panoply. sent19: the alkane does not please Hawaii. sent20: if the emporium does not please Hawaii and is ornithological then the Tuscan does please Hawaii. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the calico is a kind of a suppressor and it is cormous does not hold.
|
¬({B}{a} & {C}{a})
|
sent1: the techie is not a pamperer if the Parisian is a pamperer but it is not a dare. sent2: the sedative-hypnotic is adaptive. sent3: the Parisian does not shoo tribesman if the lard shoo tribesman but it is not ecological. sent4: if the Parisian does not shoo tribesman then the calico is not a suppressor and is not a dare. sent5: the Parisian is adaptive if the lard is not a MIDI and is not ecological. sent6: everything does not shoo darner. sent7: if the calico is not a suppressor then the Gibbon is a kind of a single-leaf and it is a pamperer. sent8: everything is cormous. sent9: something is not a MIDI and is not ecological if that it does not shoo darner is not false. sent10: the calico is a pamperer that is a suppressor. sent11: something is a pamperer and not a dare if it does not shoo tribesman.
|
sent1: ({A}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) -> ¬{A}{b} sent2: {F}{e} sent3: ({E}{d} & ¬{G}{d}) -> ¬{E}{c} sent4: ¬{E}{c} -> (¬{B}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent5: (¬{H}{d} & ¬{G}{d}) -> {F}{c} sent6: (x): ¬{I}x sent7: ¬{B}{a} -> ({GU}{et} & {A}{et}) sent8: (x): {C}x sent9: (x): ¬{I}x -> (¬{H}x & ¬{G}x) sent10: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent11: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({A}x & ¬{D}x)
|
[
"sent10 -> int1: that the calico is a suppressor is right.; sent8 -> int2: the calico is cormous.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent10 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent8 -> int2: {C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the calico is a suppressor and it is cormous is not true.
|
¬({B}{a} & {C}{a})
|
[
"sent11 -> int3: the Parisian is a pamperer that is not a dare if it does not shoo tribesman.; sent9 -> int4: the sedative-hypnotic is not a MIDI and not ecological if it does not shoo darner.; sent6 -> int5: the sedative-hypnotic does not shoo darner.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the sedative-hypnotic is not a MIDI and not ecological.; int6 -> int7: everything is not a MIDI and it is not ecological.; int7 -> int8: the lard is not a kind of a MIDI and it is not ecological.; int8 & sent5 -> int9: the Parisian is adaptive.;"
] | 10 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the calico is a kind of a suppressor and it is cormous does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the techie is not a pamperer if the Parisian is a pamperer but it is not a dare. sent2: the sedative-hypnotic is adaptive. sent3: the Parisian does not shoo tribesman if the lard shoo tribesman but it is not ecological. sent4: if the Parisian does not shoo tribesman then the calico is not a suppressor and is not a dare. sent5: the Parisian is adaptive if the lard is not a MIDI and is not ecological. sent6: everything does not shoo darner. sent7: if the calico is not a suppressor then the Gibbon is a kind of a single-leaf and it is a pamperer. sent8: everything is cormous. sent9: something is not a MIDI and is not ecological if that it does not shoo darner is not false. sent10: the calico is a pamperer that is a suppressor. sent11: something is a pamperer and not a dare if it does not shoo tribesman. ; $proof$ =
|
sent10 -> int1: that the calico is a suppressor is right.; sent8 -> int2: the calico is cormous.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the farmstead is not totemic.
|
¬{F}{b}
|
sent1: if something is a chute then the fact that the fact that it is adynamic and it pleases Joffre is correct does not hold. sent2: something pleases Joffre and is not a chute if it is adynamic. sent3: that the pyrethrum is not uninjectable is right. sent4: the grouper is not an octave if the fact that the instrumentality bares redbird and utters is not true. sent5: if the grouper is a chute that it is adynamic thing that does please Joffre is wrong. sent6: the grouper does chute if the fact that the old-timer is a kind of a lair is not wrong. sent7: that that the grouper is not a friar is correct is wrong if the old-timer does chute. sent8: the old-timer is adynamic if the grouper is a kind of a episcopate and does not shoo Lepidium. sent9: the pyrethrum is non-aerobic if it does shoo frozen or it is sublittoral or both. sent10: something that is not an octave is a kind of a episcopate that does not shoo Lepidium. sent11: the grouper is not a lair if that the old-timer does not please Joffre but it is a friar is incorrect. sent12: the old-timer is a lair and/or it is a friar. sent13: the fact that that the instrumentality does bare redbird and it does utter is true is not true if the fact that the redbird is injectable is correct. sent14: the redbird is not uninjectable if the pyrethrum is uninjectable and non-aerobic. sent15: that something is non-adynamic and does please Joffre is not right if it does chute. sent16: either the pyrethrum shoos frozen or it is sublittoral or both. sent17: if the fact that the grouper is non-adynamic thing that does please Joffre is wrong the farmstead is not totemic. sent18: if the old-timer is a kind of a friar then the grouper is a chute. sent19: something that is a kind of a friar is not a kind of a lair and is totemic.
|
sent1: (x): {C}x -> ¬({E}x & {D}x) sent2: (x): {E}x -> ({D}x & ¬{C}x) sent3: ¬{L}{f} sent4: ¬({J}{d} & {K}{d}) -> ¬{I}{c} sent5: {C}{c} -> ¬({E}{c} & {D}{c}) sent6: {A}{a} -> {C}{c} sent7: {C}{a} -> {B}{c} sent8: ({G}{c} & ¬{H}{c}) -> {E}{a} sent9: ({M}{f} v {O}{f}) -> ¬{N}{f} sent10: (x): ¬{I}x -> ({G}x & ¬{H}x) sent11: ¬(¬{D}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{A}{c} sent12: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}) sent13: ¬{L}{e} -> ¬({J}{d} & {K}{d}) sent14: (¬{L}{f} & ¬{N}{f}) -> ¬{L}{e} sent15: (x): {C}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & {D}x) sent16: ({M}{f} v {O}{f}) sent17: ¬(¬{E}{c} & {D}{c}) -> ¬{F}{b} sent18: {B}{a} -> {C}{c} sent19: (x): {B}x -> (¬{A}x & {F}x)
|
[
"sent12 & sent6 & sent18 -> int1: the grouper is a chute.; sent15 -> int2: if the grouper is a chute that it is not adynamic and it does please Joffre is not correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the grouper is non-adynamic thing that does please Joffre is incorrect.; int3 & sent17 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent12 & sent6 & sent18 -> int1: {C}{c}; sent15 -> int2: {C}{c} -> ¬(¬{E}{c} & {D}{c}); int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬(¬{E}{c} & {D}{c}); int3 & sent17 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the farmstead is totemic.
|
{F}{b}
|
[
"sent19 -> int4: if the farmstead is a friar it is not a lair but totemic.; sent2 -> int5: if the old-timer is adynamic it does please Joffre and it is not a kind of a chute.; sent10 -> int6: if the grouper is not a kind of an octave it is a kind of a episcopate and it does not shoo Lepidium.; sent9 & sent16 -> int7: the pyrethrum is non-aerobic.; sent3 & int7 -> int8: the pyrethrum is both not uninjectable and not aerobic.; sent14 & int8 -> int9: the fact that the redbird is not uninjectable is not wrong.; sent13 & int9 -> int10: that the instrumentality bares redbird and it utters does not hold.; sent4 & int10 -> int11: the grouper is not a kind of an octave.; int6 & int11 -> int12: the grouper is a episcopate that does not shoo Lepidium.; sent8 & int12 -> int13: the old-timer is adynamic.; int5 & int13 -> int14: the old-timer does please Joffre but it is not a chute.; int14 -> int15: there is something such that it pleases Joffre and is not a chute.;"
] | 12 | 3 | 3 | 14 | 0 | 14 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the farmstead is not totemic. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a chute then the fact that the fact that it is adynamic and it pleases Joffre is correct does not hold. sent2: something pleases Joffre and is not a chute if it is adynamic. sent3: that the pyrethrum is not uninjectable is right. sent4: the grouper is not an octave if the fact that the instrumentality bares redbird and utters is not true. sent5: if the grouper is a chute that it is adynamic thing that does please Joffre is wrong. sent6: the grouper does chute if the fact that the old-timer is a kind of a lair is not wrong. sent7: that that the grouper is not a friar is correct is wrong if the old-timer does chute. sent8: the old-timer is adynamic if the grouper is a kind of a episcopate and does not shoo Lepidium. sent9: the pyrethrum is non-aerobic if it does shoo frozen or it is sublittoral or both. sent10: something that is not an octave is a kind of a episcopate that does not shoo Lepidium. sent11: the grouper is not a lair if that the old-timer does not please Joffre but it is a friar is incorrect. sent12: the old-timer is a lair and/or it is a friar. sent13: the fact that that the instrumentality does bare redbird and it does utter is true is not true if the fact that the redbird is injectable is correct. sent14: the redbird is not uninjectable if the pyrethrum is uninjectable and non-aerobic. sent15: that something is non-adynamic and does please Joffre is not right if it does chute. sent16: either the pyrethrum shoos frozen or it is sublittoral or both. sent17: if the fact that the grouper is non-adynamic thing that does please Joffre is wrong the farmstead is not totemic. sent18: if the old-timer is a kind of a friar then the grouper is a chute. sent19: something that is a kind of a friar is not a kind of a lair and is totemic. ; $proof$ =
|
sent12 & sent6 & sent18 -> int1: the grouper is a chute.; sent15 -> int2: if the grouper is a chute that it is not adynamic and it does please Joffre is not correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the grouper is non-adynamic thing that does please Joffre is incorrect.; int3 & sent17 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that either the snakewood is pregnant or it does apologize or both hold.
|
({B}{b} v {C}{b})
|
sent1: the snakewood does not please spleenwort and is a Donbass if the spleenwort weighs. sent2: if something is not a Donbass and is pregnant then it weighs. sent3: if the spleenwort pleases spleenwort then the snakewood is not a kind of a Donbass but it does weigh. sent4: the spleenwort is glabellar if it is not pregnant and it is a kind of a Galega. sent5: if the spleenwort is a Donbass then the snakewood does not weigh but it apologizes. sent6: the snakewood does apologize if it does weigh and is pregnant. sent7: the fact that the snakewood is pregnant or does apologize or both does not hold if the spleenwort does not weigh. sent8: the snakewood does weigh if it does not apologize and is pregnant. sent9: the spleenwort is not a Donbass and is pregnant if the snakewood weighs. sent10: the payee does not shoo white but it is a kind of a archipallium. sent11: that the spleenwort does weigh is not incorrect. sent12: if the spleenwort pleases spleenwort then the snakewood does not weigh. sent13: something is a Donbass if it does apologize and is not nonpregnant. sent14: if the spleenwort is pregnant the snakewood does not weigh. sent15: either the spleenwort is altricial or it is pregnant or both.
|
sent1: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent2: (x): (¬{AB}x & {B}x) -> {A}x sent3: {AA}{a} -> (¬{AB}{b} & {A}{b}) sent4: (¬{B}{a} & {BD}{a}) -> {JI}{a} sent5: {AB}{a} -> (¬{A}{b} & {C}{b}) sent6: ({A}{b} & {B}{b}) -> {C}{b} sent7: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({B}{b} v {C}{b}) sent8: (¬{C}{b} & {B}{b}) -> {A}{b} sent9: {A}{b} -> (¬{AB}{a} & {B}{a}) sent10: (¬{AK}{jk} & {GD}{jk}) sent11: {A}{a} sent12: {AA}{a} -> ¬{A}{b} sent13: (x): ({C}x & {B}x) -> {AB}x sent14: {B}{a} -> ¬{A}{b} sent15: ({AO}{a} v {B}{a})
|
[
"sent1 & sent11 -> int1: the snakewood does not please spleenwort but it is a Donbass.;"
] |
[
"sent1 & sent11 -> int1: (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b});"
] |
the fact that either the snakewood is pregnant or it apologizes or both is false.
|
¬({B}{b} v {C}{b})
|
[] | 6 | 3 | null | 13 | 0 | 13 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that either the snakewood is pregnant or it does apologize or both hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the snakewood does not please spleenwort and is a Donbass if the spleenwort weighs. sent2: if something is not a Donbass and is pregnant then it weighs. sent3: if the spleenwort pleases spleenwort then the snakewood is not a kind of a Donbass but it does weigh. sent4: the spleenwort is glabellar if it is not pregnant and it is a kind of a Galega. sent5: if the spleenwort is a Donbass then the snakewood does not weigh but it apologizes. sent6: the snakewood does apologize if it does weigh and is pregnant. sent7: the fact that the snakewood is pregnant or does apologize or both does not hold if the spleenwort does not weigh. sent8: the snakewood does weigh if it does not apologize and is pregnant. sent9: the spleenwort is not a Donbass and is pregnant if the snakewood weighs. sent10: the payee does not shoo white but it is a kind of a archipallium. sent11: that the spleenwort does weigh is not incorrect. sent12: if the spleenwort pleases spleenwort then the snakewood does not weigh. sent13: something is a Donbass if it does apologize and is not nonpregnant. sent14: if the spleenwort is pregnant the snakewood does not weigh. sent15: either the spleenwort is altricial or it is pregnant or both. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 & sent11 -> int1: the snakewood does not please spleenwort but it is a Donbass.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the girandole disharmonizes.
|
{D}{b}
|
sent1: the isohel is a kind of a Appalachian but it is not suborbital. sent2: that the girandole is earthen is true. sent3: the axon is concessive. sent4: if something that pleases entail does not shoo axon it is laxative. sent5: the feeder is suborbital thing that is not non-Appalachian if something is a laxative. sent6: if something is not concessive but it is a kind of a Ulaanbaatar the fact that it does not disharmonize hold. sent7: the axon does not please constant but it does disharmonize. sent8: the axon is earthen if the girandole is concessive. sent9: the isohel does please entail but it does not shoo axon if there is something such that it does shoo repletion. sent10: if the Libyan is both not a Ionian and intestate it is a Ulaanbaatar. sent11: the fact that the axon is not reputable hold if the fact that it is non-suborbital and it is not earthen is wrong. sent12: the fact that if something that does not disharmonize is concessive then it is a Ulaanbaatar is not incorrect. sent13: there is something such that that it does shoo repletion is correct. sent14: if something is a kind of non-reputable thing that is a Ulaanbaatar then it disharmonizes. sent15: the Crane is not concessive if the axon is not a Ulaanbaatar. sent16: if the axon is concessive the girandole is a Ulaanbaatar. sent17: the girandole is not reputable but it is earthen. sent18: if there exists something such that it is suborbital then that the axon is not suborbital and it is not earthen does not hold. sent19: if the girandole is earthen and a Ulaanbaatar the fact that the axon is not a Ulaanbaatar is not false.
|
sent1: ({G}{d} & ¬{F}{d}) sent2: {E}{b} sent3: {A}{a} sent4: (x): ({J}x & ¬{I}x) -> {H}x sent5: (x): {H}x -> ({F}{c} & {G}{c}) sent6: (x): (¬{A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{D}x sent7: (¬{GH}{a} & {D}{a}) sent8: {A}{b} -> {E}{a} sent9: (x): {K}x -> ({J}{d} & ¬{I}{d}) sent10: (¬{JB}{as} & {CE}{as}) -> {B}{as} sent11: ¬(¬{F}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent12: (x): (¬{D}x & {A}x) -> {B}x sent13: (Ex): {K}x sent14: (x): (¬{C}x & {B}x) -> {D}x sent15: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬{A}{aq} sent16: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent17: (¬{C}{b} & {E}{b}) sent18: (x): {F}x -> ¬(¬{F}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) sent19: ({E}{b} & {B}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a}
|
[
"sent16 & sent3 -> int1: the girandole is a Ulaanbaatar.; sent17 -> int2: that the girandole is not reputable is correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the girandole is not reputable but it is a Ulaanbaatar.; sent14 -> int4: if the girandole is not reputable and is a Ulaanbaatar then it does disharmonize.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent16 & sent3 -> int1: {B}{b}; sent17 -> int2: ¬{C}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: (¬{C}{b} & {B}{b}); sent14 -> int4: (¬{C}{b} & {B}{b}) -> {D}{b}; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the Crane does not shoo dynasty but it is reputable.
|
(¬{HM}{aq} & {C}{aq})
|
[
"sent1 -> int5: something is a kind of a Appalachian but it is not suborbital.;"
] | 7 | 3 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the girandole disharmonizes. ; $context$ = sent1: the isohel is a kind of a Appalachian but it is not suborbital. sent2: that the girandole is earthen is true. sent3: the axon is concessive. sent4: if something that pleases entail does not shoo axon it is laxative. sent5: the feeder is suborbital thing that is not non-Appalachian if something is a laxative. sent6: if something is not concessive but it is a kind of a Ulaanbaatar the fact that it does not disharmonize hold. sent7: the axon does not please constant but it does disharmonize. sent8: the axon is earthen if the girandole is concessive. sent9: the isohel does please entail but it does not shoo axon if there is something such that it does shoo repletion. sent10: if the Libyan is both not a Ionian and intestate it is a Ulaanbaatar. sent11: the fact that the axon is not reputable hold if the fact that it is non-suborbital and it is not earthen is wrong. sent12: the fact that if something that does not disharmonize is concessive then it is a Ulaanbaatar is not incorrect. sent13: there is something such that that it does shoo repletion is correct. sent14: if something is a kind of non-reputable thing that is a Ulaanbaatar then it disharmonizes. sent15: the Crane is not concessive if the axon is not a Ulaanbaatar. sent16: if the axon is concessive the girandole is a Ulaanbaatar. sent17: the girandole is not reputable but it is earthen. sent18: if there exists something such that it is suborbital then that the axon is not suborbital and it is not earthen does not hold. sent19: if the girandole is earthen and a Ulaanbaatar the fact that the axon is not a Ulaanbaatar is not false. ; $proof$ =
|
sent16 & sent3 -> int1: the girandole is a Ulaanbaatar.; sent17 -> int2: that the girandole is not reputable is correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the girandole is not reputable but it is a Ulaanbaatar.; sent14 -> int4: if the girandole is not reputable and is a Ulaanbaatar then it does disharmonize.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the routemarch and the resonance occurs.
|
({C} & {D})
|
sent1: if the pleasing Mallon does not occur then the fact that both the routemarch and the resonance happens is not right. sent2: the routemarch happens if the pleasing Mallon happens. sent3: the lowness happens. sent4: the proctoscopy occurs. sent5: the pleasing Mallon and the proctoscopy occurs. sent6: both the resonance and the lowness happens.
|
sent1: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} & {D}) sent2: {A} -> {C} sent3: {E} sent4: {B} sent5: ({A} & {B}) sent6: ({D} & {E})
|
[
"sent5 -> int1: the pleasing Mallon occurs.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the routemarch occurs.; sent6 -> int3: the resonance occurs.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 -> int1: {A}; int1 & sent2 -> int2: {C}; sent6 -> int3: {D}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the routemarch occurs and the resonance happens is not true.
|
¬({C} & {D})
|
[] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the routemarch and the resonance occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the pleasing Mallon does not occur then the fact that both the routemarch and the resonance happens is not right. sent2: the routemarch happens if the pleasing Mallon happens. sent3: the lowness happens. sent4: the proctoscopy occurs. sent5: the pleasing Mallon and the proctoscopy occurs. sent6: both the resonance and the lowness happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 -> int1: the pleasing Mallon occurs.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the routemarch occurs.; sent6 -> int3: the resonance occurs.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the licorice does catch Sphenodon.
|
{D}{b}
|
sent1: something is not a kind of a myriad if that it is non-adnate a myriad does not hold. sent2: the fact that the corvette is apsidal hold. sent3: the licorice is a countersignature. sent4: the sail is not thermionic if it is beautiful and not a Menelaus. sent5: the licorice is not budgetary if the corvette either is not a countersignature or does not catch Sphenodon or both. sent6: if something is ink-jet then it catches Sphenodon. sent7: that something is both not adnate and a myriad is not right if it is not thermionic. sent8: if the sail is not a kind of a stocked it is beautiful and it is not a Menelaus. sent9: the licorice does not catch Sphenodon if the fact that the corvette does not catch Sphenodon but it is apsidal is incorrect. sent10: if the sail is not a myriad the fiber is not a kind of a countersignature and is not non-ink-jet. sent11: the corvette does not shoo odometer or it is budgetary or both. sent12: the licorice is a countersignature and it is a mesomorphy. sent13: the madrepore does not catch Sphenodon but it is a kind of a Glaux. sent14: the licorice is not apsidal if the corvette is not budgetary. sent15: something is a kind of a countersignature if it does not catch Sphenodon and is ink-jet. sent16: the flurry does shoo odometer. sent17: something is ink-jet if it is not apsidal but a mesomorphy. sent18: the licorice is a kind of non-budgetary a Odo. sent19: if something shoos odometer then it is a countersignature. sent20: something is not a mesomorphy if it is both not a countersignature and ink-jet. sent21: the licorice is a mesomorphy if it is not apsidal and it does shoo odometer. sent22: the odometer is both not a mesomorphy and stenographic. sent23: the corvette is a kind of a Muscari. sent24: the licorice is not apsidal if the corvette does not shoo odometer and/or it is not budgetary.
|
sent1: (x): ¬(¬{G}x & {F}x) -> ¬{F}x sent2: {B}{a} sent3: {E}{b} sent4: ({I}{d} & ¬{J}{d}) -> ¬{H}{d} sent5: (¬{E}{a} v ¬{D}{a}) -> ¬{AB}{b} sent6: (x): {C}x -> {D}x sent7: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬(¬{G}x & {F}x) sent8: ¬{K}{d} -> ({I}{d} & ¬{J}{d}) sent9: ¬(¬{D}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent10: ¬{F}{d} -> (¬{E}{c} & {C}{c}) sent11: (¬{AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent12: ({E}{b} & {A}{b}) sent13: (¬{D}{hf} & {GG}{hf}) sent14: ¬{AB}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent15: (x): (¬{D}x & {C}x) -> {E}x sent16: {AA}{ip} sent17: (x): (¬{B}x & {A}x) -> {C}x sent18: (¬{AB}{b} & {AE}{b}) sent19: (x): {AA}x -> {E}x sent20: (x): (¬{E}x & {C}x) -> ¬{A}x sent21: (¬{B}{b} & {AA}{b}) -> {A}{b} sent22: (¬{A}{cs} & {AC}{cs}) sent23: {IU}{a} sent24: (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b}
|
[
"sent12 -> int1: the licorice is a mesomorphy.; sent17 -> int2: if the licorice is not apsidal but it is a mesomorphy it is ink-jet.; sent6 -> int3: if the licorice is ink-jet it catches Sphenodon.;"
] |
[
"sent12 -> int1: {A}{b}; sent17 -> int2: (¬{B}{b} & {A}{b}) -> {C}{b}; sent6 -> int3: {C}{b} -> {D}{b};"
] |
the licorice does not catch Sphenodon.
|
¬{D}{b}
|
[
"sent20 -> int4: if the fiber is not a countersignature and is ink-jet it is not a mesomorphy.; sent1 -> int5: if the fact that the sail is both non-adnate and a myriad does not hold then it is not a kind of a myriad.; sent7 -> int6: if the fact that the sail is not thermionic is not incorrect that it is not adnate and it is a myriad is not correct.;"
] | 9 | 4 | null | 20 | 0 | 20 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the licorice does catch Sphenodon. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not a kind of a myriad if that it is non-adnate a myriad does not hold. sent2: the fact that the corvette is apsidal hold. sent3: the licorice is a countersignature. sent4: the sail is not thermionic if it is beautiful and not a Menelaus. sent5: the licorice is not budgetary if the corvette either is not a countersignature or does not catch Sphenodon or both. sent6: if something is ink-jet then it catches Sphenodon. sent7: that something is both not adnate and a myriad is not right if it is not thermionic. sent8: if the sail is not a kind of a stocked it is beautiful and it is not a Menelaus. sent9: the licorice does not catch Sphenodon if the fact that the corvette does not catch Sphenodon but it is apsidal is incorrect. sent10: if the sail is not a myriad the fiber is not a kind of a countersignature and is not non-ink-jet. sent11: the corvette does not shoo odometer or it is budgetary or both. sent12: the licorice is a countersignature and it is a mesomorphy. sent13: the madrepore does not catch Sphenodon but it is a kind of a Glaux. sent14: the licorice is not apsidal if the corvette is not budgetary. sent15: something is a kind of a countersignature if it does not catch Sphenodon and is ink-jet. sent16: the flurry does shoo odometer. sent17: something is ink-jet if it is not apsidal but a mesomorphy. sent18: the licorice is a kind of non-budgetary a Odo. sent19: if something shoos odometer then it is a countersignature. sent20: something is not a mesomorphy if it is both not a countersignature and ink-jet. sent21: the licorice is a mesomorphy if it is not apsidal and it does shoo odometer. sent22: the odometer is both not a mesomorphy and stenographic. sent23: the corvette is a kind of a Muscari. sent24: the licorice is not apsidal if the corvette does not shoo odometer and/or it is not budgetary. ; $proof$ =
|
sent12 -> int1: the licorice is a mesomorphy.; sent17 -> int2: if the licorice is not apsidal but it is a mesomorphy it is ink-jet.; sent6 -> int3: if the licorice is ink-jet it catches Sphenodon.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the ununtrium is not a hawala hold.
|
¬{B}{aa}
|
sent1: the ununtrium is not a hawala but it is a dimethylglyoxime if the confessor is an athenaeum. sent2: the ununtrium is not a tag but an athenaeum if the confessor is a dimethylglyoxime. sent3: something is a dimethylglyoxime if that it does not bare Kigali and it bares cacique does not hold. sent4: if something that does not ossify is a kind of a dummy it is a Alexandrian. sent5: the ununtrium is not a bulla but it does ossify. sent6: the ununtrium is an athenaeum if the confessor is a dimethylglyoxime. sent7: the confessor is a descriptor if it is a photoelectron. sent8: the ununtrium does not please Maxzide and is a bloodstone. sent9: the confessor is a dimethylglyoxime. sent10: something is not a hawala if the fact that it is a dimethylglyoxime hold. sent11: if something is non-hypovolemic thing that is a kind of a litterer then it is weedless. sent12: if something is not a kind of a hawala and it is not a dimethylglyoxime that it is not an athenaeum is not true. sent13: if something is a descriptor then that it bares cacique and it does not bare Kigali is not correct. sent14: if something is both not a tag and an athenaeum it is a hawala. sent15: the confessor is both not a hawala and a Waugh. sent16: if that something does bare cacique but it does not bare Kigali is false then it does not bare cacique. sent17: the ununtrium is an athenaeum.
|
sent1: {AB}{a} -> (¬{B}{aa} & {A}{aa}) sent2: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {C}x) -> {A}x sent4: (x): (¬{EM}x & {HN}x) -> {AU}x sent5: (¬{GU}{aa} & {EM}{aa}) sent6: {A}{a} -> {AB}{aa} sent7: {F}{a} -> {E}{a} sent8: (¬{FJ}{aa} & {BJ}{aa}) sent9: {A}{a} sent10: (x): {A}x -> ¬{B}x sent11: (x): (¬{ED}x & {CR}x) -> {H}x sent12: (x): (¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) -> {AB}x sent13: (x): {E}x -> ¬({C}x & ¬{D}x) sent14: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent15: (¬{B}{a} & {II}{a}) sent16: (x): ¬({C}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{C}x sent17: {AB}{aa}
|
[
"sent14 -> int1: if the ununtrium is not a tag but an athenaeum that it is a hawala is not incorrect.; sent2 & sent9 -> int2: the ununtrium is not a kind of a tag but it is an athenaeum.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent14 -> int1: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; sent2 & sent9 -> int2: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the Maxzide is a kind of an athenaeum.
|
{AB}{ci}
|
[
"sent12 -> int3: the Maxzide is an athenaeum if it is not a hawala and is not a kind of a dimethylglyoxime.; sent16 -> int4: if that the confessor bares cacique but it does not bare Kigali is not right then it does not bares cacique.; sent13 -> int5: that the confessor bares cacique but it does not bare Kigali is not right if it is a descriptor.;"
] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 14 | 0 | 14 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the ununtrium is not a hawala hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the ununtrium is not a hawala but it is a dimethylglyoxime if the confessor is an athenaeum. sent2: the ununtrium is not a tag but an athenaeum if the confessor is a dimethylglyoxime. sent3: something is a dimethylglyoxime if that it does not bare Kigali and it bares cacique does not hold. sent4: if something that does not ossify is a kind of a dummy it is a Alexandrian. sent5: the ununtrium is not a bulla but it does ossify. sent6: the ununtrium is an athenaeum if the confessor is a dimethylglyoxime. sent7: the confessor is a descriptor if it is a photoelectron. sent8: the ununtrium does not please Maxzide and is a bloodstone. sent9: the confessor is a dimethylglyoxime. sent10: something is not a hawala if the fact that it is a dimethylglyoxime hold. sent11: if something is non-hypovolemic thing that is a kind of a litterer then it is weedless. sent12: if something is not a kind of a hawala and it is not a dimethylglyoxime that it is not an athenaeum is not true. sent13: if something is a descriptor then that it bares cacique and it does not bare Kigali is not correct. sent14: if something is both not a tag and an athenaeum it is a hawala. sent15: the confessor is both not a hawala and a Waugh. sent16: if that something does bare cacique but it does not bare Kigali is false then it does not bare cacique. sent17: the ununtrium is an athenaeum. ; $proof$ =
|
sent14 -> int1: if the ununtrium is not a tag but an athenaeum that it is a hawala is not incorrect.; sent2 & sent9 -> int2: the ununtrium is not a kind of a tag but it is an athenaeum.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the key is a republican.
|
{D}{c}
|
sent1: if the midinette is not a Wollstonecraft but it is a republican then the key is not a republican. sent2: the key bares surbase if the midinette is a Wollstonecraft. sent3: if the fact that the surbase is a kind of a GIA that is a kind of a schipperke is false then it is not a flow. sent4: the clone is a kind of a Wollstonecraft and is not non-archaistic. sent5: if the clone pleases pawnbroker the key is a kind of a republican. sent6: if that the midinette is a republican is not wrong the key is a Wollstonecraft. sent7: the fact that the clone pleases pawnbroker is right if the midinette does bare surbase. sent8: the fact that the surbase is a GIA and a schipperke is not correct. sent9: if something does not bare surbase it is not a Wollstonecraft and is republican. sent10: the midinette is a kind of a Wollstonecraft that does bare surbase. sent11: the key pleases obsolescence and is a kind of a Wollstonecraft. sent12: the midinette is a kind of a republican if that the key is a Wollstonecraft is true. sent13: if the surbase is not a flow it pleases pawnbroker and is a kind of a callosotomy. sent14: the clone is a murmuring and it is a kind of a fluoroscopy.
|
sent1: (¬{A}{a} & {D}{a}) -> ¬{D}{c} sent2: {A}{a} -> {B}{c} sent3: ¬({I}{d} & {H}{d}) -> ¬{G}{d} sent4: ({A}{b} & {IO}{b}) sent5: {C}{b} -> {D}{c} sent6: {D}{a} -> {A}{c} sent7: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent8: ¬({I}{d} & {H}{d}) sent9: (x): ¬{B}x -> (¬{A}x & {D}x) sent10: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent11: ({IQ}{c} & {A}{c}) sent12: {A}{c} -> {D}{a} sent13: ¬{G}{d} -> ({C}{d} & {F}{d}) sent14: ({HG}{b} & {DD}{b})
|
[
"sent10 -> int1: the midinette does bare surbase.; sent7 & int1 -> int2: the clone does please pawnbroker.; sent5 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent10 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent7 & int1 -> int2: {C}{b}; sent5 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the key is not a kind of a republican.
|
¬{D}{c}
|
[
"sent9 -> int3: the midinette is not a kind of a Wollstonecraft and is republican if that it does bare surbase is incorrect.; sent3 & sent8 -> int4: the fact that the surbase is not a kind of a flow is true.; sent13 & int4 -> int5: the surbase does please pawnbroker and it is a callosotomy.; int5 -> int6: the surbase does please pawnbroker.; int6 -> int7: something does please pawnbroker.;"
] | 9 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the key is a republican. ; $context$ = sent1: if the midinette is not a Wollstonecraft but it is a republican then the key is not a republican. sent2: the key bares surbase if the midinette is a Wollstonecraft. sent3: if the fact that the surbase is a kind of a GIA that is a kind of a schipperke is false then it is not a flow. sent4: the clone is a kind of a Wollstonecraft and is not non-archaistic. sent5: if the clone pleases pawnbroker the key is a kind of a republican. sent6: if that the midinette is a republican is not wrong the key is a Wollstonecraft. sent7: the fact that the clone pleases pawnbroker is right if the midinette does bare surbase. sent8: the fact that the surbase is a GIA and a schipperke is not correct. sent9: if something does not bare surbase it is not a Wollstonecraft and is republican. sent10: the midinette is a kind of a Wollstonecraft that does bare surbase. sent11: the key pleases obsolescence and is a kind of a Wollstonecraft. sent12: the midinette is a kind of a republican if that the key is a Wollstonecraft is true. sent13: if the surbase is not a flow it pleases pawnbroker and is a kind of a callosotomy. sent14: the clone is a murmuring and it is a kind of a fluoroscopy. ; $proof$ =
|
sent10 -> int1: the midinette does bare surbase.; sent7 & int1 -> int2: the clone does please pawnbroker.; sent5 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the heterosexuality is not a cake and not ascetic is not incorrect.
|
(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})
|
sent1: that something is both not a Botswana and not Gilbertian does not hold if it does not shoo Joffre. sent2: The Joffre does shoo formula. sent3: the formula does shoo Joffre. sent4: the heterosexuality is not a collectivism if it is not a cake and is not ascetic. sent5: if the fact that the heterosexuality is not forcipate and it is not a ravaging is not true then the fact that it is intramuscular is not false. sent6: that the heterosexuality is not a cake but ascetic is not correct. sent7: if the fact that the formula is not a collectivism and is not a kind of a Chippendale is not right then the heterosexuality does not shoo Joffre. sent8: the heterosexuality is not ascetic. sent9: the heterosexuality is not a collectivism if it is not a cake and is ascetic. sent10: if the heterosexuality does shoo Joffre the formula is ascetic. sent11: if the fact that something is both not Chippendale and a collectivism is wrong then it is non-ascetic. sent12: there exists something such that it shoos Joffre. sent13: the fact that something is not a Chippendale and is a collectivism is incorrect if it is intramuscular. sent14: the fact that the heterosexuality is a collectivism hold if that the formula shoos Joffre is not false.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{FM}x & ¬{DN}x) sent2: {AC}{aa} sent3: {A}{b} sent4: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent5: ¬(¬{E}{a} & ¬{F}{a}) -> {D}{a} sent6: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent7: ¬(¬{B}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent8: ¬{AB}{a} sent9: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent10: {A}{a} -> {AB}{b} sent11: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & {B}x) -> ¬{AB}x sent12: (Ex): {A}x sent13: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & {B}x) sent14: {A}{b} -> {B}{a}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the heterosexuality is not a cake and is not ascetic.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the heterosexuality is not a kind of a collectivism.; sent14 & sent3 -> int2: the heterosexuality is a collectivism.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); sent4 & assump1 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; sent14 & sent3 -> int2: {B}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the heterosexuality is not a Botswana and it is not Gilbertian does not hold.
|
¬(¬{FM}{a} & ¬{DN}{a})
|
[
"sent1 -> int4: the fact that the heterosexuality is not a Botswana and is not Gilbertian is incorrect if the fact that it does not shoo Joffre is true.;"
] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the heterosexuality is not a cake and not ascetic is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is both not a Botswana and not Gilbertian does not hold if it does not shoo Joffre. sent2: The Joffre does shoo formula. sent3: the formula does shoo Joffre. sent4: the heterosexuality is not a collectivism if it is not a cake and is not ascetic. sent5: if the fact that the heterosexuality is not forcipate and it is not a ravaging is not true then the fact that it is intramuscular is not false. sent6: that the heterosexuality is not a cake but ascetic is not correct. sent7: if the fact that the formula is not a collectivism and is not a kind of a Chippendale is not right then the heterosexuality does not shoo Joffre. sent8: the heterosexuality is not ascetic. sent9: the heterosexuality is not a collectivism if it is not a cake and is ascetic. sent10: if the heterosexuality does shoo Joffre the formula is ascetic. sent11: if the fact that something is both not Chippendale and a collectivism is wrong then it is non-ascetic. sent12: there exists something such that it shoos Joffre. sent13: the fact that something is not a Chippendale and is a collectivism is incorrect if it is intramuscular. sent14: the fact that the heterosexuality is a collectivism hold if that the formula shoos Joffre is not false. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the heterosexuality is not a cake and is not ascetic.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the heterosexuality is not a kind of a collectivism.; sent14 & sent3 -> int2: the heterosexuality is a collectivism.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the wardroom is not a kind of a shad.
|
¬{C}{a}
|
sent1: something is not a shad if it is not a laager. sent2: if something bares synchroscope then it is a shad. sent3: something is a laager if that it is a religiosity is not incorrect. sent4: the wardroom does not bare synchroscope and is not a laager. sent5: if something is a laager then it does bare synchroscope.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{C}x sent2: (x): {A}x -> {C}x sent3: (x): {D}x -> {B}x sent4: (¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent5: (x): {B}x -> {A}x
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: the wardroom is not a laager.; sent1 -> int2: if the fact that the wardroom is not a laager is correct then it is not a shad.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; sent1 -> int2: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬{C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the wardroom is a shad.
|
{C}{a}
|
[
"sent2 -> int3: if the wardroom does bare synchroscope it is a kind of a shad.; sent5 -> int4: if the fact that the wardroom is a kind of a laager is right it does bare synchroscope.; sent3 -> int5: if the wardroom is a religiosity it is a laager.;"
] | 5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the wardroom is not a kind of a shad. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not a shad if it is not a laager. sent2: if something bares synchroscope then it is a shad. sent3: something is a laager if that it is a religiosity is not incorrect. sent4: the wardroom does not bare synchroscope and is not a laager. sent5: if something is a laager then it does bare synchroscope. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> int1: the wardroom is not a laager.; sent1 -> int2: if the fact that the wardroom is not a laager is correct then it is not a shad.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the sedative is not a thermopile.
|
¬{B}{c}
|
sent1: if the verticillium is a kind of a thermopile the sedative does not catch Shylock. sent2: that the sedative catches Shylock is not wrong. sent3: if the Alsatian is a occidentalism that the verticillium catches Shylock and is not actinomorphic is incorrect. sent4: that the Alsatian is a kind of a thermopile and is not a kind of a occidentalism is false. sent5: the fact that something does please de-iodination and is not a thermopile does not hold if it is not a kind of a occidentalism. sent6: the Alsatian is not a occidentalism if the fact that the verticillium is both a hallucination and a occidentalism is not wrong. sent7: that something does shoo mudhif and it does catch Galilee does not hold if it is not a fluoroscopy. sent8: if the verticillium is not a hallucination then that the Alsatian is not a occidentalism and does not please de-iodination is not right. sent9: the massif is not actinomorphic. sent10: there is nothing such that it is not taurine and it is a kind of a fluoroscopy. sent11: the Alsatian is a occidentalism. sent12: the sedative is not a kind of a occidentalism. sent13: the fact that the fact that the verticillium does catch Shylock but it is not actinomorphic is not correct is not incorrect. sent14: if the verticillium does catch Shylock then the sedative is not a thermopile. sent15: if the Alsatian is a kind of a occidentalism then the fact that the verticillium does not catch Shylock and is not actinomorphic is false. sent16: the Alsatian is not a thermopile if the fact that the sedative is a occidentalism is correct. sent17: the verticillium does not catch Galilee if there exists something such that that it does shoo mudhif and catch Galilee does not hold. sent18: if the fact that something is non-taurine thing that is a fluoroscopy is not true then it is not a fluoroscopy.
|
sent1: {B}{b} -> ¬{AA}{c} sent2: {AA}{c} sent3: {A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent4: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({C}x & ¬{B}x) sent6: ({D}{b} & {A}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent7: (x): ¬{G}x -> ¬({F}x & {E}x) sent8: ¬{D}{b} -> ¬(¬{A}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent9: ¬{AB}{fh} sent10: (x): ¬(¬{I}x & {G}x) sent11: {A}{a} sent12: ¬{A}{c} sent13: ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent14: {AA}{b} -> ¬{B}{c} sent15: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent16: {A}{c} -> ¬{B}{a} sent17: (x): ¬({F}x & {E}x) -> ¬{E}{b} sent18: (x): ¬(¬{I}x & {G}x) -> ¬{G}x
|
[
"sent15 & sent11 -> int1: that the verticillium does not catch Shylock and it is not actinomorphic is wrong.;"
] |
[
"sent15 & sent11 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b});"
] |
the sedative is a thermopile.
|
{B}{c}
|
[
"sent7 -> int2: that the baddeleyite does shoo mudhif and catches Galilee is not correct if it is not a fluoroscopy.; sent10 -> int3: the fact that that the sloe is non-taurine thing that is a fluoroscopy is false is true.; sent18 -> int4: if that the sloe is not taurine but it is a kind of a fluoroscopy does not hold then it is not a fluoroscopy.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the sloe is not a fluoroscopy.; int5 -> int6: everything is not a fluoroscopy.; int6 -> int7: the baddeleyite is not a kind of a fluoroscopy.; int2 & int7 -> int8: that the baddeleyite does shoo mudhif and it catches Galilee does not hold.; int8 -> int9: there is nothing such that it shoos mudhif and it does catch Galilee.; int9 -> int10: the fact that that the mudhif does shoo mudhif and does catch Galilee is right is not true.; int10 -> int11: there exists something such that the fact that the fact that it shoos mudhif and it catches Galilee hold does not hold.; sent17 & int11 -> int12: the verticillium does not catch Galilee.; sent5 -> int13: that the Alsatian pleases de-iodination but it is not a thermopile is not right if the fact that it is not a occidentalism hold.;"
] | 14 | 2 | null | 16 | 0 | 16 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the sedative is not a thermopile. ; $context$ = sent1: if the verticillium is a kind of a thermopile the sedative does not catch Shylock. sent2: that the sedative catches Shylock is not wrong. sent3: if the Alsatian is a occidentalism that the verticillium catches Shylock and is not actinomorphic is incorrect. sent4: that the Alsatian is a kind of a thermopile and is not a kind of a occidentalism is false. sent5: the fact that something does please de-iodination and is not a thermopile does not hold if it is not a kind of a occidentalism. sent6: the Alsatian is not a occidentalism if the fact that the verticillium is both a hallucination and a occidentalism is not wrong. sent7: that something does shoo mudhif and it does catch Galilee does not hold if it is not a fluoroscopy. sent8: if the verticillium is not a hallucination then that the Alsatian is not a occidentalism and does not please de-iodination is not right. sent9: the massif is not actinomorphic. sent10: there is nothing such that it is not taurine and it is a kind of a fluoroscopy. sent11: the Alsatian is a occidentalism. sent12: the sedative is not a kind of a occidentalism. sent13: the fact that the fact that the verticillium does catch Shylock but it is not actinomorphic is not correct is not incorrect. sent14: if the verticillium does catch Shylock then the sedative is not a thermopile. sent15: if the Alsatian is a kind of a occidentalism then the fact that the verticillium does not catch Shylock and is not actinomorphic is false. sent16: the Alsatian is not a thermopile if the fact that the sedative is a occidentalism is correct. sent17: the verticillium does not catch Galilee if there exists something such that that it does shoo mudhif and catch Galilee does not hold. sent18: if the fact that something is non-taurine thing that is a fluoroscopy is not true then it is not a fluoroscopy. ; $proof$ =
|
sent15 & sent11 -> int1: that the verticillium does not catch Shylock and it is not actinomorphic is wrong.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the onomasticsness does not occur.
|
¬{C}
|
sent1: the ergotropicness does not occur. sent2: the non-onomasticsness is triggered by that the baring Chlorophoneus and the pleasing Goldman happens. sent3: the amnioticness does not occur. sent4: the efficaciousness does not occur if the flagellation occurs and the cheerfulness occurs. sent5: the side-to-sideness happens. sent6: the pleasing Goldman occurs. sent7: the fact that the prefecturalness does not occur hold if both the juice and the worseness occurs. sent8: if the shooing spleenwort and the tick happens then the air-to-surfaceness does not occur. sent9: the baring Chlorophoneus occurs. sent10: the noncomprehensiveness happens.
|
sent1: ¬{CI} sent2: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent3: ¬{GE} sent4: ({ES} & {BC}) -> ¬{HF} sent5: {CU} sent6: {B} sent7: ({HE} & {AL}) -> ¬{U} sent8: ({FI} & {FK}) -> ¬{GO} sent9: {A} sent10: {BS}
|
[
"sent9 & sent6 -> int1: the baring Chlorophoneus and the pleasing Goldman occurs.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 & sent6 -> int1: ({A} & {B}); sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the onomasticsness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the ergotropicness does not occur. sent2: the non-onomasticsness is triggered by that the baring Chlorophoneus and the pleasing Goldman happens. sent3: the amnioticness does not occur. sent4: the efficaciousness does not occur if the flagellation occurs and the cheerfulness occurs. sent5: the side-to-sideness happens. sent6: the pleasing Goldman occurs. sent7: the fact that the prefecturalness does not occur hold if both the juice and the worseness occurs. sent8: if the shooing spleenwort and the tick happens then the air-to-surfaceness does not occur. sent9: the baring Chlorophoneus occurs. sent10: the noncomprehensiveness happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 & sent6 -> int1: the baring Chlorophoneus and the pleasing Goldman occurs.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the cartwheel is basaltic.
|
{B}{c}
|
sent1: there is something such that that it is not a kind of a flowering and does divaricate does not hold. sent2: if the Benzoin is semiterrestrial the fact that the cartwheel is a flowering and is basaltic does not hold. sent3: if the mistress does divaricate then the fact that the cartwheel is basaltic a flowering does not hold. sent4: that the cartwheel is not basaltic but a flowering is incorrect. sent5: if the mistress is basaltic then that the cartwheel is semiterrestrial and is a kind of a flowering is not right. sent6: that the mistress is not a flowering but it is basaltic is false. sent7: that the Benzoin is not basaltic but it divaricates does not hold. sent8: if there exists something such that that it is non-basaltic and it is a flowering is not correct then the Benzoin divaricates. sent9: the fact that the mistress is non-basaltic a flowering does not hold. sent10: the cartwheel is basaltic if there is something such that that it is not semiterrestrial and it divaricates is wrong. sent11: the mistress is a flowering. sent12: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a flowering and it is basaltic. sent13: the Benzoin is a kind of a flowering. sent14: that the Benzoin is non-semiterrestrial thing that divaricates does not hold if the mistress is a kind of a flowering. sent15: there is something such that it is not a wrong and pleases Falange. sent16: there exists something such that the fact that it is semiterrestrial and it divaricates does not hold. sent17: something is not basaltic if that it is basaltic thing that is not congestive does not hold. sent18: that the Benzoin is not a kind of a flowering and divaricates does not hold.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬(¬{A}x & {AB}x) sent2: {AA}{b} -> ¬({A}{c} & {B}{c}) sent3: {AB}{a} -> ¬({B}{c} & {A}{c}) sent4: ¬(¬{B}{c} & {A}{c}) sent5: {B}{a} -> ¬({AA}{c} & {A}{c}) sent6: ¬(¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent7: ¬(¬{B}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent8: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & {A}x) -> {AB}{b} sent9: ¬(¬{B}{a} & {A}{a}) sent10: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}{c} sent11: {A}{a} sent12: (Ex): (¬{A}x & {B}x) sent13: {A}{b} sent14: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent15: (Ex): (¬{BE}x & {FQ}x) sent16: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent17: (x): ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{B}x sent18: ¬(¬{A}{b} & {AB}{b})
|
[
"sent14 & sent11 -> int1: the fact that the Benzoin is non-semiterrestrial thing that does divaricate is not correct.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that the fact that it is not semiterrestrial and divaricates does not hold.; int2 & sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent14 & sent11 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x); int2 & sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the cartwheel is not basaltic.
|
¬{B}{c}
|
[
"sent17 -> int3: the cartwheel is not basaltic if the fact that it is basaltic and it is not congestive is incorrect.;"
] | 4 | 3 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the cartwheel is basaltic. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that that it is not a kind of a flowering and does divaricate does not hold. sent2: if the Benzoin is semiterrestrial the fact that the cartwheel is a flowering and is basaltic does not hold. sent3: if the mistress does divaricate then the fact that the cartwheel is basaltic a flowering does not hold. sent4: that the cartwheel is not basaltic but a flowering is incorrect. sent5: if the mistress is basaltic then that the cartwheel is semiterrestrial and is a kind of a flowering is not right. sent6: that the mistress is not a flowering but it is basaltic is false. sent7: that the Benzoin is not basaltic but it divaricates does not hold. sent8: if there exists something such that that it is non-basaltic and it is a flowering is not correct then the Benzoin divaricates. sent9: the fact that the mistress is non-basaltic a flowering does not hold. sent10: the cartwheel is basaltic if there is something such that that it is not semiterrestrial and it divaricates is wrong. sent11: the mistress is a flowering. sent12: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a flowering and it is basaltic. sent13: the Benzoin is a kind of a flowering. sent14: that the Benzoin is non-semiterrestrial thing that divaricates does not hold if the mistress is a kind of a flowering. sent15: there is something such that it is not a wrong and pleases Falange. sent16: there exists something such that the fact that it is semiterrestrial and it divaricates does not hold. sent17: something is not basaltic if that it is basaltic thing that is not congestive does not hold. sent18: that the Benzoin is not a kind of a flowering and divaricates does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent14 & sent11 -> int1: the fact that the Benzoin is non-semiterrestrial thing that does divaricate is not correct.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that the fact that it is not semiterrestrial and divaricates does not hold.; int2 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Cypriot is a kirtle.
|
{C}{aa}
|
sent1: the legate is a kind of a kirtle. sent2: the Cypriot is a kind of a kirtle if it pulsates and/or is not a rial. sent3: something is not a thermoplastic if it is a Adelaide. sent4: the Cypriot is not a sap. sent5: the Cypriot is a rial. sent6: the Cypriot is not a vow. sent7: the Cypriot bares CV. sent8: the sideburn does not shoo synchroscope if the roble does not catch fifteen but it shoos consumptive. sent9: if the fact that something is a bimetallist and it is a sticker is not true it is not a sticker. sent10: the Cypriot does not shoo Daphne. sent11: if the rivulus is a rial then it does not bare sideburn. sent12: something is not precancerous if it does document. sent13: something that batches is not statistical. sent14: the Cypriot is not a kind of an admirer. sent15: the Scandinavian is a rial. sent16: the Cypriot does not please exposure if it shoos synchroscope. sent17: the Cypriot is not a rial if it is translunar. sent18: if something is a vow then it is not a kind of a Cajanus. sent19: there exists nothing such that it is a kind of a bimetallist that is a sticker. sent20: a rial is not a kirtle. sent21: the Cypriot is a litchi.
|
sent1: {C}{ad} sent2: ({B}{aa} v ¬{A}{aa}) -> {C}{aa} sent3: (x): {AQ}x -> ¬{HU}x sent4: ¬{HA}{aa} sent5: {A}{aa} sent6: ¬{GF}{aa} sent7: {DT}{aa} sent8: (¬{E}{c} & {F}{c}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent9: (x): ¬({H}x & {G}x) -> ¬{G}x sent10: ¬{DD}{aa} sent11: {A}{bi} -> ¬{DM}{bi} sent12: (x): {DU}x -> ¬{AM}x sent13: (x): {FE}x -> ¬{HO}x sent14: ¬{DO}{aa} sent15: {A}{gg} sent16: {D}{aa} -> ¬{IU}{aa} sent17: {EE}{aa} -> ¬{A}{aa} sent18: (x): {GF}x -> ¬{JJ}x sent19: (x): ¬({H}x & {G}x) sent20: (x): {A}x -> ¬{C}x sent21: {FN}{aa}
|
[
"sent20 -> int1: the fact that if the Cypriot is the rial the Cypriot is not a kirtle is correct.; int1 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent20 -> int1: {A}{aa} -> ¬{C}{aa}; int1 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the Cypriot is a kirtle.
|
{C}{aa}
|
[] | 5 | 2 | 2 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the Cypriot is a kirtle. ; $context$ = sent1: the legate is a kind of a kirtle. sent2: the Cypriot is a kind of a kirtle if it pulsates and/or is not a rial. sent3: something is not a thermoplastic if it is a Adelaide. sent4: the Cypriot is not a sap. sent5: the Cypriot is a rial. sent6: the Cypriot is not a vow. sent7: the Cypriot bares CV. sent8: the sideburn does not shoo synchroscope if the roble does not catch fifteen but it shoos consumptive. sent9: if the fact that something is a bimetallist and it is a sticker is not true it is not a sticker. sent10: the Cypriot does not shoo Daphne. sent11: if the rivulus is a rial then it does not bare sideburn. sent12: something is not precancerous if it does document. sent13: something that batches is not statistical. sent14: the Cypriot is not a kind of an admirer. sent15: the Scandinavian is a rial. sent16: the Cypriot does not please exposure if it shoos synchroscope. sent17: the Cypriot is not a rial if it is translunar. sent18: if something is a vow then it is not a kind of a Cajanus. sent19: there exists nothing such that it is a kind of a bimetallist that is a sticker. sent20: a rial is not a kirtle. sent21: the Cypriot is a litchi. ; $proof$ =
|
sent20 -> int1: the fact that if the Cypriot is the rial the Cypriot is not a kirtle is correct.; int1 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the satisfying does not occur.
|
¬{C}
|
sent1: that the stellarness does not occur is triggered by that both the non-Balzacianness and the thematicness occurs. sent2: the composition happens. sent3: the Balzacianness happens. sent4: if that the unthematicness does not occur is right then that the fact that the Balzacianness does not occur and the satisfying does not occur is right does not hold. sent5: the non-unthematicness causes that the separatism and the Balzacianness happens. sent6: the unthematicness does not occur if the fact that the unthematicness happens and the pleasing beep occurs is not true. sent7: the fact that the unthematicness and the pleasing beep occurs is not true if the congregationalness does not occur. sent8: that the separatism happens and the messianicness occurs prevents the cry. sent9: if the pleasing beep does not occur then the unthematicness does not occur and the satisfying does not occur. sent10: the satisfying does not occur if both the Balzacianness and the unthematicness happens. sent11: the pleasing wonderer and the pleasing buffer occurs. sent12: that the unthematicness happens is right.
|
sent1: (¬{A} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{CI} sent2: {BH} sent3: {A} sent4: ¬{B} -> ¬(¬{A} & ¬{C}) sent5: ¬{B} -> ({EE} & {A}) sent6: ¬({B} & {D}) -> ¬{B} sent7: ¬{E} -> ¬({B} & {D}) sent8: ({EE} & {BU}) -> ¬{DA} sent9: ¬{D} -> (¬{B} & ¬{C}) sent10: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent11: ({GL} & {GG}) sent12: {B}
|
[
"sent3 & sent12 -> int1: both the Balzacianness and the unthematicness happens.; sent10 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent12 -> int1: ({A} & {B}); sent10 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the separatism occurs.
|
{EE}
|
[] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the satisfying does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the stellarness does not occur is triggered by that both the non-Balzacianness and the thematicness occurs. sent2: the composition happens. sent3: the Balzacianness happens. sent4: if that the unthematicness does not occur is right then that the fact that the Balzacianness does not occur and the satisfying does not occur is right does not hold. sent5: the non-unthematicness causes that the separatism and the Balzacianness happens. sent6: the unthematicness does not occur if the fact that the unthematicness happens and the pleasing beep occurs is not true. sent7: the fact that the unthematicness and the pleasing beep occurs is not true if the congregationalness does not occur. sent8: that the separatism happens and the messianicness occurs prevents the cry. sent9: if the pleasing beep does not occur then the unthematicness does not occur and the satisfying does not occur. sent10: the satisfying does not occur if both the Balzacianness and the unthematicness happens. sent11: the pleasing wonderer and the pleasing buffer occurs. sent12: that the unthematicness happens is right. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent12 -> int1: both the Balzacianness and the unthematicness happens.; sent10 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Reoviridae does not bare grammarian and it is not Eritrean.
|
(¬{C}{c} & ¬{D}{c})
|
sent1: the Reoviridae does not bare grammarian if the Romeo is not ritualistic. sent2: the melanin is non-ritualistic if the fact that the Romeo does not shoo Dido and is not non-ritualistic does not hold. sent3: if the fact that the Romeo is not a kind of a Eritrean is correct the Reoviridae is non-ritualistic. sent4: the Romeo is not ritualistic or does not shoo Dido or both. sent5: if something does not bare grammarian that it does not shoo Dido and is not ritualistic is wrong. sent6: if the benefactor is not non-Eritrean and is occupational the Romeo does not bare grammarian. sent7: if something does not bare tutorial it is siliceous and is academic. sent8: if the Reoviridae is not ritualistic then the Romeo does bare grammarian. sent9: something that is siliceous is a Eritrean. sent10: something is Eritrean and it is ritualistic if it does not shoo Dido. sent11: the fact that the Reoviridae does not bare grammarian hold if the Romeo does not shoo Dido. sent12: the Reoviridae does bare grammarian if the Romeo is non-ritualistic.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{C}{c} sent2: ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> ¬{A}{ii} sent3: ¬{D}{a} -> ¬{A}{c} sent4: (¬{A}{a} v ¬{B}{a}) sent5: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) sent6: ({D}{b} & {E}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent7: (x): ¬{H}x -> ({F}x & {G}x) sent8: ¬{A}{c} -> {C}{a} sent9: (x): {F}x -> {D}x sent10: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({D}x & {A}x) sent11: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬{C}{c} sent12: ¬{A}{a} -> {C}{c}
|
[
"sent4 & sent1 & sent11 -> int1: the Reoviridae does not bare grammarian.;"
] |
[
"sent4 & sent1 & sent11 -> int1: ¬{C}{c};"
] |
the fact that the Reoviridae does not bare grammarian and is not a kind of a Eritrean is not true.
|
¬(¬{C}{c} & ¬{D}{c})
|
[
"sent10 -> int2: the Romeo is a Eritrean and it is ritualistic if it does not shoo Dido.;"
] | 5 | 2 | null | 9 | 0 | 9 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the Reoviridae does not bare grammarian and it is not Eritrean. ; $context$ = sent1: the Reoviridae does not bare grammarian if the Romeo is not ritualistic. sent2: the melanin is non-ritualistic if the fact that the Romeo does not shoo Dido and is not non-ritualistic does not hold. sent3: if the fact that the Romeo is not a kind of a Eritrean is correct the Reoviridae is non-ritualistic. sent4: the Romeo is not ritualistic or does not shoo Dido or both. sent5: if something does not bare grammarian that it does not shoo Dido and is not ritualistic is wrong. sent6: if the benefactor is not non-Eritrean and is occupational the Romeo does not bare grammarian. sent7: if something does not bare tutorial it is siliceous and is academic. sent8: if the Reoviridae is not ritualistic then the Romeo does bare grammarian. sent9: something that is siliceous is a Eritrean. sent10: something is Eritrean and it is ritualistic if it does not shoo Dido. sent11: the fact that the Reoviridae does not bare grammarian hold if the Romeo does not shoo Dido. sent12: the Reoviridae does bare grammarian if the Romeo is non-ritualistic. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 & sent1 & sent11 -> int1: the Reoviridae does not bare grammarian.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if it is not ungrammatical then that it does bare tracker and does not please iron-tree is incorrect.
|
(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
sent1: the fact that something is a kind of a Roberts but it is not a Prairial is not true if it does not bare tracker. sent2: if the shedding is non-dominical then the fact that it is a kind of ungrammatical thing that is synesthetic does not hold. sent3: there is something such that if it is not anestrous then the fact that it is a kind of dominical thing that is not a lantern-fly is incorrect. sent4: there exists something such that if it is ungrammatical then the fact that it does bare tracker and it does not please iron-tree is not true. sent5: if the iron-tree is not ungrammatical then that it does bare tracker and it does not please iron-tree is false.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{AA}x -> ¬({DF}x & ¬{BU}x) sent2: ¬{DU}{do} -> ¬({A}{do} & {FE}{do}) sent3: (Ex): ¬{HM}x -> ¬({DU}x & ¬{HO}x) sent4: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent5: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})
|
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the iron-tree is a Roberts and not a Prairial is not correct if it does not bare tracker.
|
¬{AA}{aa} -> ¬({DF}{aa} & ¬{BU}{aa})
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is not ungrammatical then that it does bare tracker and does not please iron-tree is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is a kind of a Roberts but it is not a Prairial is not true if it does not bare tracker. sent2: if the shedding is non-dominical then the fact that it is a kind of ungrammatical thing that is synesthetic does not hold. sent3: there is something such that if it is not anestrous then the fact that it is a kind of dominical thing that is not a lantern-fly is incorrect. sent4: there exists something such that if it is ungrammatical then the fact that it does bare tracker and it does not please iron-tree is not true. sent5: if the iron-tree is not ungrammatical then that it does bare tracker and it does not please iron-tree is false. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the four-pounder is not an era.
|
¬{B}{b}
|
sent1: the andromeda is anarchistic. sent2: there is nothing such that it is anarchistic and is electrophoretic. sent3: that the seedcake is a flimsiness hold if the fact that the piedmont is not anarchistic but it is electrophoretic does not hold. sent4: there is nothing that is not an era but anarchistic. sent5: the fact that the piedmont is anarchistic and is electrophoretic is not true. sent6: the fact that the seedcake pleases Microtaggant but it is not adequate is false if the four-pounder is not inefficient. sent7: the fact that the piedmont is not an era and is electrophoretic is incorrect. sent8: the fact that there exists nothing such that it is both non-anarchistic and not non-electrophoretic is not false. sent9: the seedcake is a flimsiness if the piedmont is anarchistic. sent10: if the fact that the seedcake does please Microtaggant but it is not adequate does not hold then that it does not please Microtaggant is true. sent11: if something is not a flimsiness then the fact that it is anarchistic is not false. sent12: the piedmont is an era. sent13: if something does not please Microtaggant then it is an era and it does not counterclaim. sent14: if the four-pounder is anarchistic then that the piedmont is not an era is not true. sent15: the four-pounder is a kind of an era if the seedcake is a kind of a flimsiness. sent16: if the seedcake is not a flimsiness the four-pounder is not a kind of an era.
|
sent1: {AA}{ds} sent2: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {A}{a} sent4: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & {AA}x) sent5: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent6: ¬{E}{b} -> ¬({D}{a} & ¬{F}{a}) sent7: ¬(¬{B}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent8: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent9: {AA}{aa} -> {A}{a} sent10: ¬({D}{a} & ¬{F}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent11: (x): ¬{A}x -> {AA}x sent12: {B}{aa} sent13: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({B}x & ¬{C}x) sent14: {AA}{b} -> {B}{aa} sent15: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent16: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{b}
|
[
"sent8 -> int1: the fact that the piedmont is not anarchistic and is electrophoretic is not true.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: the seedcake is a flimsiness.; sent15 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); sent3 & int1 -> int2: {A}{a}; sent15 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the four-pounder is not an era.
|
¬{B}{b}
|
[] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the four-pounder is not an era. ; $context$ = sent1: the andromeda is anarchistic. sent2: there is nothing such that it is anarchistic and is electrophoretic. sent3: that the seedcake is a flimsiness hold if the fact that the piedmont is not anarchistic but it is electrophoretic does not hold. sent4: there is nothing that is not an era but anarchistic. sent5: the fact that the piedmont is anarchistic and is electrophoretic is not true. sent6: the fact that the seedcake pleases Microtaggant but it is not adequate is false if the four-pounder is not inefficient. sent7: the fact that the piedmont is not an era and is electrophoretic is incorrect. sent8: the fact that there exists nothing such that it is both non-anarchistic and not non-electrophoretic is not false. sent9: the seedcake is a flimsiness if the piedmont is anarchistic. sent10: if the fact that the seedcake does please Microtaggant but it is not adequate does not hold then that it does not please Microtaggant is true. sent11: if something is not a flimsiness then the fact that it is anarchistic is not false. sent12: the piedmont is an era. sent13: if something does not please Microtaggant then it is an era and it does not counterclaim. sent14: if the four-pounder is anarchistic then that the piedmont is not an era is not true. sent15: the four-pounder is a kind of an era if the seedcake is a kind of a flimsiness. sent16: if the seedcake is not a flimsiness the four-pounder is not a kind of an era. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 -> int1: the fact that the piedmont is not anarchistic and is electrophoretic is not true.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: the seedcake is a flimsiness.; sent15 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.